New study reveals expensive MRIs pushed on women for breast cancer screening have no medical benefit

(NaturalNews) The use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, better known simply as MRI, for breast cancer screening is increasing and so is its use in guiding breast surgery when cancer is discovered. Obviously, that means healthcare costs are soaring, too, as more and more women are advised to get MRIs in addition to mammograms. The push started in 2007. At that time, the New York Times reported a breast MRI cost $1,000 to $2,000, and sometimes more — at least 10 times the cost of mammography. So for every million breast MRIs performed each year, healthcare costs spike by at least a billion dollars. Sometimes, but not always, these test are covered by Medicare and insurance. Of course, despite this enormous cost, the only reason doctors and medical centers would be urging women to have these expensive tests is because there must be convincing proof breast MRIs are excellent for spotting breast cancer and/or for directing cancer therapy. But this is not true. Although it may be hard to believe, here comes the shocking truth, as just reported in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet . Monica Morrow from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues meticulously reviewed research from the past decade to examine the belief that breast MRIs are effective at finding and treating breast cancer. What they found was just the opposite. There is little to no evidence breast MRIs benefit the vast majority of women. In fact, there’s not even evidence showing breast MRIs are particularly effective at helping direct breast-conserving surgery. Selling women on breast MRIs with no proof the tests increase survival The new study did indicate breast MRI can be valuable in screening women at very high risk for breast cancer due to their genetic heritage. However, let’s take a closer look at that finding. According to a media statement, the researchers noted that while a breast MRI can identify tumors missed by mammograms and ultrasound in women at risk of breast cancer due to a known gene mutation or their family history, “little is known about whether or not this improved detection has any impact on survival.” “MRI has, over recent years, been widely adopted into clinical practice based on the assumption that its increased sensitivity at detecting cancer will improve outcomes for patients,” the authors noted in a media release. Bottom line: they found there’s no actual evidence having a breast MRI that spots cancer in a high risk woman means they will live any longer than they would have if they’d never had the test. According to the research team, that fact that breast MRIs produce more sensitive images does not translate into better surgical treatment or prognoses when used to evaluate women before surgery, either. “The available data does not support the idea that MRI improves patient selection for breast-conserving surgery or that it increases the likelihood of obtaining negative margins [no cancer cells found in margins of resection] at the initial surgical excision,” they wrote. Sources for this article include: http://www.thelancet.com/ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/health/28mri.html

New evidence chemotherapy for breast cancer causes brain damage

(NaturalNews) Primary breast cancer (meaning a breast malignancy that hasn’t spread to other parts of the body) isn’t usually thought of as causing neurological problems. After all, if cancer hasn’t spread to the brain, why would it? Researchers have been forced to wonder about the answer to that question because a growing body of evidence over the past several years strongly suggests that women with breast cancer are at increased risk for not only problems with brain function but with actual alterations in their brain structure, too. It turns out, according to a report just published in the November issue of the Archives of Neurology , that it’s not the cancer but the treatment for breast cancer — specifically chemotherapy — that could be causing a significant amount of the neurological impairment with poor outcomes seen in women with breast cancer. Shelli R. Kesler, Ph.D., and colleagues at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, conducted an observational study to investigate whether patterns of brain activation differed between breast cancer survivors who were treated with chemotherapy and those who didn’t have chemo. The research team also compared the brain activity of these breast cancer survivors to the brain activity of healthy women who were cancer-free. In all, the study involved 25 women with breast cancer who received chemotherapy, 19 women with breast cancer who did not undergo chemotherapy, and 18 healthy female controls. All the research subjects were matched for age and other variables. The women were asked to perform a variety of tasks while the scientists used functional MRIs to measure and document activation in several areas of the women’s brains. Imaging tests showed specific areas of brain injury “Women with breast cancer demonstrated significantly reduced activation in the left middle dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and premotor cortex compared with healthy controls,” the authors reported in the paper. “The chemotherapy group also demonstrated significantly reduced left caudal lateral prefrontal cortex activation and increased perseverative errors and reduced processing speed compared with the other two groups.” So what does this mean in plain English? The researchers concluded that primary breast cancer may cause measurable brain injury but chemotherapy clearly showed significant negative effects on brain function. The damage caused by chemotherapy was more likely to be increased in older women and those with less education, too. “Women treated with chemotherapy may show additional prefrontal deficits and have difficulty compensating for neurobiological changes such that they also show impaired executive function,” the scientists concluded in their research paper. This is very worrisome because executive function is a critical part of normal brain function. The components of executive function include working memory and recall (holding facts in your mind while working on a problem and accessing facts stored in long-term memory); paying attention and completing tasks; emotional control, such as thinking before acting and speaking; using self-talk to control behavior; and complex problem solving including analyzing issues and coming up with new ideas. Sources for this article include : http://archneur.ama-assn.org/ http://pubs.ama-assn.org/ http://www.naturalnews.com/chemotherapy.html

Study confirms benefits of tanning, sun exposure for the production of health-promoting vitamin D

(NaturalNews) Exposing your unprotected skin to natural sunlight and even using a tanning bed are not necessarily the highly dangerous, cancer promoting activities that many in the government and media would have you believe they are. A new study out of Oslo University Hospital (OUH) in Norway confirms what we here at NaturalNews have been saying for a long time — regular exposure to moderate levels of sunlight promotes good health through the healthy production of vitamin D in the body. Johan Moan, a scientist and researcher from the Department of Radiation Biology at OUH’s Institute for Cancer Research found that the benefits derived from exposure to vitamin D-producing UV rays far outweigh the miniscule risk of developing cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM). In fact, it is primarily overexposure in the form of sunburns that is responsible for UV-related cancer risk. “Sun exposure is commonly supposed to be the main cause of cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) in most populations. However, the matter is disputed,” said Moan and his research team in conjunction with their findings. “It can be estimated that increased sun exposure to the Norwegian population might at worst result in 200-300 more CMM deaths per year, but it would elevate the vitamin D status by about 25 nmol/l (nanomoles per liter) and might result in 4,000 fewer internal cancers and about 3,000 fewer cancer deaths overall.” But the risk of getting skin cancer from exposing skin to natural sunlight or a tanning bed, might even be less than that. Ivan Oransky, editor of Reuters Health and treasurer of the Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ), wrote last year in a blog that the actual risk of getting skin cancer from using a tanning bed is about 0.2 percent, and this risk likely only includes those that overexpose themselves (http://www.naturalnews.com/029895_skin_cancer_tanning_beds.html). Russian health authorities also recognize the benefits of tanning beds, as they last year installed tanning beds in Russian prisons to help improve inmate health (http://www.naturalnews.com/030416_tanning_beds_prisoners.html). Vitamin D deficiency is linked to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, endocrine dysfunction, infections, autoimmune disorders, kidney problems, neurological disease, respiratory illness, skin problems, and cancer, among other things (http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/). Sources for this article include: http://www.voxy.co.nz/health/sunbed-cancer-risk-may-be-worth-it-study/5/106749

Truth comes out: 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic ‘deaths’ of children were actually caused by MRSA

(NaturalNews) Remember two years ago when every news show featured hysterical reports about the so-called H1N1 pandemic and how the supposed killer flu was striking down healthy kids? True, many previously healthy children became critically ill, developing severe pneumonia and respiratory failure. And some tragically died after being diagnosed with H1N1. But was that really the accurate explanation of what caused their death? According to the largest nationwide investigation to date of the flu in children who became critically ill, scientists from Children’s Hospital Boston have found another reason to explain the severity of the youngsters illness. It turns out that it most likely wasn’t H1N1 alone that caused healthy children to become so ill many died. Instead, these kids were unknowingly infected with something else. That additional infection, the superbug known as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) , spiked the risk for flu-related deaths 8-fold in children who were otherwise believed to be totally healthy before they became ill. Almost all of these children who were found to be infected with the superbug were immediately treated with vancomycin, considered to be best treatment for MRSA. Yet they died despite being administered this powerful antibiotic and their deaths were blamed on the flu . But the new research suggests it was the MRSA that played a huge role in killing these children. “There’s more risk for MRSA to become invasive in the presence of flu or other viruses,” study leader Adrienne Randolph, MD, MsC, of the Division of Critical Care Medicine at Children’s Hospital Boston. Said in a statement to the media. “These deaths in co-infected children are a warning sign.” He added this is especially alarming given the rising rates of MRSA infections being carried widely among children. “It is not common in the U.S. to lose a previously healthy child to pneumonia,” Randolph said. “Unfortunately, these children had necrotizing pneumonia eating away at their tissue and killing off whole areas of the lung. They looked like immunocompromised patients in the way MRSA went through their body. It’s not that flu alone can’t kill – it can – but in most cases children with flu alone survived.” MRSA risk continues to spread Sixty percent of the youngsters investigated for the new study already had sometimes serious health problems before contracting the flu. But of the 251 children (30 percent) previously healthy children included in the research, the only risk factor that was identified which likely contributed to their increased risk of dying was a diagnosis of a MRSA infection in the lung. The researchers expressed surprise that the antibiotic used to treat the MRSA-infected children didn’t work and suggested the drug couldn’t penetrate the lungs or the disease moved too rapidly. Recent studies have shown a worrisome rise in the number of youngsters who are carriers of MRSA. A 2010 study published in Pediatrics found that the number of children hospitalized for MRSA infections increased from 2 in 1,000 admissions in 1999 to 21 in 1,000 admissions by 2008. The cause appears to be the never-ending and growing use of antibiotics in people and animals. “The more antibiotics we take, the more we colonize ourselves with antibiotic-resistant organisms such as MRSA,” Randolph noted. Curiously, the researchers are not emphasizing going after the cause and spread of MRSA infections as much as they are using their findings to push for flu shots. Their study, just published in the journal Pediatrics , promotes flu vaccination among all children aged 6 months and older. Sources for this article include: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/current http://www.childrenshospital.org/newsroom/Site1339/mainpageS1339P1.html

B vitamins and omega fat ratio are critical to prevent Alzheimer’s disease

(NaturalNews) Proper nutritional status, attained by consuming a healthy diet teamed with natural vitamins and minerals along with optimization of omega fat lipid ratios, can help to prevent cognitive decline associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology. Researchers studying the effects of nutrition at Oxford University in England found that daily supplementation with folic acid and vitamins B6 and B12 lowered levels of homocysteine, a known risk factor leading to decline in cognition and memory. Further evidence published in the journal Molecular Nutrition and Food Research explains that a disproportionate ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids plays a crucial role in the development of AD in later life. Cellular nutritional saturation from diet and appropriate supplementation with B vitamins and omega-3 fats may provide the cornerstone to prevent this most feared memory-robbing disease. Reporting in the International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , scientists examined the proposed link between elevated homocysteine levels and cognitive decline. Homocysteine has already been shown to dramatically increase the risk of heart disease and heart attack in prior studies. Researchers examined 266 people over the age of 70 with established mild cognitive impairment, and broke them into two groups. One group was supplemented with folic acid, vitamin B6 and B12, vitamin cofactors that lower homocysteine levels, while the second group received a placebo. B Vitamin Supplementation Shown to Lower Homocysteine by 30% and to Slow Brain Atrophy Brain wasting or atrophy is a common sign of cognitive impairment and is closely associated with Alzheimer’s dementia. The rate of brain atrophy is increased by higher concentrations of homocysteine in the blood and brain tissue. Researchers examining the results of this study found that the group, which supplemented with B vitamins for a period of two years, experienced a 30% reduction in homocysteine levels. They found dramatic improvements in mental tests including global cognition and episodic memory (69% improvement in word recall memory) compared to the control group. The standard American diet (SAD) includes large quantities of oxidized omega-6 fats from fried and processed foods when compared to omega-3 fat consumption (from fish, nuts and seeds). The ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids ranges from 20:1 to as high as 50:1 (ideal range is no more than 4:1), creating a perpetual degree of inflammation throughout the body. Researchers have determined that this imbalance creates a disturbance in brain chemistry affecting neurotransmitter balance and electrical firing in the brain that sets the stage for amyloid tangles and cognitive decline. Reestablishing omega fat homeostasis by balancing toward a 1:1 intake ratio and by correcting B vitamin nutritional deficiencies provide deep insight toward understanding and controlling the development of many forms of dementia including Alzheimer’s disease. Most middle aged adults will want to include a high potency B vitamin supplement (preferably formulated from natural food sources) and to include omega-3 fats from diet or fish oil consumption to lower dementia risk factors. Sources for this article include: http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/New-review-backs-nutrient-modification-for-Alzheimer-s-prevention/ http://www.chemeurope.com/en/publications/276027/dietary-lipids-and-their-oxidized-products-in-alzheimer-s-disease.html http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/B-vitamins-may-slow-cognitive-decline-Oxford-University-study/ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gps.2758/abstract

Iron supplements cause more harm than good

(NaturalNews) For the last several decades, iron supplements have been routinely handed out like candy. Because iron is a basic requirement for cell growth and longevity, it is often assumed that people should supplement with extra iron. However, this faulty belief may carry serious health risks. High Iron Linked to Heart Attack Risk and More In one Finnish study of more than 2,000 individuals, researchers found that stored iron was more strongly linked to heart attack risk than either high blood pressure or high cholesterol. It is believed that women who menstruate regularly are less likely to experience heart attacks because iron levels are reduced by the loss of blood each month. The same line of logic explains why men who donate blood regularly also experience fewer heart attacks. High levels of iron are linked to more than just heart attack risk: – One study showed that iron supplementation disrupted the balance of gut flora in children. Children who were given iron supplements showed an increase in harmful bacteria and a decrease in beneficial bacteria. – Research indicates that lower levels of iron can actually be protective against infectious disease, leukemia and lymphatic cancers. – Other studies demonstrate that iron produces free radicals which accelerate the aging process. It is easy to see why high iron is a common problem these days, when you consider that the modern diet is heavy in muscle meats and countless foods which contain added iron. Typical staples in the American diet – such as breads, pastas and cereals – are required by federal law to be enriched with added iron. In addition, iron is also present in many multivitamin and mineral supplements. A common misconception is that anemia is directly linked to iron deficiency, so iron supplements are often the first line of defense when anemia is suspected. However, anemia can be caused by other factors as well, such as reduced thyroid function and vitamin B12 deficiency. Supplementing iron in these cases is unnecessary and can exacerbate the problem by not treating the true underlying issue. It is far more logical to recommend iron supplementation only when tests show an actual deficiency in iron. Using hemoglobin or red blood cell tests to determine iron deficiency may not only be inaccurate, but could be harmful if iron supplementation is given when it is not needed. Even when a true iron deficiency exists, it is safer to eat foods naturally high in iron than rely on supplements. Sources for this article include: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20109194,00.html http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/iron-dangers.shtml http://www.greenmedinfo.com/toxic-article/iron-fortification-results-unfavorable-ratio-fecal-enterobacteria-bifidobacteria-and-l http://articles.cnn.com/2000-04-26/health/give.blood.wmd_1_iron-levels-heart-disease-lower-risk?_s=PM:HEALTH

Soda consumption linked to teen violence, study finds

(NaturalNews) A new study has found that teenagers who consume high amounts of sugary soda appear to be more prone towards violence than teenagers who consume less or no sugary soda. The more soda a teenager consumes, in other words, the more likely he or she is to show violent aggression towards classmates, a significant other, and even family members. David Hemenway, a professor at Harvard University’s School of Public, and his colleagues instructed a group of 1,878 public school students from inner-city Boston to fill out questionnaires about how much soda they had consumed in the previous seven days. The questionnaires also asked the students how often they carried weapons, consumed alcohol, smoked, and had a violent interaction with another person. The students, who ranged in age between 14 and 18, also answered other background questions about how often they ate meals with their families, and their race. After compiling the data and accounting for other outside factors, the research team discovered that soda intake was directly proportional to violence levels. “What we found was that there was a strong relationship between how many soft drinks that these inner-city kids consumed and how violent they were, not only in violence against peers but also violence in dating relationships, against siblings,” said Hemenway. “It was shocking to us when we saw how clear the relationship was.” The results showed that students who drank one or no cans of sugary soda a week were nearly half as likely as students who drank 14 cans a week to carry a gun or knife to school. The one or no soda group was also about half as likely to commit violence against a partner, or show violent aggression against peers, compared to the high-consumption group. “We don’t know why (there is a strong association),” added Hemenway. “There may be some causal effect but it’s also certainly plausible that this is just a marker for other problems — that kids who are violent for whatever reason, they tend to smoke more, they tend to drink more alcohol and they tend to maybe drink more soft drinks. We just don’t know.” Sources for this article include: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.a78af65cc128f522f558eaa64f38258c.3d1&show_article=1

Women endangered by high rate of false-positive mammograms

(NaturalNews) According to mainstream medicine, mammograms are the key to surviving breast cancer because they supposedly catch the disease early for quick treatment. What this advice invariably leaves out is evidence that exposure to the radiation used in the tests may actually cause breast cancer in some women. For example, a study presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) concluded annual mammography screening significantly increases breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to the disease (http://www.naturalnews.com/027641_mammograms_breast_cancer.html#ixzz1arooKmoK). Now there’s another reason to be concerned about the push for women to have yearly mammograms. In a new study by University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) research shows that among women who receive a decade of annual mammograms, more than half of those women will be called and told the gut-wrenching news that their tests are positive when they are actually cancer-free. The victims of false-positive results — not a malignancy — are then subjected to more tests. In fact, one in twelve of these women will undergo invasive, potentially breast-scarring biopsy surgery. “This study provides accurate estimates of the risk of a false-positive mammography and breast biopsy for women undergoing repeat mammography in community practice, and so provides important information about the potential harms of undergoing regular mammography,” states Karla Kerlikowske, a professor of medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine. Karla is also the co-author of the study, which was just published in the Annals of Internal Medicine . False-positive mammogram results are rampant The research, led by Group Health Research Institute of Seattle for the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, investigated false-positives in mammography by studying the records of approximately 170,000 women between the ages of 40 and 59 from seven regions around the United States. Almost 4,500 of these research subjects were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. The study found that women who started having mammograms at age 40 instead of 50 were far more likely to have false-positive findings that resulted in more expensive and needless medical tests, including biopsies. Just by changing breast screening from every year to every other year, the researchers documented that a woman’s risk of having a false-positive finding dropped from 61 percent to 42 percent (about a third) over the course of ten years. What’s more, they found that if radiologists would simply review a patient’s previous mammograms it “may halve the odds of a false-positive recall.” The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines now recommend biennial mammograms starting at age 50 and continuing until age 74. However, many doctors still recommend annual mammograms, often beginning at age 40. The new study concluded that after a decade of yearly screening, a majority of women will receive at least one false-positive result. Out of these, 7 to 9 percent will face having a biopsy and the risks that involves — from anesthesia complications to scarring to infection — although these women are, in fact, cancer-free. And what about the argument that yearly mammograms are needed to catch cancer early enough to cure? The researchers found that women screened every two years were not significantly more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage cancer. “We conducted this study to help women know what to expect when they get regular mammograms over the course of many years,” study leader Rebecca Hubbard, PhD, an assistant investigator at Group Health Research Institute, explained in the media statement. “We hope that if women know what to expect with screening, they’ll feel less anxiety if – or when – they are called back for more testing. In the vast majority of cases, this does not mean they have cancer.” Sources for this article include: http://www.ucsf.edu/news http://www.annals.org/ http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html

Report: Antibiotics can permanently destroy gut flora balance, leading to lifelong illness

(NaturalNews) Overuse and overprescription of antibiotic drugs has become a widely known culprit in causing the emergence of antibiotic-resistant “superbugs,” as well as the onset of digestive and other health problems, caused by the elimination of beneficial gut flora. But a new review published in the journal Nature suggests that such gut flora alterations could be permanent. Professor Martin Blaser from New York University’s (NYU) Langone Medical Center has been studying the long-term effects of antibiotics on gut flora, which has already confirmed a definitive link between antibiotics and the disruption of beneficial bacteria in the digestive system. But what his research also seems to confirm is the possibility that such disruption might be permanent, at least in some individuals, and thus carry with it lifelong health consequences. “Early evidence from my lab and others hints that, sometimes, our friendly flora never fully recover,” writes Blaser in his shocking editorial. “These long-term changes to the beneficial bacteria within people’s bodies may even increase our susceptibility to infections and disease. Overuse of antibiotics could be fueling the dramatic increase in conditions such as obesity, type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, allergies and asthma, which have more than doubled in many populations.” Blaser suggests that, even at this preliminary stage, restrictions be put in place to clamp down on the rampant overprescription of antibiotics to young children and pregnant women, a misguided practice that is likely responsible for causing each new generation to “[begin] life with a smaller endowment of ancient microbes than the last.” If antibiotics truly are responsible for causing a permanent imbalance of gut microbiome in some people, then supplementation with probiotics may also be necessary throughout such individuals’ entire lives in order to simply maintain a normal, healthy balance. At this point in time, vastly reducing the prescription rates of antibiotics to people of all ages — and particularly to young children and pregnant mothers — is of first priority. Along with this is a much-needed ban on the use of growth hormones and antibiotics in conventional cattle-raising operations, which end up in the food products eaten by millions of Americans every single day. Be sure to read the entire synopsis of Blaser’s new report in Nature over at Wired : http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/killing-beneficial-bacteria/

Vitamins are deadly? Media hoax exposed, part two

(NaturalNews) Yesterday, we published a groundbreaking article exposing the total media hoax that has been running in the mainstream media over the past week or so. The hoax involved a fraudulent study using altered data which claimed to show that “vitamins are deadly!” But the actual data from the study didn’t reach that conclusion at all, and the mainstream media reporting on this was little more than a collection of outright lies and willfully engineered disinformation . Read that report here: http://www.naturalnews.com/033883_vitamins_mortality_risk.html Today we continue with part two of exposing this malicious media hoax, which was designed (of course) to scare people away from taking vitamins while at the same time feeding them propaganda stories that encourage everyone to get their vaccine shots, eat their GMOs, and take their chemotherapy. According to the mainstream media, you see, poisons are good for you, but nutrition is deadly. Minerals, they claim, might kill you. But being injected with a vaccine using aluminum adjuvants and mercury preservatives is actually GOOD for you, they insist! Here’s the real truth: Vitamins won’t kill you, but pharmaceutical definitely do Of course, the biggest hoax in all this is that there has never been a single confirmed case of a vitamin killing anyone, and yet FDA-approved pharmaceuticals kill at least 100,000 Americans every year! (http://www.naturalnews.com/019406_business_ethics_big_pharma.html) Does the mainstream media report on all the dead Americans killed by deadly medications? Of course not. Never mind that the number of Americans killed by medications dwarfs the total body count from all acts of alleged terrorism in the history of our nation (http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html). Never mind that twice as many Americans die each year from FDA-approved pharmaceuticals as died in the entire Vietnam War. Never mind that even the FDA’s own top scientist — Dr. David Graham — blew the whistle on the total corruption of science within the FDA, revealing how just one drug (Vioxx) was proven to cause over 60,000 heart attacks , many of which killed people. (http://www.naturalnews.com/011401.html) Does the mainstream media report on the hundreds of Americans who die every day in America from pharmaceuticals? Not a chance. Instead, they try to focus people on the false idea that “vitamins will kill you,” even though there isn’t a shred of reliable evidence to support the idea that a single death has ever been caused by a vitamin (even a synthetic vitamin). The media hoax, you see, is found not only in the lies they tell you , but also in the truths they refuse to tell you . This whole story about vitamins being dangerous is a sleight-of-press distraction to take your focus away from the things that are really killing people (vaccines, medications, chemotherapy) and try to make you focus on the things that aren’t (vitamins and dietary supplements). It’s classic CIA-style social engineering, brought to you by the mainstream media which has become “the least trusted news source on the planet.” Research scientists just invent whatever data they want, and it routinely gets published in “scientific” medical journals There’s something rather hilarious and pathetic about the drug-pushing, vaccine-pimping “scientists” that dominate (quack) medicine today: They don’t care how sloppy or fraudulent the science really is as long as it’s in their favor . Heck, when they don’t get the data they want from conducting real science, they just invent whatever data they want! This is what Dr. Scott Reuben did — a key researcher for Pfizer and Merck. He literally just dreamed up whatever data he wanted and authored over twenty studies which were published in mainstream medical journals — even though they were all complete fraud! (http://www.naturalnews.com/028194_Scott_Reuben_research_fraud.html) These were then cited by literally thousands of other research papers , many of which were also fraudulent themselves. This is how Big Pharma’s medical system works: One round of fraudulent studies cites another round of fraudulent studies until they’ve built up something that appears to be a well-referenced body of research but which is actually based entirely on fabricated junk science. Ah, but who cares? Who cares that the research is complete fraud? As long as the media can scare people away from vitamins, that’s what really counts, you see. They don’t care that it’s all a complete hoax because they know that 99% of their readers will never check the facts for themselves . Most people will just swallow whatever media lies are shoved at them, without even a hint of skepticism. Facts are stubborn things After all, who cares about facts anymore? Facts are inconvenient when you’re trying to convince the world population to stay sick and diseased all the time so you can sell ‘em more of your patented, monopoly-priced prescription poisons. They can’t just come right out and tell the truth, you see — that would destroy the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, they have to fabricate a whole system of lies which are then backed up by the criminal, repugnant FDA and then parroted in the mindless mainstream media. Here’s another inconvenient fact that nobody in the mainstream whore media bothered to tell you: FACT: The sample size of the women taking copper in this study was a grand total of: 24 people by the end of the study. Twenty-four people? Yeah, that’s reported in table 4 on page six of the study: There were 30 women taking copper in 1986 when the study began. This increased to 57 women in 1997, then decreased to 24 women in 2004 – 2008, when the study ended. So from 24 women, and through the voodoo manipulation of the data, this study concludes that copper has a 50% increase in mortality. Wow, that’s some pretty stunning science fraud. Sort of idiotic, actually. It would earn you an “F” in high school science class if you tried to pull this off. Yet the mainstream media reports this as if it were rock-solid science. In doing so, all they do is just embarrass themselves and show what science morons their own reporters still are. Most of these newspapers and newsstand magazines you see claiming to cover the news should actually be filed in the “fiction” category at booksellers. The complete scientific ignorance of mainstream journalists Sometimes I wonder what it takes to be a corporate-controlled journalist these days. First, it requires that you be a complete moron on topics such as biochemistry, food, agriculture, nutrition, basic science, the environment, economics, the money supply and of course world history . It’s almost as if mainstream media journalists are comprised of people who have been voluntarily lobotomized so that they now “qualify” to write for the dumbed-down media. More importantly, being a mainstream media “whore” journalist requires that you get really, really comfortable telling lies for your corporate masters. Whatever you’re told to write, you just write it, even if you know it’s a total lie. And if you’re directed to destroy somebody in an interview — like Anderson Cooper tried to do with Dr. Wakefield — you just do it on command like a good little Nazi soldier. That’s why, with very few exceptions, the Anderson Coopers, the Bill O’Reillys, and the AP and Reuters reporters that dominate the old dinosaur media today are really just social engineers who are being used as pawns in a system of total corporate disinformation designed to keep you sick, diseased and enslaved to a medical monopoly which actually goes out of its way to destroy nutritional knowledge and therefore promote nutritional illiteracy . There’s no other word for it: Mainstream media journalists are nutritionally illiterate . So are nearly all mainstream doctors. So are most conventional scientists. So are most people! The nutritional knowledge which could have been used to prevent probably 80% of all chronic, degenerative disease in America has been censored, suppressed, shuttered or destroyed by the medical establishment working in cahoots with the FDA and the mainstream media. They have actually gone out of their way to make sure everybody “stays stupid” when it comes to vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals. Your vaccine IS your multivitamin, yo! The whole point of this is to keep people enslaved in a system of medical domination where they think of “nutrients” as being things they are found in prescription medications. Some people think blood-thinning drugs are “nutrients,” and they pop their medications as if they were candy, sometimes taking a dozen or more dangerous prescription medications every single day. This is what the conventional medical industry wants you to think of as “nutrition.” Vaccines are nutrition, too, didn’t you know? You are incomplete without them! If you want to be whole, you must allow yourself to be repeatedly injected with all kinds of vaccines. At least that’s what the medical establishment wants you to believe. It’s all, of course, a complete pack of lies. Nutrition doesn’t come from your doctor. Your doctor is most likely a complete and total moron when it comes to nutrition. That’s why he’s more likely to die before you do, because when he gets sick, he won’t take vitamin D and eat natural sources of vitamin C and zinc to boost immune function. No, he’s more likely to swallow his own antibiotics, then develop a superbug infection in his lungs or gut, and then die from pneumonia or cancer while being pumped full of poisons by his own colleagues who have also been totally brainwashed into thinking prescription drugs are nutrients. Dead doctors don’t lie. And they’re dying in record numbers these days because they keep taking their own deadly medicines while avoiding anything that smacks of “holistic” nutrition or the healing arts. NaturalNews readers get all that. They really get it. That’s why they drink superfood smoothies, take natural dietary supplements and don’t watch mainstream television news on the idiot box. And that’s why NaturalNews readers will outlive all the dumbed-down consumers of mainstream television — people who, like a character from the movie Idiocracy, say “Vitamins will kill me? OW my balls!” (http://www.naturalnews.com/021558_Idiocracy_Hollywood.html) Vitamins will kill you, but vaccines are good nutrition! As you ponder all this, keep in mind that the mainstream media is the same wretched group of retreads who tell you that vaccines are good for you! Oh yeah, here’s the scoop: Vitamins just might kill you, so don’t take those. But vaccines could save your life! So get injected with those as much as possible! (Seriously…) And GMOs are good for you too, uh-huh. And chemotherapy is good, too. You should get both your breasts cut off even if you don’t have breast cancer, the LA Times reported (http://www.naturalnews.com/011116_breast_cancer_double_mastectomy.html). That’s how you “prevent” breast cancer, apparently. Perhaps all these journalists should take their own advice and prevent brain cancer by cutting off their own heads? It would not materially affect the quality of their reporting, it seems. Even a machine can hit copy and paste on a pharma-funded press release. Who needs humans to do it if there’s no thinking involved? The mainstream media thinks all their readers are stupid It’s true: The MSM thinks their readers are stupid. And to some extent, they are correct because most of the intelligent people in the world have stopped reading or watching the mainstream media as a source of information. They’ve realized they are constantly being lied to by media institutions which are, themselves, funded in large part by pharmaceutical advertising and the financial interests of the corporate global elite. Did you ever wonder why the media’s coverage of Fukushima was such a downplay of the actual events that took place there? One reason is because General Electric built the Fukushima nuclear power plants while also owning key mainstream media disinfo outlets such as NBC, CNBC and MSNBC (http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php). Do you really think these media giants which receive hundreds of millions of dollars a year in advertising revenue from drug companies will ever tell the truth about how nutrition can eliminate your need for pharmaceuticals? Of course not! How the drug companies bought off the media Look at this chart of the rise in direct-to-consumer drug advertising expenditures: http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/23/26 The Congressional Budget Office has even done research on the astonishing financial ties between the drug companies and the mainstream media. Here’s what they concluded (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10522/12-02-DrugPromo_Brief.pdf) “Pharmaceutical manufacturers spent at least $20.5 billion on promotional activities in 2008.3 Detailing to physicians, nurse practitioners, and physicians’ assistants cost $12 billion, accounting for more than half of that promotional spending (see Figure 1). Drug companies spent another $3.4 billion sponsoring professional meetings and events and about $0.4 billion placing advertisements in professional journals. Pharmaceutical manufacturers spent the rest of their promotional budgets, $4.7 billion in 2008, on direct-to-consumer advertising. To place those figures in context, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) estimated that, among its members, domestic sales of pharmaceuticals and medicines totaled $189 billion in 2008 and domestic spending on research and development totaled $38 billion.” Did you catch that? $4.7 billion in advertising through the mainstream media … and that was in 2008 (it’s much larger now). This also reveals that drug companies spent $12 billion bribing doctors , $3.4 billion running doctor “education camps” that promote more drugs, and $400 million corrupting medical journals. So we’re supposed to believe that none of this money has any influence on the Archives of Internal Medicine nor the mainstream media outlets which ran this media hoax that “vitamin will kill you?” Seriously? The media fails to disclose its own financial ties to drug interests How could any mainstream media journalist miss all this? Have they forgotten how to read? Or even how to think? Reporting on this vitamin study while failing to mention all the financial ties between the drug industry and the mainstream media itself is sort of like reporting on the Titanic’s maiden voyage across the Atlantic but failing to mention it sank . The media cover-up IS the story here! The financial corruption of the medical journals IS the story! The hoaxing of the population with a completely fabricated story based on quack science is actually one of the biggest stories of the year. And yet, obviously no one in the mainstream media will report a story based on an investigation of the total financial corruption of the mainstream media itself. That’s why people read alternative news sources like NaturalNews. Because they know we haven’t been bought off by some big corporate interests. You will never see Pfizer being a sponsor of NaturalNews, for example. Nor some GMO company or anyone else pushing poison. (If you do see a Google ad on our site from a pharma company, let us know and we’ll ban them. We’ve already banned hundreds…) Plus, we’re not corporate whores, thank goodness. That sounds like a tiring job, just churning out total disinformation for the elite corporate interests during the day, and then going home at night, looking in the mirror and hating your life. But that’s what thousands of mainstream media journalists do every single day: They LIE to their readers to collect a paycheck, and then they go home and wonder why they even bothered to get a degree in journalism in the first place, since virtually nobody in the whore media bothers to practice real journalism anymore. It’s kind of a cushy job, actually: Take press releases from the White House, drug companies or medical journals, rewrite a sentence or two, slap your name on it, and you’ve “written” your story for the day! No research (or thinking) is even necessary. No need to make a single phone call, and there’s no need to check facts since they’ve already been provided to you by the corporate media relations whores who also push lies for a paycheck. “Reporting the news” in the mainstream media is little more than taking corporate globalist press releases and repackaging them as “news” without engaging in any fact checking or independent research whatsoever. It’s an embarrassment to the whole field of journalism, actually. Want real journalism? Get it from alternative news sources Reporting the real news takes far more effort than just copying and pasting press releases or White House propaganda. For starters, we have to think for ourselves . And when we report the news, we don’t use teleprompters and we don’t read scripts . Watch InfoWars Nightly News sometime (www.InfoWarsNews.com) and you’ll notice that none of us are reading from teleprompters. We don’t have scripts. We analyze current events in real time, in a LIVE video studio, with no scripts, no makeup, no special wardrobe and no big corporate sponsors. That’s real journalism, folks. Here’s a video of me hosting it recently (and yeah, I mess up sometimes, because I’m not reading a teleprompter): http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A8AA1909025FBC8815D447D7C8E41851 Alex Jones, Aaron Dykes and others also host InfoWars Nightly News, where you’ll learn the hard-hitting truth about all kinds of subjects, from health freedom and vaccines to government corruption and the push for war. We don’t have the super slick graphics, the big corporate sponsors, nor the wink and the nod from government “authorities.” Instead, we have independent, intelligent analysis of events that really matter . That’s something you just can’t get anymore from USA Today, TIME, the LA Times, the NY Times or any other mainstream media outlet. They simply can’t afford to report the truth — it would get their ad revenues and put them out of business. Think about that for a second, and realize that every major player in the entire mainstream media only exists because they continue to serve a strategic role in pushing propaganda for powerful corporations or political interests. There is no more “news” in the news. It’s all just a tapestry of lies and half-truths woven from the never-ending stream of disinformation that keeps the drug companies raking in profits from preventable degenerative disease. The mainstream media, ultimately, doesn’t want you to be informed. They want you to be obedient.

« Previous Page — Next Page »