Polyunsaturated fats are the absolute WORST oils to use when cooking because these omega-6-rich oils are highly susceptible to heat damage.
This category includes common vegetable oils such as:
Corn
Soy
Safflower
Sunflower
Canola
Damaged omega-6 fats are disastrous to your health, and are responsible for far more health problems than saturated fats ever were.
Trans fat is the artery-clogging, highly damaged omega-6 polyunsaturated fat that is formed when vegetable oils are hardened into margarine or shortening.
I strongly recommend never using margarine or shortening when cooking. I guarantee you you're already getting far too much of this damaging fat if you consume any kind of processed foods, whether it be potato chips, pre-made cookies, or microwave dinners...
Trans fat is the most consumed type of fat in the US, despite the fact that there is no safe level of trans fat consumption, according to a report from the Institute of Medicine.
Trans fat raises your LDL (bad cholesterol) levels while lowering your HDL (good cholesterol) levels, which of course is the completeopposite of what you want. In fact, trans fats -- as opposed to saturated fats -- have been repeatedly linked to heart disease. They can also cause major clogging of your arteries, type 2 diabetes and other serious health problems.
So, cleaning these oils out of your kitchen cupboard is definitely recommended if you value your health.
The number of people with diabetes has soared by 150,000 in the past year and one in 20 adults in the UK now has the condition, according to the latest figures from GP practices.
The data released by the charity Diabetes UK also shows that almost one in 10 adults, or 5.5 million people, are obese. The charity described these figures as "shocking" and it is calling on the government to put into practice its rhetoric on tackling health problems through prevention.
There is a strong link with type 2 diabetes and being overweight, sedentary and eating unhealthily. About 90% of diabetics – 2.5 million people in the UK – suffer from the type 2 condition. The figures, collected from GP practices between April 2009 and March this year, showed that about 2.8 million people aged 17 and over have diabetes — an increase of more than 150,000 since last year.
Another 1.1 million people are likely to suffer from diabetes without being aware of it. Diabetes UK has a risk score test on its website that can help to show an individual's likelihood of developing type 2.
The figure for people over 16 registered as obese has risen to more than 5.5 million – an increase of more than 265,000 compared with the previous year.
Simon O'Neill, Diabetes UK's director of care, information and advocacy, said: "Once again we see a shocking rise in diabetes and obesity rates in the UK. Many, but not all, people develop type 2 diabetes because they are overweight or obese so we must keep up the mantra of five fruit and veg a day, encourage daily physical activity and warn of the potentially devastating consequences of an unhealthy lifestyle.
"The obesity-fuelled type 2 diabetes epidemic is a clear example of where the new coalition government's rhetoric of tackling health problems through prevention must be turned into action."
He added: "Failure to act now means a bleak future of spiralling NHS costs and worsening public health," referring to the £9bn a year that the NHS spends on diabetes – 10% of its current budget. If diabetes is not diagnosed early, or if it is poorly managed, he said, it can result in blindness, limb amputation, heart disease, stroke and kidney failure.
The Child Growth Foundation, a children's health charity, warned that levels of diabetes and obesity were likely to rise still further. Tam Fry, who is the charity's honorary chairman as well spokesman for the National Obesity Forum, said: "These figures confirm how appalling the levels of diabetes and obesity are in this country, and they would be even worse if they included children. Unfortunately we can expect levels to go up even if in some parts of the country obesity may be being brought under control. The fat are just getting fatter and suffering the consequences of excess weight."
The risk factors are being overweight or having a large waist; being aged over 40 (or over 25 for black and south Asian people); and having a close relative with diabetes. Its symptoms include urinating frequently, especially at night, increased thirst, extreme tiredness, unexplained weight loss, slow healing of cuts and wounds and blurred vision. In type 2 diabetes the symptoms may not be immediately apparent and it can go undiagnosed for up to a decade, exacerbating health problems if it is untreated.
The picture in the US is much worse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Friday that the prevalence of diabetes could increase to between one and five and one in three adults in 40 years.
(NaturalNews) The vaccine industry has now decided that injecting senior citizens with the "standard" vaccine dose just isn't working. So now they've decided the way to make it work better is to offer a quadruple viral potency vaccine that packs 400% more viral fragments into one toxic shot.
The target for this quadruple vaccine injection? Senior citizens, of course -- the very people most likely to suffer the most serious side effects from a vaccine overdose. The FDA reportedly approved the new vaccine in April even though no scientific tests have ever been done to show it reduces flu symptoms. Then again, since when did vaccines have anything to do with real science in the first place?
Why do people need a quadruple vaccine all of a sudden?
What's especially entertaining about all this is that the FDA's approval of this quadruple potency vaccine is a blatant admission that single-dose vaccines just don't work! Obviously, if the single-dose vaccine was working as advertised, then it would be 100% effective and there would be no need for a double, triple or quadruple-dose vaccine. But all of a sudden, now that the quadruple-dose vaccine is available, the regular single-dose vaccine "isn't good enough."
So all that propaganda about "get a flu shot and you won't get the flu" just turns out to be marketing quackery, because what you really need is a quadruple shot now! Forget the single dose. It's no longer strong enough for you.
So where does this end? When they realize the quadruple shot isn't working either (because seasonal flu vaccines just scientifically do not work on at least 99% of the people), are they going to recommend a ten times the potency flu shot? Seriously... at what point do these vaccine pushers ever stop to consider that maybe the vaccine approach just doesn't work?
More money with higher profit flu shots
Of course, flu shots have never been about what works in the first place. They're about what makes the most money. This new quadruple flu shot is being sold at about twice the price of a regular flu shot.
Meanwhile, there have been absolutely no scientific studies demonstrating that the new quadruple vaccine is any more effective than the single-dose vaccine. Come to think of it, there aren't any scientific studies that prove this year's seasonal flu vaccine is effective in any way whatsoever at preventing the flu. The science has simply never been done. It's all just based on "wishful thinking" combined with massive flu shot propaganda. (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...)
Taking a flu vaccine is a crap shoot, and taking the quadruple super vaccine is just a quadruple crap shoot. People who enjoy playing Russian Roulette with their health will no doubt line up to be injected.
Pseudoscientific quackery
Check out the derision of those pushing this vaccine. The LA Times reports that Dr Mobeen Rathore, a vaccinologist at the University of Florida, said, "If you're somebody who has a reaction from the low-dose vaccine, then I would stick with the low-dose. But if you've been taking the vaccine for years and have no reaction, get the high-dose vaccine. Or if there's nothing else available except the high-dose vaccine, get the high dose. The most important thing is: Get the vaccine. It doesn't matter which one."
And there you have it: They don't really care which flu shot you take as long as you're injecting yourself with something.
Pay attention to what they're NOT telling you about the flu: Doctors, FDA officials and CDC quacks will never admit that the best way to prevent the flu is to take vitamin D3 supplements. It has been scientifically shown to be many times more effective than a vaccine shot (http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_v...).
So why isn't there a big push for quadruple-dose vitamin D supplementation for senior citizens? Because, gee whiz, that might reduce flu shot revenues, cancer clinic profits and hospital visits by seniors -- and they're the bread and butter of sick-care industry profits.
The very last thing our modern medical racket wants is for senior citizens to figure out how to protect their own health without relying on chemical interventions.
Patients' groups have expressed anger over this year's seasonal flu jab programme because people are unable to opt out of having the swine flu vaccine.
The H1N1 vaccine will be the dominant of three flu strains included in the shot, meaning millions of elderly and vulnerable patients will get it automatically.
Yet many people refused to have the swine flu vaccine when it was offered last year because of fears it may cause serious side effects.
The H1N1 'swine flu' vaccine will be included in this years seasonal flu jab meaning millions of elderly and vulnerable patients will get it automatically
The Mail on Sunday revealed last week that Government experts are examining a possible association between the H1N1 swine flu jab and the paralysing nerve disease Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
The vaccine has also been linked to fevers in young children, temporary paralysis and narcolepsy.
Katherine Murphy, chief executive of the Patients Association, said: 'We are very disappointed that patients are not being given the opportunity to choose for themselves whether they wish to take the swine flu vaccine as part of their winter flu vaccine.
'Some may not want the swine flu vaccine and this may mean they would also miss out on their winter flu jab. This seems to go completely against the new initiative from the Government which states that in the NHS there will be "No decision about me without me" for patients and that there will be a large emphasis on patient choice.
There does not seem to be any patient choice involved here – either patients have both vaccines or no vaccine.' Each year the World Health Organisation considers which strains of flu will be dominant in winter.
Katherine Murphy, chief executive of the Patients Association is disappointed that patients are not being given the opportunity to choose for themselves
This year they ruled H1N1 would be a dominant strain. The annual seasonal flu jab is being offered to about 12 million people. For the first time, pregnant women are included because of the dangers posed by the swine flu virus. However, some patients are fearful of having this year's jab.
Mary Harris, 64, from Plymouth, developed breathing problems and spent three days in hospital after having the swine flu vaccine last year. She said: 'I don't know whether to have the seasonal flu jab, even though I know I should. But I don't want a repeat of last year.
There really should be a choice.' The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency received nearly 8,600 suspected adverse reactions to the swine flu jab during the pandemic last winter. Most involved pain or swelling at the site of the jab, vomiting and headaches.
The MHRA also received 15 reports of patients developing Guillain-Barre Syndrome. It is not known if the cases are linked to the vaccine, although a swine flu jab in the US in 1976 led to 25 deaths from the condition.
The British Medical Association agreed last month that patients should be told the seasonal jab contains the swine flu strain. Dr Peter Holden of the BMA said: 'This is not a Machiavellian plot to vaccinate everyone against swine flu.
There isn't enough capacity to produce an alternative vaccine for those worried about swine flu. 'The consequences of flu are a greater risk than any risk posed by the vaccine itself.'
Professor David Salisbury of the Department of Health said: 'Given that we expect the H1N1 virus to be the most common type this year, it would be negligent if we didn't protect people against it.
Every year people die in this country from complications caused by getting flu; these are deaths that could be prevented. 'I would encourage anyone who is offered the seasonal flu vaccine to accept it.'
HYDERABAD -- A biotech firm in the south Indian state of Andhra Pradesh has developed a vaccine against swine flu, which involves no risk or negative impact on the body, Press Trust of India (PTI) reported.
The vaccine 'HNVAC', manufactured in cell culture by Bharat Biotech, is the first such medicine developed in India, experts said on Tuesday.
As cell-culture manufacturing is a highly sterile and controlled manufacturing process instead of eggs, the vaccine is proved to be safe and well tolerated after several extensive clinical trials.
Bharat Biotech's Chairman and Managing Director, Dr Krishna Ella said: "While there is widespread and growing concern over H1N1, there are number of people who did not get a flu shot last year.
"Our goal right now is to make the flu vaccine easily accessible and at affordable cost to high risk groups."
Earlier this month, the firm received the approval from the Drugs Controller General of India to launch HNVAC vaccine, which was developed with approved strains from WHO and CDC Atlanta.
Swine flu has caused concerns not only in India but also in many other countries. Hundreds of people have died due to the absence of effective medicines and vaccines to check the contagious fever.
Researches to develop a preventive vaccine for this are progressing in many countries.
(NaturalNews) It's always entertaining when the mainstream media "discovers" something they think is new even though the natural health community has been talking about for years. The New York Times, for example, recently ran a story entitled When Drugs Cause Problems They Are Supposed to Prevent (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/h...). We've been covering the same topic for years, reporting on how chemotherapy causes cancer, osteoporosis drugs cause bone fractures and antidepressant drugs cause suicidal behavior.
The latest "new" discovery by the mainstream media is that McDonald's Happy Meal hamburgers and fries won't decompose, even if you leave them out for six months. This story has been picked up by CNN, the Washington Post and many other MSM outlets which appear startled that junk food from fast food chains won't decompose.
The funny thing about this is that the natural health industry already covered this topic years ago. Remember Len Foley's Bionic Burger video? It was posted in 2007 and eventually racked up a whopping 2 million views on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYyD...). And this video shows a guy who bought his McDonald's hamburgers in 1989 -- burgers that still haven't decomposed in over two decades!
Now, he has an entire museum of non-decomposed burgers in his basement.
Did the mainstream media pick up on this story? Nope. Not a word. The story was completely ignored. It was only in 2010 when an artist posted a story about a non-decomposing McDonald's hamburger from six months ago that the news networks ran with the story.
Check out the video link above and you'll see an entire museum of Big Macs and hamburgers spanning the years -- none of which have decomposed.
This is especially interesting because the more recent "Happy Meal Project" which only tracks a burger for six months has drawn quite a lot of criticism from a few critics who say the burgers will decompose if you give them enough time. They obviously don't know about the mummified burger museum going all the way back to 1989. This stuff never seems to decompose!
Why don't McDonald's hamburgers decompose?
So why don't fast food burgers and fries decompose in the first place? The knee-jerk answer is often thought to be, "Well they must be made with so many chemicals that even mold won't eat them." While that's part of the answer, it's not the whole story.
The truth is many processed foods don't decompose and won't be eaten by molds, insects or even rodents. Try leaving a tub of margarine outside in your yard and see if anything bothers to eat it. You'll find that the margarine stays seems immortal, too!
Potato chips can last for decades. Frozen pizzas are remarkably resistant to decomposition. And you know those processed Christmas sausages and meats sold around the holiday season? You can keep them for years and they'll never rot.
With meats, the primary reason why they don't decompose is their high sodium content. Salt is a great preservative, as early humans have known for thousands of years. McDonald's meat patties are absolutely loaded with sodium -- so much so that they qualify as "preserved" meat, not even counting the chemicals you might find in the meat.
To me, there's not much mystery about the meat not decomposing. The real question in my mind is why don't the buns mold? That's the really scary part, since healthy bread begins to mold within days. What could possibly be in McDonald's hamburger buns that would ward off microscopic life for more than two decades?
As it turns out, unless you're a chemist you probably can't even read the ingredients list out loud. Here's what McDonald's own website says you'll find in their buns:
Great stuff, huh? You gotta especially love the HFCS (diabetes, anyone?), partially-hydrogenated soybean oil (anybody want heart disease?) and the long list of chemicals such as ammonium sulfate and sodium proprionate. Yum. I'm drooling just thinking about it.
Now here's the truly shocking part about all this: In my estimation, the reason nothing will eat a McDonald's hamburger bun (except a human) is because it's not food!
No normal animal will perceive a McDonald's hamburger bun as food, and as it turns out, neither will bacteria or fungi. To their senses, it's just not edible stuff. That's why these bionic burger buns just won't decompose.
Which brings me to my final point about this whole laughable distraction: There is only one species on planet Earth that's stupid enough to think a McDonald's hamburger is food. This species is suffering from skyrocketing rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, dementia and obesity. This species claims to be the most intelligent species on the planet, and yet it behaves in such a moronic way that it feeds its own children poisonous chemicals and such atrocious non-foods that even fungi won't eat it (and fungi will eat cow manure, just FYI).
Care to guess which species I'm talking about?
That's the real story here. It's not that McDonald's hamburgers won't decompose; it's that people are stupid enough to eat them. But you won't find CNN reporting that story any time soon.
It's hard to believe after three decades of controversy on aspartame (NutraSweet/Equal/AminoSweet/E951/Benevia/Canderel/Spoonful, etc.) anyone would even question the fact that aspartame is a chemical poison.
In reality, it is an addictive, excitoneurotoxic, carcinogenic, genetically-engineered drug and adjuvant that damages the mitochondria and interacts with drugs and vaccines.
The medical text, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, www.sunsentpress.com by H. J. Roberts, M.D., is over 1000 pages of symptoms, cancers, neurodegenerative diseases and other horrors triggered or precipitated by this poison. It has a chapter on the eyes and how it triggers eye diseases and blindness. In 1986 James Turner, Washington, D.C. attorney and the Community Nutrition Institute petitioned the FDA to ban aspartame because so many were going blind and having seizures.
The movie being mentioned below is "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World", www.soundandfury.tv and tells the whole story of how a product was so poisonous the FDA tried to have the manufacturer indicted for fraud and revoked the petition for approval. That is until Donald Rumsfeld stepped in, "called in his markers" and using political chicanery got a deadly poison on the market. See the Aspartame Resource Guide below which gives medical texts, detox and other necessary information along with the whole story of how this happened.
Aspartame is no conspiracy theory - it is the crime of the century, and as Dr. James Bowen told the FDA years ago, this is mass poisoning of the American public and more than 70+ countries of the world. Indeed, it will blind you. The free methyl alcohol goes right into the blood stream. It also converts to formaldehyde and formic acid in the retina of the eye and destroys the optic nerve.
Someone from the National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii contacted me at the time we were trying to get aspartame banned in Hawaii. I took the opportunity to give her much information about aspartame and blindness and you will note the words of ophthalmologist, Dr. Morgan Raiford, who gave hope to those who lost their vision and knew if warned in time could have it restored. Don't you think Glenn Beck deserves that chance, sidekicks, Pat Gray and Stu Burguiere. There is no safe dose of aspartame, its a cumulative poison. Just recently a woman by the name of Linda Wooster called who had talked to me sometime ago when her five year old went blind on aspartame. She was so pleased because today it has returned with his abstaining and his other problems have disappeared as well.
Even Dr. Ralph Walton did a study on aspartame. Because it was independent and couldn't be controlled by the aspartame industry, Monsanto refused to sell him the aspartame. He got the pure stuff but even under the ADI, the administrator of the hospital who took part in the study lost his vision in one eye. Here is another case a homeopath treated. It never ends, people continue to go blind from aspartame.
It is my suggestion that everyone reading this report try to get it to Glenn Beck. Also, everyone should send the report to their own ophthalmologist who can save thousands.
So read on for the words of Dr. Morgan Raiford, who incidentally diagnosed Joyce Wilson who went blind and died from aspartame, and at the end you will see the Aspartame Resource Guide.
All my best, Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder Mission Possible International 9270 River Club Parkway Duluth, Georgia 30097 770 242-2599
(NaturalNews) In its never-ending attempt to fabricate "mental disorders" out of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the most ridiculous disease they've invented yet: Healthy eating disorder.
This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you're "mentally diseased" and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, "Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder" and goes on to claim this "disease" is called orthorexia nervosa -- which is basically just Latin for "nervous about correct eating."
But they can't just called it "nervous healthy eating disorder" because that doesn't sound like they know what they're talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn't). That's where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a name like osteoporosis (which means "bones with holes in them").
Getting back to this fabricated "orthorexia" disease, the Guardian goes on to report, "Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out."
Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there's something wrong with you.
But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be "normal?" If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that's okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.
What is "normal" when it comes to foods?
I told you this was coming. Years ago, I warned NaturalNews readers that an attempt might soon be under way to outlaw broccoli because of its anti-cancer phytonutrients. This mental health assault on health-conscious consumers is part of that agenda. It's an effort to marginalize healthy eaters by declaring them to be mentally unstable and therefore justify carting them off to mental institutions where they will be injected with psychiatric drugs and fed institutional food that's all processed, dead and full of toxic chemicals.
The Guardian even goes to the ridiculous extreme of saying, "The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished."
Follow the non-logic on this, if you can: Eating "good" foods will cause malnutrition! Eating bad foods, I suppose, is assumed to provide all the nutrients you need. That's about as crazy a statement on nutrition as I've ever read. No wonder people are so diseased today: The mainstream media is telling them that eating health food is a mental disorder that will cause malnutrition!
Shut up and swallow your Soylent Green
It's just like I reported years ago: You're not supposed to question your food, folks. Sit down, shut up, dig in and chow down. Stop thinking about what you're eating and just do what you're told by the mainstream media and its processed food advertisers. Questioning the health properties of your junk food is a mental disorder, didn't you know? And if you "obsess" over foods (by doing such things as reading the ingredients labels, for example), then you're weird. Maybe even sick.
That's the message they're broadcasting now. Junk food eaters are "normal" and "sane" and "nourished." But health food eaters are diseased, abnormal and malnourished.
But why, you ask, would they attack healthy eaters? People like Dr. Gabriel Cousens can tell you why: Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods.
Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control, you see. It literally messes with your mind, numbing your senses with MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. People who subsist on junk foods are docile and quickly lose the ability to think for themselves. They go along with whatever they're told by the TV or those in apparent positions of authority, never questioning their actions or what's really happening in the world around them.
In contrast to that, people who eat health-enhancing natural foods -- with all the medicinal nutrients still intact -- begin to awaken their minds and spirits. Over time, they begin to question the reality around them and they pursue more enlightened explorations of topics like community, nature, ethics, philosophy and the big picture of things that are happening in the world. They become "aware" and can start to see the very fabric of the Matrix, so to speak.
This, of course, is a huge danger to those who run our consumption-based society because consumption depends on ignorance combined with suggestibility. For people to keep blindly buying foods, medicines, health insurance and consumer goods, they need to have their higher brain functions switched off. Processed junk foods laced with toxic chemicals just happens to achieve that rather nicely. Why do you think dead, processed foods remain the default meals in public schools, hospitals and prisons? It's because dead foods turn off higher levels of awareness and keep people focused on whatever distractions you can feed their brains: Television, violence, fear, sports, sex and so on.
But living as a zombie is, in one way quite "normal" in society today because so many people are doing it. But that doesn't make it normal in my book: The real "normal" is an empowered, healthy, awakened person nourished with living foods and operating as a sovereign citizen in a free world. Eating living foods is like taking the red pill because over time it opens up a whole new perspective on the fabric of reality. It sets you free to think for yourself.
But eating processed junk foods is like taking the blue pill because it keeps you trapped in a fabricated reality where your life experiences are fabricated by consumer product companies who hijack your senses with designer chemicals (like MSG) that fool your brain into thinking you're eating real food.
If you want to be alive, aware and in control of your own life, eat more healthy living foods. But don't expect to be popular with mainstream mental health "experts" or dieticians -- they're all being programmed to consider you to be "crazy" because you don't follow their mainstream diets of dead foods laced with synthetic chemicals.
But you and I know the truth here: We are the normal ones. The junk food eaters are the real mental patients, and the only way to wake them up to the real world is to start feeding them living foods.
Some people are ready to take the red pill, and others aren't. All you can do is show them the door. They must open it themselves.
In the mean time, try to avoid the mental health agents who are trying to label you as having a mental disorder just because you pay attention to what you put in your body. There's nothing wrong with avoiding sugar, soy, MSG, aspartame, HFCS and other toxic chemicals in the food supply. In fact, your very life depends on it.
Oh, and by the way, if you want to join the health experts who keep inventing new fictitious diseases and disorders, check out this popular Disease Mongering Engine web page where you can invent your own new diseases at the click of a button! You'll find it at: http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...
More than two hours a day spent watching television or playing computer games could put a child at greater risk for psychological problems regardless of their activity levels, according to a British study.
Researchers from the University of Bristol studied more than 1,000 children aged 10 and 11.
Over seven days, the children filled out a questionnaire reporting how much time they spent daily in front of a television or computer and answering questions describing their mental state — including emotional, behavioural, and peer-related problems. Meanwhile, an accelerometer measured their physical activity.
The odds of significant psychological difficulties were about 60 per cent higher for children spending longer than two hours a day in front of either screen compared with those exposed to less screen time, the researchers report in the journal Pediatrics.
For children with more than two hours of both types of screen time during the day, the odds more than doubled.
The researchers found these results held regardless of sex, age, stage of puberty, or level of educational or economic deprivation and also no matter how active the children were during the rest of the day. “We know that physical activity is good for both physical and mental health in children and there is some evidence that screen viewing is associated with negative behaviors,” researcher Dr. Angie Page told Reuters Health.
“But it wasn’t clear whether having high physical activity levels would ‘compensate’ for high levels of screen viewing in children.”
The researchers found that psychological problems further increased if children fell short of an hour of moderate to rigorous daily exercise in addition to the increased screen time. However, physical activity did not appear to compensate for the psychological consequences of screen time.
The researchers said sedentary time itself was not related to mental wellbeing.
“It seems more like what you are doing in that sedentary time that is important,” said Page, noting the lack of negative effect found for activities such as reading and doing homework.
Page and her team acknowledged several limitations in their study, including the potential for a child to inaccurately recall his or her activities when filling out the questionnaire.
Here are some shocking examples of the huge gaps in knowledge among doctors, parents and others...
What your doctor doesn't know might actually harm you
• Most doctors have little or no understanding of the nutritional difference between LIVEfoods and DEAD foods. Most doctors think they're nutritional identical!
• Most parents have no idea that processed meats (bacon, sausage, sandwich ham, etc.) are laced with the sodium nitrite coloring chemical that promotes aggressive brain, pancreas and colon cancers. (http://www.naturalnews.com/007024.html).
• Most doctors have no idea that seasonal flu vaccines are little more than quackery and simply don't offer any real protection against the flu. (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...)
• Very few parents know the difference between the words "natural" and "organic" on foodlabels. Most parents just think "natural" means "organic" and so they buy more products that claim to be natural (even when the word means nothing).
• Few doctors realize that statin drugs were engineered from a molecule called lovastatin, found naturally in red yeast rice. The drug companies pirated the molecule from nature (biopiracy), then patented it. In the US they pressured the FDA to declare that red yeast ricewas an "adulterated" supplemented because -- get this -- it naturally contains the drug they stole from it!
• Most parents are completely befuddled by the nutritional claims of infant formula. They are astonishingly unaware that some of the most popular infant formula products such as Similacare made with over 50% sugars (http://www.naturalnews.com/029863_S...).
• Most doctors remain completely unaware of the anti-cancer nutrients found in celery, grapefruit, cabbage and chocolate. They tend to believe that medicine comes from laboratories, not food.
• Very few parents are aware that processed milk and dairy products promote obesity, heart disease and acne in their teenage children. Astonishingly, most adults have been fooled into thinking that yogurt is good for them because it contains probiotics (never mind the homogenized milk fats).
• Most people of all ages, come to think of it, believe that frozen yogurt is somehow good for them, even though it's really just processed ice cream sprinkled with probiotic powder (http://www.naturalnews.com/029038_f...).
• Most doctors are completely unaware of the health dangers of aspartame and MSG and make no attempt to educate their patients about avoiding these excitotoxins.
Influenza or the ‘flu’ as we call it is a contagious respiratory infection that is spread through coughing, sneezing, talking, or even touching surfaces contaminated with influenza. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) each year 24,000 people come down with the flu.
(It’s important to note that this is the first year the CDC decreased its usual report of 36,000 people getting the flu annually to 24,000. In their report Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC admitted to exaggerating these numbers for the past years and now says that 24,000 is a more accurate number. Food for thought.)
According to the CDC, flu symptoms can include any or all of the following:
Fever
Cough
Sore throat
Runny nose
Body aches
Fatigue
Headaches
The CDC, doctors, pharmacists, and drug stores promote the flu vaccine as the key way to avoid the flu and suffering from these uncomfortable symptoms. What you must know is thatthe flu vaccine has never been proven to ward off the flu or decrease its severity.When you get the flu vaccine you risk dangerous side effects too. In fact, some of these nasty side effects are much more to worry about than the flu.
Of even greater concern is that recent studies indicate that the flu vaccine is even less effective in the group it’s most pushed on who suffer the highest death rates from the flu – senior citizens.
A wellness physician with a passion to transform lives. Axe host the radio show Transform Your Health Sundays from 6-9p CST. You can listen live online at www.997.wtn.com.
Flu season vaccines are mainstream medicine's version of psychic surgery: It's all just "medical sleight of hand" based on nothing more than clever distractions and the obfuscation of scientific facts. Flu season shots, you see, simply don't work on 99 out of 100 people (and that's being generous to the vaccine industry, as you'll see below).
(NaturalNews) In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.
P = People S = Services per person E = Energy per service C = CO2 per energy unit
Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, "probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero."
Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number -- P (for People) -- might be reduced. He says:
"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care,reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."
This statement by Bill Gates was not made with any hesitation, stuttering or other indication that it might have been a mistake. It appears to have been a deliberate, calculated part of a well developed and coherent presentation.
So what does it mean when Bill Gates says "if we do a really great job on new vaccines... we could lower [world population] by 10 or 15 percent?"
Clearly, this statement implies that vaccines are a method of population reduction. So is "health care," which all NaturalNews readers already know to be more of a "sick care" system that actually harms more people than it helps.
Perhaps that's the whole point of it. Given that vaccines technology help almost no one from a scientific point of view (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...), it raises the question: For what purpose are vaccines being so heavily pushed in the first place?
Bill Gates seems to be saying that one of the primary purposes is to reduce the global population as a mechanism by which we can reduce CO2 emissions. Once again, watch the video yourself to hear him say it in his own words: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A...
How can vaccines actually be used to reduce world population?
Let's conduct a mental experiment on this issue. If vaccines are to be used to reduce world population, they obviously need to be accepted by the majority of the people. Otherwise the population reduction effort wouldn't be very effective.
And in order for them to be accepted by the majority of the people, they obviously can't just kill people outright. If everybody started dropping dead within 24 hours of receiving the flu shot, the danger of vaccines would become obvious rather quickly and the vaccines would be recalled.
Thus, if vaccines are to be used as an effective population reduction effort, there are really only three ways in which they might theoretically be "effective" from the point of view of those who wish to reduce world population:
#1) They might kill people slowly in a way that's unnoticeable, taking effect over perhaps 10 - 30 years by accelerating degenerative diseases.
#2) They might reduce fertility and therefore dramatically lower birth rates around the world, thereby reducing the world population over successive generations. This "soft kill" method might seem more acceptable to scientists who want to see the world population fall but don't quite have the stomach to outright kill people with conventional medicine. There is already evidence that vaccines may promote miscarriages(http://www.naturalnews.com/027512_v...).
#3) They might increase the death rate from a future pandemic. Theoretically, widespread vaccination efforts could be followed by a deliberate release of a highly virulent flu strain with a high fatality rate. This "bioweapon" approach could kill millions of people whose immune systems have been weakened by previous vaccine injections.
This is a known side effect of some vaccines, by the way. A study documenting this was published in PLoS. Read the story here: http://www.naturalnews.com/028538_s...
Here's the study title and citation: Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus? Viboud C, Simonsen L (2010) Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus? PLoS Med 7(4): e1000259. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000259
The short answer is yes, seasonal flu vaccines do cause increased susceptibility to the H1N1pandemic virus. In other words, seasonal flu vaccines could set up the population for a "hard kill" pandemic that could wipe out a significant portion of the global population (perhaps 10 to 15 percent, as Bill Gates suggested).
Conveniently, their deaths could be blamed on the pandemic, thereby diverting blame from those who were really responsible for the plot. As yet another beneficial side effect for the global population killers, the widespread deaths could be used as a fear tool to urge more people to get vaccinated yet again, and the entire cycle could be repeated until world population was brought down to whatever manageable level was desired... all in the name ofhealth care!
The more people around the world are vaccinated before the release of the "hard kill" pandemic virus, the more powerful the effect of this approach.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Perhaps not coincidentally, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into vaccine programs targeting people all over the world. One such program is researching the development of "sweat-triggered vaccines" that could use specially-coated nano-materials to deliver vaccines to people without using injections.
It seems that the actions of the Gates foundation are entirely consistent with the formula forCO2 reduction that Bill Gates eluded to in his TED conference speech: CO2 = P x S x E x C.
By reducing birth rates (through sterilization technologies) and increasing vaccine penetration throughout the world population (by using sweat-triggered nano-vaccines), his stated goal of reducing the world population by 10 to 15 percent could be reached within just a few years.
Who will be left alive? The smart people
The interesting thing about all this is that this campaign to reduce global population through vaccines will obviously not impact people who consciously avoid vaccines. And those people, by and large, tend to be the more intelligent, capable people who actually have an improved ability to move human civilization forward with thoughtful consideration.
I can only imagine that those people designing this vaccine-induced population control measure might be sitting around a table chuckling to themselves and saying, "It's only the stupid people that are going to be killed off anyway, so this is actually helping the future of humankind!" (Their words, not mine.)
In a weird world government kind of way, this effort might actually be based on some distorted vision of philanthropy where some of the most powerful people in the world quite literally believe the way to save humanity is to kill off as many of the gullible people as possible. Vaccines are, in effect, an "evil genius" kind of way to conduct an IQ test on the population at large: If you go get vaccinated every flu season, you're not too bright and probably don't engage the kind of strong mental faculties that humanity will no doubt need if it is to face a future where it is now all but obvious we are not alone in the universe.
If humanity is to save itself from its own destruction and compete as an uplifted species in our universe, killing off the least intelligent members of society (or making them infertile) may appear to the world controllers to be a perfectly reasonable approach. I disagree with that approach, but it may be precisely what they are thinking.
In any case, choosing to receive a seasonal flu shot is undoubtedly an admission that you have failed some sort of universal IQ test, whether or not this is the intention of world influencers such as Bill Gates. More importantly, it is also a betrayal of your own biology, because it indicates you don't believe in the ability of your own immune system to protect you even from mild infections.
Perhaps the world vaccine conspirators figure that if people are willing to betray themselves anyway, it's not much different for governments and institutions to betray them as well. In other words, if you don't even care enough about your own health to take care of your health, why should any government care about protecting your health, either?
As you ponder this, also consider something else: The U.S. is going broke due to sick-carecosts which are rising dramatically under the new federal health care reform guidelines. Can you guess the fastest and easiest way to reduce those health care costs? If you guessed, "unleash a hard-kill pandemic that takes out a significant portion of the weak or sick people" then you guessed right. Sadly, killing off those most vulnerable to sickness could save the U.S. government literally billions of dollars in sick-care expenditures. Plus, it would save Social Security yet more billions by avoiding ongoing monthly payouts. (Again, I am completely against such an approach because I value human life, but I also know we live in a world where the people in charge have little or no respect for human life and will readily sacrifice human lives to achieve their aims.)
As far as Bill Gates goes, consider his statement in the context of what we've discussed here:"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."
It suddenly seems to make a lot of sense when you understand that reducing the population reduces CO2 emissions, and using more vaccines on more people increases the death rate of the population.
My advice? Try to avoid being among those 10 to 15 percent who get culled through global vaccine programs. You will not only save your life, you'll also pass the "universal IQ test" which determines whether you're smart enough to know that injecting your body with chemicals and viral fragments in order to stop "seasonal flu" is a foolish endeavor.
Be healthy and wise, and you'll survive the world depopulation effort that victimizes conventional thinkers who don't have the intelligence to question what they're being told to do by their own corrupt governments.
