We are living in the greatest debt bubble in the history of the world. In 1980, total government and personal debt in the United States was just over the 3 trillion dollar mark, but today it has surpassed 41 trillion dollars. That means that it has increased by almost 14 times since Ronald Reagan was first elected president. I am searching for words to describe how completely and utterly insane this is, but I am coming up empty. We are slowly but surely committing national suicide, and yet most Americans don’t even understand what is happening.
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…
The S&P 500 Cyclically Adjusted Price to Earnings (CAPE) valuation has only been greater on one occasion, the late 1990s. It is currently on par with levels preceding the Great Depression.
Leading members of the establishment media are ignoring the months-long House IT scandal rocking congressional Democrats, even after the FBI’s investigation into the matter became public, and even after Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s top IT aide was arrested trying to flee to Pakistan after wiring almost $300,000 to the country. As of Thursday morning, both the New […]
According to Dr. Tom Frieden, former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), opioids kill patients more frequently than any other medication used for nonfatal conditions.1Back pain has been identified as one of the most common reasons for receiving a prescription for a narcotic pain reliever.2 Disturbingly, more than half of all opioid prescriptions in the U.S. are given to patients suffering from anxiety and other mental health disorders.
The reason why is unclear, although it's possible that depressed and anxious patients experience a greater degree of physical pain as well. Whatever the reason, when you consider the addictive potential of these drugs and the fragile mental state of people already struggling with mental health problems, the harm of this trend could be phenomenal indeed.
Data also reveals that women are increasingly being prescribed opioids during pregnancy and after delivery, creating addicts in the womb and destroying families by creating drug-dependent mothers and infants.
According to a recent survey,3 more than 1 in 5 Americans insured by Blue Cross and Blue Shield were prescribed an opioid in 2015. At that rate, you're virtually guaranteed to receive a prescription for a narcotic at some point, provided you're seeing a doctor. Your chances of developing a drug dependency is high as well. Insurance claims involving opioid dependence rose by nearly 500 percent between 2010 and 2016, Blue Cross and Blue Shield reports.
Over Half of Opioids Prescribed to Those With Mental Health Challenges
According to recent findings,4 doctors are far more likely to prescribe opioids to patients who are depressed or complain of anxiety than those who do not have any mental health issues. Depressed and anxious patients also receive higher dosages. Remarkably, nearly 19 percent of the 38.6 million Americans diagnosed with a mental health disorder use opioids.
For comparison, only 5 percent of the general population — people without a mental health disorder — use narcotic painkillers. As reported by Valley News:5
"Adults with depression and anxiety receive 51 percent of the … opioid prescriptions distributed each year in the U.S. … The higher rate of use of opioids among those with the two most common types of mental illness in the country holds true across all levels of pain and across different types of pain, including that stemming from cancer and arthritis …
'Independent of pain and independent of medical conditions, having a mental health disorder is strongly associated with getting an opioid prescription, which is really, really concerning,' Dr. Brian Sites, [an] anesthesiologist, said … The study did not determine what might be causing the increased rate of opioid prescriptions for those with mental health disorders, but it may indicate a problem in providers' prescription practices, Sites said.
'We know that the relationship between mental health issues and pain is very complicated because pain is a subjective phenomena [sic], (for which) there's no biological measure' … A person with anxiety or depression might be more likely to have a condition known as 'pain catastrophizing,' in which people dwell on or feel hopeless about their pain,' Sites said."
Why Do so Many Depressed Patients Receive Opioids?
As mentioned, the study was not designed to tease out the reasons why different patient categories were prescribed opioids at different rates. Pain catastrophizing may explain part of the trend. Other possible reasons include:
• Doctors may be more likely to prescribe painkillers to depressed or anxious patients out of empathy
• Payment structures tied to patient satisfaction scores may influence doctors to prescribe painkillers to depressed patients, as patients tend to be more satisfied when they receive something tangible (a pill, opposed to general lifestyle advice) from their doctor
• Opioids may have a short-term antidepressant effect, making depressed patients more likely to continue using the drug once the physical pain has healed
As noted by Sites, to stem the tide of opioids prescriptions, doctors need "more ready access to alternatives to opioids such as cognitive behavioral therapy, acupuncture, acupressure, massage therapy, physical therapy and nonopioid pharmaceuticals that are effective."6
He also pointed out that since patients with mental health problems receive the bulk of the opioids, are prescribed higher doses than the general population, and are at increased risk of dependency and addiction, this is the patient population we need to focus on when devising policies to clamp down on out-of-control opioid prescriptions.7
Opioid Epidemic Keeps Escalating
According to preliminary data, drug overdoses (all kinds) killed between 59,000 and 65,000 Americans last year. Opioids, specifically, killed 33,000 in 2015.8,9,10 Opioids have also been identified as the primary gateway drug to heroin and synthetic opioids like fentanyl, both of which add to the drug overdose burden.
As noted by Vox Magazine,11 the Vietnam War, in its entirety, claimed the lives of 58,000 American troops. Essentially, we're suffering a death toll exceeding that of the Vietnam War each and every year now, courtesy of dangerous drugs, most of which are by prescription!
The U.S. Senate is now considering allotting $45 billion in health care grants for opioid addiction treatment over the next decade. But even though $4.5 billion per year sounds like an enormous amount of money, addiction specialists warn it's "drastically short" of what's actually needed.12,13
This is all taxpayers' monies, paying for a substance abuse epidemic created and meticulously fueled by drug companies using misinformation and straight-out lies. I recently wrote about this in "How Misuse of a Single Paragraph Killed 60,000 Americans Per Year."
EMFs Raise Your Risk of Depression and Anxiety
Like opioid addiction, depression and anxiety have skyrocketed in recent years, and it's important to realize how your lifestyle is contributing to the problem. Based on the evidence, I now believe exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and non-native microwave radiation plays an important role in depression and anxiety.
Conventional science and industry is clinging to the concept that microwave radiation from cellphones, portable phones, Wi-Fi routers, smart meters and wireless computers and tablets is harmless because they don't cause thermal damage. However, new research14 from Professor Emeritus Martin Pall has now provided us with the mechanism of how this low-level, nonthermal microwave exposure causes biological harm.
Pall discovered this mechanism while evaluating over two dozen studies showing you can radically reduce biological microwave damage using calcium channel blockers. Embedded in your cell membranes are voltage gated calcium channels (VGCCs). Once these VGCCs are activated by microwaves, about 1 million calcium ions per second are released, and these ions then stimulate the release of nitric oxide (NO), which combines with superoxide to form peroxynitrate.
These peroxynitrates then create hydroxyl free radicals, the most destructive free radicals known to man, which decimate mitochondrial and nuclear DNA, membranes and proteins that lead to mitochondrial dysfunction, which we now know is at the heart of most chronic disease.
Pall has calculated that these VGCCs are over 7 million times more sensitive to microwave radiation than the charged particles inside and outside the cell, which means the currently established safety standards for cellphones are off by a factor of over 7 million.
If You Struggle With Anxiety, Reduce Exposure to Wireless Electronics
This research explains why the argument that microwave radiation is not high enough to cause biological damage is fatally flawed. The radiation does not cause thermal damage, that's true, but it does cause massive biological damage by activating VGCCs in your cells and causing a cascade effect that results in hydroxyl free radicals being produced.
So, how does microwave radiation promote anxiety and depression specifically? Simple: The tissues with the highest density of VGCCs are your brain, your nerve tissue (like the pacemaker in your heart) and male testes. This helps explain why we have an exponential increase in not only anxiety and depression but also more serious neurological diseases such as autism and Alzheimer's, as well as arrhythmias and male infertility.
Failure to realize this and take steps to minimize exposure will not only damage your DNA and increase your risk of most chronic illness; it will also seriously impair your body's ability to remove toxins, and significantly impair your immune response to address the large variety of pathogenic infectious assaults.
The take-home message is this: If you or someone you love struggles with anxiety or depression, it would be wise to take whatever steps necessary to minimize your exposure to cellphones, portable phones, Wi-Fi routers, smart meters, wireless computers and tablets. You may also need to address other sources of dirty electricity in your home.
Pregnant Women — Another Vulnerable Target Group
Getting back to the issue of opioids, another startling discovery is the fact that women are being increasingly prescribed opioids during pregnancy and after delivery, thereby creating drug dependent mothers and infants. Of the 1.1 million pregnant women enrolled in Medicaid in 2007, nearly 23 percent filled a prescription for an opioid drug. That's 18.5 percent higher than in 2000.15
A majority of these opioids are prescribed for back and/or abdominal pain, which are exceedingly common complaints during pregnancy. As noted by Rishi J. Desai, a research fellow at Brigham and Women's Hospital, "One in 5 women using opioids during pregnancy is definitely surprising."16
Interestingly, prescription rates vary significantly between regions. In Utah, nearly 42 percent of pregnant women enrolled in Medicaid received opioids while only 9.5 percent of those in Oregon and New York received them. What this suggests is that areas with high rates of prescriptions may be overlooking potential misuse and abuse.
According to recent research, opioids taken during the first trimester double a child's risk of neural tube defects that damage the brain, spine and/or spinal cord. When a woman uses opioids during the latter half of her pregnancy, she also raises the child's risk of drug dependency in utero, leading to neonatal abstinence syndrome.
Please, take care to avoid becoming part of this devastating trend. Studies show addiction affects about 26 percent of those using opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Worse, 1 in 550 patients on opioid therapy die from opioid-related causes within 2.5 years of their first prescription.17
Pregnant Women Use a Disturbing Amount of Drugs
Opioids are also frequently prescribed following cesarean delivery, and 1.4 million C-sections are performed in the U.S. each year. Here too, researchers struggle to determine the most appropriate way to dispense pain medications. Recent investigations suggest most women receive far more pills than they actually need to control their post-surgical pain following a C-section.18
These excess pills may then be misused, either by the mother or someone else in the household. Overall, pregnant women are using more pharmaceuticals during pregnancy than ever before. In the past three decades, prescription drug use during the first trimester has increased by more than 60 percent, and use of four or more drugs during pregnancy has more than tripled.19
Anytime you take more than one medication at once, your chances of experiencing adverse effects increase exponentially, and recent findings suggest pharmacists miss half of all dangerous drug combinations. A whopping 63 percent of CVS pharmacies dispensed toxic drug combinations with no warning to patients, while Walgreens, which ranked the safest, had a 30 percent failure rate.20 You simply cannot depend on others safeguarding your health. The only 100 percent safe drug is the one you don't take.
Opioid Epidemic Exacts Greater Toll on Women Than Men
As it turns out, the opioid epidemic is taking a greater toll on women in general. In the last decade (2005 through 2014), opioid-related emergency room visits have nearly doubled, but while hospitalization rates among men rose by 55 percent, hospitalizations among female opioid users went up by 75 percent.21 In all, 1.2 million Americans ended up in the emergency room with an opioid-related side effect in 2014.
As noted by Anne Elixhauser, senior research scientist at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), "The deaths are horrible and startling, but the [total] burden of opioids is phenomenal."22 Indeed, every time new data comes out, the situation looks dimmer than before. According to the latest statistics,23,24 opioid addiction rose by 493 percent between 2010 and 2016, now affecting 8.3 out of every 1,000 opioid users.
In that same time, medication-assisted treatment25 (the current standard of care for opioid dependency, which combines behavioral therapy with medications such as buprenorphine or methadone) went up by just 65 percent, suggesting a vast majority of opioid addicts are suffering in silence. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, only 1 in 10 people struggling with some form of substance abuse receive treatment; 40 percent never seek treatment at all.
Needless to say, the irony of the situation is that while drug companies are responsible for creating this epidemic of drug addiction, other drugs are being pushed as the answer, allowing drug companies to rake in the cash from both ends while taxpayers foot the bill. One of the latest drug addiction treatments in the pipeline is an anti-heroin vaccine.26 The vaccine, which has so far only been tested on primates, is said to block the high normally caused by heroin for up to eight months after inoculation.27
Opioids Are Potent Immune Suppressors
Opioids treat pain by attaching to opioid receptors in your brain, thereby blocking pain signals. This also has the effect of creating a sensation of pleasure or euphoria — and addiction. Over time they can result in increased pain perception, setting into motion a cycle where you need increasingly larger doses, making a lethal overdose more likely. But overdosing is not the only risk you face when using an opioid drug.
A little-known and often overlooked fact about opioids is that they are also very potent immune suppressors. As such they can destroy your health in more ways than one, leaving you far worse off than when you started. In fact, several studies show that one primary risk for HIV and AIDS is opiate exposure.28,29,30,31
In cancer patients, opiates have a tendency to produce a rapid decline in health, as the drug causes their immune system to falter. So please remember, opiates are highly immunosuppressive drugs that raise your risk of any number of diseases, as your immune system is your frontline defense against all disease.
State Lawsuit Results in Paltry Settlement
Despite the fact that Americans are dying at unprecedented rates from Big Pharma's prescription painkillers, the pharmaceutical industry is rarely named by the establishment media for its deadly role in the growing opioid epidemic. Granted, states and cities are suing drug companies for damages to help pay for the epidemic they created, but justice remains elusive.
A lawsuit filed by Kentucky against Purdue Pharma, which settled in December 2015, resulted in a paltry $24 million settlement. Now, Kentucky Senate President Robert Stivers is intervening in a legal effort to unseal documents related to the case — a move that could potentially jeopardize the already agreed upon settlement with the state.
The documents in question include "a deposition of Dr. Richard Sackler, a former president of Purdue and a member of the family that owns the company; internal emails about the marketing of the drug; minutes of strategy meetings; analysis by the company of clinical trials; and other documents," STAT News reports.32 These court records were sealed from public view, and Stivers is now calling on Kentucky's attorney general, Andy Beshear, to unseal the records. According to STAT News:
"Stivers … said the release of the documents is important to evaluate whether the $24 million payment from Purdue represented a good settlement for Kentucky. The state originally filed the case in 2007. Two prior attorneys general valued the case at between $100 million and $1 billion. Stivers said the state settled for 'pennies on the dollar.'"
Treating Your Pain Without Drugs
While opioid painkillers may relieve pain temporarily, the addiction risks can quickly send you spiraling out of control. Many families touched by opioid addiction end up suffering for years before finally losing a loved one to addiction. While every case is tragic, it is particularly disturbing when the victim is a new mother.
I cannot stress enough the importance to avoid opioids during pregnancy and after delivery. If you end up needing a C-section, carefully evaluate your need for them, and be sure to discard any leftover pills by returning them to your pharmacy. It's important to realize there are many natural alternatives to treating pain.
It's particularly important to avoid opioids when trying to address long-term chronic pain, as your body will create a tolerance to the drug. Over time, you may require greater doses at more frequent intervals to achieve the same pain relief. This is a recipe for disaster and could have lethal consequences. Following is information about nondrug remedies, dietary changes and bodywork interventions that can help you manage your pain.
✓Medical cannabis:Medical marijuana has a long history as a natural analgesic and is now legal in 28 states. You can learn more about the laws in your state on medicalmarijuana.procon.org.33
✓Kratom: Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) is a plant remedy that has become a popular opioid substitute.34 In August 2016, the DEA issued a notice saying it was planning to ban kratom, listing it as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. However, following massive outrage from kratom users who say opioids are their only alternative, the agency reversed its decision.35
Kratom is safer than an opioid for someone in serious and chronic pain. However, it's important to recognize that it is a psychoactive substance and should be used carefully. There's very little research showing how to use it safely and effectively, and it may have a very different effect from one person to the next. The other issue to address is that there are a number of different strains available with different effects.
Also, while it may be useful for weaning people off opioids, kratom is in itself addictive. So, while it appears to be a far safer alternative to opioids, it's still a powerful and potentially addictive substance. So please, do your own research before trying it.
✓Low-Dose Naltrexone(LDN): Naltrexone is an opiate antagonist, originally developed in the early 1960s for the treatment of opioid addiction. When taken at very low doses LDN, available only by prescription, triggers endorphin production, which can boost your immune function and ease pain.
✓Curcumin: A primary therapeutic compound identified in the spice turmeric, curcumin has been shown in more than 50 clinical studies to have potent anti-inflammatory activity. Curcumin is hard to absorb, so best results are achieved with preparations designed to improve absorption. It is very safe and you can take two to three every hour if you need to.
✓Astaxanthin: One of the most effective oil-soluble antioxidants known, astaxanthin has very potent anti-inflammatory properties. Higher doses are typically required for pain relief, and you may need 8 milligrams or more per day to achieve results.
✓Boswellia: Also known as boswellin or "Indian frankincense," this herb contains powerful anti-inflammatory properties, which have been prized for thousands of years. This is one of my personal favorites, as it worked well for many of my former rheumatoid arthritis patients.
✓Bromelain: This protein-digesting enzyme, found in pineapples, is a natural anti-inflammatory. It can be taken in supplement form, but eating fresh pineapple may also be helpful. Keep in mind most of the bromelain is found within the core of the pineapple, so consider eating some of the pulpy core when you consume the fruit.
✓Cayenne cream: Also called capsaicin cream, this spice comes from dried hot peppers. It alleviates pain by depleting your body's supply of substance P, a chemical component of nerve cells that transmit pain signals to your brain.
✓Cetyl myristoleate (CMO): This oil, found in dairy butter and fish, acts as a joint lubricant and anti-inflammatory. I have used a topical preparation of CMO to relieve ganglion cysts and a mild case of carpal tunnel syndrome.
✓Evening primrose, black currant and borage oils: These oils contain the fatty acid gamma-linolenic acid, which is useful for treating arthritic pain.
✓Ginger: This herb is anti-inflammatory and offers pain relief and stomach-settling properties. Fresh ginger works well steeped in boiling water as a tea, or incorporated into fresh vegetable juice.
Dietary Changes to Fight Inflammation and Manage Your Pain
Physicians often fall short when attempting to effectively treat chronic pain, resorting to the only treatment they know: prescription drugs. While these drugs may bring some temporary relief, they will do nothing to resolve the underlying causes of your pain. If you suffer from chronic pain, making the following changes to your diet may bring you some relief.
✓Consume more animal-based omega-3 fats. Similar to the effects of anti-inflammatory pharmaceutical drugs, omega-3 fats from fish and fish oils work to directly or indirectly modulate a number of cellular activities associated with inflammation. While drugs have a powerful ability to inhibit your body's pain signals, omega-3s cause a gentle shift in cell signaling to bring about a lessened reactivity to pain.
Eating healthy seafood like anchovies or sardines, which are low in environmental toxins, or taking a high-quality supplement such as krill oil are your best options for obtaining omega-3s. DHA and EPA, the omega-3 oils contained in krill oil, have been found in many animal and clinical studies to have anti-inflammatory properties, which are beneficial for pain relief.
✓Radically reduce your intake of processed foods. Processed foods not only contain chemical additives and excessive amounts of sugar, but also are loaded with damaging omega-6 fats. By eating these foods, especially fried foods, you upset your body's ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty-acids, which triggers inflammation. Inflammation is a key factor in most pain.
✓Eliminate or radically reduce your consumption of grains and sugars. Avoiding grains and sugars, especially fructose, will lower your insulin and leptin levels. Elevated insulin and leptin levels are some of the most profound stimulators of inflammatory prostaglandin production, which contributes to pain.
While healthy individuals are advised to keep their daily fructose consumption below 25 grams from all sources, you'll want to limit your intake to 15 grams per day until your pain is reduced. Eating sugar increases your uric acid levels, which leads to chronic, low-level inflammation.
✓Optimize your production ofvitamin D. As much as possible, regulate your vitamin D levels by regularly exposing large amounts of your skin to sunshine. If you cannot get sufficient sun exposure, taking an oral vitamin D3 supplement, along with vitamin K2 and magnesium, is highly advisable.
Research by GrassrootsHealth suggests adults need about 8,000 IUs per day to achieve a serum level of 40 ng/ml, but you may need even more. It's best to get your blood level tested to be sure you're safely within the therapeutic range.
Bodywork Methods That Reduce Pain
The following bodywork methods have also been demonstrated effective for more lasting pain relief and management.
•Acupuncture: According to The New York Times,36 an estimated 3 million American adults receive acupuncture annually, most often for the treatment of chronic pain. A study37 published in the Archives of Internal Medicine concluded acupuncture has a definite effect in reducing four types of chronic pain, including back and neck pain, chronic headache, osteoarthritis and shoulder pain — more so than standard pain treatment.
•Chiropractic adjustments: While previously used most often to treat back pain, chiropractic treatment addresses many other problems — including asthma, carpal tunnel syndrome, fibromyalgia, headaches, migraines, musculoskeletal pain, neck pain and whiplash. According to a study38 published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, patients with neck pain who used a chiropractor and/or exercise were more than twice as likely to be pain-free in 12 weeks compared to those who took medication.
•Massage: Massage releases endorphins, which help induce relaxation, relieve pain and reduce levels of stress chemicals such as cortisol and noradrenaline. A systematic review and meta-analysis39 published in the journal Pain Medicine included 60 high-quality and seven low-quality studies that looked into the use of massage for various types of pain, including bone and muscle, fibromyalgia, headache and spinal cord pain.
The study revealed massage therapy relieves pain better than getting no treatment at all. When compared to other pain treatments like acupuncture and physical therapy, massage therapy still proved beneficial and had few side effects. In addition to relieving pain, massage therapy also improved anxiety and health-related quality of life.
•Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT):EFT continues to be one of the easiest and most effective ways to deal with acute and chronic pain. The technique is simple and can be applied in mere minutes, helping you to overcome all kinds of bodily aches and pains. A study40 published in Energy Psychology examined the levels of pain in a group of 50 people attending a three-day EFT workshop, and found their pain dropped by 43 percent during the workshop.
Six weeks later, their pain levels were reported to be 42 percent lower than before the workshop. As a result of applying EFT, participants felt they had an improved sense of control and ability to cope with their chronic pain. In the video featured below, EFT expert Julie Schiffman, teaches you how to use EFT to address chronic pain.
(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,...
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.
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.
We are living in the greatest debt bubble in the history of the world. In 1980, total government and personal debt in the United States was just over the 3 trillion dollar mark, but today it has surpassed 41 trillion dollars. That means that it has increased by almost 14 times since Ronald Reagan was first elected president. I am searching for words to describe how completely and utterly insane this is, but I am coming up empty. We are slowly but surely committing national suicide, and yet most Americans don’t even understand what is happening.
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…
The S&P 500 Cyclically Adjusted Price to Earnings (CAPE) valuation has only been greater on one occasion, the late 1990s. It is currently on par with levels preceding the Great Depression.
CAPE valuation, when adjusted for the prevailing economic growth trend, is more overvalued than during the late 1920’s and the late 1990’s. (LINK)
S&P 500 Price to Sales Ratio is at an all-time high
Total domestic corporate profits (w/o IVA/CCAdj) have grown at an annualized rate of .097% over the last five years. Prior to this period and since 2000, five year annualized profit growth was 7.95%. (note- period included two recessions) (LINK)
Over the last ten years, S&P 500 corporations have returned more money to shareholders via share buybacks and dividends than they have earned.
The top 200 S&P 500 companies have pension shortfalls totaling $382 billion and corporations like GE spent more on share buybacks ($45b) than the size of their entire pension shortfall ($31b) which ranks as the largest in the S&P 500. (LINK)
Using data back to 1987, the yield to maturity on high-yield (non-investment grade) debt is in the 3rd percentile. Per Prudential as cited in the Wall Street Journal, yields on high-yield debt, adjusted for defaults, are now lower than those of investment grade bonds. Currently, the yield on the Barclays High Yield Index is below the expected default rate.
Implied equity and U.S. Treasury volatility has been trading at the lowest levels in over 30 years, highlighting historic investor complacency. (LINK)
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.
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.
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.
Chemotherapy May Make Breast Cancer More Aggressive and Likely to Spread
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
Increasing the number of immune cells that transport cancer cells into blood vessels
Making blood vessels more permeable to cancer cells
Making tumor cells more mobile
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.
It’s Been Known for Years That Chemotherapy Can Trigger Tumor Growth
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
Conventional Oncologists Aren’t Likely to Explain the Many Options for Treatment
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.
Understanding Your Options for Cancer Treatment
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:
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.
✓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):
1950-->1990 + 234m
1990-->2015 <-47m>
2015-->2050 <-67m> (UN med. est.)
Africa 0-5yr/old population change:
1950-->1990 + 71m
1990-->2015 +75m
2015-->2050 +95m (UN med. est.)
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.”
