Want to give some attention to the many important yet ignored issues facing us all? The President of the USA will hold a live YouTube interview at the White House on Monday, February 1st at 1:45 p.m EST and might answer your question.
You can submit a text question or make a video of yourself asking the question (20 second limit). People will vote to suggest the best questions submitted and YouTube will collect the top questions and ask President Obama. The deadline is tonight, Sunday January 31st at 8 pm EST. Submit questions and videos to youtube.com/citizentube.
UPDATE: even tho the "deadline" has passed, we are going to leave this post here because it appears that this type of thing is ongoing and might be of interest to some...
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Want to give some attention to the many important yet ignored issues facing us all? The President of the USA will hold a live YouTube interview at the White House on Monday, February 1st at 1:45 p.m EST and might answer your question.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
The USDA and FDA allow the Big Ag / Big Food industrial complex to get away with (among many other, much more, nefariously sinister abuses of us all) blatant outright bald-faced lies on labels of processed foods, most of which are actually poisonous in some way. But conversely, let some natural product be in any way suggestive of the true benefits of the product and the FDA raids them and shuts them down for making "unproven" claims. Your tax dollars at work: protecting the Big Ag / Big Food industrial complex allowing them to trick, mislead, sicken, and even poison us all, while they ban beneficial information that you truly need to know to keep you and yours healthy. Drives more of the sheep into the mainstream sick care Big Med / Big Pharma industrial complex, just another of the FDA's "Big Daddies" that funnels money to them behind your back and under the table...
Some of the obtuse claims made by Big Food are not so much outright lies, as they are sincere and monumental misleading deceptions. Just one minor example is that a food item can be labeled with the statement of "zero trans fat", which can be (mostly) true, inferring that it is not un-healthy, while it can actually be loaded with an overabundance of very unhealthy, heart-clogging saturated fat.
For some better examples, and to help condition your mind to the types of bulloney you are faced with, try the three links below to articles on the topic...
The point is, be wary, always consider the deceptions that Big Food is allowed to mislead you with.
Six Meaningless Claims on Food Labels
CSPI Urges FDA Crackdown on False & Misleading Food Labeling
What do your food labels really mean? Free-range, natural, non-toxic, and other myths...
Disclaimer: we recognize that some profiteering "snake oil" merchandisers invade the natural, alternative food and nutrition industry, so you need to be wary of any and all statements of beneficial properties of "natural", nutritional products...
Thursday, January 28, 2010
If physicians talked into a device that converted their lies to the truth, about "diagnosing" a newly classified normal natural condition of the human body as a supposed disease, here is how it would go: "Hey, you got what we have started calling "ostopenia", and it's a normal part of aging, and it's not a disease, nor is it in any way actually debilitating, and we just dreamed up the word to categorize women that are on the safe side of NOT having osteoporosis, and since we went to all the trouble of inventing a name for a natural condition that's unproblematic, hey, we concocted a deleterious drug that won't be at all beneficial in any way because there is no real problem that you should take this drug for, especially because you are in such excellent health, and even though this unneeded drug will induce other illnesses and diseases through the intentionally built-in side effects, we got medications for those problems too, so pretty soon you won't be so damned healthy any more, just dependent on our "sick care" drugs until you die an early unnatural death because of all them drugs..."
We hope that our rendition of what really happened is amusing, because the truth is, it is not at all funny. The situation that the aforementioned describes is reality. Drug companies and doctors delineated the difference between normal bone thinning and abnormal bone thinning, aka osteoporisis, and for some reason decided to give this non-condition the name of ostopenia -- wallah, that allows them to classify it as a "condition". A condition for which they now convince completely normal healthy women to take a drug for this non-existent condition. A drug which has no benefit (because there is no actual problem), but of course the drug is admitted to inflict a side effect disorder (entirely contradictory to it's supposed benefit) known such as osteonecrosis of the jaw, also know as "death of bone" or "jawbone death". Other side effects associated with the useless, un-needed drug just happen to be esophageal cancer, atrial fibrillation, hypocalcemia (a blood calcium deficiency), eye inflammation leading to blindness, and of course all of the typical standard so-what silly little ole inconsequential things like ulcers, adverse skin reactions, renal failure, and default run of the mill liver damage.
You don't believe this do you? You think this is an April Fool's joke? Well, it ain't April and we ain't in Kansas anymore. So, here is a link to an NPR article that confirms that we are not making this up, as certifiably insane as it all sounds. A Mayo Clinic article provided confirmation of the admission of the aforementioned osteonecrosis "side effect".
Next time you dare to wander into the lion's den and are told you have a "condition" that you have never heard of which doesn't make any sense, be very skeptical.
In the interim, will someone out there please get infuriated about this, pass it along -- they could be doing this to your Mother, your Sister, your Wife, your Daughter, your lover, your friend...
Footnote: as opposed to our "if they told the truth, this is how it would sound" rendition above, we wonder just what in the heck they actually say to dance around the truth and convince a healthy person to take a drug that they don't need for a non-existent condition they don't even have which will induce the actual disease that they don't have. Sounds like a situation for an "expose" where a female reporter with a hidden camera visits a doc that is known to pull this trick on women, just to see how they manage to word the deception. Where is "60 Minutes" on this???
Two tips in one here.
First, the link at the bottom is to a site that has an article about our second tip. This first tip then is about that site. While at the site, whether or not you check out the article about tip two, take a trip around the site. Factoidz in our opinion is one of the better generalized "tip" sites that provides all types of helpful condensed information.
Secondly, the article in the link below is about the "lemonade diet", which has been around for 70 years but for some reason we find that many people are unaware of it, altho it does seem to be making a comeback in popularity. This so-called diet is also considered a fast, a detox, and a cleanse. It is not to be undertaken lightly, as it requires a couple of weeks of determined effort, although you can bail out at any point. We have team members that have employed this diet/detox/cleanse and we have personally seen the results which are quite impressive, not only for slimming down but for a noticeable increase in well being. But, we will let the article fill you in on the details...
Click on this link about the lemonade diet on Factoidz.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
HFCS, also known as High Fructose Corn syrup or just fructose, is a "sweetener" produced from corn which is produced by the American agricultural industry, also know as "Big Ag".
HFCS is referred to as "sweet poison" and a "slow poison". A book about HFCS is in fact entitled "Sweet Poison".
HFCS is now present in every type of processed packaged food in America.
More than ninety percent of the money Americans spend on their meals is made up of the HFCS containing processed packaged foods.
HFCS is now found in all sodas, of which the average American consumes sixty gallons per year.
HFCS is also found in all American (bottled/packaged) sweetened fruit juices.
HFCS is even used in baby formulas and baby foods in America.
The current average per capita consumption of HFCS by Americans is 63 pounds per year.
HFCS significantly diminishes the normal body signals to the brain of being satiated (unlike glucose), directly and indirectly increasing caloric consumption, promotes cravings and overeating, eventually to the point of gluttony.
Our point: numerous studies verify the above contentions and document the fact that HFCS is responsible for the increase in obesity and disease in Americans. Do you see the comparison of the traits of HFCS to that with addictive drugs?
Further, consider the following three points regarding bodily assimilation of glucose, alcohol, and HFCS.
One. The basic energy source for the human body is glucose derived from ingesting food. Stated simply, eighty percent of the glucose from a meal is distributed throughout the entire body, with the remaining twenty percent delivered to and metabolized by the liver where it is stored as glycogen until needed. Natural, no problems.
Two. By contrast, alcoholic beverages result in eighty percent of the ethyl alcohol being directed to the liver to be metabolized. Long story short, all kinds of bad things transpire within the liver and the pancreas, resulting in thirty times the load of glucose from food and leads to several diseases including obesity, cirrhosis, and diabetes. As bad as this may sound HFCS actually produces a much worse effect than alcohol.
Three. HFCS is metabolized in the same way as alcohol with the same adverse effects and more, but ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of fructose bombards the liver -- ALL of it. Another non-technical, long story short, fructose creates uric acid (causes inflammation and gout), blocks the nitric oxide enzyme (results in high blood pressure), hyperlipidemia is induced (leads to pancreatitis, bad cholesterol, cardiovascular disease), and insulin resistance is increased (leads to onset of syndrome X and diabetes). As with alcohol resulting in thirty times the load to the liver, HFCS results in forty times the load of glucose, along with causing the aforementioned adverse abnormalities and diseases.
Add to all of the above negative aspects of HFCS, researchers have recently revealed in two studies, one of which is published in the journal Environmental Health and the other by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, that HFCS is contaminated with mercury, a heavy metal that is toxic to humans and especially to the neurological function of fetuses and children. Realize that children have insatiable "sweet tooths" and ingest processed foods, candies, colas, and juices that are heavily laden with HFCS and therefore contaminated with mercury.
Further, given all the above, realize that HFCS is a known, scientifically documented slow poison that weakens, sickens, and eventually leads to debilitating and fatal diseases in increasingly innumerable Americans, about which the the supposed so-called federal "health" agencies do absolutely nothing, except look the other way, looking to their big daddies, Big Ag, Big Biz, Big Med, Big Pharma, Big Gov, Big Politics, and Big Media to all fund them and brainwash the populace into going over the cliff into the mainstream sick care system like the proverbial herd of lemmings, all for the prosperity of the profiteering aforementioned group of Big Sleazeball Hoodlums.
Now that you know some of the details of this nefarious scenario, do something about it. First learn to avoid HFCS, inform everyone you know, and then together, raise some considerable hell.
Footnote. Big Ag, et al, are running a campaign of conflicting, highly misleading, and intentionally deceptive disinformation about the "safety" [sic] of HFCS. Do not be fooled by their nefariously sinister propaganda -- the above information that we provided is scientifically accurate and well documented; the lies of the Big Sleazeballs look innocent enough, but they are just ghostwritten cleverly deceptive diversionary lies by shills using supposedly scientific sham studies paid for by the group of Big Hoodlums.
Last year over three thousand patients were "injured" by radiation overdoses with most of them being serious enough to necessitate treatment in hyperbaric oxygen chambers, which use pure pressurized oxygen in an attempt to promote healing. The outcome of the treatment for these "injuries" was not stated and does not seem to be available -- surprise, surprise...
We emphasize that these injuries were known injuries, as in producing immediate and obviously detrimental effects -- some lesser "injuries" that may not be immediately obvious no doubt occur. Note that any unnecessary radiation exposure should be avoided, that the adverse effects of radiation exposure are cumulative, and that radiation from xrays will eventually CAUSE cancer.
Be wary, avoid radiation, tell everyone.
Footnote. CT scans, aka "cat scans" bombard the body with hundreds more times the dose of radiation than basic xray devices. MRI's are not nearly as bad as CT scans but are much worse than basic xray devices. However, as in the warning of this post, always consider that mis-calibrated radiation machines of even the less dangerous type can result in more danger than the most dangerous type.
Click on this link to an article about the radiation injuries if interested in more details.
The next post below this one addressed a report by the mainstream medical community admitting that their treatments for prostate cancer do more harm than good and that it was better for them to do nothing at all medically.
Here, we follow up on the prior post in noting that the New York Times recently published a warning that a commonly used prostate cancer treatment called brachytherapy was, you guessed it, doing more harm than good, only in this case the "harm" was deadly dangerous.
The treatment uses small radioactive "seeds" that are "implanted" in the prostate gland (ouch!) to hopefully dull the cancer. However, the investigation revealed that "mistakes" during the implant process mean the seeds may "miss the diseased prostate" and instead cause radiation overdoses to the bladder or other healthy body parts, which are then not so healthy, as in "fried" with radiation...
Click on this link if you would care to peruse the article.
Or just see the next post below if you would like some real world safe and effective advice on how to avoid prostate problems.
Monday, January 25, 2010
In the year 2009, a count of more than 218,000 American men were diagnosed with some form of prostate problem, from BPH to cancer.
A report by the mainstream medical community on clinical studies regarding this topic, indicated that of seven prostate cancer treatments offered by mainstream medicine, ranging from prostate removal to radioactive implants, not only did none of these mainstream recommendations have any redeemable merit, but they also were indicated as causing "harm", with the most superior treatment being to do nothing at all medically. Studies have also indicated that the PSA test for prostate cancer saves few lives and generally leads to the introduction of the aforementioned "harm", doing more harm than good. We did NOT make this up -- there are links at the bottom of this post to the report and an article from the New York Times about the report.
But first, we have to relate that we have personally experienced relatives being inflicted with this cancer and had already come to this same conclusion long ago because of that experience. The point which we came away with is that while mainstream medicine admits that their treatments are not only not effective in this scenario and conversely "does harm", that there are alternative treatments that are effective not only in treatment of the cancer, but most importantly in preventative measures to avoid every contracting the cancer in the first place.
We list some advice based on our acquired knowledge from our personal experiences below. Note that this is still in a draft stage and that we are posting it with what information we have managed to document at this point, but that we intend to get back to this and add to the list...
Considerations for Prostate Health
The mineral zinc is hailed as the most effective measure in avoidance of prostate disorders -- note that men deplete zinc when they ejaculate.
A daily supplement of 50 to 100 milligrams of zinc for men is the general recommendation, depending on the degree of zinc depletion and also ingestion of foods rich in zinc. Be careful to avoid consistently consuming the equivalent of more than 100 milligrams of zinc for prolonged periods of time.
Although animal based foods such as meat and dairy products are rich sources of zinc, they should generally be avoided as the modern day products are heavily tainted with contaminants that can lead to prostate cancer...
Lycopene is an antioxidant agent that is said to be beneficial for prostate health.
Saw palmetto extract and nettle leaf are highly recommended supplements for the prostate.
Fermented soy products such as tofu, tempeh, and miso are said to be beneficial for prostate health -- non-fermented soy is not recommended.
Genistein and isoflavinoids, which are found in soy, have been found to be particularly effective against hormone dependent cancers such as prostate cancer.
Beta-bitosterol, one of many beneficial plant sterols, is said to be very important in many health conditions including prostate health -- good sources are pecans, cashews, saw palmetto, avocados, pumpkin seeds, black cumin seed, pygeum africanum, rice bran, wheat germ, sea buckthorn, and wolfberry (also referred to commercially as goji berry).
The spices circumen and cayenne pepper contribute to prostate (and overall) health.
We should note that some studies have indicated that increased sexual activity in men under forty tends to increase the incidence of prostate cancer but the opposite is true of men over forty. What the studies failed to address and clarify on the former point, was that the high level of ejaculations led to zinc deficiencies which cause prostate problems. And, to emphasize the latter point, older men that remain sexually active have a lower incidence of prostate cancer. The bottom line is to clean out that prostate gland, but don't overwork it unless you supplement with zinc to compensate...
Link to NYT article on the report.
Link to Annals of Medicine report.
Monday, January 18, 2010
I have a point here, this is not just a rambling rant, this is some serious advice, from one "woman's man" to any and all women that want to be "attractive".
First, two points that triggered this that may be relevant to clarifying and emphasizing my conclusion.
One. I was recently within close proximity of a lady that had poofy brillo-pad hair which was not moving at all in fairly breezy conditions, had way too much "war paint" on her face nearing the amount that clowns put on, and from several feet away reeked of perfumes, hair sprays, and artificially scented things that I would prefer to not speculate about. I also unfortunately caught audible complaints about her lack of a "love life". Comment: well duh!
Two. I recently caught a report that indicated that men that breathed in the scent of a woman that was ovulating had a considerable rise in their testosterone level. In other words the men were aroused. Comment: in my experience, the real natural scents, fragrances, and aromas of a woman whether ovulating or not, is arousing. Comment: well duh!
My serious suggestion ladies, unless you are attempting to turn men off, ditch the war paint, ditch the hair spray, ditch the perfumes, ditch anything that covers up your natural fragrance. A secret: for up close and personal, that includes, especially, deodorant. Nothing -- well, one other scent maybe -- turns a man on like the natural perspiration pheromones of a woman.
Bonus point. All of that flavored, smelly cosmetic junk that turns men off is also expensive. But the absolute worst thing is that most of it is horrendously TOXIC, and to put it on your skin, your bodies largest organ, which just happens to be highly absorbable, is not at all wise to do.
Please, do NOT use that stuff. And don't tweeze off your eyebrows and paint them back on halfway up your forehead. I mean this constructively, not critically, that I look at those painted on eyebrows as a really bad thing. From my personal perspective, you might as well paint "AVOID ME" on your forehead.
Please gals, go natural, be healthy, make the guys not need those pharma drugs for arousal.
Parting thought. Have you ever been out in the countryside and observed a bull downwind of a herd of cows that was vigorously sniffing the air, with the whites of his eyes bulging out, slobbering like a mad dog? That is NOT because the bull was smelling hay in the barn...
Sunday, January 17, 2010
There is a quote below from a recent article regarding several countries advising to "ditch IE". There is a link to the article below the quote.
We personally advise doing same, as good ole IE not only tends to be terribly insecure but is horrendously slow compared to other browsers in many respects. We personally recommend using the Firefox and Chrome browsers. If you are not aware, Chrome has a new beta version which now has hundreds of extensions like Firefox, some of which are better, but still does not have the entire overall functionality of Firefox. We include at the bottom of this post a link to a prior post that we did on the new Chrome functionality...
"In light of the recent attacks on Google China and Microsoft's revelation that an Internet Explorer security flaw served as an impetus in the assault, Germany's Federal Office for Information Security has released a warning to its population: avoid IE."
Link to the article.
Link to prior post regarding new Google Chrome beta and extensions.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Subtitle: methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococcus "superbugs" now found on public beaches
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus, aka MRSA, is a "superbug" deviation of the common staph infection. Note that MRSA has evolved to be resistant to the antibiotic methicillin, hence "resistant", and is generally said to be untreatable.
MRSA arose from the germ, bacteria, and viral incubators of hospitals, where antibiotics were overused to prevent and treat it. But in recent years it has escaped health care facilities and has evolved to the point that it now has the ability to infect even healthy people and is very lethal. It is important to note that MRSA now kills more people in the United States than AIDS.
Researchers in Washington state recently tested ten nearby public beaches in the Puget Sound area and found thirteen different varieties of staph bacteria at nine of the beaches, seven of which were resistant to treatment. Five of these MRSA samples were "highly similar" to those found in hospitals.
The inference was made, albeit very lightly, that "Some form of contamination was responsible for the presence of the bacteria. Where all of these organisms are coming from and how they're getting seeded on the beaches is not clear." The word "seeded" in the prior sentence gives rise to speculation - did they mean to imply like "Johnny Appleseed" where someone is going around and tossing the bacteria to and fro? Also, another report indicated that the MRSA contamination likely entered the beaches through "environmental contamination". We minimally interpret the underlying implication was that MRSA was "escaping" health care facilities and was being washed out to sea, although we wonder if the MRSA was being spread by some other means, since the only medically recommended treatment is a drug, altho confoundingly MRSA is said to be "drug resistant". The inference was also made that the presence of the bacteria proves to be much higher than previously suspected.
Note that a study was performed, believe it or not, on how staph bacterial infections were contracted from beaches, and that those that dug in the sand or were covered with sand had a higher incidence of infection than those that walked or lay on the beach. No information was provided on those that bathed in ocean water, although we are aware that ocean waters in highly populated areas tend to have a higher amount of bacteria and that staph thrives in salty environments. Additionally, those with cuts, abrasions, or sores were said to be the most susceptible to contracting MRSA or staph from exposure to bacteria at the beach.
It is obvious to conclude that anyone with skin breakages should avoid the beach, and everyone else should thoroughly "disinfect" afterwards. Note that altho regular testing of ocean water at the beach is (or should be) performed to determine the levels of bacterial contaminants, that the accuracy of the reported results should be highly suspect if any tourism is involved. Also note that we are unaware of similar testing of beach sand, but have noted that sand on most all beaches in populated areas is said to be tainted with bacteria.
Below are links to two sources of info on MRSA at the beach.
MRSA in layperson terms from USA Today.
MRSA in more technical terms from the American Journal of Epidemiology.
A rather technically astute friend was sitting at my side at the computer while I was digging into harvesting some online info for her, and I happened to be working with the new beta version of the Google Chrome browser using several of their new extensions, and was surprised that my friend was completely unaware of how far Chrome had evolved.
Consequently, if our very PC literate friend, who used the old plain vanilla Chrome mostly for gmail and searches, was in the dark about this supposed revelation, it occurred to me that I had been somewhat remiss in keeping up with the "technical" topics of the WisBits website.
So, thought that I should briefly point out that Google now has a new stable version of their Chrome browser that now has hundreds of add-on extensions that boosts it's functionality up there into the technosphere with Firefox. With Chrome's other admirable attributes, it now is in the upper echelon of browsers.
Point. We mostly use Firefox for hard core development, and use Chrome for research, gmail access, like that, but admit that it is getting tough to figure out what to do where nowadays, and we are beginning to see some overlap in the use of both browsers. Um, and we sometimes, if we remember to do so, use IE to check out how our websites look over there in the underworld of slllooowww browsers... To ward off Safari commentors, we admit that it is also evolving very well, but confess that we basically have gradually used it less and less, as it just does not quite measure up in extensibility...
To get up to speed with Chrome, you will first need to upgrade to the "beta" version, which I have found to be completely stable, and from there I suggest that rather than browsing thru the hundreds of add on extensions, that you do searches on something like "best google chrome extensions" to get an idea of what is out there... I suggest, minimally: session manager, WOT, and Google Bookmarks.
Monday, January 11, 2010
At the suggestions of others, we are posting this duplication from our FluBits blog here on WisBits since it completely validates our often spoken contention here that the governments and health agencies are NOT acting in the best interests of the populace, but rather are puppets of the medical/pharmaceutical industrial bureaucracy. We apologize for the redundancy if you frequent both blogs, but this was deemed necessary to emphasize our credibility, to the benefit of the populace...
...Yet another "claim" has been registered by the leader of a health coalition for European countries stating that the failed H1N1 swine flu scare was a "false pandemic", initiated by the drug company industrial complex that anticipated raking in billions from vaccines. Well duhuh! Looks like the scientific community wants to jump on the bandwagon criticizing Big Pharma and their "marketing front" health agencies (CDC, WHO, et al.) to distance themselves from the sinisterly deceptive fraudulent hoax perpetrated by profiteering greed, now becoming known as "flu-gate" (like the Watergate fiasco only exponentially worse).
It was reported today by Wolfgang Wodarg, chief of health for the Council of Europe (a coalition of 47 countries), claimed that major drug companies conspired to organize a "campaign of panic" to put pressure on the World Health Organization (didn't take much "pressure" we surmise) to declare and maintain the facade of a false pandemic to brainwash fear into the populace into being needlessly injected with ineffective toxic vaccines, all for profit, immediate and even long term from the illness and disease caused by the unjustified toxic effluvients added to the vaccine.
He also stated that the H1N1 hoax is "one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century," and called for an inquiry. Inquiry hell, the conspirators should be lined up and lethally injected with the left over "hazardous waste" H1N1 vaccine until they croak.
Further, "The great campaign of panic we have seen, provided a golden opportunity for representatives from labs who knew they would hit the jackpot in the case of a pandemic being declared."
And, "We want to clarify everything that brought about this massive operation of disinformation. We want to know who made decisions, on the basis of what evidence, and precisely how the influence of the pharmaceutical industry came to bear on the decision-making."
Lastly, "A group of people in the World Health Organization is associated very closely with the pharmaceutical industry." Really? What that means is that drug companies hire influential leaders of the health organizations that maintain close ties with those left behind, while being paid (as in paid off) with excessive salaries to do the dirty work of Big Pharma.
Note that the health agencies obstinately continue to blather their phony bogus stance that the pandemic is not over, emitting deceptive fear-mongering panic-inducing statements to brainwash the populace into being subjected to the toxic effluveint of the ineffective vaccine.
Wodarg concluded with the following. "The vaccines were developed too quickly. Some ingredients were insufficiently tested. But there is worse to come. The vaccine developed by Novartis was produced in a bioreactor from cancerous cells, a technique that had never been used until now. This was not necessary. It has also led to a considerable mismanagement of public money. The time has come at last for us to make demands on governments. The purpose of the inquiry is to prevent more false alarms of this type in the future. We must make sure people can rely on the analysis and the expertise of national and international public institutions. The latter are now discredited, because millions of people have been vaccinated with products with inherent possible health risks." If you have been following our statements, you should recognize a few of our "accusations", however carefully worded Wodarg's statements were...
But, our bottom line point is, that our intent is not to boast about our being correct, and not to just criticize the sinister villains, but is to continue to heavily emphasize the big lies of the convoluted non-existent pandemic and the dangers of the poisonously toxic vaccine that was concocted, urging everyone to inform everyone else -- but we must warn you that getting the uninformed to comprehend this, against the well-funded, abundant, pernicious lies of the corrupt villains, is no easy task and will subject you to doubts about your credibility and even your sanity, outright abject criticism, and even libelous scorn by the profiteering villains and their hoard of well paid shills. At least get the word out to those near to you that understand your concerns are viable.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
This information was originally posted on our FluBits blog, as it mainly pertains to vaccines. However, it has been pointed out to us that this is a crucially important and highly controversial issue, about which there is highly misleading disinformation, that also pertains to the health of children and to the medical community, and therefore should be passed along in every way possible to everyone -- so we hereby double post...
Everyone should click on this link to peruse studies that definitively link vaccines to neurological disorders, especially autism.
As previously mentioned, this is very controversial matter, about which there is a great deal of deviously deceptive disinformation which appears credible, but is not credible, and is actually dangerously misleading.
There is a lot of info at this link, a lot of it links to technical studies for proof. What is important is that it is correct and it is viable and it is credible and it is therefore convincing. If you know anyone that has young children, you do them a dis-service if you do not bring this to their attention with emphasis.
If you need incentive, a quote from the "quick history" page of the site: "In the 1980s, most estimates of the rate of autism were that it affected 1 in 10,000 children. Today, the official estimate of the autism rate is 1 in 150, with many localities reporting rates closer to 1 in 100."
Note that the rate of autism is proportionately higher in countries that have higher vaccination rates -- the U.S. is the worst with the highest of both. This is just one obvious and alarming fact of hundreds on the website that cannot be ignored nor refuted.
Devote some time to passing this along to anyone that has young children, or you might end up feeling terribly guilty should the worst transpire.
For anyone that is new to this blog that might yet be uninformed, you are likely asking yourself why isn't this front page headline news. If that is the case, you need to be educated about paid-for paid-off "big media" (consider the proliferation of excessive drug commercials), and spend some time on this blog and our companion FluBits blog and our main WisBits website, for the benefit of you and yours.
Although this information is proof of the damage of vaccines in relation to the causation of autism, this must also be viewed as proof that the myth that vaccines are safe is "the big lie" and that this is the tip of the iceberg as to the actual, total spectrum of damage that vaccines inflict on their victims.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Pharmaceuticals can kill you and your family even if you or your family do not (intentionally) have anything to do with pharma drugs (but, they are in the "water supply"*).
First we should explain that we are acquiescing to a suggestion that we separately expand upon some information that originally was mostly a side example that we included in another post. The suggestion was that we isolate that singular topic by itself mostly for the sake of emphasis but also for clarification and elaboration, lest the importance of the ("too succinctly stated") matter be lost within the ("long winded, boring") post, which might well result in the point being skipped over by many (really? was the other post that bad?). Anyway, be aware that you may have seen this tidbit before, but not in this much detail.
Surely most everyone should be aware that it is admitted that pharmaceutical drugs kill well over 100,000 people every year -- that is, they kill people that ingest them via inducing adverse health/diseases. What many are unaware of, is that pharmaceutical drugs can kill you even if you do not ingest any, and never have.
One recent example. On Thanksgiving Day, a family, including the elderly, children, an unborn baby/pregnant Mother, were cruelly massacred by a family member, supposedly without reason, but clearly premeditated. The killer that murdered his family was known to use a deadly mind-numbing cocktail of the anti-psychotic and anti-depressant pharmaceutical drugs Ativan, Chronumet, Seroquel, and Atenolol.
A less recent example that everyone should still remember. A mother of five young children, while taking a psycho-pharmacological cocktail which included "super high doses" of Haldol, Effexor, and Wellbutrin, methodically drowned each of her five children in the bathtub.
An example from a decade ago and what you probably didn't know is that the "leader" of the killers in the Columbine school shooting was taking the prescription anti-depressant Luvox. Bet you didn't know that, it was kept quiet, like so many similar incidents where Big Media suppresses that information to please their advertisers, the drug companies that profit from these killer drugs.
Rather than ramble on with a gruesome long list of examples like these, we will simply note that almost all of the massacres over the past decade are said to have had one thing in common: that they were committed by people taking drugs like Prozac, Zoloft, Luvox, Paxil or similar prescription anti-depressant or anti-psychotic pharmaceutical drugs.
There is even a technical name established just for these drug-induced murders, "akathisia", defined as "mental and physical agitation that sparks self-destructive, violent behavior." Further, "they can also induce dissociative reactions, making those who take the drugs insensitive to the consequences of their behavior."
This is outrageous. Doctors prescribe these murderous drugs like candy to thousands of people that don't need them (a new study indicates the drugs are worthless for "mild" depression), endangering you and your loved ones.
The government bureaucracies, especially the corrupt puppet of the of Big Pharma, the U.S. FDA, will never do anything about this unless the populace speaks out about the needless widespread prescribing of these drugs, and likely not even then. However, the only way to hope to combat this problem is to make everyone aware of this ludicrous dilemma and then for everyone to speak out against it in every way possible.
*Footnote. Just because you and yours and most everyone else is NOT intentionally ingesting pharmaceuticals that turn depressed or even normal people into rabid mad dogs that kill anyone and everyone, that does not mean that "you all" may not unintentionally be ingesting these dangerous murder-evoking pharmaceutical drugs. A plethora of scientific research study reports all agree that the water supply, whether municipally "treated" (aka MIS-treated) water supplies, as well as aquifers and other "natural" sources of drinking water (artesian wells, springs, lakes, etc.) all are now tainted with HUNDREDS of pharmaceutical drugs. We observe that the bureaucratic hypocrites try to push this off onto drugees peeing out the drugs and that the "wastewater" gets into the the other water supplies, but we strongly suspect that there is a "Johnny Appleseed" of Big Pharma going about sprinkling drugs into any and every place possible. And, we forsee that this footnote will culminate in yet another "suggestion" that we also transform this sub-topic into it's own separate expanded topic. Well, we already have on the main WisBits website, at least to some extent, but we admit that it needs a little work -- meanwhile, here is a link to that webpage (note that it starts out on the topic of "hydration", but that the second half addresses "water quality".
Sunday, January 3, 2010
In addition to the "cumulative affect" of pharmaceuticals mentioned in previous posts, we thought we should also address an entirely different negative effect of pharma drugs because we have found that very few people are aware of the "rebound effect". Many have actually experienced the rebound effect, but most are still simply unaware of even what it is and just why it happens. Most of all, everyone needs to be informed, because it can not only make people dependent on and addicted to pharmaceuticals, but it can also have dire consequences, particularly with anti-psychotic and anti-depressant drugs. Note that the "Thanksgiving Day killer" that murdered his family was on anti-psychotic and anti-depressant pharmaceutical drugs Ativan, Chronumet, Seroquel, and Atenolol. Also, realize that this drug-induced massacre was NOT an isolated incident, that this has happened before, and that it is more like a pattern than an incident... The government bureaucracy, the FDA, will never do anything about this -- the only way to combat the problem is to make everyone aware.
The rebound effect tricks many people into believing they can't do without a pharmaceutical drug. When the drug is withdrawn, the original problem returns, but the symptoms are more severe than the original problem before initially administering the drug -- stated differently, more to the point, the drug actually makes the original problem worse once the drug is withdrawn.
Some examples. Cessation of sleep drugs induces "rebound insomnia" worse than the original sleep disorder of course. Discontinuation of drugs for high blood pressure induces "rebound hypertension" which is known to be quite hazardous to the health of the victim. Drugs for depression, e.g. antidepressants, which are of course advertised as "not habit forming", re-introduces depression either as time goes by, if the drug dosage is cut back, but especially when ingestion of an anti-depressant is terminated in which case an entirely unique set of negative symptoms other than depression can also develop (aka "SSRI discontinuation syndrome"). OK, the list is pretty long, but we will stop here, as you get the idea that if they have to name "syndromes" for rebound effects (effects which will eventually occur whether the drug is stopped or not), then the use of pharmaceuticals should be viewed as the wrong approach to resolving most health problems.
Think alternatives instead. Fix the problem, don't mask it with drugs that will eventually make the problem worse while inflicting other new problems.
Footnote. Be aware that pharmaceuticals become increasingly less effective over time as the body adjusts to the intrusion of the synthetic chemicals, requiring higher strength and more frequent dosages. We are not yet aware if this yet-another "effect" of pharmaceuticals has a name, but we think that it could easily be termed "higher profits for drug companies effect".
Bottom line. Pharmaceuticals are not a solution to any health problem, they merely deflect symptoms of the real problem, temporarily, while inducing worse problems while throwing in debilitating "side effects" as an aside.
Researchers from Harvard and Boston Universities have published a report of their study that found high levels of phthalate metabolites in people taking pharmaceutical drugs. No surprise to us, but many people are unaware of this -- prescription drugs and over the counter "medications" contain phthalates -- if you do not know about the dangers of phthalates, they are bad for the human body, particularly children and especially unborn babies.
This study identified almost fifty different pharmaceutical drugs that contain phthalates. Note that the phthalates are simply used to make "coatings" for the drugs, an application for which much safer substances could be substituted, if their is any actual need for a coating at all to be colorful and "tasty" going down...
Part of their study utilized testing thousands of people for metabolites of various phthalates, some of which have been banned in Europe and a few even in the United States. This analysis revealed that the metabolite levels were significantly higher in people who reported taking at least one phthalate containing pharmaceutical. Additionally, the high levels of phthalates detected in the tests indicated that some people in the study exceeded safety limits that the EPA established for phthalate compounds.
Note that phthalates are used in a wide range of consumer products as well as in pharmaceutical drugs. Research reports by safety organizations reveal that the health risks from over-exposure to phthalates are seriously under estimated due to the combined cumulative exposure from all sources not being taken into adequate consideration, as it is currently viewed from individual phthalates exposure.
Not only are phthalates closely associated with adversely affecting hormone and testosterone levels, causing abnormal gender disruptions (particularly in males, e.g. "feminization"), but phthalates have also been linked to liver cancer. Be aware, tell everyone, particularly women of child bearing age.
The "cumulative effect" of pharmaceutical drugs is the intense adverse reaction of a drug after it has been administered either for a prolonged period of time or ingested beyond the tolerance level of a given individual. This cumulative effect would not normally be associated with the published "side effects" of any given drug.
First, ingesting a prescription drug too frequently, aka overdosing, particularly those drugs which are excreted slowly, will result in accumulation of residual "sediments" within the organs, muscle, tissue, and even the bones of the body. At some point this produces debilitating effects, and will eventually result in a poisonous effect that may lead to diseases and cancer. Simple avoidance of exceeding the "recommended dosage" is not necessarily a means of avoiding the cumulative effect of a drug, for a number of varying reasons, but largely due to loose and even inaccurate guidelines (speculatively?) established by the drug companies, particularly in relation to tolerance levels varying widely between individuals. We logically deduce that this guideline is set minimally at the average tolerance level and does not allow for those that may be intolerant to any given drug. Note that this also applies to OTC "medications", such as Tylenol, which is also "hidden" in many other OTC products, as well as also being laced into prescription drugs, and is even found in drinking water, consequently one can overload on Tylenol without even being aware of the overdosing, hence Tylenol is the number one leading cause of liver damage even over alcohol. Be wary...
Secondly, the cumulative effect may be inflicted by ingestion of prescription drugs for a prolonged period of time. We personally know many people that have been taking the same prescription drug for decades, such as diuretics, and the prescribing doctors stated at the outset that they would have to continue to take the drug for the rest of their lives, with of course increases in strength and dosages as the (supposedly beneficial) action of the drug continually fades over time. This deleterious tactic of the profiteering western orthodox mainstream sick care medical community is referred to as "treat the symptom and not the cause" of an ailment, which of course is due to the cumulative effect of drugs and leads to more ailments which leads to the need for more medical treatment and more pharmaceutical drugs. In the example of prescribing diuretics, whereas it might be beneficial and even deemed necessary on a temporary basis, there are many alternatives to treating the conditions that lead to retention of fluids that are never addressed by doctors, only the need to use a life long drug to only counteract the symptom of a larger problem.
A third means of inducing the cumulative effect is by ingesting multiple prescription drugs, more than one of which contains the same synthetic substances and/or exhibits the same chemical properties, even redundantly inducing the same side effects. Note that many people are known to take a dozen or more prescription drugs. Do you think that these overlapping dangers have all been discovered, and if so have they have all been documented, and if so is there a thorough overlap analysis performed by doctors that prescribe drugs or by the pharmacies that dispense them?
In an attempt at being impartial and fair to the drug company community, we also succinctly note that some natural vitamins and supplements also have a tolerance level, and that the "RDA", aka "Recommended Daily" or "Dietary Amount" or "Allowance", defined loosely as the amount of an essential nutrient, such as a vitamin or mineral, established as "adequate to meet the average daily nutritional needs of most healthy persons according to age group and sex". This definition results in a rather arbitrary and very controversial measurement, and of course the actual required "average" varies by person in accordance with any debilitating conditions that they may be inflicted with, such as cumulative side effects from consuming too many prescription drugs for too long, and consequently is often well under what might be "essential" for any given person, in some cases exponentially -- that is why there are known wide spread deficiencies of vitamin D, zinc, iodine, selenium, and omega-3s, any and all of which lead to compromised immune systems. While on the combined subjects, note that pharmaceuticals and OTC "meds" are known to deplete vital nutrients. Be very wary.
Note that the "Thanksgiving Day killer" that murdered his family was on anti-psychotic and anti-depressant pharmaceutical drugs Ativan, Chronumet, Seroquel, and Atenolol. Also, realize that this drug-induced massacre was NOT an isolated incident, that this has happened before, and that it is more like a pattern than an incident... The government bureaucracy, the FDA, will never do anything about this -- the only way to combat the problem is to make everyone aware.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
This post is a duplication from our "FluBits" blog, but pertains heavily to the credibility of our main WisBits website, so we deja vous it all over again here...
More Proof of Our being Correct on the H1N1 Farcically Fomented False Fiasco
1. A new study by Harvard University suggests that "the swine flu pandemic [sic] has been oversold", concluding that the data available at the time that the dire warnings of a devastating death toll were not only NOT indicative of a threat of a severe epidemic, but actually should have resulted in predictions of a much smaller than normal toll from that of even "seasonal" flu. Even ABC news echoed the the Harvard study, with of course some thoroughly lame ambiguous excuses peppered in from their sponsors, the health officials that "cried wolf" and just happen to have their "big daddy" drug companies run commercials on the ABC news network -- still, they at least started off being critical of the over-zealous over-selling of the obviously over-blown non-threat before going on their delusional defense.
2. The media in France and Britain have been less kind than ABC news. They have recently reported that the H1N1 pandemic has been over-hyped by medical researchers to boost their research grants, and line the pockets of drug companies which of course provide them with said research grants, as well as many other perks we speculate.
3. Health officials in Ontario Canada have recently come out of the "denial closet" declaring H1N1 a dud pandemic [sic], inferring that the huge investments made by the government so far appears unjustified.
4. Another new study by the Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit in the United Kingdom concludes that that the H1N1 swine flu “pandemic” [sic] "was never a cause for alarm".
And we could go on and on to ad nauseum, but enough for now, as this should sufficiently provide a basis for where we want to go with the newly emerging epiphany by the scientific community that is slowly awakening to the exact same conclusions that we have been espousing for months. Which is that governmental and global health officials were (and always have been, and appear will continue to be) over-stating, over-hyping, over-blowing, over-lying about the seriousness of the H1N1 swine flu (as well as other supposed but bogus crises that did not transpire and hopefully will not transpire...). They then have the audacity to admit that they do this, but they attempt to deceive by trying to blame it on being "cautious" -- just in case an obviously milder than normal flu somehow does the absolutely impossible and turns into a devastating pandemic??? Cum own mannnn, ya'all doin it cuz duh drug compunys bribes ya'all to lie bout it...
It is important to realize and remember that while the hired so-called "experts" (that are actually paid shills and ghostwriters of the drug companies) criticize anyone that has spoken out about the needless fear mongering and senseless mass vaccination campaign, that they do so in an attempt to discredit voices such as ours that dare to defy them an tell the truth about their damnable lies.
The CDC and WHO blatantly, audaciously, obstinately, defiantly continue to spew ambiguous deceptions about H1N1 and lie about their toxic, inneffective, disease inducing vaccines. Be skeptical, be wary of absolutely anything that you hear or read in the future that may have been concocted by them and other health agencies. Always bear in mind that they are the puppet shills of the drug companies.
Our very important bottom line point is this. We were right. We researched the evidence and saw through the deceptions and told the truth, going "against the grain" of what you hear from phony "experts", against big money, big media, big pharma, and big government. We deserve enhanced credibility. Consider this a small example of the fact that we are also trying to get the word out about many other similarly critical controversies about which the populace has been intentionally misinformed, misled, and deceived about to their disadvantage, all for profit by the big money bureaucracy machine, aka the "military industrial medical pharmaceutical educational political financial insurance lobbyist complex". We feel strongly that it is in your best interest to peruse the information that we provide on the main WisBits website. Inform your friends and family, enhance your own credibility in the process.
Footnote. Sadly, as a "sign of our times" of the incredibly over-abundant absolute stupidity that prevails in the so-called hapless "leaders" of our world today, we must admit that exposing this fraudulent H1N1 hoax was waayyy "all tooo easy". Which makes us wonder about the mental capacity of the "followers" and "believers" -- surely they were/are "on drugs", big pharma's drugs no doubt...
Friday, January 1, 2010
This is a note to alert you that we have added a new page to the WisBits website entitled "Top 10 Reasons to just say NO to Vaccines". Note that although it is a work in progress, we put it out there possibly prematurely because we felt the summary of the top ten reasons to avoid vaccines would be of value in assessing the consequences of being vaccinated for influenza, or anything else for that matter. Check back, we feel that this will develop into something more like the top 100 reasons to avoid vaccines. Click on this link to go directly to the new page on the main WisBits website.
We had the audacity to wish one of our somewhat analy retentive friends "happy new decade" and were snappily "enlightened", as if we were simple oafs, to the theory that "technically" we were one year premature in our greeting. So, if anyone really wants to get "technical" about it...
To those that subscribe to the often stated "technicality" that the first decade of this century does not end until December 31st of 2010, we relent to a slight degree that in some slightly obtuse circles that on the surface that they may be considered as somewhat correct. However, we also point out that the majority of the world subscribes to the old accepted sensible logical x0 through x9 years (in the current example, the ten years from 2000 thru 2009) as comprising the start and end of what is generally referred to as a logical decade.
Granted, "technically" the year 1 B.C. was initially documented as being followed by the year 1 Anno Dommini, not zero A.D., which pseudo-validates the aforementioned presumed "technical" decade-encompassing scenario.
But as long as we are going to get "technical", ponder that the year that was adopted as the start of our current calendar by scholar Dionysius Exiguus (way up into the 6th century A.D.?), was simply the wrong starting year (they didn't have the internet or email way back then and just made up a lot of stuff, and they drank a lot of wine back then too). If we know anything about the birth date of that guy Jesus Christ with whom the whole BC/AD thing is associated, it was, according to the gospels (whoever they were), during the reign of King Herod – whom had "technically" already been dead for five years in what was delineated as 1 A.D., so that's out the window, "technically". Cutting to the chase, modern experts pinpoint what is designated incorrectly as 7 B.C., or thereabouts, as Jesus’ birth year – which is said to mean, albeit confusingly, that the current date is off by some five years (why not off by 7?) when suffixing years with the BC and AD tags. By other measures and opinions, taking into consideration the lunar and solar errors in the various adaptions of the various renditions of calendars along with the adjustments and corrections that they have been exposed to over the millennia, the next decade does not officially "technically" start until 7 April 2011. Also, we wonder how much wine they had consumed when they omitted the years that Jesus lived from having occurred - B.C. stands for "before Christ which implies before he existed, and A.D. stands for "after death", so the calendar jumps from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. with no accounting for the obvious omission of the years in between, "technically".
So, do the "technically" astute people want to be "technical" and say that the end of 2009 is not the end of the decade? Do they want to hear all the news reports and articles about the past decade tied to the time frame of 7 April 2001 to 7 April 2011, slightly after April Fools day of 2011, in the spring time when you have better things to do, or now in the dead of winter when you are holed up in your cabin by the fireplace with time to reflect on the past?
Or, can we just be reasonable and logical and simply say that the end of 1999 ended the twentieth century ("technically" 2000 did), as well as the last pseudo-decade of that century, and that the end of 2009 closed out the first pseudo-decade of this century. Don't we have enough real concerns and problems to deal with without delving into argumentative analy retentive technicalities when we are simply trying to look back on a logical period of time? Relax, go with the flow, let's all just get along, maybe cut down on your aggressive mood altering medications... Unless of course someone wants to pretend that they are "technically" really smart for knowing that "technically" '09 may not "technically" be the end of the "technical" decade and that we is stupid for not consistently espousing that circumspect factoid-ish tidbit of irrelevant and even incorrect misinformation... "Cum own mannn!"