Not that I like Dr. Mehmet Oz, don’t get me wrong. But this story the Dr. Oz controversy is about the machinations of fake science and the control by manipulative evil forces over medical institutions.
A bunch of 10 medical retards got together and wrote a letter to Columbia University, where Dr. Oz is an assistant professor of surgery (and quite a good one by all accounts). They demanded he be removed, because of “conduct unbecoming of a medical school professor”. Strong words!
There’s more: the physicians cited his “disdain for science and for evidence based medicine,” and specifically his “baseless opposition to genetically modified foods [GMOs]”.
Aha! All of a sudden it makes sense; Dr. Oz criticized the criminal filth of Monsanto and other biotech firms, so they want him nailed. Lo and behold, four of the physicians who signed the letter have ties to the American Council on Science and Health, a front group that whitewashes products and practices, such as genetically modified agricultural seeds, glyphosate herbicide, fracking, and e-cigarettes, all of which the ACSH has supported, in return for corporate donations (meaning fat salaries for fat cats).
Plus one doctor, Henry I. Miller, MD, worked for the FDA and organized their phony corrupt stance on these dangerous products, on behalf of the GMO food industry. More on him below…
Let’s not get mad; these guys that sparked the Dr. Oz controversy are just trying to really earn their corruption bribes! It’s kind of sweet!
The part I have trouble with, is that they accuse Dr. Oz (I don’t like him remember but I am totally on his side against this array of crooks) of disdain for science. By that I presume they mean he doesn’t go along with the proven, brazen, forgery, corruption and lies of which Monsanto is proven guilty on the world stage?
The Roundup story is known to everyone: the French researcher Gilles-Éric Séralini, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen in France, produces impeccable science showing that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts of glyphosate (a widely used herbicide), developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females.
Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered premature death.
Monsanto, true to their Satanic nature (I have heard them re-christened Mon-Satan), claim Séralini’s science is all a below standard and fake.
One of the arguments they use is the strain of rats he tested was the “wrong” ones–but the whole world now knows he used the exact same strain of rats as Monsanto in their phony short-cut tests! It’s mind-boggling, the scale of lying and deceit.
They said he used too few rats for the test to mean anything. But look: if even just a couple of rats got cancer, that’s bad and the fewer the rats, the more potent the risk!
All this against the background that Monsanto blustered its Roundup product through supposed public safety controls, WITHOUT EVEN ONE STUDY TESTING FOR THE LONG TERM TOXICITY OF ROUNDUP. They only ran tests for 90 days.
Can you imagine a test for smoking risks, which had a group of subjects smoke for just 3 months and then stating it was safe to smoke for life?
That’s the scale of lying here. Its unreal.
Well, predictably, the journal that published the study was hounded by Monsanto bullies into retracting the published study. Thank heavens; you breathe a sigh of relief – that means GMO foods are safe after all… phew!
“Dr. Oz is guilty of either outrageous conflicts of interest or flawed judgments about what constitutes appropriate medical treatments, or both,” wrote his critics from Hell. “Whatever the nature of his pathology, members of the public are being misled and endangered, which makes Dr Oz.’s presence on the faculty of a prestigious medical institution unacceptable.”
So the members of the public are being “misled” by this TV personality, eh? Unfortunately, Oz has made some stupid blunders from his own greed, like the green coffee bean fiasco (it may emerge he’s being given backhanders to promote products, I don’t know).
But one thing is for sure, the long-suffering public is being misled, lied to, cheated, harmed and even killed by the pharmaceutical industry. Give me the mafia, any day. They are not hypocritical. But the assault on decency, honesty and public concern by these monster corporations has to stop IN MY LIFETIME, or we’ll all be dead.
Oh, and did I mention the disgusting sneaky tactics used by these odious creeps? They wrote the letter and sent it off and then, right away before waiting for an answer, they “leaked it” to the press, hoping the press would come down on Oz.
This is akin to “leaking” a story that Alexander Fleming was a pedophile, therefore the public should not trust penicillin; it doesn’t work.
Columbia University’s reply was along the lines of, “Columbia is committed to the principle of academic freedom and to upholding faculty members’ freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion.”
Well, I hope they mean it.
Dr. Oz Will Not Be Silenced, Shamed, or Bullied
Next day Dr. Oz came back, asserting his First Amendment rights in the face of what he called “public shaming and bullying.” “Freedom of speech is the most fundamental right. These 10 doctors are trying to silence that right. We will not be silenced”, he said in a press release.
In a subsequent episode of his show, Dr. Oz reiterated charges that the ACSH is just a front group to launder commercial bad practices, which ACSH says isn’t true.
A portion of the show billed as an investigative report also took aim at some of the individual signatories. It described one of them, Henry Miller, MD, as a key supporter of the tobacco industry in the 1990s who “helped write the guiding scientific principles of a group established to fight smoking restrictions.”
According to Oz’s researchers, another letter-signer, Gilbert Ross, MD, the executive and medical director of the ACSH, was convicted of Medicaid fraud in 1993 and served time in prison.
Speaking to the camera, Dr. Oz took offense at the “brazen letter” for calling him a quack. He said that even his harshest critics — the authors of a study published last year in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) — did not stoop that low. The study found that of 80 randomly selected healthcare recommendations made on The Dr. Oz Show, roughly half lacked believable evidence, or else were contradicted by the evidence.
But in fact the authors of the BMJ study absolutely repudiated any suggestion that Dr. Oz and physicians on another television show were quacks or charlatans. “Our data in no way supports these conclusions,” they said and Dr. Oz quoted this statement on his show. Hooray!
Dr. Oz talked at length about genetically modified foods. He said that contrary to what the letter writers alleged, he does not categorically oppose genetically modified organism (GMO) products. “But just like 64 countries around the world, I support GMO labeling so you can decide on the foods for your family.” He also said that he has reported both sides of the issue, interviewing the maker of the “Artic apple” that is genetically engineered not to brown, for example.
Dr. Oz speculated that the 10 physicians urging Columbia University to fire him may have coordinated their letter with a bill before Congress that would prevent states from requiring that GMO foods be labeled; prevent, notice, not discourage. The evil has crept into US government and the current president is surely as guilty as all the other players in this murky subterfuge.
That’s the sad, shady, creepy, despicable state the so-called medical science has sunk to today. It makes me ashamed to put the letters MD after my name. But, outspoken doctors like Oz and myself will never be silenced or bullied.
Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
Scott-Mumby Wellness P.O. Box 371225 Las Vegas, Nevada 89137 United States (760) 668-1650
Modern fitness research offers many potent reminders that physical activity is one of the best “preventive drugs” for many common ailments, from psychiatric disorders to heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.1
For example, one meta-review2 of 305 randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of exercise versus drug interventions on mortality outcomes found “no statistically detectable differences” between exercise and medications for prediabetes and heart disease!
One of the key health benefits of exercise is that it helps normalize your glucose, insulin, and leptin levels by optimizing insulin and leptin receptor sensitivity.
This is one of the most important factors for optimizing your overall health and preventing chronic disease, and may explain why exercise is such a potent preventive medicine.
However, as with other medications, there’s the matter of dosage. Too little, and you won’t get much benefit. Too much, and you could potentially do harm.
For example, extreme endurance cardio, such as marathon running, actually damages your heart and can negate the health benefits you’d otherwise reap from a regular fitness program.
While your heart is indeed designed to work very hard, and will be strengthened from doing so, it’s only designed to do so intermittently, and for short periods — not for an hour or more at a time.
Finding the Goldilocks Zone…
As discussed in a recent New York Times article,3 there’s a “Goldilocks zone” in which exercise creates the greatest benefit for health and longevity:
“Two new, impressively large-scale studies4,5 provide some clarity, suggesting that the ideal dose of exercise for a long life is a bit more than many of us currently believe we should get, but less than many of us might expect.”
In the larger of the two studies,6 data was collected from six large health surveys involving an impressive 661,000 adults and 14 years’ worth of death records. Exercise habits ranged from no exercise at all, to 10 times the recommended amount, or 25 hours per week and over. Among their findings:
Those who did not exercise had the highest risk of premature death
Those who exercised but did not meet current exercise recommendations of 150 minutes of moderate exercise per week lowered their risk of early death by 20 percent
Those who met the guidelines of 150 minutes per week of moderate exercise lowered their risk of death by 31 percent during the 14 year study period, compared to those who did not exercise
Tripling the recommended amount of exercise had the greatest benefit. Those who engaged in moderate exercise such as walking for 450 minutes per week (just over an hour a day), lowered their risk of premature death by 39 percent, compared to non-exercisers
Those who exercised at 10 times above the recommended level only gained the same mortality risk reduction as those who met the guidelines of 150 minutes per week
The second study7 focused on intensity. Here, health survey data from more than 200,000 adults was pooled, and the exercise that each person engaged in was qualified according to intensity. As reported in the featured article:8
“[A]s in the other study, they found that meeting the exercise guidelines substantially reduced the risk of early death, even if someone’s exercise was moderate, such as walking. But if someone engaged in even occasional vigorous exercise, he or she gained a small but not unimportant additional reduction in mortality.
Those who spent up to 30 percent of their weekly exercise time in vigorous activities were 9 percent less likely to die prematurely than people who exercised for the same amount of time but always moderately…
[T]hose who spent more than 30 percent of their exercise time in strenuous activities gained an extra 13 percent reduction in early mortality, compared with people who never broke much of a sweat.” [Emphasis mine]
Everyone Can Benefit from Walking More Each Day
It’s interesting to note that the greatest benefit, in terms of longevity, was reaped by those who primarily walked for an hour or so each day. Overwhelming amounts of research shows that sitting too much can take a massive toll on your health, and everyone would benefit from simply standing up and walking more each day.
Chronic sitting is the new smoking, actually raising your risk of lung cancer by over 50 percent. Importantly, it elevates your risk for an early death from poor health independently from your fitness and other lifestyle habits.
Personally, I believe that application of this truth has had one of the most profound impacts on my health. I used to sit more than 12 hours a day and had chronic back pain. Now, I sit less than one hour a day and my pain has disappeared, posture has improved, and I feel much better.
It’s ok to sit some, and you don’t have to go under an hour like I have, but ideally you’ll want to limit your sitting to three hours or less, and aim for 7,000 to 10,000 steps a day, over and above your scheduled workout. A fitness trackercan be a helpful tool to monitor your progress and ensure you’re hitting your mark.
If you’ve taken such advice to heart and are incorporating more walking into your day, consider switching up the pace at regular intervals, interspersing bouts of speed walking followed by more casual strolling.
In study after study we find that it is this intermittent high and low intensity that appears to produce the most significant results. So simply by exerting yourself intermittently when walking, you can dramatically increase the return of your effort without spending any extra time on it.
Intermittent High Intensity Is Key for Optimal Results
A growing body of clinical research maintains that the ideal fitness regimen is one that mimics the movements of our hunter-gatherer ancestors, which included short bursts of high-intensity activities, but not long-distance running such as is required to complete a marathon.
The idea behind “hunter-gatherer fitness” is to closely emulate the actions that ancient man took on a daily basis. This is what your body is hard-wired for, after all, and includes such attributes as:
A variety of exercises performed regularly (weight training, cardio, stretching, etc.)
Alternate difficult days with easier days
Interval training sessions performed once or twice a week
Weight training at least twice a week
Ample time for rest after physical exertion
Part of what makes high-intensity interval training (HIIT) so beneficial for your body composition and general fitness and longevity is that it:
Engages far more of your muscle tissue than conventional aerobic cardio exercise. You have three different types of muscle fibers: slow, fast, and super-fast. Only ONE of these muscles, the super-fast fibers, will impact your production of human growth hormone (HGH, also known as “the fitness hormone”), which is KEY for strength, health, and longevity, and HIIT is the only way to effectively engage these super-fast fibers.
If you’re over the age of 30, especially if you lead an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, you’ve likely entered a phase known as somatopause (age-related growth hormone deficiency). As your HGH levels decrease, your levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) also decrease. This is another important part of what drives your body’s aging process.
Produces anti-inflammatory myokines in your muscles, which very effectively reverses metabolic syndrome by increasing all of the following: insulin sensitivity, glucose utilization inside the muscle, liberation, and burning of fat from adipose cells. Myokines also act as chemical messengers that inhibit the release and the effect of the inflammatory cytokines produced by your body fat. They also significantly, via an inhibitory effect, reduce body fat irrespective of calorie intake!
Sample HIIT Demonstration
There are many ways to do high-intensity interval exercises. You can use a bicycle, an elliptical machine or treadmill, sprint outdoors, or up the intensity on your strength training routine by slowing it down (super-slow strength training). Just beware that if you sprint outside, you need to properly stretch prior to sprinting to avoid being sidelined by an injury.
Also, unless you are already an athlete, I would advise against sprinting outdoors, as several people I know became injured doing it the first time. For a demonstration using an elliptical machine, please see the video above. Here are the core principles:
Warm up for three minutes
Exercise as hard and fast as you can for 30 seconds. You should be gasping for breath and feel like you couldn’t possibly go on another few seconds. It is better to use lower resistance and higher repetitions to increase your heart rate
Recover for 90 seconds, still moving, but at slower pace and decreased resistance
Repeat the high-intensity exercise and recovery 7 more times. (When you’re first starting out, depending on your level of fitness, you may only be able to do two or three repetitions of the high-intensity intervals. As you get fitter, just keep adding repetitions until you’re doing eight during your 20-minute session)
Cool down for a few minutes afterward by cutting down your intensity by 50-80 percent
Be mindful of your current fitness level and don’t overdo it when you first start out. Also keep in mind that there’s no “magical” speed here. It’s entirely individual, based on your current level of fitness. Some may reach their anabolic threshold by walking at a quick pace, while others may need to perform a mad-dash to get the same effect.
Also remember that besides intensity, recovery is a key factor of high intensity workouts. An equation to keep in mind is that as intensity increases, frequency can be diminished. In fact, you need to allow your body to fully recuperate in between sessions, so it’s NOT recommended to do high-intensity exercises more than three times a week. Both Phil Campbell and Dr. Doug McGuff have addressed this in previous interviews.
Balanced Variety Is the Key to Optimal Health and Longevity
Even if you’re eating the best diet in the world, you still need to exercise effectively to reach your highest level of health. I’ve often equated exercise to a drug from the perspective that they both need to be taken at optimal dosage to reap the desired effect.
As for the optimal weekly time investment, remember that the greatest effect on longevity was found among those who engaged in 150-450 minutes of exercise per week, the bulk of which was moderate intensity activities such as walking. And those who included bouts of vigorous activity also got an extra boost in longevity, compared to those who kept to a one pace.
Ideally, you want to incorporate a variety of activities, including core-strengthening exercises, strength training, stretching, and high-intensity activities into your rotation. High-intensity interval training boosts human growth hormone (HGH) production, which is essential for optimal health, strength, vigor, and yes—longevity. That said, intermittent movement is equally (if not more) critical for maximizing the quality of your life. Chronic, undisrupted sitting—even if you maintain an optimum fitness program—has been found to be an independent risk factor for premature death.
In short, one of the keys to optimal health is to remain as active as you can, all day long. Whenever you have a chance to move and stretch your body in the course of going about your day, do so. That said, there’s no doubt that an ideal fitness regimen requires a little more effort. Fortunately, you can accomplish the bulk of it through high intensity exercises, which require a minimal time investment—as little as 20 minutes, two to three times a week.
Research suggests that personality traits like optimism and having a sense of purpose can benefit your health in a number of different ways, and ultimately help you live longer.
One recent study1,2 has even linked having a sense of purpose in life to reduced odds of suffering a stroke. More than 450 elderly were included in the study, and underwent annual physical and psychological evaluations until their death.
Purpose in life was judged on a five-point scale, and for every one-point increase in the score, the odds of having a macroscopic infarction (clearly visible stroke damage at autopsy) went down by about 50 percent.
In all, those with a strong sense of life purpose were 44 percent less likely to have suffered the kind of major brain tissue damage that drives up your risk of age-related dementia and disability.
This link persisted even after adjusting for contributing factors such as obesity, smoking, diabetes, blood pressure, and lack of exercise. Lead author Lei Yu told Reuters:3
“We and others have shown that purpose in life is protective against multiple adverse health outcomes in older age… Importantly, purpose in life may be improved through changes in behaviors or participation in activities like volunteerism, among other things.”
Having a sense of purpose in life is a key component of psychological well-being, and involves finding meaning in what you do and who you are, and leading a goal-directed life. According to the study:
“Older people with a greater sense of purpose are less likely to develop adverse health outcomes, including mortality, decline in physical function, frailty, disability, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and clinical stroke.”
Is Your Personality Geared for Longevity?
Having a sense of purpose and staying productive has also been shown to promote longevity in The Longevity Project,4 a Stanford study spanning 80 years. Here, your level of conscientiousness, specifically, was identified as a marker for longevity.
The reason for this, the researchers believe, is because conscientious behavior influences other behaviors.
For example, conscientious people tend to make healthier choices, such asavoiding smoking, choosing work they enjoy, and life partners they get along with—factors that can have a significant impact on their stress level and general contentment.
Conscientious people also tend to be more productive, even past conventional retirement age, and tend to regard their work as having purpose.
The Longevity Project dismisses the idea that hard work will kill you early. On the contrary, those who stay productive and work hard all their lives actually tend to be happier, healthier, and more social compared to those who don’t work as hard.
Positive Attitudes Also Reduce Heart Disease Risk and Influences Gene Expression
Other studies have shown that positive thoughts and attitudes can strengthen your immune system, decrease pain and chronic disease, and provide stress relief.
For instance, one study5 found that happiness, optimism, life satisfaction, and other positive psychological attributes are associated with a lower risk of heart disease.
It’s even been scientifically shown that happiness can alter your genes. A team of researchers at UCLA showed that people with a deep sense of happiness and well-being had lower levels of inflammatory gene expression and stronger antiviral and antibody responses.6
This falls into the realm of epigenetics—changing the way your genes function by altering environmental factors, which includes your thoughts and emotions.
How to Rewire Your Brain for Health and Happiness
But what if you’re not already optimistic, happy, satisfied, and living with a sense of purpose; what do you do then? Not to worry. While it may seem like certain psychological attitudes are ingrained to the point of being unalterable, the reality is you can change your attitude.
Forbes7 recently listed a number of strategies recommended by Davidson, Ph.D., author of The Emotional Life of Your Brain, to rewire the neural pathways in your brain to boost optimism, focus, self-awareness, and other health-boosting attitudes. This includes:
Surrounding yourself with reminders, such as photos or mementos, of happy times
Regularly expressing gratitude
Complementing people on things you like or appreciate about them
Visualizing compassion. “If you’d like to be more resilient, Davidson suggests doing this exercises for five to 10 minutes at a time, four or five times a week:
Visualize someone you know who is suffering–a neighbor who is ill or a friend struggling in their marriage–and on each inhalation imagine that you are taking on that suffering.
On each exhalation, imagine the suffering is transformed into compassion, which will help ease the person’s pain,” Forbes writes.
Your Brain Keeps Growing and Changing Throughout Life
Until recently, it was believed that the human brain could not generate new neural cells once brain cells died or were damaged. This old model is no longer relevant, as it’s been proven that your brain can not only generate new cells (neurogenesis), it can also create new neural pathways.
So, you actually have far more control over your brain and mind than you might think. As suggested by Dr. Davidson, you can even rewire your brain to become more optimistic—and that alone could create a beneficial feedback loop that promotes health in the rest of your body.
The ability of your brain to change and adapt in response to experience is known as neuroplasticity.8 You can think of those neurological changes as your brain’s way of tuning itself to meet your needs. One example of this is when you’re learning a new skill.
The more you focus and practice, the better you become, and this is a result of new neural pathways that form in response to your learning efforts. At the same time, your brain is undergoing “synaptic pruning”—elimination of the pathways you no longer need.
This phenomenon applies to emotional states as well. For example, if you have a history of anxiety, your neural pathways become wired for anxiety. If you develop tools to feel calm and peaceful more of the time, those anxiety pathways are pruned away from lack of activity—”use it or lose it” really applies here. Besides life experiences and/or mental training, your brain’s plasticity is also controlled by your diet, and lifestyle choices such as exercise. Despite what the media tells you, your brain is not “programmed” to shrink and fail as you age.
The foods you eat, exercise, emotional states, sleep patterns, and your level of stress—all of these factors influence your brain from one moment to the next. All of these factors also influence your genetic expression. It’s important to realize that any given gene is not in a static “on” or “off” position. You may be a carrier of a disease-activating gene that never gets expressed, simply because you never supply the required environment to turn it on. As explained by neurologist David Perlmutter:
“We interact with our genome every moment of our lives, and we can do so very, very positively. Keeping your blood sugar low is very positive in terms of allowing the genes to express reduced inflammation, which increase the production of life-giving antioxidants.
So that’s rule number one: You can change your genetic destiny. Rule number two: you can change your genetic destiny to grow new brain cells… You are constantly growing new brain cells into your 50s, 60s, 80s, and 90s – throughout your lifetime – through a process called neurogenesis.”
Protect Your Brain with Wise Lifestyle Choices
A number of simple lifestyle strategies have proven to promote neurogenesis. This includes exercise, especially high-intensity interval training, calorie restriction (intermittent fasting appears to have many of the same benefits while being easier to comply with), and reducing non-vegetable carbohydrate (especially grains and sugars). According to Dr. Perlmutter, who wrote the excellent book Grain Brain, a low-carb, high-fat diet is a key component of Alzheimer’s prevention. Gluten appears to be particularly problematic for brain health.
You also need plenty of high-quality omega-3 fats. I prefer krill oil to fish oil, as krill oil also contains astaxanthin, which is particularly beneficial for your brain. Astaxanthin is a carotenoid that’s very good for reducing free radical-mediated damage to fat—and your brain is 60 or 70 percent fat.
Two other nutrients that play important roles in your brain health are vitamin D and choline. Researchers have located metabolic pathways for vitamin D in the brain’s hippocampus and cerebellum; areas that are involved in planning, information processing, and memory formation. In older adults, research has shown that low vitamin D levels are associated with poorer brain function.
Choline also reduces inflammation and plays a role in nerve communication. Eggs and meat are two of the best dietary sources of choline. If you do not consume animal foods, you may be at risk of a deficiency and want to consider supplementation. Last but not least, the state of your gut can also have a significant influence on your brain function. Your gut is quite literally your “second brain.”
Just as you have neurons in your brain, you also have neurons in your gut, and gut bacteria transmit information from your GI tract to your brain via your vagus nerve. Abnormal gut flora has been associated with abnormal brain development, and may be an overlooked culprit in many cases of depression. In addition to avoiding sugar, one of the best ways to support gut health is to consume fermented vegetables, which are loaded with beneficial bacteria.
Healthy Choices and a Sunny Disposition Can Prevent Many Ills
The takeaway message here is that you have a great deal of control over your mind, brain health, and life expectancy, based on the personal choices you make—from how you think to how you move, and what you choose to eat—and when. For a comprehensive food guide, see my free nutrition plan, which also addresses intermittent fasting.
In the end, there is no quick fix when it comes to longevity. There is no magic pill and no fountain of youth. But the solution doesn’t have to be difficult or complicated either. Once you’ve memorized the basics, eating right and exercising becomes routine, and doesn’t require much thought.
Speaking of thought, you’d be wise to keep your mind as active as your body. Remember, learning something new is one way to keep your brain young, so remaining a lifelong student is a good idea. Research9 has shown that engaging in cognitively stimulating activities both early and late in life is associated with slower late-life cognitive decline. Conversely, if you don’t sufficiently challenge your brain with new, surprising information, it eventually begins to deteriorate.
In late March, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is the research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), published their assessment1,2,3 of the carcinogenicity of a number of organophosphate pesticides, including glyphosate.
Glyphosate was determined to be a “probable carcinogen” (Class 2A), based on “limited evidence” showing that the popular weed killer can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and lung cancer in humans, along with “convincing evidence” it can also cause cancer in animals.
Glyphosate and glyphosate formulations have also been shown to induce DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, as well as human and animal cells in vitro.
It’s worth noting that while recent years have turned up studies raising serious questions about the safety of glyphosate, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) raised the allowable limits for glyphosate in food in 2013. And, as reported by the Institute for Science in Society:4
“The amount of allowable glyphosate in oilseed crops (except for canola and soy) went up from 20 ppm to 40 ppm, 100 000 times the amount needed to induce breast cancer cells.” [Emphasis mine]
Root and tuber vegetables (with the exception of sugar) got one of the largest boosts, with allowable residue limits being raised from 0.2 ppm to 6.0 ppm. Meanwhile, malformations in frog and chicken embryos have been documented at 2.03 ppm of glyphosate.5
Glyphosate-Contaminated Foods May Eventually Carry Cancer Warning in CA
IARC is considered the global gold standard for carcinogenicity studies, so its determination is of considerable importance.
It may even end up having a significant impact on the sale of genetically engineered (GE) foods, as the IARC is one of the five research agencies from which the OEHHA—the California agency of environmental hazards—gets its reports to declare carcinogens under Prop 65.
What this means is that in a few years’ time, foods containing glyphosate will have to have a Prop 65 Warning label to be sold in California. And since glyphosate cannot be washed off6 once sprayed on a crop, a Prop 65 label would likely have to be applied to most non-organic processed foods.
Faithful to its modus operandi, Monsanto is pursuing a retraction of the IARC’s damning report.7
Canada to ReLabel Roundup
While officially disagreeing with the IARC’s determination, after re-evaluating Roundup in partnership with the US EPA, Health Canada recently announced it will update Roundup’s label directions to reduce human and environmental exposure.
As reported by The Star,8 changes to Roundup’s label will include:
A statement that application should only be done when the potential for drift to residential or populated areas is minimal
Agricultural workers will be advised not to enter fields for 12 hours following application
An environmental hazard statement will inform users that the product can be toxic to non-targeted species
Spray buffer zones will be recommended to protect land and aquatic habitats from unintended exposure
Precautionary statements to reduce the potential for run-off of glyphosate into aquatic habitats
Roundup Also Promotes Antibiotic-Resistant Superbugs
Right on the heels of the IARC’s reclassification of glyphosate as a Class 2 A carcinogen, another breakthrough study9,10,11 ties Monsanto’s weed killer to the rising scourge of antibiotic resistance.
In this first of its kind study, the researchers found that commonly used herbicides promote antibiotic resistance by priming pathogens to more readily become resistant to antibiotics.
This includes Roundup, which was shown to increase the antibiotic-resistance of E. coli and Salmonella. As reported by Rodale News,12 the herbicide causes this effect by turning on a set of genes in the bacterium that just so happens to make it more resistant to antibiotics.
In a nutshell, Roundup “produces tolerance to antibiotics in the bacteria. This genetic switch-on occurs at the typical levels of exposure associated with agricultural and residential application.
It’s worth noting that both E. coli and Salmonella are commonly associated with foodborne illness outbreaks originating in factory farms where animals are typically fed a diet of genetically engineered corn and soy, which tend to be heavily contaminated with glyphosate.
The Growing Plight of Farm Workers Exposed to Toxic Chemicals
Getting back to the issue of toxicity, as many as 20,000 farm workers in the US may be sickened each year as a result of pesticide exposure. More than half are undocumented immigrants, which compounds the problem by the fact that they have no real legal recourse, and usually refuse to speak up for fear of deportation.
Mere handfuls of formal complaints are filed each year, which makes it difficult to track and evaluate the human health impacts of pesticide exposure. As previously reported by Mother Jones:13
“’The system in place to address pesticide exposure is horrible. It’s dysfunctional,’ said Caitlin Berberich, an attorney with Southern Migrant Legal Services, a Nashville nonprofit that provides free legal services to farmworkers in six Southern states…
Some top state regulators agree the full toll of pesticides on farmworkers is not documented. Yet reforms requiring more complete disclosure of pesticide use have been caught up in EPA red tape…
The EPA ‘estimates that 10,000-20,000 physician-diagnosed pesticide poisonings occur each year among the approximately 2 million US agricultural workers,’ federal records show… No one, the EPA included, has a full picture of the problem.
An EPA slideshow report14 in 2006, for instance, opened with a question: How many occupational pesticide incidents are there each year in the United States?
The slide listed multiple possibilities, from 1,300 to 300,000. Each number could be true, the report said—it just depends upon the source… This uncertainty… can carry real consequences.
As its slide noted, the lack of accurate information ‘inhibits clear problem identification.’ Advocates say the dearth of information triggers another problem: It’s hard to hold government and industry accountable when there is no benchmark from which to judge.”
As noted by Think Progress,15 while there’s a shortage of studies showing the effects of pesticide exposure on farmworkers, effects ranging from vomiting and skin rashes to leukemia, brain cancer, birth defects, and nerve damage have been reported.
With regards to glyphosate, drinking water contaminated with glyphosate and spraying glyphosate on rice fields without protective gear has been linked to chronic kidney disease.16
Environmental Causes May Account for 90 Percent of Diseases
According to Joseph E. Pizzorno,17 founding president of Bastyr University, co-author of the Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine and The Clinician’s Handbook of Natural Medicine, and former advisor to President Clinton on complementary and alternative medicines, toxins in the modern food supply are now “a major contributor to.
In some cases the cause of, virtually all chronic diseases.” Dr. David Bellinger, a professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School has expressed similar concerns. According to his estimates, Americans have lost a total of 16.9 million IQ points due to exposure to organophosphate pesticides.18 Pizzorno believes pesticides may also play a significant role in the worldwide obesity epidemic, saying:
“Researchers are now finding such a strong connection between the body load of these chemicals [contaminating the food supply] and diabetes and obesity that they are being called ‘diabetogens’ and ‘obesogens’.”
Pizzorno also points out that our modern food supply (most of which is heavily processed) also hampers your body’s detoxification process as a result of being deficient in key nutrients. An interesting admission and change of thought expressed on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) webpage on exposomics19 is the fact that, conversely to what researchers originally thought, the vast majority of diseases do NOT appear to have a genetic origin. According to the CDC:
“One of the promises of the human genome project was that it could revolutionize our understanding of the underlying causes of disease and aid in the development of preventions and cures for more diseases. Unfortunately, genetics has been found to account for only about 10% of diseases, and the remaining causes appear to be from environmental causes. So to understand the causes and eventually the prevention of disease, environmental causes need to be studied.”
How to Reduce Your Family’s Exposure to Pesticides
As noted by Pizzorno, your toxic load is closely linked to your diet, as so many of the chemicals we’re exposed to on a daily basis are contaminants in foods and/or its packaging. Non-organic processed foods will expose you to the greatest amounts of chemicals and potential toxins, including pesticides and genetically engineered organisms (GMOs), but virtually all non-organic whole foods will tend to be contaminated with pesticides to some degree as well. To reduce your family’s exposure to pesticides and other toxic chemicals, consider the following advice:
Buy organic fruits and vegetables. Non-organic fruits and vegetables most likely to be grown using pesticides include apples, peaches, celery, and potatoes. For a full list of the most and least contaminated produce, please see the Environmental Working Group’s shopper’s guide to pesticides.20
Add fermented foods to your diet. The lactic acid bacteria formed during the fermentation of kimchi may help your body break down pesticides, so including fermented foods can be a wise strategy to help your body’s natural detoxification processes. Pizzorno also recommends making sure you’re getting enough fiber in your diet, as it too plays an important role in detoxification.
Choose seafood wisely. Opt for low-mercury fish varieties, such as wild caught Alaskan salmon, anchovies, and sardines, and avoid farm-raised fish, which are often heavily contaminated with PCBs and mercury. To optimize youromega-3, you may also consider taking a krill oil supplement.
Filter your tap water. Municipal water supplies can be contaminated with any number of potential toxins, so filtering your water is always a wise idea. Be particularly mindful of avoiding fluoridated water when preparing infant formula.
Replace your non-stick pots and pans with ceramic or glass cookware.
Avoid plastic food containers, bottles, and mugs. Instead, opt for glass, ceramic, or stainless steel varieties.
Avoid using dangerous chemicals on your lawn. If you have a lawn care service, make sure they’re not using organophosphate pesticides.
Check your school’s/employer’s pest control policy. If they have not already done so, encourage your school district/employer to move to Integrated Pest Management, which uses less toxic alternatives.
Switch to organic personal care products, and avoid using artificial air fresheners, dryer sheets, fabric softeners, or other synthetic fragrances. Any product containing “fragrance” will typically contain high levels of endocrine-disrupting phthalates.
What Are GMOs?
GMOs are a product of genetic engineering, meaning their genetic makeup has been altered to induce a variety of “unique” traits to crops, such as making them drought-resistant or giving them “more nutrients.” GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is “safe and beneficial,” and that it advances the agricultural industry. They also say that GMOs help ensure the global food supply and sustainability. But is there any truth to these claims? I believe not. For years, I’ve stated the belief that GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet. Genetic engineering is NOT the safe and beneficial technology that it is touted to be.
Help Support GMO Labeling
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—Monsanto’s Evil Twin—is pulling out all the stops to keep you in the dark about what’s in your food. For nearly two decades, Monsanto and corporate agribusiness have exercised near-dictatorial control over American agriculture. For example, Monsanto has made many claims that glyphosate in Roundup is harmless to animals and humans. However, recently the World Health Organization (WHO) had their research team test glyphosate and have labeled it a probable carcinogen.
Public opinion around the biotech industry’s contamination of our food supply and destruction of our environment has reached the tipping point. We’re fighting back. That’s why I was the first to push for GMO labeling. I donated a significant sum to the first ballot initiative in California in 2012, which inspired others to donate to the campaign as well. We technically “lost the vote, but we are winning the war, as these labeling initiatives have raised a considerable amount of public awareness.
The insanity has gone far enough, which is why I encourage you to boycott every single product owned by members of the GMA, including natural and organic brands. More than 80 percent of our support comes from individual consumers like you, who understand that real change comes from the grassroots.
Thankfully, we have organizations like the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) to fight back against these junk food manufacturers, pesticide producers, and corporate giants.
Together, Let’s Help OCA Get The Funding They Deserve
Let’s Help OCA get the funding it deserves. I have found very few organizations who are as effective and efficient as OCA. It’s a public interest organization dedicated to promoting health justice and sustainability. A central focus of the OCA is building a healthy, equitable, and sustainable system of food production and consumption. That’s why I’m proud to announce I will be matching donations up to $250,000 this week.
Please make a donation to help OCA fight for GMO labeling.
Nearly 40 percent of Americans report overeating or eating unhealthy foods as a result of stress.1 While it may seem tempting to drown your anxiety in a bowl of ice cream or calm your nerves with a bag of chips… eating junk foods while stressed may be particularly dangerous to your health.
Among a group of chronically stressed women (those caring for a spouse or parent with dementia), eating foods high in unhealthy fats and sugar lead to concerning health effects, including a larger waistline, increased abdominal fat, more oxidative damage, and more insulin resistance.2
In this case the food alone wasn’t the problem… it was the combination of junk food and stress that was dangerous, as low-stress women who ate similar foods did not experience such profound changes over the course of the study.
The study’s lead author, Kirstin Aschbacher, PhD, an assistant professor in the University of California at San Francisco Department of Psychiatry, said:3
“Many people think a calorie is a calorie, but this study suggests that two women who eat the same thing could have different metabolic responses based on their level of stress.
There appears to be a stress pathway that works through diet – for example, it could be similar to what we see in animals, where fat cells grow faster in response to junk food when the body is chronically stressed.”
At the same time, junk foods will only give you a moment of reprieve. After the initial pleasure wears off, you may find yourself battling mood swings, irritability, and other unpleasant emotions on top of the stress, courtesy of the sugar, trans fats, artificial colors, monosodium glutamate (MSG), and whatever other synthetic ingredients you may have consumed.
On the other hand, by choosing healthy foods you can actually impact your mood on a positive note, helping to relieve tension, stabilize blood sugar, and send your stress packing.
10 Best Foods to Eat for Stress
Had a long day at the office? Kids acting out all day? Feeling a financial crunch or relationship strain? Grab your fork and dig in to the following stress-busting superfoods.4
1. Green Leafy Vegetables
Dark leafy greens like spinach are rich in folate, which helps your body produce mood-regulating neurotransmitters, including serotonin and dopamine. One 2012 study found people who consumed the most folate had a lower risk of depression than those who ate the least.5
Not to mention, research from the University of Otago found eating fruits and vegetables of any sort (except fruit juice and dried fruit) helped young adults calm their nerves.6 Department of Psychology researcher Dr. Tamlin Conner said:7
“On days when people ate more fruits and vegetables, they reported feeling calmer, happier, and more energetic than they normally did.”
2. Organic Turkey Breast
Turkey is a good source of tryptophan, an amino acid (protein building block) that your body converts into serotonin. Research shows that argumentative people who consumed tryptophan become markedly more pleasant, with researchers noting:8
“Tryptophan significantly decreased quarrelsome behaviors and increased agreeable behaviors and perceptions of agreeableness.”
Pumpkin seeds, nuts, and free-range organic eggs are also rich sources of tryptophan.
3. Fermented Foods
The secret to improving your mental health is in your gut, as unhealthy gut flora can have a detrimental impact your brain health, leading to issues like anxiety and depression. Beneficial bacteria have a direct effect on brain chemistry, transmitting mood- and behavior-regulating signals to your brain via your vagus nerve.
For instance, the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus was found to have a marked effect on GABA levels in certain brain regions and lowered the stress-induced hormone corticosterone, resulting in reduced anxiety- and depression-related behavior.9
Women who regularly ate yogurt containing beneficial bacteria had improved brain function compared to those who did not consume probiotics.10 Specifically, they had decreased activity in two brain regions that control central processing of emotion and sensation:
The insular cortex (insula), which plays a role in functions typically linked to emotion (including perception, motor control, self-awareness, cognitive functioning, and interpersonal experience) and the regulation of your body’s homeostasis
The somatosensory cortex, which plays a role in your body’s ability to interpret a wide variety of sensations
The fact that this study showed any improvement at all is remarkable, considering they used commercial yogurt preparations that are notoriously unhealthy — loaded with artificial sweeteners, colors, flavorings, and sugar. Most importantly, the vast majority of commercial yogurts have clinically insignificant levels of beneficial bacteria.
As explained by Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, a medical doctor with a postgraduate degree in Neurology, toxicity in your gut can flow throughout your body and into your brain, where it can cause symptoms of poor mood, autism, ADHD, depression, schizophrenia, and a whole host of other mental and behavioral disorders.
With this in mind, it should be crystal clear that nourishing your gut flora (by eating fermented foods and avoiding processed foods and sugar) is extremely important to support a positive mood.
4. Wild-Caught Alaskan Salmon
Found in salmon, sardines, and anchovies, or supplement form, such as krill oil, the animal-based omega-3 fats EPA and DHA play a role in your emotional well-being. There are a number of vendors, like Vital Choice, that have documented radiation free salmon.
One study in Brain Behavior and Immunity showed a dramatic 20 percent reduction in anxiety among medical students taking omega-3,11 while past research has shown omega-3 fats work just as well as antidepressants in preventing the signs of depression, but without any of the side effects.
Anthocyanins are the pigments that give berries like blueberries and blackberries their deep color. These antioxidants aid your brain in the production of dopamine, a chemical that is critical to coordination, memory function, and your mood. Also, as TIME reported:12
“Research has also shown that blueberry eaters experience a boost in natural killer cells, ‘a type of white blood cell that plays a vital role in immunity, critical for countering stress,’ says Cynthia Sass, MPH, RD, Health’s contributing nutrition editor.”
One study found eating two servings of pistachios a day lowered vascular constriction during stress, which means the load on your heart is reduced since your arteries are more dilated.13 Not to mention, you might find the rhythmic act of shelling pistachios therapeutic, as doing a repetitive activity can help quiet racing thoughts in your head.
Pistachios are at high risk of contamination by a carcinogenic mold called aflatoxin and may be bleached or fumigated during processing; choose organic pistachios and avoid those that are dyed, bleached, or show signs of decay.
7. Dark Chocolate
If you’re one of these individuals who gets a nice mood boost whenever you sink your teeth into a bar of pure, unadulterated chocolate, it is not happenstance. There’s a chemical reason behind it called anandamide, a neurotransmitter produced in the brain that temporarily blocks feelings of pain and depression. It’s a derivative of the Sanskrit word “bliss,” and one of the great things about chocolate is that it not only produces this compound, it also contains other chemicals that prolong the “feel-good” aspects of anandamide.
Chocolate has even been referred to as “the new anti-anxiety drug.” One study in the Journal of Psychopharmacologyalso revealed that drinking an antioxidant-rich chocolate drink equal to about 1.5 ounces of dark chocolate daily felt calmer than those who did not.14
It’s not technically a food, but a daily dose of sunshine might help stabilize your mood. Serotonin, the brain hormone associated with mood elevation, rises with exposure to bright light and falls with decreased sun exposure. In 2006, scientists evaluated the effects of vitamin D on the mental health of 80 elderly patients and found those with the lowest levels of vitamin D were 11 times more prone to be depressed than those who received healthy doses.15
Low vitamin D levels are also associated with an increased risk of panic disorders.16 While you can get some vitamin D in foods like salmon, egg yolks, and mushrooms, your best solution for optimizing your levels is through sensible sun exposure.
Magnesium, which acts as a precursor for neurotransmitters like serotonin, is well-known for its role in helping to regulate your emotions and enhance well-being. Dr. Carolyn Dean, a medical and naturopathic doctor, has studied and written about magnesium for more than 15 years. The latest edition of her book, The Magnesium Miracle, details 22 medical areas that magnesium deficiency triggers, including anxiety, panic attacks, and depression.
Seaweed and green leafy vegetables like spinach and Swiss chard can be excellent sources of magnesium, as are some beans, nuts, and seeds, like pumpkin, sunflower, and sesame seeds. Avocados also contain magnesium. Juicing your vegetables is an excellent option to ensure you’re getting enough of them in your diet.
Avocados provide close to 20 essential health-boosting nutrients, including potassium, vitamin E, B vitamins, and folate, and, according to research published in the Nutrition Journal, eating just one-half of a fresh avocado with lunch may satiate you if you’re overweight, which will help prevent unnecessary snacking later.17
Those who ate half an avocado with their standard lunch reported being 40 percent less hungry three hours after their meal, and 28 percent less hungry at the five-hour mark compared to those who did not eat avocado for lunch. The study also found that avocados appear helpful for regulating blood sugar levels. This combination of satiety and blood-sugar regulation can help keep your mood steady, even in times of stress.
Sugary, Starchy Foods Are the Worst Choices When You’re Stressed
Many people equate “comfort” foods with carbs, but sugar and grains are among the worst foods to eat when you’re stressed out. Here’s why…
Sugar can lead to fluctuations in blood sugar, which can bring on mood swings, but its role in poor mood actually goes much deeper than that. Entire books have been written on this topic, such as William Duffy’s book, Sugar Blues. There are at least three potential mechanisms through which refined sugar intake could exert a toxic effect on your mood and mental health:
Sugar (particularly fructose) and grains contribute to insulin and leptin resistance and impaired signaling, which play a significant role in your mental health
Sugar suppresses activity of BDNF, which promotes healthy brain neurons. BDNF levels are critically low in both depression and schizophrenia, which animal models suggest might actually be causative
Sugar consumption also triggers a cascade of chemical reactions in your body that promote chronic inflammation. In the long term, inflammation disrupts the normal functioning of your immune system, which is linked to a greater risk of depression
Gluten, a protein found in grains such as wheat, rye, and barley, may negatively impact mood and brain health. In fact, a number of studies indicate that wheat can have a detrimental effect on mood,19 promoting depression and even more serious mental health problems such as schizophrenia. One mechanism that can help explain the mysterious connection between wheat and mental health problems is the fact that wheat inhibits production of serotonin.
Neurotransmitters like serotonin can be found not just in your brain, but also in your gut. In fact, the greatest concentration of serotonin, which is involved in mood control, depression, and aggression, is found in your intestines, not your brain! Wheat in particular has also been implicated in psychiatric problems, from depression to schizophrenia, due to Wheat Germ Agglutinin (WGA), which has neurotoxic activity.
3. Processed Foods
The list of potentially mood-busting ingredients in processed foods is a long one. Aside from sugar and gluten, they may also contain trans fats, artificial colors, monosodium glutamate (MSG), artificial sweeteners, and other synthetic ingredients linked to irritability and poor mood.
What Else Works for Stress Relief?
Your diet plays an important role in stress management, but using energy psychology techniques such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) can help reprogram your body’s reactions to the unavoidable stressors of everyday life, thereby reducing your chances of experiencing adverse health effects. Exercising regularly, getting enough sleep, and meditation are also important “release valves” that can help you manage your stress.
EFT was developed in the 1990s by Gary Craig, a Stanford engineering graduate specializing in healing and self-improvement. It’s akin to acupuncture, which is based on the concept that a vital energy flows through your body along invisible pathways known as meridians. EFT stimulates different energy meridian points in your body by tapping them with your fingertips, while simultaneously using custom-made verbal affirmations. This can be done alone or under the supervision of a qualified EFT therapist.
By doing so, you help your body eliminate emotional “scarring” and reprogram the way your body responds to emotional stressors. Since these stressors are usually connected to physical problems, your physical symptoms can improve or disappear as well.
For a demonstration, please see the following video featuring EFT practitioner Julie Schiffman, in which she discusses EFT for stress relief. However, for serious problems, it is far preferable to see an experienced EFT therapist in person, as there is a significant art to the process that requires a high level of sophistication if serious problems are to be successfully treated.
The idea that saturated fat is bad for your heart and should be avoided to prevent heart disease is misguided to say the least.
There’s no telling how many people have been harmed by this dangerous advice, as scientific evidence shows that a lack of healthy fat actually increases your cardiovascular health risks, but the number is likely significant.
Adding insult to injury, cholesterol-lowering drugs (statins) have become the go-to “preventive medicine,” despite ever-mounting evidence showing that these drugs can do far more harm than good as well.
Taken together, a low-fat diet and statins is a recipe for chronic health problems, and I cannot advise against falling into this trap strongly enough.
Questions have also been raised about statins’ potential to cause amnesia and/or dementia-like symptoms in some patients. According to Scientific American,1 hundreds of such cases have been registered with MedWatch, the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) adverse drug reaction database.
Statin Guidelines May Hurt Millions of Healthy People
In November 2013, the US updated its guidelines on cholesterol,2 focusing more on risk factors rather than cholesterol levels—a move estimated to double the number of Americans being prescribed these dangerous drugs.
According to the highly criticized new guideline, if you answer “yes” to ANY of the following four questions, your treatment protocol will call for a statin drug:
Is your 10-year risk of a heart attack greater than 7.5 percent?
Your 10-year heart attack risk involves the use of a cardiovascular risk calculator, which researchers have warned may overestimate your risk by anywhere from 75 to 150 percent—effectively turning even very healthy people at low risk for heart problems into candidates for statins.
The guideline also does away with the previous recommendation to use the lowest drug dose possible.3 The new guideline basically focuses ALL the attention on statin-only treatment, and at higher dosages.
The UK followed suit in July 2014, recommending statins for otherwise healthy people with a 10 percent or greater 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). As in the US, this was a dramatic change in recommendation, raising the number of Britons eligible for statins by about 4.5 million.
Pediatric Statin Guidelines Dramatically Increase Number of Teens on These Dangerous Drugs
Even teens and young adults are now being placed on statins. In 2011, the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) issued new guidelines4,5 for reducing heart disease in children and adolescents, recommending statin treatment if cholesterol levels are at a certain level.
Meanwhile, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have far tighter restrictions on the use of statins in those under the age of 40.
According to a new study,6 if doctors follow the NHLBI’s guidelines, nearly half a million teens and young adults between the ages of 17-21 will be placed on statins. As reported by Medicinenet.com:7
“Gooding’s team found that 2.5 percent of those with elevated levels of ‘bad’ low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol would qualify for statin treatment under the NHLBI cholesterol guidelines for children, compared with only 0.4 percent under the ACC/AHA adult guidelines.
That means that 483,500 people in that age group would qualify for statin treatment under the NHLBI guidelines, compared with 78,200 under adult guidelines…
It’s common for abnormal cholesterol levels and other heart disease risk factors to start appearing when people are teens, but the two sets of recommendations offer doctors conflicting advice, the researchers said.
For now, they recommend that physicians and patients ‘engage in shared decision making around the potential benefits, harms, and patient preferences for treatment…’”
Statin Drugs Can Wreck Your Health in Multiple Ways
Ironically, while statins are touted as “preventive medicine” to protect your heart health, these drugs can actually have detrimental effects on your heart,especially if you fail to supplement with CoQ10 (or better yet, ubiquinol, which is the reduced and more effective form of CoQ10).
For example, a study published in the journal Atherosclerosis8 showed that statin use is associated with a 52 percent increased prevalence and extent of calcified coronary plaque compared to non-users. And coronary artery calcification is the hallmark of potentially lethal heart disease.
Statins have also been shown to increase your risk of diabetes via a number of different mechanisms, so if you weren’t put on a statin because you have diabetes, you may end up with a diabetes diagnosis courtesy of the drug. Two of these mechanisms include:
Increasing insulin resistance, which contributes to chronic inflammation in your body, and inflammation is the hallmark of most diseases. In fact, increased insulin resistance can lead to heart disease, which, again, is the primary reason for taking a statin in the first place.
It can also promote belly fat, high blood pressure, heart attacks, chronic fatigue, thyroid disruption, and diseases like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and cancer.
Raising your blood sugar. When you eat a meal that contains starches and sugar, some of the excess sugar goes to your liver, which then stores it away as cholesterol and triglycerides. Statins work by preventing your liver from making cholesterol. As a result, your liver returns the sugar to your bloodstream, which raises your blood sugar levels.
Drug-induced diabetes and conventional lifestyle induced type 2 diabetes are not necessarily identical. If you’re on a statin drug and find that your blood glucose is elevated, it’s possible that what you have is just hyperglycemia—a side effect, and the result of your medication.Unfortunately, many doctors will at that point mistakenly diagnose you with “type 2 diabetes,” and possibly prescribe yet another drug, when all you may need to do is simply discontinue the statin.
Statins also interfere with other biological functions. Of utmost importance, statins deplete your body of CoQ10, which accounts for many of its devastating results Therefore, if you take a statin, you must take supplemental CoQ10 or ubiquinol. Statins also interfere with the mevalonate pathway, which is the central pathway for the steroid management. Products of this pathway that are negatively affected by statins include:
All your sex hormones
The dolichols, which are involved in keeping the membranes inside your cells healthy
All sterols, including cholesterol and vitamin D (which is similar to cholesterol and is produced from cholesterol in your skin)
Refined Carbs—Not Fat—Are Responsible for Heart Disease
As noted by the Institute for Science in Society,9 Ancel Keys’ 1963 “Seven Countries Study” was instrumental in creating the saturated fat myth. He claimed to have found a correlation between total cholesterol concentration and heart disease, but in reality this was the result of cherry picking data.
When data from 16 excluded countries are added back in, the association between saturated fat consumption and mortality vanishes. In fact, the full data set suggests that those who eat the most saturated animal fat tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease:
“Nevertheless, people were advised to cut fat intake to 30 percent of total energy and saturated fat to 10 percent. Dietary fat is believed to have the greatest influence on cardiovascular risk through elevated concentrations of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. But the reduction in LDL cholesterol from reducing saturated fat intake appears to be specific to large, buoyant type A LDL particles, when it is the small dense type B particles – responsive to carbohydrate intake – that are implicated in cardiovascular disease.” [Emphasis mine]
We’ve long acknowledged that the Western diet is associated with increased rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Yet the conventional paradigm is extremely reluctant to accept that it is the sugar content of this diet that is the primary culprit. When you eat more non-vegetable carbohydrates than your body can use, the excess is converted to fat by your liver. This process occurs to help your body maintain blood sugar control in the short-term, however it will likely increase triglyceride concentrations, which will increase your risk of cardiovascular disease.
Excessive consumption of refined grains and added sugars will also elevate your insulin and leptin levels and raise your risk of insulin/leptin resistance, which is at the heart of many chronic health problems. High insulin levels also suppresses two other important hormones — glucagons and growth hormones — that are responsible for burning fat and sugar and promoting muscle development, respectively.
So elevated insulin from excess carbohydrates promotes fat accumulation, and then dampens your body’s ability to lose that fat. Excess weight and obesity not only lead to heart disease but also a wide variety of other diseases.So, while whole grains are allowed to make health claims saying they’re heart healthy, and low-fat foods are conventionally recognized as healthy for your heart, please remember that replacing saturated fats in your diet (like those from grass-fed beef, raw organic butter, and other high-quality animal foods) with carbohydrates (like breakfast cereal, bread, bagels, and pasta) will actuallyincrease your risk of heart disease, not lower it.
Studies Show Saturated Fat Is Not Associated with Increased Heart Disease Risk, But Sugar Is
In one 2010 study,10 women who ate the most high glycemic foods had more than double the risk of developing heart disease as women who ate the fewest. Previous studies, including an excellent one published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,11 have also linked high-carb diets to heart disease. Contrary to popular belief, the scientific evidence also shows that saturated fat is in fact a necessary part of a heart healthy diet, and firmly debunks the myth that saturated fat promotes heart disease.
In a 1992 editorial published in the Archives of Internal Medicine,12 Dr. William Castelli, a former director of the Framingham Heart study, stated:
“In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol. The opposite of what… Keys et al would predict… We found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active.”
A 2010 meta-analysis,13 which pooled data from 21 studies and included nearly 348,000 adults, found no difference in the risks of heart disease and stroke between people with the lowest and highest intakes of saturated fat.
Another 2010 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition14 found that a reduction in saturated fat intake must be evaluated in the context of replacement by other macronutrients, such as carbohydrates. When you replace saturated fat with a higher carbohydrate intake, particularly refined carbohydrate, you exacerbate insulin resistance and obesity, increase triglycerides and small LDL particles, and reduce beneficial HDL cholesterol.The authors state that dietary efforts to improve your cardiovascular disease risk should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intake, and weight reduction.
A 2014 meta-analysis15 of 76 studies by researchers at Cambridge University found no basis for guidelines that advise low saturated fat consumption to lower your cardiac risk, calling into question all of the standard nutritional guidelines related to heart health. According to the authors: “Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.”
Simple Lifestyle Changes Can Effectively Protect Your Heart Health
Contrary to what pharmaceutical PR firms will tell you, statins have nothing to do with reducing your heart disease risk. In fact, this class of drugs can actually increase your heart disease risk—especially if you do not take ubiquinol (CoQ10) along with it to mitigate the depletion of CoQ10 caused by the drug.Poor lifestyle choices are primarily to blame for increased heart disease risk, such as eating too much refined sugar and processed foods, getting too little exercise and movement, lack of sun exposure and rarely, or never grounding to the earth. These are all things that are within your control, and don’t cost much (if any) money to address.
It’s also worth noting that statins can effectively nullify the benefits of exercise, which in and of itself is important to bolster heart health and maintain healthy cholesterol levels. In fact, one of the best ways to condition your heart is to engage in high-intensity interval exercise.16,17 Taking a drug that counteracts your personal efforts to improve your health seems like a really questionable tactic. If you’re currently taking a statin drug and are worried about the excessive side effects they cause, please consult with a knowledgeable health care practitioner who can help you to optimize your heart health naturally, without the use of these dangerous drugs.
(NaturalNews) At the behest of the World Health Organization (WHO), the so-called “SAGE [Strategic Advisory Group of Experts] Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy” has put together a report for the United Nations arm outlining new strategies to convince more people to get vaccinated. And in this report, recommendations are made that the vaccine industry market its vaccines in the same way that fast food corporations market junk food products to children — by appealing to emotion, telling fairy tales and ultimately deceiving consumers.
No matter how much propaganda the vaccine-pushers force into the mainstream media these days, a large segment of the public simply isn’t buying it. And this fact has prompted WHO to hire various teams of marketing consultants to come up with new ways to essentially trick people into getting jabbed, a laborious process that led WHO straight to the world’s most disingenuous marketing gurus — junk food companies!
According to VaccineFactCheck.org, WHO decided that the beset way to sell more vaccines is to enlist the marketing advice of the International Food and Beverage Alliance (IFBA), whose 11 members include The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, Nestle, Unilever, General Mills and McDonald’s. Each of these multinational corporations admits to using calculating methods to sway customers to buy their unhealthy products, not the least of which includes appealing to people’s emotions rather than providing truthful facts.
Happy Meals, cigarettes, alcohol and now vaccines – how the marketing of poisons has evolved over the years
In the SAGE report, the working group explains how it “explored private-sector approaches to shaping behaviour, as well as strategies used by other organizations to change behaviour.” In other words, WHO’s goal through SAGE was to develop a foolproof marketing approach that would have the biggest impact in convincing people who question or oppose vaccines to change their minds, regardless of the facts.
Among the group’s recommendations are various marketing tactics that have been employed by the likes of cigarette manufacturers, alcohol distributors, fast food chains and other toxic industries over the years to make poisons seem appealing. One of these tactics is to avoid any mention of facts or truth, and instead focus on messages that suggest benefits for a product, whether real or imagined.
Take a look at this hilarious 1931 ad for “germ-proof” Camel cigarettes being recommended by a fictitious ear, nose and throat doctor. The header reads, “Give your throat a vacation…,” with the following line referencing “fresh” cigarettes, the implication being that smoking Camels will help you breathe better:
The absurdity of both of these ads, the latter of which suggests that children who eat donuts will somehow gain “pep and vigor” (which is an obvious lie), illustrates what the SAGE Working Group means when it says on page 48 of its report that vaccine manufacturers need to adopt the philosophy that “Consumers care about benefits, not supporting facts.” Read it for yourself here:
This tactic has repeatedly been used by companies like McDonald’s to push Happy Meals, by alcohol companies to push hard liquor, by cigarette manufacturers to push “cancer sticks” and soon by vaccine corporations to push chemical-laden poison jabs.
People are dumb, suggests WHO, so win them over to vaccines through emotion rather than facts
Some of the other deceptive recommendations in the SAGE report include the following:
• Focus on “the power of the story” — make up myths about children dying from polio or something and warn parents that if they don’t vaccinate their children, they could be next!
• Appeal to people’s emotions rather than reason. When reason is involved, people reach conclusions, which in the case of vaccines will more than likely be that vaccines are highly risky and dangerous. Emotions, on the other hand, lead to action — or as the report puts it, “change comes from feelings, not facts.”
• Use social media to “win the hearts, minds, and now, voice” of the public. In other words, infiltrate people’s “friends” and “followers” groups to promote vaccines as a safe and effective way to prevent disease, even though this is a lie.
• Hide the connection between private industry and pro-vaccine propaganda — convince parents that those pushing vaccines are independent and on their side rather than just trying to make huge profits, or worse, trying to kill their children!
• Identify subject matter that people can relate to or that they want to talk about and tie it in with pro-vaccine agenda — Do you like cars? Your favorite brand says vaccines are awesome!
• If you have to, present what appear to be facts (but that aren’t actually true) alongside your emotional appeal to seal the deal and win another vaccine convert.
• Focus on just one or two “big ideas” to encourage “dialogue back and forth in the context of social media” — once again, infiltrate people’s social circles online and repeat, over and over again, that vaccines are safe and effective, vaccines are safe and effective, vaccines are safe and effective.
• Push pro-vaccination “social norms” — all the cool people are getting vaccines, and so should you!
• Push school-based programs to indoctrinate children into believing vaccines are good for them.
The biggest takeaway here is that the mother ship of the vaccine agenda, the United Nations (through WHO), is openly admitting that pro-vaccine science is a myth, and that it doesn’t exist. If vaccines really were safe and effective, and the science truly backed this, then WHO wouldn’t need a marketing strategy in the first place.
But because vaccines don’t actually work and aren’t safe, WHO’s vaccine division is resorting to the same fraudulent marketing tactics that companies like McDonald’s use to promote Happy Meals and Big Macs — make the product look as good as possible and manipulate people into buying it by appealing to everything other than reason and common sense.
If mercury in vaccines does not harm people as CDC informs the public then why do the mainstream media refuse to interview scientists and people in the medical profession who are willing to discuss this important health issue. You’ll most probably find that the controlling interests in the drug corporations also control the media and many decision makers in the CDC have been involved with the drug cartels as Kennedy stated makes for a criminal conspiracy of genocide. Kennedy made it very clear that the CDC was a criminal organization. What more do we need to take action to protect the children from these monsters?
You can choose to ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Most of us rely heavily on the media for information, not realizing that 90 percent of it is controlled by a mere six media giants.
Sharyl Attkisson, a five-time Emmy Award winning investigative journalist whose television career spans more than three decades is one of my personal heroes. She was the reporter who, in 2009, blew the lid off the swine flu media hype, showing the hysteria was completely unfounded and manufactured.
“I left CBS about a year ago when it seemed I had met with so many dead ends in trying to continue the original investigative reporting that I’ve done for so many years there,” Sharyl says.
“My producer and I just kept hitting brick walls in the last two years or so in trying to get this reporting on television. We certainly weren’t alone. Reporters are complaining about this across the board at many print organizations and broadcast outlets…
The watchdog reporting that the government values so much is simply not desired for a variety of reasons as much as it once was at the national level. I think also this is a problem in local news…
There was no point [in staying]. I was never in a position to turn up better stories; I have more information, more sources, more whistleblowers, and more I felt might produce terrific stories than ever before after 20 years in CBS News, and yet, utterly lacked the ability to get any of it on television.
I could’ve stayed and done weather stories and stories of the day but that’s just not where my interest was.”
What Led to the Downfall of Watchdog Reporting?
Unfortunately, the trend of diluting the depth and scope of investigative journalism can even be seen in high-quality programs like CBS’ 60 Minutes, which has been a favorite show of mine since its inception over four decades ago.
As noted by Sharyl, the reasons for the decline of investigative journalism are complicated. But a big part of it is due to commercial concerns; basically, commercial and corporate influences came into play, and media outlets grew to accept commercialization as part of the news process.
“I call it soft censorship,” Sharyl says. “When you know you have a sponsor and you know it’s important to the corporation, are you really going to offend the sponsor by going after stories that they don’t like?
But I do think it’s more overt than that sometimes. The sponsors explicitly complain and argue at the corporate level that certain stories and topics shouldn’t be done.
We know this is true based on one anecdote I put in the book, but there are other anecdotes and experiences that reporters have had, where they’ve been told that this is the case.
Additionally, there are political factors. There were managers at CBS in those last two years that inserted their ideology into the reporting of producers and reporters, who by and large were very fair. That can change the whole tone of the reporting.”
One of the examples in Sharyl’s book that really hit home for me was when Hillary Clinton ran against Obama for president, and while on the campaign trail told reporters she had dodged sniper fire on a trip as First Lady, 12 years prior, when she visited Bosnia.
It seems like a silly thing to lie about, but lie she did. Sharyl and other journalists had been on that trip, and they all knew no one had dodged sniper fire, least of all the First Lady. Fortunately, Sharyl had archived videos of the event to prove it.
“It couldn’t be farther from the truth, the idea that we had been shot up by sniper fire,” Sharyl says. “There are a couple of choices – just being untruthful for her own benefit, or was she delusional, which is a little frightening. But I think the public got past that because they accepted her as the Secretary of State.”
Another point Sharyl makes very effectively in her book is that there’s this collaboration within the media, such that if one agency picks up a story, they all run the same story. You can watch the nightly news on every channel, and the story will be presented in virtually the same way, sometimes more or less verbatim.
“Too often, I think they don’t want to cover a major controversy unless others have already covered it, like the New York Times or theWashington Post; then it’s safe.
They don’t want to cover certain stories for ideological reasons. They don’t want to cover certain stories against corporate partners that might harm corporate relationships.”
Intimidation and Harassment of Journalists
True investigative journalists, such as Sharyl, have also become targets of intimidation and harassment. For example, at one point her computer and phone lines were hacked to find out what she was working on.
“I assume there are a handful of journalists who do that sort of critical reporting on the government, and on this administration in particular, that they wanted to watch.
They never dreamed I would luck upon the resources to have the computer examined by experts that could find the software they deposited in my computer.
This software was proprietary to a government agency, either the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), National Security Agency (NSA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)…
They had my keystroke data… They could look at all my files. They used Skype audio – I didn’t know this was possible – but they could turn it on invisibly, without you knowing it, to listen into conversations. They could also remove files using Skype… We were able to confirm these highly sophisticated long-term, remote intrusions.”
Another interesting book for anyone interested or concerned about matters such as these is Future Crimes:Everything Is Connected, Everyone Is Vulnerable, and What We Can Do About It by Marc Goodman. The book discusses in great detail how this type of hacking can occur, and more importantly, what simple measures we can do to protect ourselves. It’s a reality. And if they’re doing it to top-notch investigative reporters, certainly everyone is a candidate.
“Astroturf” is the effort on the part of special interests, whether corporate or political, to surreptitiously sway public opinion and make it appear as though it’s a grassroots effort for or against a particular agenda, when in reality such a groundswell of public opinion might not exist. Sharyl explains:
“They turn to things like social media – Facebook and Twitter – using pseudonyms and multiple accounts to spread things around. They use their partners who blog for them, write things, and pick up on one another’s work until sometimes it’s been picked up in the mainstream media as if it’s a fact.
It’s all intended to make you feel as though if you hold a certain opinion that they don’t want you to have, you’re the outlier. Everybody else agrees with ‘X’ except you, and that may not be the truth. This is a huge business… There are actually PR firms that specialize in these sorts of tactics.
Astroturfing is now more important, I am told by lobbyists and PR firms, to many clients than the direct lobbying of Congress because it’s so effective to reach out to the public. They may have someone write a letter to the editor and you don’t know that person is being paid by a special interest to advance a certain opinion.
They may start as a nonprofit without saying out front that they’re behind the nonprofit. The nonprofit may then look like a charity that’s advancing a certain opinion, which is actually acting on behalf of the corporate interest or the special interest. Again, it’s very widespread…”
Hallmark signs of astroturfing include using key language—words such as crank, crack, nutty, pseudo, conspiracy, and other language that’s effective with the public to try to make you dismiss an argument they don’t like. Another hallmark of an Astroturf campaign is attacking those who are questioning authority, such as reporters who are exposing the truth, whistleblowers who dare to step forward, and people asking tough questions.
It’s important to be aware of these kinds of concerted efforts to distort the truth, and to understand how they’re done, because these “faux concern” campaigns can have a profound influence on your perception of reality.
Astroturfing in Action
A perfect example of astroturfing just occurred when a GMO front group attacked Dr. Oz after he reported on the now scientifically established hazards of glyphosate, and the media swallowed and regurgitated the propaganda without any critical thought whatsoever. Slate magazine publicized the attack with the headline “Letter from Prominent Doctors Implies Columbia Should Fire Dr. Oz for Being a Quack.”
The letter accuses Dr. Oz of repeatedly showing “disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops.”
The letter was signed by Dr. Henry I. Miller and nine other “distinguished physicians.” What the media has failed to address is that Dr. Henry Miller is hardly a concerned physician. He’s actually a now well-known shill for the GMO industry.
In his capacity as its front man, he was caught misrepresenting himself during the Anti-Prop.37 campaign in 2012, pretending to be a Stanford professor opposing GMO labeling, when in fact he is not a professor at Stanford. The TV ad had to be pulled off the air because of this misrepresentation.
Aside from that, he has a long and sordid history1 of defending toxic chemicals such as DDT, in addition to defending Big Tobacco. Some of the other nine physicians are also less than distinguished. As noted by US Right to Know:2
“One was stripped of his medical license in New York and sent to federal prison camp for Medicaid fraud. Yet Dr. Gilbert Ross plays up his M.D. credentials in his role as acting president of the American Council for Science and Health (ACSH). Ross was joined on the Columbia letter by ACSH board member Dr. Jack Fisher.
So what is ACSH? Though some reporters treat it as an independent science source, the group has been heavily funded by oil, chemical, and tobacco companies, and has a long history of making inaccurate statements about science that directly benefit those industries – for example claiming that secondhand smoke isn’t linked to heart attacks, fracking doesn’t pollute water…
These facts are relevant in stories about scientific integrity. The scientific accuracy and motivations of the accusers matter when they are publicly challenging the scientific accuracy and motivations of somebody they are trying to get fired. We urge reporters and editors to take a closer look at the sources selling them story ideas, and to act as better watchdogs for the public interest”.
Dr. Henry Miller and American Council for Science and Health Are False Fronts for the GMO Industry
Indeed, Henry Miller and ACSH are false fronts for the GMO industry, plain and simple. They are part of a PR hack strategy of astroturfing, and the mainstream media are too inept to look behind the curtain to see what’s really there. The fact of the matter is that this attack on Dr. Oz is orchestrated not by concerned physicians or scientists but rather by industry shills whose job it is to attack anyone who embraces a more natural approach to health and/or raise damning questions that might hurt the industry’s bottom-line.
Why Conventional Media So Rarely Tells You the Truth About Health
One industry that wields a great deal of power within the media today is the pharmaceutical industry. It’s rare to sit through an evening of television without viewing several drug ads. They also advertise heavily in print and online media. The advertising dollars they spend not only generates sales, it also gives them the power to influence what’s being reported in the news. Here’s just one example:
“There’s a story in my book about former executive producer of mine who got a phone call from the sales division, which was very inappropriate. He said the sales person from CBS was kind of screaming at him because we’d been doing a lot of stories looking at side effects and problems with the very popular and billion-dollar-selling cholesterol-lowering drugs, statins.
The advertisers didn’t like that. Therefore, someone from the CBS corporate apparently didn’t like that, and called down and said something like, ‘If you keep doing these stories, it’s going to be really, really bad for CBS…’
I think that happens more often than we know explicitly. But this time, it was followed by what I see as all of the media backing down on pharmaceutical-related stories. We were doing very aggressive coverage of problems within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – not just me, but all the networks and a lot of print publications – about vaccines side effects, and about other medical issues. That all has virtually stopped. You can almost point to a time period when it seems someone made a phone call and said, ‘That’s it fellas. There are advertisers.’
And you won’t see these stories now even when there’s a multi-billion-dollar criminal settlement against drug companies for mismarketing drugs that are commonly used. That’s a huge story that should be leading the news in my opinion.But most people probably never heard of it because those are things that offend the sensibilities of advertisers, who now control to some degree the editorial content of networks, publications, and print publications that are advertising.
And, as you know, they have several lobbyists for every member of Congress on Capitol Hill so they can make sure certain hearings don’t happen. As recently as last year, they were able to stop a planned vaccine-related hearing. The control is almost total in my view. That’s just one example of a corporate influence.”
What Are Some ‘Big’ Stories Not Being Reported Right Now?
According to Sharyl, if journalists would simply cover the news with facts and fairness, topics like vaccine side effects would receive far greater coverage. The reason it doesn’t is because that topic has been deemed “untouchable.” Other emerging health issues that you don’t hear about in the news include the emergence of enterovirus EV-D68. It’s a polio-like virus, but it’s not polio.
Thousands of people were stricken with it last year, and the virus appears to be linked to cases of paralysis. At least a dozen children also died from it, yet you didn’t hear about this on the news because it was not, unlike the measles vaccine, something the government was interested in promoting.
“Too often reporters wait for the government to tell them what’s a story and what’s not a story. They won’t do the digging on their own, which I think is a very bad trend. But I tried to find out about this [enterovirus] and asked the CDC some questions, to which they replied they didn’t gather certain data. I searched the web and found that the CDC had published a paper with the data that I’ve asked for! So it was completely false what they told me…”
Sharyl’s book exposes many of the inside strategies that go on to suppress this type of information. Since leaving CBS News and finishing her book, she’s been writing freelance, publishing a number of stories she would have had a hard time telling before, such as the story of how a government experiment on premature babies misled parents with an unethical consent form to enroll their premature babies in the program.
This study was conducted at prestigious research institutions by the government across the country. After some of the babies died, the study was stopped. Even the government’s own ethics body concluded that the consent form was unethical because it didn’t actually inform the parents that their babies were being entered into a study.
They were just told that this treatment would be good for their baby. In reality, the babies were randomly placed into high-oxygen or low-oxygen groups—not what was best for them individually. The parents were unaware that their child was being given treatment based on the flip of a coin. The parents also didn’t know that their child was placed in an oxygen machine that had been disabled to give false readings.
“That story was published in Daily Signal,3 which is a heritage foundation news organization that started last year. They’ve done some excellent reporting and haven’t tampered with my stories,” Sharyl says.
What the Media Isn’t Telling You about ‘ObamaCare’
Another story Sharyl believes has been underreported is that of HealthCare.gov. “The US government is still hiding public documents that have been under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for a long time,” she claims. And the media simply reports whatever the government says, even though the government has been caught providing false information, including providing false statements under oath to Congress. There are still details of this health care program that we don’t know anything about, and why is that?
“For millions of Americans, I think, this law is turning out to be disastrous and too expensive,” she says. “There’s now a new class of uninsured people who had insurance, but who’ve been bumped off or have gone off because they can’t afford it now. The insurance isn’t covering what people need.
Certainly, there are people who have benefitted, people who couldn’t get insurance before. There’s no doubt about that. That’s going to be reported on, but what’s not reported is that many people are suffering severe consequences…”
In her book she also exposes the debacle of how HealthCare.gov was developed, so if you’re interested in learning more about that, please pick up a copy of Stonewalled. Sharyl has donated proceeds from Stonewalled to the University of Florida to put on a Freedom of Information forum for students and professionals, in which they brainstormed to come up with ideas for making the government more responsive to public information request; how to fix the freedom of information process, “which is entirely pointless and useless now,” as Sharyl says.
So, when you buy her book, part of the proceeds are going towards ongoing efforts to help influence a more open and honest government, which is clearly something that needs work.