Seeking Truth in a World of Propaganda. Links do not necessarily indicate agreement with stories or perspectives.
“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.” - Plato
 |
(Natural News) Researchers from The University of Texas at Austin have discovered something that the cancer industry would prefer you don’t know about: A combination of natural, everyday foods can help prevent the growth of prostate cancer. While past studies have looked at the potential of individual foods to help the fight against this disease,... |
Authored by Joe Jarvis via The Daily Bell,
Did you know that doctors and scientists can be corrupt or simply wrong?
People seem to give doctors and scientists the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their findings and opinions on things like global warming, genetically modified organisms, pesticides, chemicals, and how unhealthy certain foods and habits are.
But like any other humans, scientists and doctors are, well, human. They can be misguided, confused, corrupt, and stubbornly opinionated.
According to Natural News, as many as 20,000 doctors once recommended smoking cigarettes to aid digestion.
In 1940’s Camel ran an ad campaign that claimed “More Doctors Smoke Camels.”
They even handed out packs of Camels to doctors at a medical convention and then polled the doctors on their way out the door, asking what their favorite cigarette brand was, or what kind they had in their pocket at that moment.
Unfortunately, money has corrupted industries like big pharma who pay doctors and scientists to take a position and prescribe particular drugs and treatment. Many peer-reviewed studies have predetermined outcomes which basically find the facts to fit their narrative. It is more a marketing ploy to publish in scientific and medical journals than proof of the actual findings.
Sugar was long considered fine to dump down children’s throats because in the 1960’s a handful of scientists were paid off.
The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease.
The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.
But even absent actual corruption, basic mistakes are being made in scientific conclusions.
Correlation is not causation. This is a basic foundational tenet of science. Two things may be very strongly correlated, but that does not prove that one causes the other.
According to Reason Magazine:
When it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff of studies that are mediocre or just plain bad, Albert Einstein College of Medicine epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat is a national treasure.
“Most research findings are false or exaggerated, and the more dramatic the result, the less likely it is to be true,” he declares in his excellent new book Getting Risk Right.
Kabat discusses how “the dose makes the poison,” in that saying something doubles your risk of a disease could actually be statistically irrelevant.
For example, you may have heard that eating bacon increases the risk of colorectal cancer. Technically, this is true. If you eat two slices of bacon every day of your life the risk of colorectal cancer increases from 5 to 6 percent. That is not exactly the same risk as smoking cigarettes, which increases the risk of lung cancer by 20 to 50 times over.
And then, of course, you must consider the editorial bias. You’re Risking Your Life Eating Bacon is more likely to get a click than Everyday Bacon Eating Increases Cancer Risk by 1%.
Kabat suggests that the precautionary principle–“better safe than sorry”–is largely an ideological ploy to alarm the public into supporting advocates’ policy preferences.
He also decries “the simplistic notion that ‘consensus among scientists’ is always correct.” He notes that scientific consensus once held that ulcers were caused by spicy foods and stress instead of bacteria…
Here’s the thing, I like to be healthy, and I personally often follow the better safe than sorry principle. But it is a huge miscarriage of authority to push this view on others through fear. It is the idea of I know better than these silly peasants that unfortunately seems to permeate the scientific and medical communities.
Are GMOs, pesticides, and chemicals like BPA really as bad as they say? I personally avoid them, but I honestly haven’t done enough of my own research to know for sure.Salt and fat have gone back and forth as being considered healthy
Salt and fat have gone back and forth as being considered healthy then unhealthy, then healthy again by experts.
People look to doctors and scientists for guidance and too often are brainwashed with those individuals’ own biases and unsubstantiated opinions.
If an expert cannot or will not answer questions about their work, that is a red flag. When people talk about consensus among experts instead of the actual facts, that is another red flag.
There have been too many times in recent history when the experts, the scientists, and the doctors were willfully or mistakenly wrong.
Sometimes, yes, we must defer to experts, since it is simply impossible to research it all on your own. But that doesn’t mean we should forgo the due diligence in critical thinking that goes along with it.
Fear sells. We are used to it in the media but don’t usually expect it from doctors and scientists. But they are humans too, and just as likely to push their agenda instead of the truth.
According to 720 Global, total government debt plus total personal debt in the United States was just over 3 trillion dollars in 1980. That broke down to $38,552 per household, and that figure represented 79 percent of median household income at the time.
Today, total government debt plus total personal debt in the United States has blown past the 41 trillion dollar mark. When you break that down, it comes to $329,961.34 per household, and that figure represents 584 percent of median household income.
If anyone can make a good argument that we are not in very serious debt trouble, I would love to hear it.
And remember, the figures above don’t even include corporate debt. They only include government debt on the federal, state and local levels, and all forms of personal debt.
So do you have $329,961.34 ready to pay your share of the debt that we have accumulated?
Nobody that I know could write that kind of a check. The truth is that as a nation we are flat broke. The only way that the game can keep going is for all of us to borrow increasingly larger sums of money, but of course that is not sustainable by any definition.
Eventually we are going to slam into a wall and the game will be over.
One of my pet peeves is the national debt. Our politicians spend money in some of the most ridiculous ways imaginable, and yet no matter how much we complain about it nothing ever seems to change.
For example, the U.S. military actually spends 42 million dollars a year on Viagra.
Yes, you read that correctly.
42 million of your tax dollars are being spent on Viagra every year.
And overall spending on “erectile dysfunction medicines” each year comes to a grand total of 84 million dollars…
According to data from the Defense Health Agency, DoD actually spent $41.6 million on Viagra — and $84.24 million total on erectile dysfunction prescriptions — last year.
And since 2011, the tab for drugs like Viagra, Cialis and Levitra totals $294 million — the equivalent of nearly four U.S. Air Force F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.
Is this really where our spending on “national defense” should be going? We are nearly 20 trillion dollars in debt, and yet we continue to spend money like there is no tomorrow. For much more on the exploding size of our national debt and the very serious implications that this has for our future, please see my previous article entitled “Would You Like To Steal 128 Million Dollars?”
I didn’t think that our debt bubble could ever possibly get this big, but I didn’t think that our stock market bubble could ever possibly get quite get this large either. For a few moments, I would like for you to consider a list of facts about this stock market bubble that was recently published by Zero Hedge…
Our financial markets are far more primed for a crash than they were in 2008.
The only times in our entire history that are even comparable are the late 1920s just before the infamous crash of 1929 and the late 1990s just before the dotcom bubble burst.
A whole lot of people out there seem to be entirely convinced that things will somehow be different this time. They seem to believe that the laws of economics no longer apply and that we will never pay a significant price for decades of exceedingly foolish decisions.
Overall, the world is now 217 trillion dollars in debt. Earlier this year, Bill Gross raised eyebrows when he said that “our highly levered financial system is like a truckload of nitro glycerin on a bumpy road”, and I very much agree with him.
There is no way that this is going to end well. Yes, central bank manipulation may be enough to keep the party going for a little while longer, but eventually the whole thing is going to come crashing down in a disaster of unprecedented magnitude.
Michael Snyder is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his official website. His new book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.
When President Trump promised last fall that under a Trump administration America would "would win so much you'll get tired of winning," we suspect this is not what he had in mind. According to the latest international obesity study from the Organization For Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), America is by far the fattest nation in the world with just over 38% of the adult population considered 'obese.'
Here are some stats from the OECD's latest study courtesy of the Washington Examiner:
- In 2015, an estimated 603.7 million adults and 107.7 million children worldwide were obese. That represents about 12 percent of all adults and 5 percent of all children.
- The prevalence of obesity doubled in 73 countries between 1980 and 2015 and continuously increased in most of the other countries.
- China and India had the highest number of obese children. China and the U.S. had the highest number of obese adults.
- Excess body weight accounted for about 4 million deaths — or 7.1 percent of all deaths — in 2015.
- Almost 70 percent of deaths related to a high BMI were due to cardiovascular disease.
- The study finds evidence that having a high BMI causes leukemia and several types of cancer, including cancers of the esophagus, liver, breast, uterus, ovary, kidney and thyroid.
- In rich and poor countries, obesity rates increased, indicating "the problem is not simply a function of income or wealth. Changes in the food environment and food systems are probably major drivers. Increased availability, accessibility, and affordability of energy-dense foods, along with intense marketing of such foods, could explain excess energy intake and weight gain among different populations. The reduced opportunities for physical activity that have followed urbanization and other changes in the built environment have also been considered as potential drivers; however, these changes generally preceded the global increase in obesity and are less likely to be major contributors."
Of course, obesity in the "fast food nation" is hardly a new epidemic though the rate of change is fairly staggering.
Meanwhile, Michelle Obama's crusade against childhood obesity didn't seem to work all that well...
But that "Turn-ip for what?" video was so clever...shocking it was ineffective.
Finally, for all of you who will undoubtedly sign up for a brand new gym membership as part of your New Years resolution to shed the extra pounds in 2018...you might as well just give up now because the OECD predicts we're all just going to get much fatter over the next 15 years.
OECD projections show a steady increase in obesity rates until at least 2030 (Figure 5). Obesity levels are expected to be particularly high in the United States, Mexico and England, where 47%, 39% and 35% of the population respectively are projected to be obese in 2030. On the contrary, the increase is expected to be weaker in Italy and Korea, with obesity rates projected to be 13% and 9% in 2030, respectively. The level of obesity in France is projected to nearly match that of Spain, at 21% in 2030. Obesity rates are projected to increase at a faster pace in Korea and Switzerland where rates have been historically low.
Donald Trump made two things abundantly clear during a meeting with county sheriffs last February: He did not know what civil asset forfeiture was, and he wanted to see more of it. The president will get his wish thanks to a directive issued last week by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has a clearer idea of what civil forfeiture entails but is only slightly more sensitive to its potential for abuse.
That potential is built into the very concept of civil forfeiture, which allows police to take property allegedly tied to crime without charging the owner. Worse, law enforcement agencies get to keep revenue generated by forfeitures they initiate, which gives them a financial incentive to target people based on the assets they own rather than the threat they pose.
In theory, the government can forfeit a seized asset only after proving it is a tool or fruit of crime, typically drug trafficking. But the burden of proof is much lighter than in a criminal case, and it applies only if the owner challenges the seizure in court, which often costs more than the asset is worth.
Recognizing how easily innocent people can lose cash, cars, and homes to money-hungry cops, two dozen states and the District of Columbia have reformed their forfeiture laws since 2014. The changes include mandating data collection and reporting, strengthening standards of proof, and requiring a criminal conviction before some or all forfeitures.
By reviving federal "adoption" of forfeitures initiated by state or local agencies, Sessions is offering cops who chafe at these restrictions the option of ignoring them. Adoption, which Attorney General Eric Holder mostly eliminated in 2015, lets police and prosecutors evade state limits on forfeiture and keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds.
Seven states prohibit or restrict such circumvention. But in the rest, cops who do not like reforms aimed at protecting innocent property owners from legalized theft can once again easily dodge them with help from the Justice Department.
Although Sessions pays lip service to the need for safeguards, he argues that innocent owners are rare. "Over the last decade," he says, "four out of five administrative civil asset forfeitures filed by federal law enforcement agencies were never challenged in court."
According to Sessions, that means only a "small minority of cases" involve people whose property was seized for questionable reasons. But since challenging a forfeiture is difficult and may be prohibitively expensive, the failure to do so is hardly an admission of guilt.
Sessions says a state or local agency seeking federal adoption of a forfeiture will have to provide "information demonstrating that the seizure was justified by probable cause." But in practice probable cause may be little more than a hunch—e.g., you've got a lot of cash, so you must be a drug dealer. And given the obstacles to recovering seized property, such vague, unsubstantiated suspicions may be all the government needs to keep it.
The Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act, reintroduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in March, would withdraw Sessions' invitation to forfeiture abuse by abolishing federal adoption along with the rest of the Justice Department's so-called Equitable Sharing Program, which includes loot grabbed in the course of joint operations. The FAIR Act, which has bipartisan support, also would strengthen the standard of proof in federal forfeiture cases, require the government to show that the owner of seized property consented or was willfully blind to its illegal use, give indigent owners a right to counsel, and assign forfeiture revenue to the general fund instead of the Justice Department.
Reforms like these should be supported by anyone who believes forfeiture "has become a tool for unscrupulous law enforcement officials, acting without due process, to profit by destroying the livelihood of innocent individuals, many of whom never recover the lawful assets taken from them." Those words should sound familiar to the president. They are part of his party's platform.
© Copyright 2017 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
By Dr. Mercola
Dr. Lee Cowden says most people don’t die from cancer; they die from the side effects of treatment. While the “war against cancer” is moving toward more personalized and so-called “precision medicine” treatments, the old standby model of “cut, poison and burn,” via surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, is still widely used and regarded as the standard of care for many cancer cases.
One of the major problems with chemotherapy is its indiscriminate toxicity, which poisons your body systemically in an attempt to knock out cancer cells. There have long been signs that this model has fatal flaws and may cause more harm than good. In the case of the breast cancer chemotherapy drug Tamoxifen, for instance, patients must trade one risk for another, as while it may reduce breast cancer, it more than doubles women’s risk of uterine cancer.1
Serious, sometimes-fatal side effects (or more aptly, simply effects) of chemotherapy are common, as are serious unforeseen effects that may make your cancer prognosis worse instead of better.
Writing in the journal Science Translational Medicine, researchers from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine revealed that giving chemotherapy prior to surgery for breast cancer may promote disease metastasis, or the growth and spread of cancer to other areas of the body.2 This, in turn, greatly increases a woman’s risk of dying from the disease.
Preoperative chemotherapy, known as neoadjuvant chemotherapy, is often offered to women because it may help shrink tumors, which increases the likelihood that women will receive lumpectomy surgery instead of a full mastectomy. After performing tests on mice and human tissue, however, the researchers found that doing so may increase the likelihood of metastasis by increasing what are known as “tumor microenvironments of metastasis.” As Stat News explained:3
“Called ‘tumor microenvironments of metastasis,’ these on-ramps are sites on blood vessels that special immune cells flock to. If the immune cells hook up with a tumor cell, they usher it into a blood vessel like a Lyft picking up a passenger. Since blood vessels are the highways to distant organs, the result is metastasis, or the spread of cancer to far-flung sites.”
When mice with breast cancer or given human breast tumors were given the chemotherapy, it altered the tumor microenvironment in ways that made them more conducive to cancer spread, including, Stat reported:4
In mice, chemotherapy treatment doubled the number of cancer cells in the bloodstream and lungs compared to mice that did not receive the treatment. Further, in 20 human patients who received common chemotherapy drugs, the tumor microenvironments also became more favorable to cancer spread. As The Telegraph noted:
“It is thought the toxic medication switches on a repair mechanism in the body which ultimately allows tumors to grow back stronger. It also increases the number of ‘doorways’ on blood vessels which allow cancer to spread throughout the body.”5
Further, researchers wrote in a 2012 Journal of Clinical Oncology editorial, “Unfortunately, neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not seem to improve overall survival, as demonstrated in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B18 trial, among others.”6 This means women may be trading a potential increased risk of cancer metastasis for a treatment that doesn’t even improve their chances of survival.
While the news that chemotherapy may encourage cancer spread may sound surprising, it’s not a new discovery. In 2012, researchers found chemotherapy for prostate cancer caused DNA damage in healthy cells and caused them to secrete more of a protein called WNT16B, which boosts tumor growth and may encourage cancer cells to develop resistance to treatment.
"WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumor cells and cause them to grow, invade and, importantly, resist subsequent therapy," study co-author Dr. Peter Nelson, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, told AFP News.7
In the journal Nature Medicine, the researchers further noted, “The expression of WNT16B in the prostate tumor microenvironment attenuated the effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy in vivo, promoting tumor cell survival and disease progression”8 and “ … [D]amage responses in benign cells ... may directly contribute to enhanced tumor growth kinetics.”9
While research continues to reveal that chemotherapy’s effects are wide-reaching and devastating to healthy cells, it’s also been shown — at least as far back as 2004 — that “chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival.”10 A Clinical Oncology study found that in terms of five-year survival rates in adult cancer cases, chemotherapy has an average five-year survival success rate of just 2.3 percent in Australia and 2.1 percent in the U.S.11
Separate research revealed that out of nearly 2,000 patients receiving chemotherapy, 161 deaths occurred within 30 days of the treatment. Nearly 8 percent of them were classified as related to the chemotherapy (and another nearly 16 percent were unclassified due to insufficient information).12
Further, as mentioned, chemotherapy can increase the risk of subsequent cancer, such as therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (tAML), “a rare but highly fatal complication of cytotoxic chemotherapy.” Researchers noted that tAML cases occur nearly five times more often in adults treated with chemotherapy than they do in the general population.13
Upon receiving a cancer diagnosis, many people assume their only options for treatment are chemotherapy, surgery or radiation. Only you and your health care team can make the decision on how to best pursue treatment, but you should know that conventional providers are unlikely to think outside the box.
Oncology is the only specialty in medicine that is allowed and even encouraged to sell drugs at massive profits — typically in excess of 50 percent — and cancer drugs are, as a general category, the most expensive medications in all of medicine to begin with. Oncologists actually get a commission for the chemotherapy drugs they sell, and with that type of incentive, it's nearly impossible to imagine them actively seeking other alternatives.
Oncologists are further constrained by the "standard of care" prescribed by oncology medical boards and the drug industry. If they go against the established standard of care, they're susceptible to having their license reprimanded or even taken away. As a result, patients are typically forced to go it alone if they don't want to go the conventional route, which is unfortunate because there are many promising alternative treatments.
A comprehensive natural cancer-fighting approach would be to make your body as healthy as possible, using detoxification, strategies to boost your immune function, dietary changes and other targeted therapies depending on your needs. For instance, Annie Brandt — a 16-year cancer survivor and author of "The Healing Platform: Build Your Own Cure!” — states products that are helpful against metastatic cancer cells include:
|
✓ Berberine / metformin |
✓ Intravenous vitamin C |
✓ Sulforaphane (cruciferous vegetables) |
✓ Curcumin (turmeric) |
|
✓ Glucoraphanin |
✓ Myrosinase |
✓ Essiac tea |
|
|
✓ Burdock root |
✓ Slippery elm |
✓ Rhubarb |
✓ Sheep sorrel |
|
✓ Fermented soy |
✓ Fish oil |
✓ Modified citrus pectin (PectaSol-C) |
✓ Heparin |
The point is that there are many anti-cancer strategies overlooked by conventional medicine. Many of them even work in addition to conventional treatment. For instance, vitamin C in combination with nutritional ketosis and fasting prior to administering chemotherapy radically improve the effectiveness of chemotherapy.
Oncologists in Turkey, who aren’t under the same U.S. restrictions, are also using a stacked ketogenic treatment protocol that is showing shocking remissions in many stage 4 cancer patients. The treatment protocol at ChemoThermia Oncology Center in Turkey includes:
At the center, all oncology patients are put on a ketogenic diet, which creates metabolic stress on the cancer cells. Then, prior to administering the chemo, the patient will do a 14-hour fast, which further increases the metabolic stress on the cancer cells.
The patients will typically have a blood glucose level around 80 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) at this point. They then apply glycolysis inhibitors to inhibit the glycolysis pathway in the cancer cells, which creates a terrific amount of metabolic stress, as the cancer cells are already starved of glucose.
Insulin is then applied to lower the blood glucose levels to around 50 or 60 mg/dL, to cause mild hypoglycemia. At that point, chemotherapy is applied, often at a far lower dose than would otherwise be used, thereby lowering the risk of side effects.
In the days following chemotherapy, hyperthermia and hyperbaric oxygen therapy are applied, plus a daily infusion of glycolysis inhibitor therapies with high-dose vitamin C (50 grams) and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). A sampling of other targeted therapies covered in Brandt’s book are below.
|
✓ Poly-MVA, a colloidal mineral complex that crosses the blood-brain barrier and helps renourish your body and brain at the cellular level. It also helps replace nutrients lost during chemotherapeutic and radiological treatments. |
|
✓ AvéULTRA (Metatrol), a fermented wheat germ product. |
|
✓ Selenium, vitamin D and iodine, as most cancer patients are low in these three nutrients. Since I do regular sauna therapy, I take 200 micrograms of SelenoExcell each day. (You tend to excrete selenium when sweating.) Selenium increases glutathione, an important metabolic antioxidant necessary for detoxification. It also catalyzes the conversion of thyroid hormone T3 to T4, so it can be beneficial if you have thyroid problems. |
|
✓ Modified citrus pectin (MCP) has been shown to reverse cancer and stop metastatic cancer. Brandt recommends the brand ecoNugenics, as this is the one that has been scientifically studied and verified to work. |
|
✓ Colloidal silver is a nontoxic, broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy with no known toxicity and no known mechanism for acquired resistance. |
|
✓ Salicinium, a plant-based extract that inhibits production of nagalase — an enzyme produced by cancer cells — while simultaneously stimulating innate immune cells. |
So as mentioned, there are many promising avenues to target cancer. Even if you’re working with a conventional oncologist, the ChemoThermia Oncology Center has published protocols your oncologist could make use of, regardless of where you live. If your oncologist isn’t willing to integrate these alternative strategies into your care regimen, you may want to consider finding a new doctor.
Ever wondered why so many western elites are so vehemently supportive of mass immigration? Ever question how willfully blind the establishment is to the costs (human and capital) of allowing any- and everyone into the heart of European nations? Well wonder no more...
As a reminder, the world faces decades of depopulation. Our present economic issues began decades ago. To understand what is happening economically, simply check the headwaters of (de)population (excluding Africa) under way since 1990...the chart below shows the 0-5yr/old population (excluding Africa) vs. the 0-5yr/old population of Africa.
World 0-5yr/old population change (excluding Africa):
Africa 0-5yr/old population change:
Population growth is responsible for the majority of GDP growth...so a downturn in population growth matters...particularly when population growth shifts from wealthy or developing nations to the poorest. I'm not describing something that may happen in the future...I'm describing what has already happened that is continuing to send progressively larger tsunamis swamping the world economy and has the central bankers doing everything and anything to try to sustain the unsustainable.
Which means, as Econimica's Chris Hamilton recently noted, the next business cycle recession will be unending and is very likely to run years into decades and perhaps a century or more. A declining population already indebted with record debt and zero interest rates will consume less...meaning overcapacity and excess inventories will never be fully cleared before the next downturn...and on and on and on.
But the absence of a growing consumer base isn't just a US issue...this is a global problem. The annual growth of the 0-64yr/old population of the combined OECD nations (most the EU, US, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, S. Korea, Australia / New Zealand) plus China, Brazil, and Russia show the growth that has driven nearly all economic growth has come to an end...and begins declining from here on.
And when importers are shrinking, exporters have no one to export to...and on and on and on. The depopulation we are now facing is not simply a demographic issue that so many believe; the end of growth is the start of the SHTF scenario in which we now find ourselves. While this situation offers short term nirvana to investors, the economic repercussions are ultimately disastrous.
* * *
And so with that as background - and as noted above, a crisis that has been foreseeable on the horizon for years - it appears, based on a recently exposed United Nations report from the year 2000, that the 'new world order' envisioned a 'final solution' to this demographic dilemma of a collapsing consumer base for the west's credit-based economies...
The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled ?Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations??. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.
United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio -- i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person -- will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.
Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.
Major findings of this report include:
- In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.
- Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.
- Some immigration is needed to prevent population decline in all countries and regions examined in the report. However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants -- a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years.
- The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections. The only exception is the United States.
- The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working- age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 -- between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.
- Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number -- 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.
- The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.
- In the absence of immigration, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.
- The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require a comprehensive reassessment of many established policies and programmes, with a long-term perspective. Critical issues that need to be addressed include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health care benefits for the elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration, in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
The problem with this cunning plan to immigrant-ize western nations to backfill the domestic demographic decline is that the immigrants - as a whole - are a drag on growth (via politically-correct benefits, extra policing, and border enforcements) as opposed to the economy-improving growth dynamos that the United Nations assumed any sentient-credit-consuming-being would be in the year 2000.
Even the world's richest man is starting to get the joke that the new world order's cunning plan is not working...
Europe will be devastated by African refugees if they don’t “make it more difficult for Africans to reach the continent,” and the solution lies in European nations committing billions of taxpayer money towards overseas aid.
According to Gates, the combination of explosive population growth in Africa combined with Europe’s notoriously generous open-border migrant welfare programs – as illustrated by the ‘German attitude to refugees’ have incentivised migrants to flood into Europe.
“On the one hand you want to demonstrate generosity and take in refugees, but the more generous you are, the more word gets around about this - which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa.”
While Germany has been one of the pioneers of the open door policy, it cannot “take in the huge, massive number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe.”
Thus Gates advised European nations to take action in order to make it “more difficult for Africans to reach the continent via the current transit routes.”
(TFTP) Another YouTube video has been censored on the grounds that it violated the platform’s Community Guidelines—but the removal of this video does not protect viewers from nudity or crude language. Instead, it ‘protects’ viewers from the reality of United States foreign policy.
Alternative geopolitical analyst Mimi Al Laham, who goes by the name “Partisan Girl,” revealed on Twitter that one of her YouTube videos was flagged and removed upon review. “It documented US military airdrops falling into ISIS hands,” She wrote. “Truth is graphic content.”
A video on my channel just got censored by @youtube It documented US military airdrops falling into #ISIS hands! Truth is graphic content. pic.twitter.com/c9oi95ZcND
— Partisangirl
(@Partisangirl) July 10, 2017
The notice from YouTube claimed the video was removed because it violated the platform’s Community Guidelines. In addition to the video’s removal, Partisan Girl also received a “strike” or penalty on her account—a YouTube user can receive up to three “strikes.”
The title of the video was “US airdrops weapons into #ISIS hands – #Syria Ayn Al Arab,” and the reason YouTube gave for removing it was that it contained “violent or graphic content,” that was posted in “a shocking, sensational, or disrespectful manner.”
“If a video contains violent or graphic content that appears to be posting in a shocking, sensational, or disrespectful manner, it’s less likely to be allowed on YouTube. We also don’t allow content that’s intended to incite violence or encourage dangerous activities. We review content on a case by case basis and will only make limited exceptions for appropriate educational, documentary, artistic, and scientific contexts, where the purpose of posting is clear.”
The thing is, while a video of the U.S. military dropping weapons right into the hands of ISIS may be shocking to some, it is hardly sensational. In October 2014, the Pentagon admitted that the U.S. airdropped weapons to ISIS that were reportedly intended for Kurdish fighters in Kobani, Syria, and insisted that “the wind” was to blame.
However, this is not the first time the United States—whether intentionally of negligently—has been caught helping the group it claims to be at war with. The most recent case came to light in June when a 2016 audit from the Department of Defense revealed that it could not account for $1 Billion in weapons and equipment.
Patrick Wilcken, Amnesty International’s arms control and human rights researcher, noted that the latest audit is part of a troubling pattern that has been ongoing for years.
“This audit provides a worrying insight into the US Army’s flawed—and potentially dangerous—system for controlling millions of dollars’ worth of arms transfers to a hugely volatile region,” Wilcken said. “It makes for especially sobering reading given the long history of leakage of US arms to multiple armed groups committing atrocities in Iraq, including the armed group calling itself the Islamic State.”
In fact, the U.S. has given ISIS such a surplus of weapons and equipment, that some of those weapons are now being sold on Facebook by Islamic State militants. A report from 2016 revealed that “Jihadis in Syria are using Facebook as a marketplace to buy, sell and barter a wide variety of American-made weapons and munitions ranging from rocket launchers to machine guns.”
In addition to support from Facebook, ISIS has also received ample support from YouTube. The platform has helped the militants by hosting their recruiting videos, while also helping the group by removing videos that reveal who is funding it, such as the one from Partisan Girl.
However, the subject of ISIS is not the only area where YouTube has questionable judgment. As The Free Thought Project has reported, YouTube also hosts thousands of videos with millions of views that are disguised as child-friendly content, while they actually promote violence, sex and pedophilia.
Follow Rachel Blevins on Facebook and Twitter.
by Susan Duclos, All News Pipeline:
YOUTUBE ALLOWING ‘FLAGGER’ ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM TO CENSOR CERTAIN VIEWS
We will start with the latest example of YouTube allowing their “flaggers” or even worse, their “bots” to determine what gets seen and what doesn’t according to ideology, rather than “community guidelines.”
Before showing the latest example, let’s look at who the these “flaggers” are, compared to YouTube claims. In 2014, it was revealed that not only does YouTube have what they call a “global community of volunteer contributors,” given the ability to flag videos as inappropriate, or having violated some community guideline, but they also have “super-flaggers,” which includes “Around 200 people and organizations,” given the ability to “flag up to 20 videos at once,” supposedly to be “reviewed by YouTube staff.” (Sources – CNet, WSJ, Financial Times)
On YouTube’s own page, they claim: “*Please note that flagged videos do not automatically get removed. We have trained internal teams, fluent in multiple languages, who carefully evaluate your flags 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year in time zones around the world.”
Lets put that myth about videos being “reviewed” before being removed, right now.
Mark Dice, with over one million subscribers, recently had a video of his titled “This is CNN,” showing a number of embarrassing CNN clips, publishing his video at a time where the news organization has been engulfed in a number of controversies, including publishing a fake news story that had to be deleted, retracted, apologized for and resulted in three high profile employees being forced to resign.
Someone did not like CNN’s own idiocy being exposed by Dice, so they “flagged” his video and YouTube put it on private and locked it there, so that no one could see the video. Dice revealed what they had done publicly on Twitter highlighting @TeamYouTube, which is their social media account. The result was they restored his video after “reviewing” it, which begs the questions, 1)Who flagged it? 2)Why was it locked on private in the first place? 3)Had Dice not had a slew of followers nailing TeamYouTube on social media, making their unethical practices very public, would it have been restored?
Dice explains below:
feel I can safely make the assertion that YouTube is also allowing their liberal “flaggers” or “bots”to have videos demonetized also, simply because said video offended them or hurt their little feelings or programming, without the video in question even being reviewed by a human being that is part of YouTube’s staff. I can make this assertion because of the multiple instances where we have monetized a video, then at a later date, after ads had been running on it for some time, someone would “flag it” and then I would get notified by YouTube that the video was “not” approved for monetization because it was not “advertiser friendly.”
How do I know it was not reviewed by YouTube staff before they stripped monetization? Because after I appealed the demonetization, then they reviewed it, and approved it saying, why yes, it is advertiser friendly, meaning it did comply “with YouTube’s Terms of Service and Community Guidelines,” and was “eligible for advertising.”
Just a couple examples shown below to prove my point and please note the subject matter, where in each case, they were flagged for ideology not guidelines, nor advertiser unfriendly content, there was no nudity, no cussing, no sexual content and no incitement to violence and violated none of YouTube’s terms or community guidelines as evidenced by the reversal after someone finally reviewed it.
Results after YouTube staff actually does review the video:
Another that was demonetized because someone flagged it, then after appeal was found be advertiser friendly after all.
Rather than going on providing a screen shot of each and every email individually, let me just show how often these flaggers or bots harass video creators and how YouTube continues to allow it:
Note– In some of those emails, 5 or 6 videos were demonetized at once (some of them had already been up and monetized for years), with a list that I then had to go through one by one to appeal separately.
YouTube’s so-called flaggers are abusing the system and have been for years, yet YouTube does nothing to correct this issue, allows them to continue to harass video creators simply because their ideology is different than those given the right to flag videos for YouTube. According to some, they have also set up bots to flag content, yet who sets the bots algorithms which seems to “flag” content that violates no gudelines?
Read More @ AllNewsPipeline.com
Authored by Jason Ditz via TheAntiMedia.org,
CIA Director Mike Pompeo remains inconsolably hostile toward whistleblower organization WikiLeaks, insisting they are a “non-state hostile intelligence service” and are plotting to “take down America any way they can and find any willing partner to achieve that end.”
Hostility to WikiLeaks has been a mainstay in the US government, as every administration faces the prospect of their covert misdeeds becoming a matter of public record, to their general embarrassment albeit rarely to the end of any meaningful reform.
President Trump had a positive attitude toward WikiLeaks during last year’s campaign, declaring “I love WikiLeaks.”
Pompeo insists he doesn’t feel the same way, and that US intelligence agencies need to find ways to fight the organization.
“I don’t love WikiLeaks,” Mr. Pompeo said Thursday.
Pompeo argued that the US needs to use the Espionage Act much more in going after leakers who aren’t actually foreign spies, though he stopped short of openly endorsing Espionage prosecutions against journalists for reporting on the leaks.
“You said that we have to recognize that we can no longer let Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us,” New York Times columnist Bret Stephens asked Mr. Pompeo.
“What does that in your mind imply, legislatively or operationally? Should we be enforcing the Espionage Act much more?”
“Yes,” Mr. Pompeo responded without hesitation.
When asked if publishers and journalists should be prosecuted for using state secrets, Mr. Pompeo answered:
“There’s an old aphorism that says that the law is entitled to every man’s evidence, and I’ll leave it at that.”
Mr. Assange did not respond privately to requests for comment Thursday but reacted to Mr. Pompeo’s latest claim in a series of tweets.
“What sort of America can be ‘taken down’ by the truth?” he tweeted.
