Thursday, April 6, 2017


Vaccines linked to neurological problems such as ADHD and OCD, scientists confirm

Vaccines such as the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella), and especially the annual flu shot, are linked to a range of neuro-psychiatric conditions, such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), ADHD, bipolar and major depression, a new study has discovered.
Although the researchers say they can't establish a direct cause-and-effect association, the problems are happening within days and weeks after vaccination.
The researchers tracked the vaccine history of children aged between six and 15 who had been diagnosed with a neuro-psychiatric condition. They were then matched against similar children who didn't have any of the problems.
The strongest link was found in cases of anorexia, where 21 per cent of cases had had a vaccination in the six months leading up to the diagnosis, followed by OCD and nervous tics, where 16 per cent of cases had recently been vaccinated.
Although the MMR was one of the vaccines the children had been given, the problems were more likely to occur after a flu shot, a vaccine that still uses thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative. The researchers from Pennsylvania State University college of medicine say their findings are in line with those from other countries that found that people given the H1N1 flu shot were more likely to develop narcolepsy, the sleeping disorder.
They suspect that vaccines, and flu shots in particular, are affecting the immune system, which influences brain development. All the problems they were witnessing could be categorised as auto-immune disorders, they say.



(Source: Frontiers in Psychiatry, 2017; doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00003)

Monday, March 13, 2017

Saving the Environment

This supermarket is using food waste to power its delivery trucks

Image: This supermarket is using food waste to power its delivery trucks

(Natural News) U.K. supermarket giant Waitrose has been walking the walk when it comes to environmental issues for at least the past five years. In that time, it stopped sending waste to landfills, started selling “ugly,” less than perfect-looking produce, and began turning any food that could not be donated into electricity.
That’s already a pretty impressive track record, but the company wanted to take it a step further by reducing the environmental impact of its delivery trucks. Biodiesel fuel was considered and rejected because of its exorbitant cost, and electric trucks were found to be impractical because they make use of heavy batteries that are time-consuming to recharge.
Then they hit on the perfect solution: trucks that are powered by compressed natural gas (CNG) made from food waste. Waitrose has become the first European retailer to use these innovative trucks, but other companies are likely to follow suit because of the enormous benefits involved.
Though the trucks themselves cost about 50 percent more upfront than their mainstream counterparts, the costs are quickly recouped because the fuel is between 35 and 40 percent less expensive than regular fuel. The use of CNG fuel will save the company about $100,000 for each truck over the course of its lifetime.
Other benefits of these special trucks include the fact that they can drive for up to 500 miles on a single tank of fuel, and they emit about 70 percent less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than diesel vehicles. The new trucks are also far quieter than diesel trucks, and are quicker and easier to refuel.
So, how exactly does this process work? Anaerobic digestion plants capture the biomethane from rotting food, preventing it from being released into the atmosphere. It is added directly to the national gas grid, and CNG Fuel, the company which has partnered with the supermarket and operates the fueling stations, makes the gas available directly to the Waitrose trucks. (RELATED: Stay updated with the latest in environmental issues at
At present, Waitrose is only making use of 10 of these special trucks, but there is more than enough fuel from food waste to fuel thousands more. Indeed, CNG could replace half the gas in the grid by as early as 2020, if all food and other waste were utilized in this way.
Even with the resources available right now, many more trucks could take to the road.
“As of today, there is sufficient biomethane, or renewable gas, from food waste to fuel thousands of trucks — I would say somewhere between 2,000 and 5,000 trucks,” said Philip Fjeld, CEO of CNG Fuels.
When put into the gas grid, other uses for biomethane fuel include generating electricity, providing fuel for cooking and heating, and for firing boilers. Since it is organic in nature, waste that remains after the biomethane is produced can also be used as a natural fertilizer for crops. (RELATED: Learn about an organic, natural fertilizer being used by farmers in drought-stricken areas.)
More and more sewage treatment plants in Europe and the U.S. are waking up to the possibilities of biomethane. Approximately 15 plants in this country are already sending food waste, mostly from commercial sources, to facilities which generate fuel. A further 860 sewage treatment plants are generating biomethane on-site to help provide power to run their own facilities.
“We no longer consider [food] to be a waste product — it’s something we’re trying to manage as a resource,” said Mark Hutchinson, an agricultural extension professor at the University of Maine.
It is truly encouraging to note that both private and other companies are taking the initiative to search for alternative, environmentally-friendly and cost-effective fuel sources. For the moment, however, this incredible resource lies mostly untapped, with much of our food waste still ending up in landfills.
(Photo credit:
Sources for this article include:

Friday, March 10, 2017

Vaccines Unsafe

Stop telling the public vaccines are 'safe', says health campaigner

Health regulators and governments must stop describing vaccines as 'safe'—there's always a risk, and parents have the right to know so they can make an informed decision, says health campaigner, the Alliance for Natural Health.
"Governments, health authorities and health professionals have a duty of care to communicate all available, relevant information to parents, guardians or children prior to vaccination consent being given," says the ANH.
It wants the term dropped in all communications to the public and press, and has launched a petition that will be delivered to health authorities in Europe and the US.
"The petition is neither pro- nor anti-vaccination. It aims instead to show...the public desire for greater honesty over the communication of scientific knowledge about vaccine safety prior to vaccination consent being given.
"Members of the public, parents and children are generally told by health authorities, doctors or nurses that vaccines are both safe and effective. These views are not supported by the available scientific facts and amount to the public being misled, meaning that consent is often misinformed rather than informed," the ANH says.

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Harmful Radiation From Cell Phones

California government buried the truth about cell phone radiation causing brain cancer… FULL TEXT of once-secret document reveals how EMFs penetrate “deeper into a child’s brain”

Image: California government buried the truth about cell phone radiation causing brain cancer… FULL TEXT of once-secret document reveals how EMFs penetrate “deeper into a child’s brain”

(Natural News) A once-secret document detailing links between cell phones and brain cancer has been released by order of a California court. Entitled, “Cell Phones and Health,” the document was demanded in a lawsuit filed by Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health.
Click here to read the full document, copied to Natural News servers.
“I would like this document to see the light of day because it will inform the public that there is concern within the California Department of Public Health that cellphone radiation is a risk, and it will provide them with some information about how to reduce those risks,” Moskowitz told a local CBS affiliate.
The document says that “long-term cell phone use may increase the risk of brain cancer and other health problems” and admits that “cell phone EMFs can affect nearby cells and tissues.” In a special warning section about children, it also explains that “EMFs can pass deeper into a child’s brain than an adult’s.”
EMF stands for ElectroMagnetic Field. Follow more news about EMF at According to the document, there’s no evidence that EMF blocking devices for cell phones actually work, by the way. (I haven’t personally tested any in my lab, so I can’t say whether this is true or false, but from a commonsense scientific point of view, if they really blocked EMF signals from the phone, the phone would no longer be able to make calls because it couldn’t communicate with cell towers.)

California government deliberately hid this information from the public

The California government actively hid this document from the public for at least seven years, likely under pressure from industry lobbyists who have long sought to conceal the evidence of harm caused by cell phone radiation. In the same way that biotech companies seek to conceal the harm of GMOs… and pesticides manufacturers conceal the harm of pesticides… and vaccine promoters conceal the harm of mercury in vaccines, the cell phone industry doesn’t want any evidence linking EMFs and brain cancer to see the light of day.
In truth, your brain is under a massive chemical, electromagnetic and propaganda assault on a daily basis. Some of the many attacks on your brain include:
– Brain-damaging fluoride in the public water supply
– Mercury preservatives in flu shots
– Pesticides in non-organic food products
– EMFs from mobile phones
– WiFi broadcast signals
– Fake news media propaganda
– Brain-altering medications such as antidepressants
Follow more news about brain health at

Read the full text of the once-secret California document on cell phones and EMFs

Here’s the full text of the California document, now posted at Natural News:

Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control / California Department of Public Health

Cell Phones and Health
Cell phones, like other electronic devices, emit a kind of energy called radiofrequency EMFs (electromagnetic fields). Health officials are concerned about possible health effects from cell phone EMFs because some recent studies suggest that long-term cell phone use may increase the risk of brain cancer and other health problems. For those concerned about possible health problems, this fact sheet provides information about how to lower exposure to EMFs from cell phones.
What do we know about cell phones and health?
Several studies have found that people with certain kinds of brain cancer were more likely to have used cell phones for 10 years or more. Most of the cancers were on the same side of the head that people usually held their phones. Although the chance of developing brain cancer is very small, these studies suggest that regular cell phone use increases the risk of developing some kinds of brain cancer. Some studies have also linked exposure to EMFs from cell phones to fertility problems. As more studies are done and we learn more about possible risks for cancer and other health problems linked to cell phone use, the recommendations on this fact sheet may change.
What are EMFs?
EMFs are types of radiation. They are created by all electronic devices. Some devices, such as watches, create weak EMFs that are considered harmless. Others, like X-ray machines, generate very strong EMFs that can damage cells and tissues, and cause cancer and other health effects. This is why we try to only use X-rays when necessary. Cell phones make relatively weak EMFs, somewhat less than those from microwave ovens, but because they are used frequently and kept close to the head and body, cell phone EMFs can affect nearby cells and tissues.
EMF exposure from cell phones
Your exposure to cell phone EMFs depends mostly on your distance from the phone, the strength of the EMF, and how long and how often you use the phone. The farther away the phone is from your body, the lower the exposure. Your cell phone produces stronger EMFs at the start of a call, when it is trying to connect to a cell tower, and also when only one or two bars are showing. Your phone also emits stronger EMFs when used in a moving car, bus, or train, as the phone switches connections from one cell tower to another. Finally, some phones produce stronger EMFs than others.
What can I do to reduce my exposures to EMFs from cell phones?
To lower your exposure to EMFs from cell phones:
Increase the distance between you and your phone by:
  • Using the speaker phone.
  • Sending text messages.
  • Use a headset and carry your phone away from your body. EMFs from wireless (Bluetooth) and wired headsets are usually weaker than those from a cell phone.
  • Keep your phone away from your body. A cell phone that is on can emit EMFs even when it is not being used. Do not sleep with your cell phone near you or carry it in a pocket or directly on your body unless the phone is turned off.
Limit your cell phone use when reception is weak or increase the distance between you and the phone. When your phone shows only one or two bars, it is emitting stronger EMFs than when three, four, or five bars are showing.
Reduce the amount of time spent talking on a cell phone.
  • Keep cell phone calls short, even when using a wireless or wired headset.
  • Use speaker phone mode or a corded phone for longer conversations.
Corded phones produce very weak EMFs.
Take off your headset when you’re not on a call. Wireless and wired headsets emit EMFs even when you are not using your phone.
Do not rely on devices that claim to shield or neutralize EMFs from cell phones. These devices have not been shown to reduce exposures.
What about cell phone EMFs and children?
EMFs can pass deeper into a child’s brain than an adult’s. Also, the brain is still developing through the teen years, which may make children and teens more sensitive to EMF exposures. For these reasons, parents may want to limit their child’s cell phone use to texting, important calls, and emergencies. Pregnant women, children, and teens can also follow the tips for reducing exposure listed above.
Where can I get more information?
For more information about EMF exposures and cell phones, please send an email to:
Document released pursuant to Moskowitz v. CDPH, Sac. Super. Ct. No. 34-2016-

Saturday, February 25, 2017

MMR Vaccine

Shooting the Messenger: the heroism of Andrew Wakefield

There he was on Valentine’s Day last week, Andrew Wakefield, appearing back in the UK for the first time in a decade, to present the European premiere of his movie VAXXED, which concerns all the statistical jiggery-pokery employed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the government body invested with protecting the nation against infectious diseases, to conceal any link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. 
Wakefield, you may remember, is the British gastroenterologist whose research had first uncovered a possible link between the triple vaccine and the development of autism and gastrointestinal disorders.
Wakefield was demonized by the UK press until, in a kangaroo court of the General Medical Council, his license to practice medicine was revoked.
US government deception
The authorities and the media did not shut him up, however. Bloodied but unbowed, Wakefield moved to America, carried on doing research into the MMR and has produced VAXXED, the extraordinary movie interviewing CDC insiders detailing exactly how the government agency managed to massage away, in their statistical analysis, a giant increase in autism among African American boys in the study.
The risk was never published because the CDC cherry-picked which participants they wanted to include in their analysis, reducing their study sample by 41 per cent, disqualifying most of the African Americans included in the original data, and skewing the final results to make it appear the vaccine carried minimal risk.
In VAXXED, Dr Walter Thompson one of the CDC insiders involved in the study finally speaks up, to explain about the agency’s deception.
Compelled to make an honest breast of it, he sent thousands of xeroxed pages of the original full data to Dr Brian Hooker, who re-analyzed it and finally discovered an enormous excess risk of autism among children who get the vaccine.
Heartbreaking stories
The movie includes heartbreaking home videos from parents, showing the stark difference in the development and capabilities of their children right before they received the MMR vaccine and after when they’ve lost speech, sociability, and much more.
Although not in the movie, there’s other evidence from the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology shows a possible link between the introduction of human fetal cell lines in the manufacture of MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccines and autism.
A cover up by the very US government body charged with the task of protecting the nation’s health of Watergate-like proportions is pretty scandalous.
But here’s the biggest scandal of all.
Not one major news outlet on either side of the Atlantic covered the story.   Instead, the UK and US press decided to shoot the messenger.
Wakefield called a fraud
Time magazine highlighted Andy Wakefield in a feature on ‘Great Science Frauds.’  The Huffington Post headlined its article about VAXXED with ‘Disgraced Anti-vaccine Dr Andrew Wakefield Reignites Public Health Fears,’ and, just for good measure, with the subhead: ‘Unethical and immoral but also despicable and irresponsible.’
The Times, which has rabidly pursued Wakefield like a pack of dogs after a fox, was apoplectic over the fact that Amazon Instant Video and Apple’s iTunes, were selling the video and demanded that it be immediately stopped.
The usual ragtag of skeptics, one formerly associated with a lobbying organisation taking donations from Big Pharma and the likes of Coca-Cola, harassed the Curzon, where the UK screening was due to be launched until the theatre pulled it.
The organizers were reduced to passing around information about the screening surreptitiously as though sharing the address of a speakeasy during Prohibition.
Public hero number 1
Ultimately all the media’s efforts at suppression didn’t work. It was shown at Regent’s College, at an even larger venue, and was totally sold-out, with a crowd who gave Wakefield a standing ovation when he appeared on stage.
And so they should.
Wakefield is a hero. He had a nice life in the UK with a nice job as a well-established gastroenterologist.  He saw a link in his pediatric patients presenting with gut problems and autism right after the MMR and had his career destroyed because he felt that simply asking the question about a triple live-vaccine instead of blithely accepting what the pharmaceutical industry maintained about safety was the moral thing to do.
He’s another Daniel Ellsberg, the US military analyst who in the 1970s risked everything to disclose what became the Pentagon Papers, what the US government was really doing in Vietnam.
Wakefield was just doing the press’s job for them. But instead of going after the story, the press has gone after the messenger.  In disclosing Big Pharma’s outrageous deception with the MMR, Wakefield has had to put up with the kind of vilification that would destroy the ordinary man.
Here’s what I, as a journalist, cannot figure out. What is the press doing, siding with the authorities and not digging further?  Maybe Trump is right, and the press does have an agenda, and it’s all about protecting the status quo. The good guys have become the bad guys.
Shame, shame on them.
For anyone who wants to watch the movie:

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Organically Grown

GMOs are not only dangerous but unnecessary-just look at India’s organic rice revolution

Image: GMOs are not only dangerous but unnecessary-just look at India’s organic rice revolution

(NaturalNews) Things are finally turning around for the better in India after more than a decade of progressive crop failures, bankruptcies, and even suicides resulting from the country’s unfortunate adoption of biotechnology. Going against the grain of mainstream thought, many Indian farmers are deciding to ditch the GMOs and chemicals and go completely organic — and the results thus far have not only been astounding, but entirely contradictory to industry claims that GMOs are somehow necessary to feed the world.
Some news outlets are calling it India’s “rice revolution” — a unique method of growing this long-prized grain that involves using variant planting methods and less water. Farmers like Sumant Kumar, who was recently featured in a piece published by the The Guardian, have been utilizing this novel technique to grow rice in relatively small land plots without pesticides, herbicides, or other synthetic additives — and you wouldn’t believe how much they’re producing.
Kumar, who cultivates rice in India’s poorest state, Bihar, is reportedly able to produce an astonishing 22.4 tons of rice per season on just one hectare (about 2.5 acres) of land, using only manure that he gathers from his farmyard. This exceptionally high volume is a world record, topping even the most “advanced” growing methods touted by international international humanitarian organizations as producing the highest yields. (RELATED: Learn more about how to grow your own food at home naturally.)
“It beat not just the 19.4 tonnes achieved by the ‘father of rice,’ the Chinese agricultural scientist Yuan Longping, but the World Bank-funded scientists at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, and anything achieved by the biggest European and American seed and GM companies,” wrote John Vidal for The Guardian.

Growing crops naturally is the best way to produce the highest yields of healthy food

Fortunately for India, Kumar isn’t alone in his endeavors. Many of his friends, neighbors, and even rivals in nearby states are adopting the natural growing methods that he uses after observing their success, which is unmatched by anything else in modern agriculture. Numerous other farmers have reported yields topping 17 tons of rice per hectare, which in some cases is more than double what they were producing using other methods such as biotechnology.
Kumar’s successes have been so great that he’s on occasion been accused of “cheating.” Even the state’s head of agriculture, a rice farmer himself, had his doubts — he actually came out to Kumar’s village to personally verify that he had, indeed, produced the 22.4 tons of rice on one hectare that he’d claimed.
The process Kumar and his friends are using to grow rice with this high level of success is known as the System of Rice (or root) Intensification, or SRI. It is being used to grow not only rice, but also wheat, potatoes, sugar cane, yams, tomatoes, garlic, aubergine, and a host of other crops at yields far higher than anything biotechnology or so-called “Golden Rice” has to offer.
“Instead of planting three-week-old rice seedlings in clumps of three or four in waterlogged fields, as rice farmers around the world traditionally do, the Darveshpura farmers carefully nurture only half as many seeds, and then transplant the young plants into fields, one by one, when much younger,” The Guardian explains about how it works.
“Additionally, they space them at 25cm intervals in a grid pattern, keep the soil much drier and carefully weed around the plants to allow air to their roots. The premise that ‘less is more’ was taught by Rajiv Kumar, a young Bihar state government extension worker who had been trained in turn by Anil Verma of a small Indian NGO called Pran (Preservation and Proliferation of Rural Resources and Nature), which has introduced the SRI method to hundreds of villages in the past three years.”

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Sustainable Living hit piece on Natural News BACKFIRES
New sustainable agriculture development in Detroit feeds 2,000 households for free
Tuesday, December 27, 2016 by: D. Samuelson
Tags: Attracting investment dollars with urban farms, Detroit Agrihood Development, Michigan Urban Farming Initiative, Urban Farms
 Image: New sustainable agriculture development in Detroit feeds 2,000 households for free

(NaturalNews) Urban renewal on a couple of acres in a northern section of Detroit, Michigan doesn’t mean fancy street signs, sprawling apartment complexes or bicycle lanes. It means a vision for clean food and sustainable agriculture to create a new kind of urban development called an “agrihood.” Parcels of land formerly in disarray are being dug up and retrofitted as an urban farm and more under the direction of the 501 (3) (c) group called the Michigan Urban Farming Initiative (MUFI).

As reported by, since 2011, when this all volunteer organization was started, 8000 volunteers have put in a total of 80,000 hours on their urban organic farm and produced over 50,000 pounds of free produce to “neighborhood residences, area churches and food pantries.” reports that plans are also in the works to build  “3,200 square foot Community Resource Center,” which will serve as volunteer headquarters and a place to teach interested parties, especially children, about health, clean food and sustainable agriculture.  A 200 tree orchard and a health food cafĂ© is also in the blueprints.

The group has attracted $4 million in corporate investment dollars from General Motors, BASF SE, Sustainable Brands for MUFI and surrounding neighborhoods in Detroit’s North End. Twenty-something MUFI co-founder Tyson Gersh explains that their mission is not just about using available land to feed families who are hungry. The money is coming, says Gersh, because the initiative is a “driving force in rethinking how urban spaces are developed.”

One problem MUFI is also tackling is urban blight, or abandoned houses and buildings in such disrepair that they need to be demolished. In one instance MUFI decided not to pay for the expense of removing the foundation. Instead they are retrofitting the basement to use it as a retention pond for crop water.  Additionally, a shipping container building will be constructed on site that will house an intern to manage the farm and do agricultural research.

The government of Detroit hasn’t quite figured out how to zone or manage future agrihoods.  Gersh was able to acquire the original property through an “adopt- a- lot” program and now they utilize “20 parcels from private owners and county foreclosure program.”  Approval for ancillary agrihood activities, or acquiring more land, means they need a “yes” from multiple government agencies like the Land Bank Authority, Detroit’s City Council and/or the Planning and Development Council. says those leaders will have this on their agenda early next year.


(Photo credit: Michigan Urban Farming Initiative /

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Global Warming

The REAL FAKE NEWS exposed: '97% of scientists agree on climate change' is an engineered hoax... here's what the media never told you

Fake news
(NaturalNews) In the current ridiculous battle over "real news" vs. "fake news," the establishment media liars all claim that climate change is the perfect example of how "fake news" keeps interfering with their truthful facts. They repeatedly claim that 97% of scientists agree on man-made climate change, and therefore anyone who disagrees is obviously shoveling "fake" news.

But wait a second. Where does that "97%" claim really come from? They sure repeat it a lot. Is it a legitimate representation of the science?

Author Mark Steyn dug into that question in the search for a more authoritative answer. What he uncovered was so much fraud and deception by climate change propagandists that he compiled an entire book on the matter entitled A Disgrace to the Profession. Here's an excerpt that explains the shocking intellectual fraud behind the "97% of scientists" claim:

An opinion survey of earth scientists on global climate change was conducted by Margaret R K Zimmerman, MS, and published by the University of Illinois in 2008.

Aside from his support from Dr Pantsdoumi, Mann often claims the imprimatur of "settled science": 97 per cent of the world's scientists supposedly believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming requiring massive government intervention. That percentage derives from a survey conducted for a thesis by M R K Zimmerman.

The "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.

Of the responding scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America.

Only 6.2 per cent came from Canada. So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.

Nine per cent of US respondents are from California. So California is overrepresented within not just the US sample: it has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.

Of the ten per cent of non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.

Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them "experts."

Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.

So this is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.

Nonetheless, the compilers also invited comments from respondents and published them in the appendices. In terms of specific scientific material, the hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two not so much.

Wow, you mean the 97% consensus number comes from just 75 scientists that were hand-picked from an email survey?

Yep. Out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, only 75 of them were selected to "count" for the climate change survey that every mainstream media news organization quotes as FACT.

Not quite the "settled science" you've been told, is it? In fact, it all looks rather shoddy.

Yet this is the sort of propaganda that passes as "real news" while anyone who questions obviously faulty science claims is said to be trafficking in "fake news."

So if "real news" is based on the cherry-picked answers from a wildly distorted, misrepresentative group of scientists whose responses were compiled by a pro-climate change "scientist" who obviously altered the responses to fit her own subjective beliefs, just how solid is the claimed authority of "real" news authenticity in the first place?

Furthermore, the very idea that science is "settled" is anti-scientific. Science is never really settled, since the heart of legitimate science is an openness to exploration, discovery and revolutions in new ideas that render old ideas obsolete. Yet today, we are told by the Ministry of Truth fact checkers and monopolistic purveyors of self-proclaimed "real news" that only their views are legitimate and no one else is allowed to even question a "settled" set of beliefs.

"Consensus science" is unscientific by definition... reality isn't decided by a consensus of faulty human beliefs

Thus, the very approach of proclaiming science to be "settled" is, itself, anti-scientific. Any set of supposed facts that cannot withstand questioning, criticism or debate is no science at all. Yet stifling debate is precisely what the new "news truth" brigade is attempting to accomplish: the elimination of scientific dissent and alternative views. They want to turn every discussion (a two-way street) into a stern lecturing (a one-way demand) of those who oppose the "consensus" view being shoved down all our throats.

When scientific dissent is silenced by cognitive totalitarians, what you end up with is a cult of establishment "scientism" rooted in false notions pretending to be science. Perhaps that's why famed physicist Richard Feynman once said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." If he were alive today, there's no question he'd be calling bulls##t on the climate change fraud.

Lies do not become facts just because the New York Times repeats them

All this explains why everything the lying mainstream media tells you about so-called "science" is a collection of carefully constructed lies: Vaccines are completely safe, GMOs have no environmental risks, the stock market will always go up forever, aspartame is safe for babies, pesticides don't cause cancer and human biosludge strewn onto farmers' fields is just "organic fertilizer."

These are the kinds of lies they want to codify as "accepted truth" while decrying any dissenting views as non-credible.

Well, I've got news for Google, Facebook and the mainstream mediaYou've already flushed your credibility down the toilet. Nobody believes you anymore, and by censoring the alternative media, all you're going to do is rapidly lose more readers by the millions as they turn to the only media where they can read the truth: the independent media.

Want to read the real truth on almost any topic? Avoid the entire establishment media as well as "gatekeeper" websites like Google, Facebook and Yahoo. They are now coordinating to silence or censor all views that don't support their twisted, fabricated, false "facts" (which are all politically motivated, by the way).

Use as your news search engine. Check for headlines updated throughout the day. Follow your favorite topics on This is how you free your mind and discover REAL truth in a world full of malicious lies parading around as consensus facts.

Learn more: