Wednesday, December 31, 2014

BEST NEWS BLOOPERS 2014

Monday, December 29, 2014

U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a blow to the constitutional rights of citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Heien v. State of North Carolina that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police.

Acting contrary to the venerable principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police during a traffic stop that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law. The Rutherford Institute had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold law enforcement officials accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s lone dissenter, warned that the court’s ruling “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.”
The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in Heien v. North Carolina is available at www.rutherford.org.
“By refusing to hold police accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law, the Supreme Court has given government officials a green light to routinely violate the law,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of the award-winning book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “This case may have started out with an improper traffic stop, but where it will end—given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption—is not hard to predict. This ruling is what I would call a one-way, nonrefundable ticket to the police state.”
In April 2009, a Surry County (N.C.) law enforcement officer stopped a car traveling on Interstate 77, allegedly because of a brake light which at first failed to illuminate and then flickered on. The officer mistakenly believed that state law prohibited driving a car with one broken brake light. In fact, the state traffic law requires only one working brake light. Nevertheless, operating under a mistaken understanding of the law, during the course of the stop, the officer asked for permission to search the car. Nicholas Heien, the owner of the vehicle, granted his consent to a search. Upon the officer finding cocaine in the vehicle, he arrested and charged Heien with trafficking. Prior to his trial, Heien moved to suppress the evidence seized in light of the fact that the officer’s pretext for the stop was erroneous and therefore unlawful. Although the trial court denied the motion to suppress evidence, the state court of appeals determined that since the police officer had based his initial stop of the car on a mistaken understanding of the law, there was no valid reason for the stop in the first place. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that even though the officer was wrong in concluding that the inoperable brake light was an offense, because the officer’s mistake was a “reasonable” one, the stop of the car did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the evidence resulting from the stop did not need to be suppressed. In weighing in on the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Rutherford Institute attorneys warn against allowing government agents to “benefit” from their mistakes of law, deliberate or otherwise, lest it become an incentive for abuse.
Affiliate attorney Christopher F. Moriarty assisted The Rutherford Institute in advancing the arguments in the amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The most censored health news stories of 2014 - here's what the establishment doesn't want you to remember

The most censored health news stories of 2014 - here's what the establishment doesn't want you to remember:

Censored story #1) CDC whistleblower admits vaccines linked to autism

In August of 2014, a high-level CDC scientist named William Thompson went public with an admission that he and other scientists knowingly committed scientific fraud at the CDC. This was done, Thompson explained, to bury any public knowledge of the scientific evidence linking vaccines and autism.

In a public letter posted on the website of his legal counsel, Thompson wrote:

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected...

Along with this admission, Natural News also exclusively released two secret emails further implicating the CDC and its top scientists and executives. You can read those emails here.

Following this astonishing revelation -- clearly one of the biggest medical fraud stories of the decade -- the entire mainstream media blackballed the story and shamelessly decided to take part in a media-wide cover-up. To this day, there isn't a single mainstream media outlet that has reported the scientific fraud that was committed at the CDC and openly admitted to by the CDC's own scientist.

Interestingly, it wasn't long after this took place that the CDC got caught lying over and over again about Ebola transmission vectors. In the later months of 2014, the CDC's "authority" and reputation took a nose dive as the American public came to quickly realize the agency lied far more often than it told the truth (see below).

The CDC even memory-holed its own document which originally admitted Ebola can be spread through aerosolized particles. In response to this schizophrenic behavior of the CDC, we decided to have some fun with the concept here at Natural News and released a parody CDC guidance document that encouraged Americans to do things like spend extra time scrubbing their middle fingers. (See the parody document here - PDF.)

What we really learned about the mainstream media this year, however, is that all stories revealing scientific fraud at the CDC will be systematically suppressed.

The media, in other words, is a CDC protection racket.

Censored story #2) The ongoing Ebola outbreak in America

When the Ebola outbreak story first broke in the United States, the mainstream media was all over it. Stories ran 24/7, with regular updates on hospitals testing patients for possible Ebola infections and round-the-clock coverage of the Ebola outbreak in a Dallas hospital.

But in the run-up to the mid-term elections in which Democrats looked to get crushed, the White House put out an order to the national media: No more Ebola stories.

And just like that, coverage of Ebola dropped to absolute zero. Across the nation, the entire mainstream media censored nearly all stories about Ebola in the USA on orders from the federal government. Sure, they still reported on Ebola in Africa -- that seems really far away to the average brainwashed TV news viewer -- but no stories of Ebola in the United States were allowed. The cover-up was now under way, and it has continued to this day despite the fact that the CDC is still tracking 1,400 possible Ebola infections in the United States.

You won't read that story in the mainstream media, of course. You're not allowed to know this information. All you'll get in the mainstream media is laughably absurd statements from the Obama administration's most ridiculous talking heads such as "Ebola czar" Ron Klain who said yesterday that the CDC is "a national treasure."

You heard that right. Sort of like Mt. Rushmore or the Grand Tetons. The same CDC that conspires with drug companies to push toxic vaccines laced with mercury onto pregnant women is a "national treasure" according to the comical talking heads on the news. These are the same people who share million-dollar government paychecks with the likes of Obamacare architect and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, the man who openly explained how the wildly unconstitutional law was constructed in a "tortured way" to exploit "the stupidity of the American voter."

Three things you need to realize about the obedient, contrived media

This orchestrated nationwide censorship demonstrated three very revealing things about the mainstream media:

#1) The media is wholly obedient to the dictates of the federal government. Whatever the White House orders the media to do, it will obediently and blindly follow.

#2) The media has utterly abandoned real journalism. When the national press is beholden to the government and unwilling to run stories of public interest that the White House doesn't want run, it is no longer a "free press" but a pathetic mouthpiece of the establishment.

#3) The purpose of the media is to shape the awareness of the public, not to inform the public. It essentially functions as a massive sleight-of-hand stage magician, encouraging you to look in one direction while not seeing the subterfuge taking place in the other direction. Once an Ebola vaccine becomes commercially viable, of course, you will see the national press running a full-on campaign of scary-sounding Ebola stories, with each one strongly urging everybody to get vaccinated.

All these reasons explain why so many people are turning off the mainstream media and tuning in to alternative media sources where the White House and the CDC can't control the content. If you want to know the truth about infectious disease, don't believe anything you see or read in the mainstream media. Nearly 100% of that information is CDC propaganda.

Censored story #3) Toxic heavy metals in organic rice protein

Early in 2014, I announced the launch of the Natural News Forensic Food Lab which features high-end ICP-MS analytical instrumentation that can detect heavy metals and minerals down to 1 part per billion.

With the help of chemists, I learned how to run this instrumentation and began running heavy metals analysis on foods, superfoods, nutritional supplements and more. In this process, I discovered alarming concentrations of lead and cadmium in the rice protein being imported from China and used across the natural products industry in the United States, sold as "raw, sprouted organic rice protein" superfood.

This was a huge story in the alternative media, and it caused an uproar in the industry where manufacturers quickly responded with efforts to source cleaner raw materials. I personally negotiated with North America's top organic protein manufacturers and reached an historic agreement to limit heavy metals concentrations in these products. (I'll be testing all the proteins again in early 2015 and reporting the results to see what improvements have been achieved).

This huge story -- with massive public health implications -- was ignored by virtually the entire mainstream media. The reason, I was later told, was because no media organization wanted to give Natural News any credibility as a "science" organization conducting scientific laboratory assessments of food... even though that's exactly what we were doing. If the same research had been done at a university, I was told, it would have made huge headlines and been widely reported.

Natural News, you see, is not allowed to be mentioned in any positive light in the mainstream media for the simple reason that we oppose mercury in vaccines, the psychiatric drugging of children, unlabeled GMO food, toxic fluoride in municipal water supplies, the spraying of toxic chemical pesticides on food, and so on. These positions are unacceptable to the corporate-controlled "puppet media" (i.e. mainstream media) whose stories are almost 100% driven by either corporate or government interests. Those interests, of course, are 100% aligned with the chemical poisoning of the population -- and it is precisely this chemical poisoning that dumbs people down to a low enough IQ where they can watch shows like CNN or MSNBC and actually believe they're watching news.

The one exception to all this is the Dr. Oz Show. Doctor Oz invited me on the show to reveal my laboratory findings to his global audience, and that became one of the most popular shows of 2014. Thanks to Dr. Oz, the secret was out about heavy metals in rice protein, herbs from China and even some cacao powders.

I find it interesting that Dr. Oz is now being viciously attacked and slandered by the pharma-controlled mainstream media. Apparently, the media is totally panicked that Dr. Oz has the courage to actually tell the truth.

In today's "scientific dictatorship" of genetically modified news, so to speak, no actual truth is allowed. The only "truth" that's allowed to be published by the establishment actually consists of outrageous quack science lies such as "mercury in vaccines is good for pregnant women" or "chemical pesticides are harmless to humans" or even "there is no link between vaccines and autism." (Even the CDC's own top scientists know there's a link.)

Censored story #4) Vaccines intentionally laced with sterilization chemicals for population control

Here's another story you didn't see in the mainstream media. A pro-vaccine group called the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association discovered that 2.3 million women in Kenya were injected with UNICEF / WHO vaccines laced with sterilization chemicals.

"We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen," Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. "They were all laced with HCG."

As I wrote on November 8, 2014:

HCG is a chemical developed by the World Health Organization for sterilization purposes. When injected into the body of a young woman, it causes a pregnancy to be destroyed by the body's own antibody response to the HCG, resulting in a spontaneous abortion. Its effectiveness lasts for years, causing abortions in women up to three years after the injections.

Dr. Ngare explained "...this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine."

There was absolutely no mention of this genocidal vaccine campaign by the mainstream media in the United States. The story was completely blacked out, just like a related story on another vaccine in Italy killing 13 people and being pulled by the government.

In fact, it is official policy across all mainstream media organizations to:

1) Censor all stories of vaccine injuries, deaths, contamination and sterilization schemes.

2) Mindlessly promote all vaccines as miracle medicines, with the complete absence of critical thinking or real investigative journalism.

The one notable exception to all this was an Associated Press investigation into the wildly unconstitutional vaccine injury court currently running in America, where parents of children who are directly damaged by vaccines must wait ten years or more to receive a financial payout. And as part of that payout, they must agree to never speak to the press about their child being damaged by vaccines.

The AP deserves real credit for having the courage to investigate this story. Apparently real journalism is still alive and well in some sectors of the AP and, at times, even Reuters. My sense is that there are journalists everywhere who are dying to engage in real journalism but are stifled by their corporate bosses. Anyone who attempts to print the truth about vaccine-damaged children is quickly threatened or fired from their jobs.

Five signs that a media organization has sold you out

So how can you tell whether a media organization can be trusted to tell you the truth about real-world events? Here are five red flags that indicate an organization has sold you out:

Sign #1) Blind obedience to the vaccine industry or biotech industry
If the news organization is constantly promoting pro-vaccine or pro-biotech stories while refusing to ask intelligent, skeptical questions about those subjects, they can't be trusted. You'll even find this to be true among some "alternative" publications that try to position themselves as alternative news but have actually been bought out by Bill & Melinda Gates money. Wikipedia also demonstrates blind obedience to the vaccine and biotech industries because it has largely been taken over by "biotech gangs" of sock puppet editors who pose as "volunteers" but are actually paid by corporations to spread disinformation.

Sign #2) Blind obedience to the White House / Obama worship
The blind worship of authority is another sign that something is terribly wrong with that news outlet. A real press would hammer the White House with tough questions, not kow-tow to a dictatorial tyrant that routinely violates the laws of the land.

Sign #3) Participates in organized censorship of important stories such as the CDC vaccine whistleblower
Every large news organization that refused to cover the CDC vaccine whistleblower story has already abandoned any shred of real journalism or ethical reporting. This was one of the biggest health stories of the decade with implications for tens of millions of people. A large nationwide dialog needs to take place over this issue right now, even as we are headed for a future where fifty percent of the children will become autistic by the year 2025 according to some estimates. Vaccines clearly play a role in this equation, so why is the mainstream media covering up a huge whistleblower admission from the CDC's own top-level scientist? Shameless.

Sign #4) Receives large advertising revenues from drug companies
Any news organization that's largely driven by ad revenues from drug companies has also abandoned all ethics. There is no legitimate justifiable reason for drug companies to advertise doctor-prescribed patented medicines directly to the public, and the practice is illegal almost everywhere else in the world. Media organizations that contribute to this practice in the United States are collaborating in a horrific mass over-medication epidemic that harms American children and senior citizens while bankrupting cities, businesses and private households due to skyrocketing health insurance costs (which are directly calculated from prescription drug prices and prescribing trends).

Even worse, the money influence of the mainstream media allows drug companies to dictate the content of their articles, which is exactly why the media is so gung-ho about promoting medications all the time.

Sign #5) Parrots the same canned news of every other mainstream news outlet
The biggest sign that a news organization shouldn't be trusted is the mindless parroting of the exact same news that every other mainstream organization is pushing. When you see the same contrived story published over and over again across a hundred or more mainstream newspapers, you know the story is being fed to them from an outside source. This "outside source" is usually the White House, the CDC, a corporate press release or some other piece of total propaganda that's crafted and distorted to look like news.

Very few media organizations conduct actual journalism anymore. Most so-called "stories" are just corporate press releases re-written without any fact-checking or due diligence whatsoever.

Where to get uncensored news: The rise of the Alternative Media

Just as the economic middle class is disappearing in the western world today, so is the "knowledge middle class." With each passing year, we're seeing an expanding divide between those who are totally ignorant of reality (people who watch cable news networks) and those who are well informed (people who read alternative news websites).

People who watch mainstream cable news broadcasts have become functionality retarded in their lack of practical knowledge about the way the world really works. They don't know, for example, that what you eat affects the health outcome you experience. They think flu shots really work. They think guns are so dangerous than they magically go off by merely being touched. These people believe chemotherapy helps them heal, vitamins are dangerous and that General Mills breakfast cereals are nutritious because they are fortified with small metal shavings known as "iron fortification."

It's important to understand the mindset of the mainstream media in feeding all this theater to the gullible public. Content censors and story fabricators who occupy the top positions in media are fully aware that they are running a theatrical production largely based on fiction, but they figure anyone stupid enough to believe what they're broadcasting is probably deserving of the lies they're being fed anyway. It's all a grand joke being played out on the public, and I've personally heard from more than one ex-journalist who told me things like, "Day after day we couldn't believe the public was still swallowing what we were broadcasting... so we just kept going."

People who read the alternative media websites, on the other hand, know that almost everything in media and government is a charade... a Hunger Games-like theater of the absurd, where everything is contrived, staged or manipulated to further the interests of either a powerful corporate sponsor or a power-hungry government that wants to dominate its people. The liberal media was all over this charade when Bush was in charge and contrived evidence was whipped up regarding "weapons of mass destruction," but as soon as their own guy (Obama) occupied the White House, they became rapid supporters of the very same class of absurd fictions such as "if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan" and "Obamacare will make health insurance affordable for everyone!"

Alternative news readers are the best-informed people

Alternative news fans, on the other hand, know things that clueless mainstream news consumers will never understand: Fluoride is a toxic waste pesticide chemical from China that's dumped into the U.S. water supply. The vaccine injury court is a sham that denies Americans their constitutional right to due process. The cancer industry doesn't want to cure cancer; it wants to profit from it. Fresh raw milk is good for you. Vaccines are laced with heavy metals, toxic chemicals and sometimes even hidden cancer viruses. The CDC works for the pharmaceutical industry and once approved a polio vaccine that may have caused up to 98 million Americans to be injected with cancer-causing viruses. The Federal Reserve is part of a private global banking cartel that profits from the systematic theft of purchasing power via relentless currency debasement. And a global debt collapse is coming because it is mathematically inevitable.

Those who are well informed by reading the alternative media usually have trouble being around mindless mainstream media consumers because it's difficult to have an intelligent conversation with them. Where to even begin? You can't tell them things like "America has conspired with Saudia Arabia to launch a petrodollar currency war against Russia" because people who watch mainstream news stations have no knowledge of currency wars, the petrodollar, the history of America's collaboration with the anti human rights Saudi kingdom, and so on.

Similarly, you can't delve in to the physics of why concrete-and-steel buildings don't just magically collapse pancake-style from a few office fires, because they've been trained to cognitively reject all laws of physics that conflict with the myths which have been drilled into their heads by the mindless media. Trying to explain reality to a mainstream media news consumer is a lot like trying to teach a pig to sing: you waste your time and annoy the pig.

No, the zombies who are hypnotized and indoctrinated by mainstream media have to escape their mental prisons on their own. It's a process that some can achieve and others can't, for whatever reason. But it's a process that can't be forced on anyone. If people want to eat their genetically modified junk food, get injected with mercury-laced flu shots and believe that Obama is a friend of the U.S. Constitution, then they have a long journey ahead of them if they want to learn anything at all about the way the world really works.

Where to get real alternative news

Friday, December 26, 2014

Wait! What? How Can This Be??

The government just told me GDP rose by 5%, led by the consumer who isn’t buying houses, isn’t buying discretionary goods like furniture, electronics and sporting goods...

by James Quinn
But the government never lies. They just told me GDP rose by 5%, led by the consumer who isn’t buying houses, isn’t buying discretionary goods like furniture, electronics and sporting goods, and isn’t increasing their usage of credit cards. Retailers keep reporting declining traffic and plunging profits, but the consumer is leading the surge in GDP. I believe them. How about you?
Following last month’s surge to record high home prices, it is perhaps no surprise that for the6th month in a row, home prices have been revised lower. New Home Sales printed 438k, down from prior revised lower 445k and missing expectations of a surge to 460k…missing for 8 of the last 10 months. However, the key focus should be on the epic revisions of the (by now useless) home sales. For the period May – November, the initial new home sales prints amount to 2.779MM houses. Post revision, the number plunges by 22% to 2.168K. There goes the housing pillar of recovery (let’s hope economists are wrong and rates don’t rise next year eh?)

Can YOUSpot the recovery…?

8th miss in 10 months..

Thursday, December 25, 2014

Mainstream media panics over Dr. Oz teaching disease prevention and nutritional self-care

(NaturalNews) The pro-pharma, anti-nutrition mainstream media is engaged in an all-out panic over the success of Dr. Oz in teaching nutrition and disease prevention to the American public. Not surprisingly, all the usual suspects -- media outlets funded by Big Pharma advertising money -- have unleashed a wave of hit pieces against Dr. Oz, claiming his advice is "unproven."

This is rather hilarious from the outset, considering the irrefutable fact that nearly all the most popular drugs don't work on most people. The FDA will approve a drug for a disease based on a mere 5% efficacy rate, meaning the drug doesn't work for 95% of subjects. Flu shots, even when they do work unlike the failed flu shots formulated this year, only prevent the flu in about 1 out of 100 people who receive the shots. So almost 99% of the people who take them receive no benefit (but they do get the extra bonus of mercury, as flu shots administered in the USA still contain this toxic heavy metal which is intentionally added to the formulations). I verified this myself via ICP-MS laboratory instrumentation that conducts mass spectrometry elemental analysis using a quadrupole mass analyzer. (See Labs.NaturalNews.com)

All the media outlets attacking Dr. Oz also have extreme conflicts of interest which they routinely fail to mention: they all take money from drug companies in the form of drug-pushing ads. Nearly all the top drug companies running those ads have criminal records and histories of repeatedly committing felony crimes against the people of the world. For example, GlaxoSmithKline admitted guilt in a massive bribery scheme where they paid off 44,000 doctors in the USA to push their drugs. Most of that bribery went to doctors who prescribed drugs OFF-LABEL, meaning the drugs were prescribed for disease symptoms and conditions for which they were never approved by the FDA.

Those prescriptions, in other words, were backed by ZERO scientific evidence. This is the dirty little secret of the drug industry, and the mainstream media completely ignores this massive fraud taking place across the western medical industrial complex: Most drugs prescribed today have never been tested nor approved for the health conditions for which they are prescribed. This little-recognized fact turns most of the drug industry into nothing more than a high-profit quack fest.

Last year, GlaxoSmithKline finally had to admit its executives were running a criminal bribery scheme in China, and Novartis was discovered to have faked clinical trial results and committed yet more scientific fraud while running hospital kickback schemes to push its drugs.

Merck, for its part, is home to two virologists who filed a False Claims Act against the company with the federal government, describing how Merck would spike post-vaccine blood samples with animal antibodies in order to commit scientific fraud and fool the FDA.

Pfizer ran vaccine experiments in Nigeria that killed children, causing Nigerian authorities to issue arrest warrants for Pfizer executives. Price fixing crimes are so common among drug companies that numerous U.S. states have threatened to level criminal charges against those companies if they didn't refund the money they stole from state coffers. Read my detailed investigative article entitled Big Pharma criminality no longer a conspiracy theory: Bribery, fraud, price fixing now a matter of public record for even more examples.

So what we're really seeing here is a mainstream media funded by a criminal pharmaceutical mafia while attacking the top doctor in the nation who's teaching people how they can avoid becoming the latest victims of Big Pharma. Dr. Oz teaches people to make healthier food choices, get off dangerous medications and take responsibility for their own health. Because he helps people prevent disease and avoid costly medications and hospital bills, Dr. Oz is now being framed as a "bad" person who threatens the profit interests of the drug cartels.

For the record, I don't agree 100% with everything Dr. Oz advocates, but I do consider him a compassionate, intelligent and well-informed doctor who has displayed remarkable personal and spiritual courage to tell the truth in an era when telling the truth gets you viciously attacked. Dr. Oz, in fact, should be America's Surgeon General. In my view, Dr. Oz is to the health care system as Rand Paul is to the political system: both men are medically trained, both are highly intelligent, both are very successful within the system, and both of them want to push for real reforms that benefit the People.

Why does the media attack Dr. Oz but dare not mention the CDC whistleblower?

Keep in mind this same media that's now ravaging Dr. Oz with a wave of negative stories was willfully silent about the CDC whistleblower story that broke earlier this year. A high-level CDC official openly admitted to a CDC cover-up of statistical data linking vaccines to autism in young African American boys. That story was completely blacked out by the mainstream media, which is of course a "pro-vaccine, pro-pharma" media that doesn't even pretend to be objective anymore.

When it comes to health, the entire purpose of the mainstream media is to function as the marketing and propaganda arm of drug companies and biotech corporations, not to share information that might actually help people live healthier lives. In fact, anyone in America who has any real success teaching people how to be healthy is viciously slandered, defamed and subject to ridicule by the so-called "scientific" community which is really a gang of pharma mercenaries pushing corporate profits under the false banner of "science."

All these media outlets attacking Dr. Oz, should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. They are punishing the very person who is helping Americans protect their health, maintain their productivity and avoid high-cost medical bills. If everybody in America ate the way Dr. Oz recommends, we would see a wave of cancer prevention, improved work performance, fewer sick days, lower medical costs and enhanced quality of life across the board. Isn't that what we should want for America?

It is disgusting that America has become a nation where profits are such a high priority that teaching people how to prevent disease earns you a large target on your forehead. People like Dr. Oz should be celebrated for their courage and wisdom, not subjected to the mud-slinging denigration of a lying media establishment that is almost entirely whored out to pharmaceutical interests.

If anyone should be called to the mat for giving out dishonest health advice to the public, it's the drug company advertisements and the media companies that profit from them. Thanks to their campaign of total propaganda and anti-health disinformation, more Americans are now on psychiatric drugs, statin drugs and diabetes drugs than at any other time in history. That this is widely considered a business "success" in America is a total indictment of both the drug companies and the sellout media corporations that promote them.

Any nation where business "success" is defined by how many people the establishment can cajole into taking monopoly-prived, high-profit drugs is a nation that has shamelessly sold out the People to be exploited for corporate gains. If America were honest about public health, drug company ads to the general public would be illegal just like they are in the rest of the world. Mercury would be removed from all flu shots, and people like Dr. Oz would be given Presidential awards for teaching the public how to improve their health and reduce health care costs in the process.

Never forget how much money is being made from keeping people sick and diseased

Unfortunately for America today, chronic disease is BIG business, and all the corporate interests whose contrived propaganda campaigns are featured in the pages of pro-business magazines are wholly dependent on the continued worsening of public health as their "growth" strategy.

They are counting on a new wave of Alzheimer's patients to generate returns for investors. They need a steady stream of cancer patients to keep the dollars flowing into the chemotherapy centers. The dialysis manufacturers need mercury in flu shots to keep causing kidney failure that brings in new patients. Bariatric surgeons need the continued churning out of nutritionally-depleted factory foods to feed the next generation of America's morbidly obese, all of whom qualify for government-reimbursed surgical procedures that enrich the surgeons.

Disease management is such a massive, high-profit business in America today that any who oppose this march of disease-driven greed are very quickly targeted for character assassination campaigns. Food Babe got the exact same treatment, being viciously attacked and defamed by any number of shameless critics and publications, almost all of whom are on the take with pharma money.

How many Americans are killed each year by pharmaceuticals?

The real root of this story is that all the pro-pharma publications who attack Dr. Oz are also contributing directly to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans each year. At least 100,000 Americans die each year from the deadly effects of prescription medications, and the real number is probably over 200,000.

By comparison, about 50,000 Americans were killed in the entire Vietnam War. But Big Pharma's media war being waged on the American people costs at least twice that many casualties each year right here at home. It is people like Dr. Oz who offer advice that can help people eliminate their need for dangerous medications and even prevent disease so they never need the meds in the first place.

Without a doubt, Dr. Oz is saving lives. Big Pharma is destroying lives, and the pro-pharma publications are co-conspirators in the shameless exploitation of human life for profit. Dr. Oz is a great American hero. He's a beacon of truth standing out like a lighthouse above a sea of lies and deception spewed out by a pharma-funded media that has no qualms about promoting an industry that preys upon human suffering and sickness. We should all support Dr. Oz in his effort to teach people food wisdom, nutritional therapies, self-care and how to make healthy decisions that prevent disease and eliminate dependence on the corrupt medical cartels.

Sources for this article include:
[1] http://www.naturalnews.com/047890_flu_vaccin...
[2] http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_...
[3] http://www.naturalnews.com/036385_GlaxoSmith...
[4] http://www.naturalnews.com/042269_Big_Pharma...
[5] http://www.naturalnews.com/036328_Merck_mump...
[6] http://www.naturalnews.com/023654.HTML

VACCINE STUDY: Influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults (not 60% as you've been told)

(NaturalNews) A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as proof that "flu vaccines are 60% effective!"

This absurd claim was repeated across the mainstream media over the past few days, with all sorts of sloppy reporting that didn't even bother to read the study itself (as usual).

NaturalNews continues to earn a reputation for actually READING these "scientific" studies and then reporting what they really reveal, not what some vaccine-pushing CDC bureaucrat wants them to say. So we purchased the PDF file from The Lancet and read this study to get the real story.

The "60% effectiveness" claim is a total lie - here's why

What we found is that the "60% effectiveness" claim is utterly absurd and highly misleading. For starters, most people think that "60% effectiveness" means that for every 100 people injected with the flu shot, 60 of them won't get the flu!

Thus, the "60% effectiveness" claim implies that getting a flu shot has about a 6 in 10 chance of preventing you from getting the flu.

This is utterly false.

In reality -- and this is spelled out right in Figure 2 of the study itself, which is entitled, "Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis" -- only about 2.7 in 100 adults get the flu in the first place!

See the abstract at:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/art...

Flu vaccine stops influenza in only 1.5 out of 100 adults who get the shots

Let's start with the actual numbers from the study.

The "control group" of adults consisted of 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza. Over 97% of them did not. Only 357 of them caught influenza, which means only 2.7% of these adults caught the flu in the first place.

The "treatment group" consisted of adults who were vaccinated with a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Out of this group, according to the study, only 1.2% did not catch the flu.

The difference between these two groups is 1.5 people out of 100.

So even if you believe this study, and even if you believe all the pro-vaccine hype behind it, the truly "scientific" conclusion from this is rather astonishing:

Flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults injected with the vaccine!

Note that this is very, very close to my own analysis of the effectiveness vaccines as I wrote back in September of 2010 in an article entitled, Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_j...)

In that article, I proclaimed that flu vaccines "don't work on 99 out of 100 people." Apparently, if you believe the new study, I was off by 0.5 people out of 100 (at least in adults, see below for more discussion of effectiveness on children).

So where does the media get "60% effective?"

This is called "massaging the numbers," and it's an old statistical trick that the vaccine industry (and the pharmaceutical industry) uses over and over again to trick people into thinking their useless drugs actually work.

First, you take the 2.73% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.18% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.

You can then say that 0.43 is "43% of 2.73," and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a "57% decrease" in influenza infections. This then becomes a "57% effectiveness rate" claim.

The overall "60% effectiveness" being claimed from this study comes from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy for children, which returned higher numbers than adults (see below). There were other problems with the data for children, however, including one study that showed an increase in influenza rates in the second year after the flu shot.

So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are "60% effective," what they really mean is that you would have to inject 100 adults to avoid the flu in just 1.5 of them.

Or, put another way, flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.

But you've probably already noticed that the mainstream media won't dare print this statistical revelation. They would much rather mislead everybody into the utterly false and ridiculous belief that flu vaccines are "60% effective," whatever that means.

How to lie with statistics

This little statistical lying technique is very popular in the cancer industry, too, where these "relative numbers" are used to lie about all sorts of drugs.

You may have heard, for example, that a breast cancer drug is "50% effective at preventing breast cancer!"

But what does that really mean? It could mean that 2 women out of 100 got breast cancer in the control group, and only 1 woman out of 100 got it in the treatment group. Thus, the drug is only shown to work on 1 out of 100 women.

But since 1 is 50% of 2, they will spin the store and claim a "50% breast cancer prevention rate!" And most consumers will buy into this because they don't understand how the medical industry lies with these statistics. So they will think to themselves, "Wow, if I take this medication, there is a 50% chance this will prevent breast cancer for me!"

And yet that's utterly false. In fact, there is only a 1% chance it will prevent breast cancer for you, according to the study.

Minimizing side effects with yet more statistical lies

At the same time the vaccine and drug industries are lying with relative statistics to make you think their drugs really work (even when they don't), they will also use absolute statistics to try to minimize any perception of side effects.

In the fictional example given above for a breast cancer drug, let's suppose the drug prevented breast cancer in 1 out of 100 women, but while doing that, it caused kidney failure in 4 out of 100 women who take it. The manufacturer of the drug would spin all this and say something like the following:

"This amazing new drug has a 50% efficacy rate! But it only causes side effects in 4%!"

You see how this game is played? So they make the benefits look huge and the side effects look small. But in reality -- scientifically speaking -- you are 400% more likely to be injured by the drug than helped by it! (Or 4 times more likely, which is the same thing stated differently.)

How many people are harmed by influenza vaccines?

Much the same is true with vaccines. In this influenza vaccine study just published in The Lancet, it shows that you have to inject 100 adults to avoid influenza in just 1.5 adults. But what they don't tell you is the side effect rate in all 100 adults!

It's very likely that upon injecting 100 adults with vaccines containing chemical adjuvants (inflammatory chemicals used to make flu vaccines "work" better), you might get 7.5 cases of long-term neurological side effects such as dementia or Alzheimer's. This is an estimate, by the way, used here to illustrate the statistics involved.

So for every 100 adults you injected with this flu vaccine, you prevent the flu in 1.5 of them, but you cause a neurological disorder in 7.5 of them! This means you are 500% more likely to be harmed by the flu vaccine than helped by it. (A theoretical example only. This study did not contain statistics on the harm of vaccines.)

Much the same is true with mammograms, by the way, which harm 10 women for every 1 woman they actually help (http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html).

Chemotherapy is also a similar story. Sure, chemotherapy may "shrink tumors" in 80% of those who receive it, but shrinking tumors does not prevent death. And in reality, chemotherapy eventually kills most of those who receive it. Many of those people who describe themselves as "cancer survivors" are, for the most part, actually "chemo survivors."

Good news for children?

If there's any "good news" in this study, it's that the data show vaccines to be considerably more effective on children than on adults. According to the actual data (from Figure 2 of the study itself), influenza vaccines are effective at preventing influenza infections in 12 out of 100 children.

So the best result of the study (which still has many problems, see below) is that the vaccines work on 12% of children who are injected. But again, this data is almost certainly largely falsified in favor of the vaccine industry, as explained below. It also completely ignores the vaccine / autism link, which is provably quite real and yet has been politically and financially swept under the rug by the criminal vaccine industry (which relies on scientific lies to stay in business).

Guess who funded this study?

This study was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the very same non-profit that gives grant money to Wikipedia (which has an obvious pro-vaccine slant), and is staffed by pharma loyalists.

For example, the Vice President for Human Resources and Program Management at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is none other than Gail Pesyna, a former DuPont executive (DuPont is second in the world in GMO biotech activities, just behind Monsanto) with special expertise in pharmaceuticals and medical diagnostics. (http://www.sloan.org/bio/item/10)

The Alred P. Sloan Foundation also gave a $650,000 grant to fund the creation of a film called "Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine," (http://www.sloan.org/assets/files/annual_rep...) which features a pro-vaccine slant that focuses on the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, an AIDS-centric front group for Big Pharma which was founded by none other than the Rockefeller Foundation (http://www.vppartners.org/sites/default/file...).

Seven significant credibility problems with this Lancet study

Beyond all the points already mentioned above, this study suffers from at least seven significant problems that any honest journalist should have pointed out:

Problem #1) The "control" group was often given a vaccine, too

In many of the studies used in this meta analysis, the "control" groups were given so-called "insert" vaccines which may have contained chemical adjuvants and other additives but not attenuated viruses. Why does this matter? Because the adjuvants can cause immune system disorders, thereby making the control group more susceptible to influenza infections and distorting the data in favor of vaccines. The "control" group, in other words, wasn't really a proper control group in many studies.

Problem #2) Flu vaccines are NEVER tested against non-vaccinated healthy children

It's the most horrifying thought of all for the vaccine industry: Testing healthy, non-vaccinated children against vaccinated children. It's no surprise, therefore, that flu shots were simply not tested against "never vaccinated" children who have avoided flu shots for their entire lives. That would be a real test, huh? But of course you will never see that test conducted because it would make flu shots look laughably useless by comparison.

Problem #3) Influenza vaccines were not tested against vitamin D

Vitamin D prevents influenza at a rate that is 8 times more effective than flu shots (http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_vitamin_D_...). Read the article to see the actual "absolute" numbers in this study.

Problem #4) There is no observation of long-term health effects of vaccines

Vaccines are considered "effective" if they merely prevent the flu. But what if they also cause a 50% increase in Alzheimer's two decades later? Is that still a "success?" If you're a drug manufacturer it is, because you can make money on the vaccine and then later on the Alzheimer's pills, too. That's probably why neither the CDC nor the FDA ever conducts long-term testing of influenza vaccines. They simply have no willingness whatsoever to observe and record the actual long-term results of vaccines.

Problem #5) 99.5% of eligible studies were excluded from this meta-analysis

There were 5,707 potentially eligible studied identified for this meta-analysis study. A whopping 99.5% of those studies were excluded for one reason or another, leaving only 28 studies that were "selected" for inclusion. Give that this study was published in a pro-vaccine medical journal, and authored by researchers who likely have financial ties to the vaccine industry, it is very difficult to imagine that this selection of 28 studies was not in some way slanted to favor vaccine efficacy.

Remember: Scientific fraud isn't the exception in modern medicine; it is the rule. Most of the "science" you read in today's medical journals is really just corporate-funded quackery dressed up in the language of science.

Problem #6) Authors of the studies included in this meta-analysis almost certainly have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers

I haven't had time to follow the money ties for each individual study and author included in this meta analysis, but I'm willing to publicly and openly bet you large sums of money that at least some of these study authors have financial ties to the vaccine industry (drug makers). The corruption, financial influence and outright bribery is so pervasive in "scientific" circles today that you can hardly find a published author writing about vaccines who hasn't been in some way financially influenced (or outright bought out) by the vaccine industry itself. It would be a fascinating follow-up study to explore and reveal all these financial ties. But don't expect the medical journals to print that article, of course. They'd rather not reveal what happens when you follow the money.

Problem #7) The Lancet is, itself, a pro-vaccine propaganda mouthpiece funded by the vaccine industry!

Need we point out the obvious? Trusting The Lancet to report on the effectiveness of vaccines is sort of like asking the Pentagon to report on the effectiveness of cruise missiles. Does anyone really think we're going to get a truthful report from a medical journal that depends on vaccine company revenues for its very existence?

That's a lot like listening to big government tell you how great government is for protecting your rights. Or listening to the Federal Reserve tell you why the Fed is so good for the U.S. economy. You might as well just ask the Devil whether you should be good or evil, eh?

Just for fun, let's conduct a thought experiment and suppose that The Lancet actually reported the truth, and that this study was conducted with total honesty and perfect scientific integrity. Do you realize that even if you believe all this, the study concludes that flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults?

Or to put it another way, even when pro-vaccine medical journals publish pro-vaccine studies paid for by pro-vaccine non-profit groups, the very best data they can manage to contort into existence only shows flu vaccines preventing influenza in 1.5 out of 100 adults.

Gee, imagine the results if all these studies were independent reviews with no financial ties to Big Pharma! Do you think the results would be even worse? You bet they would. They would probably show a negative efficacy rate, meaning that flu shots actually cause more cases of influenza to appear. That's the far more likely reality of the situation.

Flu shots, you see, actually cause the flu in some people. That's why the people who get sick with the flu every winter are largely the very same people who got flu shots! (Just ask 'em yourself this coming winter, and you'll see.)

What the public believes

Thanks to the outright lies of the CDC, the flu shot propaganda of retail pharmacies, and the quack science published in conventional medical journals, most people today falsely believe that flu shots are "70 to 90 percent effective." This is the official propaganda on the effectiveness of vaccines.

It is so pervasive that when this new study came out reporting vaccines to be "only" 60% effective, some mainstream media outlets actually published articles with headlines like, "Vaccines don't work as well as you might have thought." These headlines were followed up with explanations like "Even though we all thought vaccines were up to 90% effective, it turns out they are only 60% effective!"

I hate to break it to 'em all, but the truth is that flu shots, even in the best case the industry can come up with, really only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults.

Or, put another way, when you see 100 adults lined up at a pharmacy waiting to receive their coveted flu shots, nearly 99 out of those 100 are not only wasting their time (and money), but may actually be subjecting themselves to long-term neurological damage as a result of being injected with flu shot chemical adjuvants.

Outright fraudulent marketing

Given their 1.5% effectiveness among adults, the marketing of flu shots is one of the most outrageous examples of fraudulent marketing ever witnessed in modern society. Can you imagine a car company selling a car that only worked 1.5% of the time? Or a computer company selling a computer that only worked 1.5% of the time? They would be indicted for fraud by the FTC!

So why does the vaccine industry get away with marketing its flu shots that even the most desperately pro-vaccine statistical analysis reveals only works on 1.5 out of 100 adults?

It's truly astonishing. This puts flu shots in roughly the same efficacy category as rubbing a rabbit's foot or wishing really hard. That this is what passes as "science" today is so snortingly laughable that it makes your ribs hurt.

That so many adults today buy into this total marketing fraud is a powerful commentary on the gullibility of the population and the power of TV-driven news propaganda. Apparently, actually getting people to buy something totally useless that might actually harm them (or kill them) isn't difficult these days. Just shroud it all under "science" jargon and offer prizes to the pharmacy workers who strong-arm the most customers to get injected. And it works!

The real story on flu shots that you probably don't want to know

Want to know the real story on what flu shots are for? They aren't for halting the flu. We've already established that. They hardly work at all, even if you believe the "science" on that.

So what are flu shots really for?

You won't like this answer, but I'll tell you what I now believe to be true: The purpose of flu shots is to "soft kill" the global population. Vaccines are population control technologies, as openly admitted by Bill Gates (http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_vaccines_B...) and they are so cleverly packaged under the fabricated "public health" message that even those who administer vaccines have no idea they are actually engaged in the reduction of human population through vaccine-induced infertility and genetic mutations.

Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose: To permanently alter the human gene pool and "weed out" those humans who are stupid enough to fall for vaccine propaganda.

And for that nefarious purpose, they probably are 60% effective after all.

Also worth reading:
Flu Vaccines -- The Mainstream Admits, We Want an Epidemic!
http://liamscheff.com/2011/10/flu-vaccines-t...

Monday, December 22, 2014

Gun Control PSA Tells Kids to Steal Parents’ Guns, Turn Them in at School

Sunday, December 21, 2014

According To US Officials

Pic De Jour

Sensitivity Training For Police

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Obama Increases Allowable Levels of Radiation in Drinking Water ‘Dramatically’

by Christina Sarich

A Japanese government official has reported, “I was overwhelmed by the amount of contaminated water coming from the reactors, we must dump it in the ocean.” This isn’t such great news for the US since President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently gave their approval for “dramatically raising permissible radioactive levels in drinking water and soil following “radiological incidents,” such as nuclear power-plant accidents and dirty bombs.”
The Nuclear Industry calls this their “new normal,” according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

The EPA has issued radiation guides called Protective Action Guides or PAGs which allows more radiation than any American has ever been exposed to. Within the guides, are instructions for evacuations, shelter-in-place orders, food restrictions and other actions following a wide range of “radiological emergencies.”
Wouldn’t the massive break down of reactor number one at Fukushima be considered a ‘radiological emergency?”
Shunichi Tanaka, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Authority, made the comment Dec. 12 about dumping radioactive waste into the ocean.
The US governments PAGs allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems. This would, in effect, increase a longstanding 1 in 10,000 person cancer rate to a rate of 1 in 23 persons exposed over a 30-year period. Many experts are expecting elevated cancer rates due to these “allowable” levels of radiation exposure.
Read: Anonymous US Gov’t Expert Admits Astronomical Radiation Levels from Fukushima
The PAGs are the work of Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator for air and radiation whose nomination to serve as EPA Administrator was only approved by the Senate a few months ago.
It is suggested that these PAGs have been in the works for over two years and are just recently available for public view.
PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch said:

“This is a public health policy only Dr. Strangelove could embrace. If this typifies the environmental leadership we can expect from Ms. McCarthy, then [the] EPA is in for a long, dirty slog.”
“No compelling justification is offered for increasing the cancer deaths of Americans innocently exposed to corporate miscalculations several hundred-fold.”

Friday, December 19, 2014

California Highway Patrol Describes Itself as “Paramilitary Organization”

Largest police agency in America embraces role as militarized unit
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
December 18, 2014

America’s largest police agency, the California Highway Patrol, is now officially describing itself as a “paramilitary organization,” a revelation that will undoubtedly feed into concerns that the militarization of domestic law enforcement is intensifying.

The CHP’s adoption of this term is now so prevalent that the organization is openly using it as a recruiting tool for new employees.

A post entitled Is This Job for You? which appears on the CHP.gov website asks all new applicants for the role of CHP Cadet, “Are you willing to work in a para-military organization, operating under a structured chain-of-command?”

California Highway Patrol Describes Itself as Paramilitary Organization 181214para1

An information page on the website entitled Life at the Academy also states, “The California Highway Patrol is often described as a “paramilitary” department, and that is true. The uniforms, ranks and insignias, chain of command, and the long-standing traditions resemble a military organization.”

California Highway Patrol Describes Itself as Paramilitary Organization 181214para1a

According to dictionary.com, the word “paramilitary” is defined as, “noting or pertaining to an organization operating as, in place of, or as a supplement to a regular military force.”

Another section of the website devoted to enticing former military personnel to become CHP officers also states, “The CHP offers military personnel a unique working environment which utilizes the skills, self-discipline, and life experiences you have developed during military service. Former military personnel easily fit into the CHP’s workforce and adapt well to our paramilitary work environment. You can use your former military skills and self-initiative to help you promote through the CHP’s ranks.”

California Highway Patrol Describes Itself as Paramilitary Organization 181214para3

“This year alone the California Highway Patrol has been wrapped up in a number of corruption and excessive force accusations, most notably the police officer who was recorded assaulting a woman on the side of the road (see below), and the woman who caught an officer stealing private photographs from her phone while she was arrested on a DUI charge,” writes John Vibes.

Given the overwhelming backlash to the increasing militarization of domestic policing in the aftermath of the Ferguson unrest, why is the California Highway Patrol still referring to itself as a “paramilitary organization”?

Instead of emphasizing “protect and serve,” why is the CHP advising new recruits that they are about to join an organization that utilizes tactics more in common with the military than regular domestic law enforcement methods of policing?

In a recent report, the ACLU warned that the increasing militarization of police has served to make law enforcement officers overlook the fact that, “they are supposed to protect and serve our communities, not wage war on the people who live in them.”

As you can see in the video below (skip forward to the 10 minute mark), given the nature of police training now being taught to officers across the country, it’s unsurprising that law enforcement agencies are openly embracing the fact that they are now paramilitary units.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Cartoon De Jour

Police union boss flips out over cartoon showing kids telling Santa, "Keep us safe from the police"

What’s the Real Cause of Heart Attacks?

By Thomas S. Cowan, MD

In a previous article in this journal ("What Causes Heart Attacks," Fall 2007), I presented the case that the spectrum of heart disease, which includes angina, unstable angina, and myocardial infarction (heart attack), is better understood from the perspective of events happening in the myocardium (heart) as opposed to events happening in the coronary arteries (the arteries that supply the heart).
As we all know, the conventional view holds that the central event of heart disease occurs in the arteries, with the buildup of blockage called plaque.
In this follow-up article I will go into more detail about the conventional theory and why it is largely misleading; then I will describe the precise and well documented events that do lead to MIs (myocardial infarctions or heart attacks).
This understanding is crucial since during the last fifty years, the pursuit of the coronary artery theory has cost this nation billions of dollars in unnecessary surgical costs, billions in medications that cause as much harm as allow for any positive benefits, and, most seriously, has led many to adopt a low-fat diet, which only worsens the problem.

Newer twists on this theory only serve to further obscure the real cause. In contrast, by understanding the real patho-physiological events behind the evolution of MIs, we will be led to a proper nourishing traditional style of eating, the use of the safe and inexpensive heart tonic called g-strophanthin.
Most importantly, we will be forced to look at how heart disease is a true manifestation of the stresses of modern civilized life on the core of the human being.
To overcome the epidemic of heart disease, we literally need a new medical paradigm, a new economic system, a new ecological consciousness; in short, a new way of life. The coronary theory misses all of this, just as it misinterprets the actual pathological events.
In writing this article, I am indebted to the work of Dr. Knut Sroka and his website heartattacknew.com. For all interested in this important subject it is advised to read the entire website and watch the video on the website. The video above shows how the collateral circulation nourishes the heart even with a severe blockage of a coronary artery.
For health professionals and researchers, your understanding of this subject is incomplete without reading and studying the two articles found in the print version of the website.
The first is by G. Baroldi, "The Etiopathologies of Coronary Heart Disease: A Heretical Theory Based on Morphology," and the second by K. Sroka, "On the Genesis of Myocardial Ischemia." Both articles are reprinted in full on the website.

Rebuttal of Conventional Theory

Until recently I believed, along with most physicians, that most heart attacks were caused by the progressive blockage caused by plaque buildup in the four major coronary arteries leading to the heart.
These plaques were thought to be composed of cholesterol that built up in the arterial lumen (inside of the vessel), which eventually cut off blood supply to a certain area of the heart, resulting in oxygen deficiency in that area, causing first pain (angina), then progressing to ischemia (heart attack).
The simple solution was to unblock the stenosis (the blockages) with either an angioplasty or stent, or, if that was not possible, then bypass this area with coronary bypass grafting (CABG). Simple problem, simple solution.
The problems with this approach became apparent to me through a number of avenues. The first emerged in a story related by the head of cardiology during a northern California heart symposium at which I was a speaker. He told us that during his residency he was part of a trial conducted in rural Alabama on black men.
In this trial, they did angiograms (injecting dye into the coronary arteries to detect blockages) on all the men presenting with chest pains. For the ones who had a single artery blocked, they did no interventions, only noting which part of the heart would have a subsequent heart attack if one occurred.
Of course, they all predicted it would be in the part of the heart supplied by that particular coronary artery. Then they waited. Eventually, many did return and did have heart attacks, but to the researchers' surprise less than ten percent had a heart attack in the area of the heart supplied by the original blocked artery.
This means, of course, that had they performed the usual angioplasty, stent, or bypass on that artery, the patient would have received no benefit. The second occurrence that helped change my mind was the publication in 2003 of a large study conducted by the Mayo Clinic on the efficacy of bypass surgeries, stents, and angioplasty.¹
The study concluded that bypass surgery does relieve symptoms (chest pain); that bypass surgery does not prevent further heart attacks; and that only high risk patients benefit from bypass surgery with regard to a better chance of survival. In other words, the gold standard for treating arterial blockages provides at best only minimal benefits.
If you watch the video on www.heartattacknew.com and go to the FAQ called "The Riddle's Solution," it becomes clear why this is so. Large stable blockages, that is, sites that are over 90 percent blocked, in almost all cases compensate for the blockage by developing collateral or additional new blood vessels.
In fact, the view that the four coronary arteries supply all the blood to the heart is completely wrong. Starting soon after birth, the normal heart develops an extensive network of small blood vessels called collateral vessels that eventually compensate for the interruption of flow in any one (or more) of the major vessels.
As Sroka correctly points out in the above video, coronary angiograms fail to show the collateral circulation; furthermore the procedure creates spasms in the coronary arteries through the injection of heavy dye under high pressure. Thus, coronary angiograms are notoriously inaccurate at assessing the amount of stenosis in the vessels as well as the true blood flow in the heart.
To this day, most of the bypasses, stents, and angioplasties are performed on minimally symptomatic patients who show a greater than 90 percent blockage in one or more coronary artery. These arteries are almost always fully collateralized; it is not the surgery that restores blood flow, because the body has already done its own bypass.
If tests found a major coronary artery 90 percent blocked, with only 10 percent flow "squeezing through the bottleneck," how could you possibly still be alive if you did not have collateral blood vessels? And are we really to believe that the decisive thing that will cause the eventual heart attack is when the stenosis goes from 93 percent to 98 percent?
This is an insignificant difference, and the premise that this small increase will cause a heart attack is completely nonsensical. Yet this is what most of the procedures are meant to accomplish, to unblock the stenosis, which as the video on heartattacknew.com shows, does not actually improve blood flow.
It is no wonder that in study after study, these procedures fail to provide any significant benefit to the patients. For these reasons, conventional cardiology is abandoning the stable plaque model in favor of a different model for the etiology of heart attacks one that, as it turns out, is equally invalid.

Meet the Unstable Plaque

We can now all agree that the entire focus of cardiology—upon the stable, progressing calcified plaque: the thing we bypassed and stented for years, the thing we do CT scans of arteries for, the thing they told us is created from cholesterol buildup in arteries, the thing "alternative cardiology" like the Ornish program focused on eliminating—all this is not so important after all.
Don't worry, though, say the "experts," we know it must be the arteries, so let's introduce another concept—drum roll—that of unstable or friable plaque. This insidious scoundrel can attack at any time in any person, even when there is no large blockage. That's because these soft, "foamy" plaques can, under certain situations (we don't know which situations), rapidly evolve and abruptly close off the involved artery, creating an oxygen deficit downstream, with subsequent angina and then ischemia.
These soft plaques are thought to be the result of a combination of inflammatory "buildup" and LDL-cholesterol, the exact two components that are targeted by statin drugs. Therefore, since unstable plaque can come loose at any time, everyone should be on statin drugs to prevent this unfortunate occurrence. Some spokesmen have even suggested putting therapeutic doses of statins in the municipal water supplies.
Defendants of this theory point to angiogram studies that show the changes in these unstable plaques, claiming them as proof that unstable plaque is the true cause of the majority of MIs. As I will show, this acute thrombosis does happen in patients having heart attacks, but it is a consequence, not the cause of the MI. What can pathology reports—as opposed to angiography studies—tell us about the role of unstable plaque in heart attacks?
After all, pathology reports are the only accurate way of determining what actually happened during a heart attack, as opposed to angiograms, which are misleading and difficult to read. The first major autopsy study of patients dying of heart attack was carried out in Heidelberg in the 1970s.² The study found that sufficient thrombosis to cause the heart attack was found in only twenty percent of cases.
The largest such study found sufficient thrombosis in only 41 percent of cases.³ The author, Baroldi, also found that the larger the area of the heart attack, the more often the pathology report found stenosis; in addition, the longer the time between heart attack and the death of the patient, the higher the percentage of stenosis. Some researchers have used these two facts to "cherry-pick" the numbers and make the stenosis rate seem high by studying only those with large MIs and those who live the longest after the heart attack event.
Another observation that puts into doubt the relevance of the coronary artery theory of heart attack is the fact that the proposed etiological mechanism of how thrombosed arteries cause ischemia is through cutting off the blood supply and thereby the oxygen supply to the tissues. To the enormous surprise of many investigators, the reality is that when careful measurements are done assessing the oxygen level of the myocardial cells, there is no oxygen deficit ever shown in an evolving heart attack I.⁴ The oxygen levels (measured as pO2) do not change at all throughout the entire event. I will come back to this fact later when I describe what does change in every evolving MI ever studied.
Again, the question must be asked: if this theory is predicated on the lowering of the oxygen levels in the myocardial cells when in fact the oxygen levels don't change, then what exactly does happen? The conclusion is that while thrombosis associated with MI is a real phenomenon, it does not occur in more than 50 percent of cases—which leads to the question: why do the other 50 percent, those without an occlusion in the coronary arteries, even have an heart attack?
Second, it is clear from all pathology studies that thromboses of significant degrees evolve after the heart attack occurs, again leading to the question: what causes the heart attack in the first place? The fact that thrombosis does occur after a heart attack also explains why emergency procedures—remember, the only patients who benefit from bypass and stents are critical, acute patients—can be helpful immediately post-heart attack I to restore flow in those patients who do not have adequate collateral circulation to that part of their heart. So again, all the existing theories as to the relevance of the coronary arteries in the evolution of the heart attack are fraught with inconsistencies. If this is so, what then does cause heart attacks?

The Etiology of Myocardial Ischemia

Any theory as to what causes myocardial ischemia must account for some consistent observations over the past fifty years. The most consistent risk factors for a person having heart disease are male sex, diabetes, cigarette use and psychological or emotional stress. Interestingly, in none of these is there a direct link to pathology of the coronary arteries—diabetes and cigarette use cause disease in the capillaries, not, as far as we know, in the large arteries. Also, we have learned over the past decades that the four main medicines of modern cardiology—beta-blockers, nitrates, aspirin, and statin drugs—all provide some benefits for heart patients (albeit all with serious drawbacks as well) and this observation must be accounted for in any comprehensive theory of myocardial ischemia.

Heart Rate Variability

The real revolution in the prevention and treatment of heart disease will come with increased understanding of the role played by the autonomic nervous system in the genesis of ischemia and its measurement through the tool of heart rate variability (HRV). We have two distinct nervous systems: the first, the central nervous system (CNS), controls conscious functions such as muscle and nerve function; the second nervous system, the autonomic (or unconscious) nervous system (ANS), controls the function of our internal organs.
The autonomic nervous system is divided into two branches, which in a healthy person are always in a balanced yet ready state. The sympathetic or "fight-or-flight" system is centered in our adrenal medulla; it uses the chemical adrenaline as its chemical transmission device and tells our bodies there is danger afoot; time to activate and run. It does so by activating a series of biochemical responses, the centerpiece of which are the glycolytic pathways, which accelerate the breakdown of glucose to be used as quick energy as we make our escape from the bear chasing us.
In contrast, the parasympathetic branch, centered in the adrenal cortex, uses the neurotransmitters acetylcholine (ACh), nitric oxide (NO), and cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) as its chemical mediators; this is the "rest-and-digest" arm of the autonomic nervous system. The particular nerve of the parasympathetic chain that supplies the heart with nervous activity is called the vagus nerve; it slows and relaxes the heart, whereas the sympathetic branches accelerate and constrict the heart. I believe it can be shown that an imbalance in these two branches is responsible for the vast majority of heart disease.
Using the techniques of heart rate variability (HRV) monitoring, which gives a real time accurate depiction of autonomic nervous system status, researchers have shown in multiple studies⁵ that patients with ischemic heart disease have on average a reduction of parasympathetic activity of over one-third. Typically, the worse the ischemia, the lower the parasympathetic activity.⁶ Furthermore about 80 percent of ischemic events are preceded by a significant, often drastic, reduction in parasympathetic activity.⁷
By contrast, those with normal parasympathetic activity, who experience an abrupt increase in sympathetic activity (such as physical activity or an emotional shock), never suffer from ischemia.
In other words, without a preceding decrease in parasympathetic activity, activation of the sympathetic nervous system does not lead to MI.⁸ Presumably we are meant to experience times of excess sympathetic activity; this is normal life, with its challenges and disappointments. These shocks only become dangerous to our health in the face of an ongoing, persistent decrease in our parasympathetic, or life-restoring, activity. The decrease in parasympathetic activity is mediated by the three chemical transmitters of the parasympathetic nervous system: acetylcholine, NO, and cGMP. It is fascinating to note that women have stronger vagal activity than men, probably accounting for the sex difference in the incidence of MI.⁹
Hypertension causes a decrease in vagal activity,¹⁰ smoking causes a decrease in vagal activity,¹¹ diabetes causes a decrease in vagal activity,¹² and physical and emotional stress cause a decrease in parasympathetic activity.¹³ Thus, all the significant risk factors suppress the regenerative nervous system activity in our heart. On the other hand, the main drugs used in cardiology upregulate the parasympathetic nervous system.
Nitrates stimulate NO production while aspirin and statin drugs also stimulate the production of ACh along with NO—that is, until they cause a rebound decrease in these substances which then makes the parasympathetic activity even worse. Beta-blockers work by blocking the activity of the sympathetic nervous system, the increase of which is a central factor in the etiology of MI. The bottom line: the risk factors for heart disease and the interventions used all affect the balance in our ANS; whatever effects they may have on plaque and stenosis is of minor relevance.

How Heart Attacks Occur

So what is the sequence of events that leads to a heart attack? First comes a decrease in the tonic, healing activity of the parasympathetic nervous system—in the vast majority of cases the pathology for heart attack will not proceed unless this condition is met. Think of the person who is always pushing himself, who never takes time out, who has no hobbies, who constantly stimulates the adrenal cortex with caffeine or sugar, who does not nourish himself with real food and good fats, and who does not incorporate a regular pattern of eating and sleeping into his daily life.
Then comes an increase in the sympathetic nervous system activity, usually a physical or emotional stressor. This increase in sympathetic activity cannot be balanced because of chronic parasympathetic suppression. The result is an uncontrolled increase of adrenaline, which directs the myocardial cells to break down glucose using aerobic glycolysis. Remember that in a heart attack, there is no change in blood flow as measured by the p02 in the cells. This step shunts the metabolism of the heart away from its preferred and most efficient fuel sources, which are ketones and fatty acids.
This explains why heart patients often feel tired before their events. This also explains why a diet liberal in fat and low in sugar is crucial for heart health. As a result of the sympathetic increase and resulting glycolysis, a dramatic increase in lactic acid production occurs in the myocardial cells; this happens in virtually one hundred percent of heart attacks, with no coronary artery mechanism required.^14, ¹⁵ As a result of the increase in lactic acid in the myocardial cells, a localized acidosis occurs. This acidosis prevents calcium from entering the cells,¹⁶ making the cells less able to contract.
This inability to contract causes localized edema (swelling), dysfunction of the walls of the heart (hypokinesis, which is the hallmark of ischemic disease as seen on stress echoes and nuclear thallium stress tests), and eventually necrosis of the tissue—in other words, a heart attack. The localized tissue edema also alters the hemo-dynamics of the arteries embedded in that section of the heart, resulting in shear pressure, which causes the unstable plaques to rupture, further block the artery, and worsen the hemodynamics in that area of the heart.
Please note that this explanation alone explains why plaques rupture, what their role in the heart attack process is, and why they should indeed be addressed. Notice also that this explanation accounts for all the observable phenomena associated with heart disease and is substantiated by years of research. It could not be clearer as to the true origin of this epidemic of heart disease.

Nourishing the Parasympathetic Nervous System

If heart disease is fundamentally caused by a deficiency in the parasympathetic nervous system, then the solution is obviously to nurture and protect that system, which is the same as saying we should nurture and protect ourselves. Nourishing our parasympathetic nervous system is basically the same as dismantling a way of life for which humans are ill-suited. This means avoiding the excesses of industrial civilization. The known things that nourish our parasympathetic nervous system are contact with nature, loving relations, trust, economic security (a hallmark of indigenous peoples the world over) and sex—this is a whole new world of therapy for ailing hearts.
The medicine that supports all aspects of the parasympathetic nervous system is an extract from the strophanthus plant called ouabain or g-strophanthin. G-strophanthin is an endogenous (made within us) hormone manufactured in our adrenal cortex from cholesterol and therefore inhibited by statin drugs.
G-strophanthin does two things that are crucial in this process—two actions provided by no other known medicine. First, it stimulates the production and liberation of ACh, the main neurotransmitter of the parasympathetic nervous system; secondly, and crucially, it converts lactic acid—the main metabolic culprit in this process—into pyruvate, one of the main and preferred fuels of the myocardial cells. In other words, it converts the central poison in this process into a nutrient.
This may be what is meant in Chinese medicine when they say that the kidneys (that is, the adrenal glands, where ouabain is made) nourish the heart. In my many years of using ouabain, I have not had a single patient have an MI while taking it. It is truly a gift to the heart. Of course, I put all my patients on a WAPF-style heart-healthy diet, loaded with healthy fats and fat-soluble nutrients, and low in the processed carbs and sugars that are the hallmark of industrial, civilized life. There are homeopathic versions of strophanthus available, which could be used. Another option that is effective but not ideal is an extract of the plant. The drawback is that the amount of ouabain is unknown.
Reprinted with kind permission of the Townsend Letter, www.townsendletter.com.

About the Author

Dr. Cowan has served as vice president of the Physicians Association for Anthroposophical Medicine and is a founding board member of the Weston A. Price Foundation. He is the principal author of The Fourfold Path to Healing and is co-author of The Nourishing Traditions Book of Baby and Child Care. Dr. Cowan lectures throughout the United States and Canada. Dr. Cowan is completing a book on the human heart that will be published by Chelsea Green Publishing in 2015.

[+] Sources and References

¹ Rihal CS, et al: "Indications for coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in clinic stable angina." Circulation (2003) 1
² Doerr W, et al.: Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg- New York, 1974.
³ Baroldi G, Silver M: The Etiopathogenesis of Coronary Heart Disease: A Heretical Theory Based on Morphology, Eurekah.com, Landes, Bioscience, 2004.
⁴ Helfant, RH, Forrester JS, Hampton JR, Haft JI, Kemp HG, Gorlin R (1970) Coronary heart disease
⁵ Sroka, K, On the Genesis of Myocardial Ischemia.
⁶ J Electrocardio 25:79-88.
⁷ Sroka, K On the Genesis of Myocardial Ischemia
⁸ Sroka, et al. (1997) Heart rate variability in myocardial ischemia during daily life. J Electrocardiol 30:45-56.
⁹ Sroka, K, On the Genesis of Myocardial Ischemia.
¹⁰ Ibid.
¹¹ Ibid.
¹² Ibid.
¹³ Ibid.
¹⁴ Scheuer, J, et al. (1965) Coronary Insufficiency: relations between hemodynamic, electrical, and biochemical parameters, Circulation Res 17:178-189.
¹⁵ Schmidt, PG, et al. (1978) Regional choline acetyltransferase activity in the guinea pig heart, Circulation Res 42:657-660.
¹⁶ Katz, AM (1972/1972) Effects of ischemia on the cardiac contractile proteins. Cardiology 56: 276-283.

Ontoplist