As expected, the disgusting fake news media is ignoring the most damning of all revelations made by James Comey

ORIGINAL LINK

There were several glaring omissions by the “mainstream media,” as typified in this Associated Press story about former FBI Director James Comey’s much-anticipated testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday — like any mention of potential criminal activity committed by himself and his former boss at the Obama Justice Department, Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The AP gave much attention to more allegations made by Comey than actual facts he admitted to, such as:

— Comey says he has no doubt he was fired “in some way to change, or the endeavor was to change, the way the Russia investigation was being conducted. That is a very big deal, and not just because it involves me.”

— The AP was sure to mention that the former director accused the Trump administration of spreading “lies, plain and simple,” about him and the agency he used to run.

— The newswire service also noted Trump’s demand for his “loyalty” and his push to “lift the cloud” of investigation by publicly declaring that the president was not the subject of any FBI query.

— And of course, the AP covered Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin’s “key question,” which was: “Do you believe this rises to obstruction of justice?” to which Comey replied, “I don’t know. That’s [special prosecutor] Bob Meuller’s job to sort that out.”

Then this.

The AP reported:

In a startling disclosure, Comey revealed that after his firing he had actually tried to spur the special counsel’s appointment by giving one of his memos about Trump to a friend of his to leak to the press.

“My judgment was I need to get that out into the public square,” Comey said.

And that was all the AP said. Only, that “startling disclosure” very possibly was Comey admitting that he leaked government documents to the media, which is a potential criminal act, but the AP didn’t frame it that way or even mention that possibility.

There was more. Comey also revealed that Lynch pressured him (obstructed him?) to change the characterization of the FBI’s investigation into then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s illegal use of an unsecured email server, which he said made him “queasy.” The exchange:

Lynch: “Yes, but don’t call it an investigation, call it a ‘matter.’”

Comey: “Why would I do that?”

Lynch: “Just call it a matter.”

As for the media, Comey did do truth seekers and Trump supporters one favor — he debunked much of the reporting by the establishment media, calling much of it flat-out wrong (like, fake news).

In particular, he called the contents of a New York Times story on the Russian investigation suggesting Trump-Russia “collusion” “almost entirely wrong” — “in the main, it was not true,” he testified. He also said there are many stories by the fake news establishment media that are just “dead wrong.” (RELATED: Bombshell: James Comey willfully LIED to America about Hillary Clinton criminal investigation after being pressured by Loretta Lynch)

So wrong was much of the media reporting that The Hill noted following Comey’s testimony that fake news central CNN was forced to issue a correction after the former FBI director contradicted their reporting:

CNN has corrected a Tuesday report after the release of former FBI Director James Comey’s opening statement for his Thursday testimony in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee contradicted the report’s sources.

The CNN report said Comey was expected to dispute President Trump’s claims that Comey said he was not under investigation on multiple occasions.

In fact, Comey did testify that he informed the president he was not the subject of an investigation.

It’s worth noting that CNN’s original report — with no less than four bylines (Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper and Brian Rokus) — was based on unnamed sources.

ABC News had published a similar report but as of this writing had not issued a correction.

Overall, the most damning statements made by Comey, which were his admission he helped leak privileged government communications and that Lynch may have obstructed him in his probe into Clinton’s email server (which he covered for by refusing to recommend she be indicted despite the evidence he laid out), is either being glossed over the by mainstream media or left out altogether.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:

TheNationalSentinel.com

AP.org

TheHill.com

via IFTTT

10 Colossal False Health Claims Made By Big Pharma & Mainstream Media

ORIGINAL LINK

It’s no secret that Big Pharma is fuelled by profit, often putting business interests ahead of patients’ lives and well-being. And North American culture practically worships the pharmaceutical industry, failing to recognize many of the issues within it.

Many Americans are completely unaware that new prescription drugs have a 1 in 5 chance of causing serious reactions, even after being approved, or that Harvard University stated that prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death. We’re not talking overdosing or misprespcribing; these are drugs that are deemed safe and properly prescribed to patients who simply have an adverse reaction to them.

Despite these facts, people take the risks of pharmaceuticals very lightly, turning to them when they’re sick only to provide a “bandaid” effect, covering up the symptoms rather than treating and preventing the root cause. The public isn’t entirely to blame for their ignorance; Big Pharma paints a perfect image of themselves, making false claims and highlighting the “benefits” of drugs while minimizing the potential risks associated with them (or printing them in extremely small font sizes).

Here Are 10 False Health Claims Big Pharma and the Mainstream Media Make:

1. “Cancer cannot be cured without chemotherapy/radiation and the associated drugs.”

The cancer industry is a money making machine, one that will suppress real treatments in order to profit off of the “treatments” they so heavily market. Both chemotherapy and radiation negatively impact the body’s natural ability to heal itself, as they harm healthy tissues, too. This isn’t surprising given that the origin of chemo itself came from mustard gases used in war. One study even proved that chemotherapy is ineffective more than 97% of the time (watch Dr. Peter Glidden discuss these findings here).

One of the most suppressed cancer treatments is cannabis, especially since Big Pharma has spent a lot of money to keep it illegal. Numerous organizations and universities, including Harvard Medical School, have been studying the effects cannabis has on cancer cells, proving its success and recommending it to be used as a cancer treatment.

You can read more about treating cancer with cannabis below:

20 Medical Studies That Show Cannabis Can Be A Potential Cure For Cancer

Aside from cannabis, there are a number of other all-natural treatments for cancer that are being studied and used by cancer patients all over the world. Some of these alternative methods include vitamin C injections, turmeric, plant-based diets, frankincense, alkaline diets, and more.

Diet can both treat cancer and prevent it, something that many conventional doctors don’t focus on enough. Sugar also feeds cancer cells, which mainstream media has blatantly denied numerous times. Read more about that here:

The Sugar & Cancer Connection Many Doctors Aren’t Telling You

2. “Mentally ill individuals have a chemical imbalance in their brains.”

Joseph Coyle, a neuroscientist from Harvard Medical School, sums it up best, writing that “chemical imbalance is sort of last-century thinking. It’s much more complicated than that.”

As Scientific American reports, “much of the general public seems to have accepted the chemical imbalance hypothesis uncritically,” and “it is very likely that depression stems from influences other than neurotransmitter abnormalities.” (source)

Harvard Medical School put out a press release a few years ago stating that it’s “often said that depression results from a chemical imbalance, but that figure of speech doesn’t capture how complex the disease is.”  (source)

Not only is there no solid scientific proof to back up the chemical imbalance theory, many depressed people are not even helped by taking antidepressants like SSRIs. For example, a review done by the University of California in 2009 found that one third of people treated with antidepressants do not improve, and a significant portion of these people remain depressed. Scientific American points out that “if antidepressants correct a chemical imbalance that underlies depression, all or most depressed people should get better after taking them.” (source)

Irving Kirsch, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Associate Director of the Program in Placebo Studies, and Lecturer in Medicine at Harvard Medical School, explained in a publication obtained from the US National Library of Medicine:

Antidepressants are supposed to work by fixing a chemical imbalance, specifically, a lack of serotonin in the brain. Indeed, their supposed effectiveness is the primary evidence for the chemical imbalance theory. But analyses of the published data and the unpublished data that were hidden by drug companies reveals that most (if not all) of the benefits are due to the placebo effect. Some antidepressants increase serotonin levels, some decrease it, and some have no effect at all on serotonin. Nevertheless, they all show the same therapeutic benefit. Even the small statistical difference between antidepressants and placebos may be an enhanced placebo effect, due to the fact that most patients and doctors in clinical trials successfully break blind. The serotonin theory is as close as any theory in the history of science to having been proved wrong. Instead of curing depression, popular antidepressants may induce a biological vulnerability making people more likely to become depressed in the future.

3. “ADHD medication is ‘safer than aspirin’ and can ‘increase kids’ test scores.’ “

ADHD drug marketing has gotten out of control in America, as commercials run on TV and in magazines all the time, targeting parents by suggesting their children are too excitable.

As with many other diseases and disorders, when it comes to A.D.H.D., pharmaceutical companies have paid doctors and researchers to overstate the dangers of A.D.H.D. and the benefits of taking their drugs and understate the negative side effects. It’s easy for people to believe this misguided information when it’s affiliated with well-known universities like Harvard and Johns Hopkins. Many people don’t even realize that these studies are funded by the very companies that profit from the drugs’ sale because that relationship is hidden in small print (source).

Even though many of the advertisements Big Pharma has released state that A.D.H.D. medication is “safer than aspirin,” these drugs can have significant side effects and are actually considered to be within the same class as morphine and oxycodone due to their high risk of abuse and addiction. You can’t just blame all doctors, either; many of them genuinely believe they’re helping these children because of the information they’ve been given in these studies and by Big Pharma.

Big Pharma creates advertisements for A.D.H.D. drugs that are specifically targeted at parents, describing how these drugs can improve test scores and behaviour at home, among other false claims. One of the most controversial ones was a 2009 ad for Intuniv, Shire’s A.D.H.D. treatment, which included a child in a monster costume taking off his terrifying mask to reveal his calm, smiling self with a text reading, “There’s a great kid in there.” The FDA has stepped in multiple times, sending pharmaceutical companies warning letters or even forcing them to take down their ads because they are false, misleading, and/or exaggerate the effects of their drugs (source).

4. “The vaccine-autism link has been disproven.”

This is perhaps one of the most concerning claims spread all throughout mainstream media (MSM). The vaccine-autism link has been proven numerous times, yet MSM continuously tries to debunk it, telling its viewers that this theory was “100% disproven.”

To be clear, this was not a theory dreamt up by concerned parents; it surfaced when scientists found that link. The CDC even tried to hide this information from the public, which you can read about here.

A study published by Dr. Brian Hooker, a previous CDC scientist, in the peer-reviewed journal Translational Neurodegeneration found up to a 340% increased risk of autism in African American boys receiving the Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. You can read more about this specific study in our CE article here.

The vaccine-autism link has even held up in courts, giving parents peace of mind and punishing Big Pharma companies. In one case, the Italian Health Ministry admitted that the MMR vaccine specifically caused autism in a 9-year-old boy. You can read more about that case in our CE article here.

Another paper published by Professor Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic of the University of British Columbia showed that vaccines with aluminum adjuvants increase the risk of developing autism, autoimmune diseases, and neurological problems later in life. A demonstrated neurotoxin, aluminum is the only approved adjuvant in the U.S. Its use presents the risk of brain inflammation, autoimmunity, and other adverse health consequences (source).

There are so many more examples, which you can find if you search ‘vaccines’ and ‘autism’ on our website here.

Despite this, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently issued a press release to express its opposition to a federal commission that has been proposed by the Trump administration to examine vaccine safety and efficacy. The AAP argues that since we “already know that vaccines are safe and effective,” there is no need for further examination into their safety and efficacy. It’s clear that there is enough evidence that suggests vaccines need to be further studied, but the government wants to ignore it.

5. “Aspirin can prevent a heart attack.” 

Numerous people with heart disease or who suffer with increased risk of heart attack choose to take aspirin for “heart attack prevention.” This provides the exact same bandaid effect as most other pharmaceuticals do in the medical industry. By taking an aspirin a day, you’re just covering up the problem, rather than going to the root cause of it.

Why do you suffer from heart disease? Do you consume meat, dairy, sodium, fried foods, or any other products that are proven to cause heart disease? There are literally so many ways to prevent heart disease, yet many people choose to take pharmaceuticals like aspirin and blood pressure medication instead.

What many of these people aren’t told by their doctors is that by taking aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs, frequently, you’re actually increasing your risk of heart attacks. A new study published in the British Medical Journal found that these painkillers, including aspirin, are linked to heart problems, and that the risk could be greatest within the initial 30 days of taking them.

You can read more about this in our CE article here.

6. “Flu shots are necessary and 100% effective.”

The flu shot is often referred to as the biggest joke in the medical industry, and for good reason. They’re made up of terrible ingredients, including formaldehyde and mercury — two powerful neurotoxins — and the vaccine industry even admits that laboratory tests prove the popular jab does not work.

A study published in the International Journal of Medicine revealed something that you don’t hear too often: Flu vaccines result in inflammatory cardiovascular changes indicative of increased risk for serious heart-related events, like a heart attack.

The flu shot isn’t even very effective; the CDC openly admits it only works approximately 50% of the time. You can learn more about this hoax in our CE article here.

7. “Fluoride, chlorine, and other heavy metals added to our drinking water are safe.”

Research published in the Lancet by researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISMMS) found that various chemicals that many children are exposed to are having a direct effect on the creation of disorders labelled under the name ADHD as well as other mental disorders., and this includes fluoride. The study clearly stated that it was a neurotoxin, which has been verified numerous times. You can read more about that here.

“In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer deaths than any other chemical. When you have power you don’t have to tell the truth. That’s a rule that’s been working in this world for generations. There are a great many people who don’t tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions. Fluoride amounts to public murder on a grand scale. It is some of the most conclusive scientific and biological evidence that I have come across in my 50 years in the field of cancer research.”

 – Dr. Dean Burk, Biochemist, founder of Biotin and former Chief Chemist at the National Cancer Institute of Health (source)

Many places choose not to add fluoride to their water, particularly because it is a neurotoxin, including many countries in Europe. And chlorine is no safer. Even the U.S. Council Of Environmental Quality states that “cancer risk among people drinking chlorinated water is 93% higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine.

8. “Alternative and naturopathic medicine are not studied and are ineffective.”

The belief system that alternative medicine and naturopathic medicine are somehow inferior to conventional medicine is continuously perpetuated by MSM and Big Pharma. News stories regarding studies on alternative medicine or all-natural treatment methods are barely ever covered by MSM.

There have literally been thousands of studies on alternative medicine such as cannabis, essential oils, and other naturopathic remedies. If an MSM news report ever takes a condescending tone toward naturopathy, keep in mind that this could be propaganda, which could even be funded by drug companies.

9. Cancer charities are working to find “a cure.”

First of all, these organizations are only affiliated with Big Pharma, and the “search for the cure” when it comes to cancer is pretty much over now that the healing properties of cannabis oil have been discovered. Second of all, most of these organizations are committing fraud.

For example, the National Children’s Leukemia Foundation was shut down because they lured people in, claimed that the funds would be used to conduct cancer research and locate bone marrow donors, but instead less than 1% of the millions of dollars raised actually went towards this. (source)(source)

A complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission describes four connected groups, all with cancer in their name, as “sham charities,” saying they instead “operated as personal fiefdoms characterized by rampant nepotism, flagrant conflicts of interest, and excessive insider compensation.” One of those names was the Cancer Fund of America Inc. These groups stand accused of taking in almost 200 million dollars. (source)

Perhaps the biggest marketing scam is the little pink ribbons that people claim represent “the fight against breast cancer,” created by the Susan G. Komen Foundation. In reality, the company puts less than a dime of each dollar toward actually finding a cure for breast cancer, and that’s only the beginning of the problem. You can read more about this sham in our CE article here.

10. “There are no adverse effects to taking over-the-counter medication or pharmaceuticals.”

Perhaps one of the most concerning beliefs in society is that “over-the-counter medication and pharmaceuticals pose no threats to human health” or that “the benefits outweigh the risks.” These are blanket statements often used by misinformed consumers or even by Big Pharma and medical doctors.

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”

– Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and former Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal  (source)(source) 

A study published in the British Medical Journal showed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials.

The Editor in Chief of the New England Medical journal explained:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. (source)

As previously discussed, anti-inflammatory drugs increase risk of heart attack, stroke, or dying from cardiovascular disease by approximately a third. “This means that for every 1,000 people with an average risk of heart disease who take high-dose diclofenac or ibuprofen for a year, about three extra would have an avoidable heart attack, of which one would be fatal,” the researchers noted.

Acetaminophen, often sold under the brand name Tylenol, overdose is the leading cause for calls to Poison Control Centers across the U.S., representing more than 100,000 cases per year. Tylenol can also cause liver failure, yet many people still take it frequently.

At the end of the day, many of us are vastly misinformed when it comes to modern medicine. Society trusts everything their doctors say, without realizing that Big Pharma plays a big role in their education, and so they literally profit off you being sick. It’s not surprising that these drugs cause adverse reactions and have negative side effects, without which they wouldn’t have any returning customers.

 

 

via IFTTT

Risks of Thyroid Cancer Screenings may Outweigh Benefits

ORIGINAL LINK

by Seth Pollard, Natural Society:

A U.S. health task force said in a May 2017 statement that screening for thyroid cancer is no longer recommended for adults who have “no signs or symptoms.” [1]

The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force said in the news release that there is no evidence that screenings improve survival and can lead to over-diagnosis and other possible complications.

Task Force member Karina W. Davison, Ph.D., M.A.Sc., said:

“While there is very little evidence of the benefits of screening for thyroid cancer, there is considerable evidence of the serious harms of treatment, such as damage to the nerves that control speaking and breathing.

What limited evidence is available does not suggest that screening enables people to live longer, healthier lives.”

The Task Force said that over-diagnosis “leads to an increase in new diagnoses of thyroid cancer without affecting the number of people who die from thyroid cancer.”

Thyroid cancer is fairly rare in the U.S., according to the Task Force, which estimates there will be 56,300 news cases of the disease in 2017, accounting for 3.8% of all cancers.

The incidence of thyroid cancer has risen about 4.5% per year over the last decade, faster than any other cancer. However, the mortality rate has not risen and remains at about .05 deaths 100,000 people in 2013. [2]

Thyroid patients usually have a good prognosis, with a 5-year survival rate of 98.1%.

Read More @ NaturalSociety.com

via IFTTT

Comey Slams NY Times' Fake News On Russia Probe: "Story Was Almost Entirely Wrong"

ORIGINAL LINK

For those of you who continue to consume anonymously-sourced news from the likes of CNN, NYT, WAPO, etc, as pure fact and a perfect substitute for actual, unbiased journalism, while blindly ignoring the overwhelming evidence which continues to suggest these outlets are simply pushing a sensationalized narrative aimed at bringing down an administration of which they disapprove, please consider Comey's testimony from earlier today in which he describes a February NY Times story, which alleged numerous contacts between Trump associates and Russia, as "almost entirely wrong"

Cotton:  "On February 14 the New York Times published a story, the headline of which was "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence." 

 

You were asked earlier whether that was an inaccurate statement and you said you said 'in the main.'  Would it be fair to characterize the story as 'almost entirely wrong?'"

 

Comey:  "Yes."

#Comey says that NYT story claiming that the Trump campaign had repeated contacts with Russia was "ENTIRELY WRONG" #FakeNews#ComeyTestimony pic.twitter.com/ihlk16JDIG

— Rightly News (@RightlyNews) June 8, 2017

 

For those who missed it, we covered the original New York Times article in a post entitled "NYTimes Reports Trump Aides' "Repeated Contact" With Russian Intel Officials, Admits No Collusion Discovered."

Meanwhile, in earlier testimony with Senator Risch, Comey further explained why anonymously sourced stories can often be pure "nonsense."

Risch:  "So the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true, is that a fair statement?"

 

Comey:  "In the main it was not true.  And, again, all of you know this, maybe the American people do not, the challenge, and I'm not picking on reporters, about writing stories about classified information is, the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it. 

 

And we don't call the press to say 'hey, you got that thing wrong about his sensitive topic.'"

 

"I mentioned to the chairman the nonsense around what influenced me to make the July 5th Statement.  Nonsense, but I can't go explaining why it's nonsense."

Comey debunks NY Times report that Trump campaign had repeated contacts with the Russians. https://t.co/SktsHq9EGs #TrumpRussia H/T @cnsnews pic.twitter.com/jmLpGk7JiJ

— Conservative Eagle (@ConservEagleUSA) June 8, 2017

 

Of course, just like with CNN's story yesterday, we're certain that the New York Times will promptly retract their erroneous reporting and offer an apology to their readers for the unfortunate mistake...not that it matters much because the story has already reached millions of readers and inflicted the damage for which it was intended.

* * *

For those who missed it, Comey's opening statement also outed another anonymously-sourced 'fake news' article pushed by CNN.  Here was our post on the topic from yesterday:

Back on May 9th, the White House released the letter that President Trump sent to former FBI Director James Comey informing him that he'd been relieved of his duties at the FBI.  Within that letter, Trump awkwardly inserted a sentence thanking Comey for informing him "on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation."  Here's the full sentence (full post here):

"While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgement of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau."

Not surprisingly, this statement set off alarm bells at CNN and other MSM outlets because, if true, it would put a real damper on their "Trump colluded with Russian hackers to stage a coup" narrative. Therefore, those outlets set out on a mission to 'prove' that Comey never made those statements and that, by definition, Trump clearly lied about his past interactions with the former FBI Director. 

And not long after setting out on that mission, courtesy of those infamous 'anonymous sources', CNN and ABC struck gold when they confirmed that "FBI Director James Comey is reportedly set to testify he never told President Donald Trump that he was not under investigation."  Here is a summary of CNN's reporting from their primary echo chamber, HuffPo:

"Former FBI Director James Comey is reportedly set to testify he never told President Donald Trump that he was not under investigation in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to CNN and ABC News."

And here is the original CNN reporting:

 

"Trump has made a blanket claim that Comey told him multiple times that he was not under investigation."

 

"But one source said Comey is expected to explain to senators that those were much more nuanced conversations from which Trump concluded that he was not under investigation.  Another source hinted that the President may have misunderstood the exact meaning of Comey's words, especially regarding the FBI's ongoing counterintelligence investigation."

Unfortunately, CNN's 'anonymous sources' seem to have been 'mistaken' on this one.  And while we have no doubts, generally, about the integrity of CNN and/or their anonymous sources, Comey's direct testimony released just a while ago seems to confirm exactly what Trump said in his original May 9th letter and exactly the opposite what CNN subsequently reported. 

In fact, here are precisely three instances (ironic, right?), directly from Comey's testimony, in which he personally told President Trump he was not under investigation:

1.  January 6th Meeting at Trump Tower:

"In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance."

 

2.  January 27th Dinner at White House:

"During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it."

 

3.  March 30 Phone Call:

"I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded him I had previously told him that."

Of course, we're 'absolutely positive' that everything else CNN has learned and reported from their anonymous sources, regarding Trump and his Russian collusion, is completely accurate and reflect nothing but the highest levels of journalistic integrity.  As such, we are quite confident that CNN will promptly retract their erroneous reporting and offer an apology to their readers for the unfortunate mistake.

via IFTTT

Father of Famous Aleppo Boy Just Exposed How the US & White Helmets Lied to the World

ORIGINAL LINK

by Claire Bernish, The Free Thought Project:

Covered in dust and bruises with hair disheveled from having survived a blast, the blood beginning to crust over half his face, a seeming placidity — hands anchored on his legs, all-but unmoving — could not mask the stoic trauma in little Omran Daqneesh’s eyes.

Gazing hauntingly from the back of an ambulance in Aleppo in August 2016, Omran’s image snared the heartstrings of the world — even those previously hardened to the hopelessly tangled morass in Syria — transmogrifying into a single human form the suffering of innocent Syrians at the whims of entire nation-states embroiled in proxy war upon war in the name of political squabbles.

But, while the West took up Omran’s cause, Westerners did so under the pretense the child had been bloodied by an airstrike or missile launched by the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or their allies from Russia — his image rekindling the fire of contention propaganda designed to support the United States’ goal of regime change.

But it was a lie — from mass media’s parroted claims the boy had escaped an airstrike within an inch of his life, to bandages eventually wrapped around Omran’s head — virtually none of the narrative stemming from the starkly persistent image bore the weight of truth.

“We did not find out how the incident happened,” Mohamad Kheir Daqneesh, Omran’s father, told reporter Kinana Alloush and others in interviews this week. “I pulled my family members out of debris. Omran was with me, while White Helmets took him away and started taking photo of him.”

Daqneesh, noting the sound of fighter jets or missiles did not precede the blast which ultimately killed Omran’s 10-year-old brother, explained he had to shave the boy’s head and ferret him away from overwhelming media attention — and from rebel fighters and sympathizers who sought perhaps to wrest the symbolic child from the relative safety of his family.

Journalists allied with al-Nusra Front — variously, Fatah al-Sham or Levant Liberation, an offshoot of al-Qaeda — demanded the father adhere to the narrative Assad was responsible for Russians bombing the neighborhood, and, thus, their suffering and tragic predicament. They even offered sizable sums to sweeten the pot.

He refused — on principle, as well as on the basis of knowledge likely some contrary was true.

In fact, the attempt to wrangle a narrative favorable to the U.S.-led coalition hasn’t ceased — even amid the emergence of the family’s actual plight, pro-Western media outlets like the Guardian and Washington Post maintained speculation and withheld details disputing the original maudlin horror evinced in the August 17, 2016, image of Omran in the ambulance’s orange chair.

Where Alloush and other journalists, interviewing Daqneesh with Omran by his side — now clean cut and hinting smiles — listened intently to the man fed up with misinformation circulating for almost a year, Western corporate media insisted there could be no way to verify whether coercion forced him to speak out.

Mohamad — gasp — supports the rule of Assad.

But where eagerness to paint the Syrian war in the broad strokes of good versus evil might have fabricated the story to the benefit of shared goals possessed by the West and barbarous militants, reality is never so simple.

Nor is it so verily sterile and concrete, even when tinged with hollow tears from a world audience eager to pin blame and continue dropping bombs as usual.

War’s messes cannot be encapsulated so facilely in the resigned, dusty face of a single child — not when thousands of children whose stability, limbs, life, and homeland have been ripped to shreds — but go unnoticed by the same corporate media backing interventionist policy wreaking that havoc in the first place.

Omran, it turns out, suffered only minor injuries — not even severe enough to warrant head bandages, much less a footnote in history as the poster child for why the West must oust Assad — and he left the hospital after receiving first aid to return to whatever remained of their home in Aleppo.

Read More @ TheFreeThoughtProject.com

via IFTTT

Founder of Aerospace Giant, The Bigelow Corporation, Confirms That Extraterrestrials Are Visiting Earth

ORIGINAL LINK

In a recent interview with 60 minutes, Robert Bigelow, founder of the Bigelow Aerospace corporation, stated that he is aware of an intelligent extraterrestrial presence visiting the planet. Being the founder of a major aerospace corporation who has and does work for multiple international space agencies, like NASA, you’re probably a little more “in the know” than the general public.

Bigelow is also in agreements with multiple nations to build space habitats and space stations. Very interesting stuff, especially with the recent privatization of space by the Obama administration, allowing corporations and business to get involved with space endeavours.

What’s most intriguing about a testimony like this is the fact that he’s not alone. Yes, it’s the founder of a major aerospace corporation relaying this information, but we’ve also had testimony from hundreds of military personnel of all ranks, high ranking politicians, astronauts, academicians and many more.

Are we to assume that all of them have simply “lost it,” and are spending the rest of their lives trying to let the public know? This is a ridiculous assumption, and often made from a place of cognitive dissonance.

There is a serious possibility that we are being visited and have been visited for many years by people from outer space, from other civilizations. That it behooves us, in case some of these people in the future or now should turn hostile, to find out who they are, where they come from, and what they want. This should be the subject of rigorous scientific investigation and not the subject of ‘rubishing’ by tabloid newspapers. – Lord Admiral Hill-Norton, Former Chief of Defence Staff, 5 Star Admiral of the Royal Navy, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee (source)

 To compliment this testimony, we also have declassified documents showing that UFOs are commonly tracked on both air and ground radar, as well as visually confirmed by the pilots who are sent out to take a closer look.

We’ve written hundreds of articles that are well sourced, so feel free to visit the exopolitics section of our website to sift through our most recent articles.

As Elon Musk said, the chances are that there are super intelligent beings visiting and watching us right now and we’re probably “not smart enough” to recognize it.  You can watch that interview and read more about it in a previous article we published here.

Sure, UFO does not mean alien, but the existence of UFOs performing maneuvers that defy the laws of physics is not really a debatable subject.(See: This Is What Happens When The Military Tracks A UFO On Radar)  There is even physical evidence associated with this phenomena.

For example, at the 2011 Global Competitiveness Forum, at which a number of prominent scientists/people were in attendance, Jacque Valle delivered a lecture regarding UFOs and how important it is to study them. Another prominent speaker discussing the topic was American theoretical physicist Michu Kaku. You can view his lecture at that event here.

Valee, notable for co-developing the first computerized mapping of Mars for NASA and for his work at SRI International on the network information centre for ARPANET, shared the physical evidence associated with the phenomenon.

In fact, the physical evidence associated with this phenomenon, the supposed physical evidence, plus the importance of it has been postulated for a long time. For example,  Peter Andrew Sturrock, a British Scientist and an Emeritus Professor of Applied Physics at Stanford University, gathered a number of other notable scientists around the world to examine the physical evidence.  One example used by Sturrock in his analysis, was a photo taken by two Royal Canadian Air Force pilots on August 27th, 1956, in McCleod, Alberta, Canada. (“Physical Evidence Related To UFO Reports” – The Sturrock Panel Report – Electromagnetic Effects) (source) (source)

Just as UFO’s are no longer a conspiracy theory but were a few years ago despite the evidence, the extraterrestrial hypothesis also has a great deal of evidence behind it, depending how you define evidence.

Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the SETI Institute, believes and has stated numerous times that we are definitely not alone, at that there is most probably intelligent extraterrestrial life somewhere else in the universe. But when it comes to the evidence suggesting that we are being and have been visited,  he feels there is not enough evidence to suggest that.

But he seems to be in the minority. For example, multiple NASA astronauts seem to disagree. According to former Princeton professor Dr. Brian O’leary:

“There is abundant evidence that we are being contacted, that other civilizations have been visiting us for a very long.”  (source)

If you’re new to this topic, a great place to start is with the witness testimony that comes from Dr. Steven Greer’s Disclosure Project, who just released a groundbreaking documentary on the subject called “Unacknowledged.” which broke records on Itunes. You can watch the trailer here.

Another great place to explore is within the works of Richard Dolan, who is a big time scholar apart from being one of the world’s most prominent researchers on the topic of UFOs. You can check out a list of his books here.

We’re living in a time where a lot of new evidence is presenting itself which conflicts with the belief systems of many. It’s always best to keep an open mind, because ignoring new information and evidence is not, in my opinion, the natural path of human evolution. The information is out there, it’s just our choice whether we choose to see it or turn a blind eye.

Speaking of Bigelow Aerospace, a couple of years ago, longtime Bigelow Aerospace executive Mike Gold, who’s now director of Washington operations for Space Systems Loral, was asked about how Bigelow Aerospaces’ involvement with UFOs.

He gave an interesting answer, with some interesting expressions on his face. He mentions how he finds the subjects matter “very interesting,” and also mentions a congressional hearing where scientists emphasized that the universe is teeming with life. He goes on to state that he “cannot comment” on what Bigelow Aerospace does with UFO reports, but glad that “somebody is taking the reports because these are important issue that deserve serious attention.” 

“Yes there have been crashed craft, and bodies recovered. . . . We are not alone in the universe, they have been coming here for a long time. . . . I happen to be privileged enough to be in on the fact that we have been visited on this planet, and the UFO phenomenon is real.”

– Doctor Edgar Mitchell, 6th man to walk on the moon (source)(source)(source)

“Intelligent beings from other star systems have been and are visiting our planet Earth. They are variously referred to as Visitors, Others, Star People, ETs, etc. . . . They are visiting Earth NOW; this is not a matter of conjecture or wistful thinking.”

– Theodor C. Loder III, Phd, Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of New Hampshire (source)

 

via IFTTT

QUESTIONS LINGER ABOUT SETH RICH MURDER DETAILS

ORIGINAL LINK

The murder of Seth Rich has brought a fresh round of condemnation from establishment figures of so called “fake news.” Mainstream press outlets have claimed without justification that there is no evidence to suspect political involvement in Rich’s death despite strong indications from multiple sources, including Wikileaks, that this may have in fact been the case. Extreme censorship in the media of the story fails to account for a botched and corruption tinted investigation by the D.C. Police Department. Additionally, close connections between the DNC, White House and individuals at the center of the incident do nothing but continue give rise to accusations of a cover up.

On May 15th, FOX 5 DC carried claims from private investigator Rod Wheeler that Rich was in contact with Wikileaks prior to his death. American media figures and political groups have subsequently engaged in an unprecedented frenzy of attacks against media outlets who even mention the story.

Fox News anchor Sean Hannity faced a frenzy of attacks on his sponsors, which were spearheaded by one time Republican operative turned Democrat David Brock’s Media Matters. Disobedient Media has previously reported that another one of Brock’s organizations, Shareblue, is partially owned by the government of China; who concealed their purchase of shares in the group using a phony mining contract. Brock’s ties to foreign interests may mean that he is in violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 614.

Alternative media sources reporting on the story have also faced pushback and censorship for their coverage of Seth Rich. On May 24th, 2017, World Net Daily reported that they were slapped with a 12 hour ban by Twitter after running a story that revealed Democrat National Committee (DNC) official Donna Brazile had warned off a private eye looking in to Seth Rich’s murder. San Diego based One American News also had its website taken offline after an employee from the outlet posted online asking about details of the case, revealing that OAN planned to run a report on Seth Rich.

Alternative media sources reporting on the story have also faced pushback and censorship for their coverage of Seth Rich. On May 24th, 2017, World Net Daily reported that they were slapped with a 12 hour ban by Twitter after running a story that revealed Democrat National Committee (DNC) official Donna Brazile had warned off a private eye looking in to Seth Rich’s murder. San Diego based One American News also had its website taken offline after an employee from the outlet posted online asking about details of the case, revealing that OAN planned to run a report on Seth Rich.

Attacks against investigators looking into Seth Rich have been lead largely by the Washington Post, who has claimed that the story is a conspiracy theory without fielding much basis for such accusations. The decision of the Post to employ Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta as a contributing columnist only serves to undermine their ability to factually report on Seth Rich’s murder in a manner which maintains a commitment to journalistic ethics and integrity

via IFTTT

Mainstream Media Anchor Gets Schooled By Vladimir Putin About Syria & Chemical Weapons Attacks

ORIGINAL LINK

Just few years ago, the concept of false flag terrorism was virtually unheard of. We were so consumed by the mainstream media narrative that anything presented against it was criticized, no matter how much evidence surfaced to prove that narrative to be false. Nobody knew of the corruption lying at the heart of politics and major industries, and still, too few people know about it today.

That being said, the world is rapidly waking up, so much so that most terrorist attacks, especially the ones occurring in the countries that represent the Western military alliance, cannot really happen anymore without a false flag possibility at least being raised. While mainstream corporate media still opposes this theory when it arises — the same corporate entities running the globe and enforcing a certain way of life on everyone on it — the concept has at least entered the mainstream.

The birth of social media sites and independent/alternative media outlets gave the world a new source of information, and one that differed from corporate media. Billions of eyes turned toward sites like Collective Evolution, platforms like Wikileaks, and people like Edward Snowden. As a result, the human collective became aware of some facts that it had never been presented with before.

One of these facts was the occurrence of false flag terrorism, with the clearest example being 9/11,

The evidence for false flag terrorism has been presented by countless politicians, military personnel, academics, and more, but despite the staggering amount of research and evidence presented, their voices are never shared in mainstream media.

That being said, mainstream media does allow their own anchors to entertain this idea, or at least suggest that the other narrative exists. I think they were essentially left with no choice, as so many people were becoming aware of it and questioning how the biggest media outlets could completely ignore it, as they had been doing for decades.

This is evident in the interview below, where popular mainstream media news anchor Megyn Kelly speaks to Vladimir Putin on a number of topics, including the supposed chemical attack that occurred recently in Syria.

Putin is one of multiple politicians who has been letting the world know that false flag terrorism exists. Donald Trump is another, raising the issue during the presidential candidate race, where he called out the U.S. government for creating ISIS through funding.

Prominent author and Canadian economist Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, who is the University of Ottawa’s Emeritus Professor of Economics, summed up the narrative quite well at the International Conference on the New World Order, which was organized and sponsored by the Perdana Global Peace Foundation:

We are dealing with a criminal undertaking at a global level . . . and there is an ongoing war, it is led by the United States, it may be carried out by a number of proxy countries, which are obeying orders from Washington . . . The global war on terrorism is a US undertaking, which is fake, it’s based on fake premises. It tells us that somehow America and the Western world are going after a fictitious enemy, the Islamic state, when in fact the Islamic state is fully supported and financed by the Western military alliance and America’s allies in the Persian Gulf. . . . They say Muslims are terrorists, but it just so happens that terrorists are Made in America. They’re not the product of Muslim society, and that should be abundantly clear to everyone on this floor. . . . The global war on terrorism is a fabrication, a big lie and a crime against humanity. (source) (source)

The Interview

There are many takeaways from the interview, but right off the bat Kelly brings up the idea that Russia admitted to Syria using chemical weapons in 2013. Putin is quick to correct her, and always quick to ask where she is getting her information. This happens repeatedly throughout the full version of the interview, especially when it comes to the accusations of alleged Russian hacking in the U.S. elections.

The fact that Kelly even entertains the idea of false flag terrorism, although ultimately ridiculing the suggestion, is something that’s never been seen in the past, but as explained above, these outlets no longer have any choice but to acknowledge it as a possibility because so many people are becoming aware of it through other information sources.

Another takeaway is the fact that Kelly really tries to ridicule the idea that any of this could have been fake or orchestrated. And Putin gives a blunt response: “The answer is very simple and you know it, yes could have been used by someone but not by Assad. It could have been used by someone in order to accuse President Assad. So, we have to understand who is to blame, otherwise if there is no true investigation it’s only going to play in the hands of those who orchestrated it.”

You can refer to the articles below for more information and for sources for the information mentioned above. The interview is below that:

Assad Says Syria Chemical Attack Was Fabricated By The US. That They Are “Hand In Glove” With Terrorists.

Putin – The Chemical Attack In Syria Was A “False Flag” & More Are “Being Prepared” In Syria

Assad’s Top Political Advisor Says U.S. Missile Strike Killed The People Fighting Terrorists

Putin Calls Out The Powers That Be And The “Imaginary” and “Mythical Threats” They Use To Control US

False Flag Terrorism: A History of Lies and Deception Explained In A 16 Minute Video

Evidence Shows The Pentagon Trained Syria’s Al Qaeda “Rebels” In The Use of Chemical Weapons

Pentagon Paid PR Firm Over $500 Million To Create Fake Terrorist Videos

This Begs the Question, Who Is Megyn Kelly Working For? Does She Know It?

Today, there exists only a handful of major mainstream media networks, and they are all controlled by a very small group of corporations and the people that run them. Think about that: 90-95% of the information we see is given to us by them, and nobody else.

But, perhaps the most alarming fact is that mainstream media networks are paid and used by the corporate, political, and intelligence world. They are sold stories, and present fake narratives on various global events for a number of different reasons.

Where is the proof? A declassified document from the CIA archives in the form of a letter from a CIA task force addressed to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, details the close relationship that exists between the CIA and mainstream.

James F. Tracy is a professor at the University of Iowa and a former professor of communications at Boca Raton, Florida Atlantic University. He wrote an excellent article on this topic that we published a few months ago, outlining 50 facts the about the CIA and the media the world should know.

“Operation Mockingbird,” an initiative likely still going on today, is further proof.

Dr. Udo Ulfkotte is a top German journalist and editor and has been for more than two decades, so you can bet he knows a thing or two about mainstream media and what really happens behind the scenes. Recently, Dr. Ulfakatte went on public television stating that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name, also adding that noncompliance with these orders would result in him losing his job. He recently made  appearance on RT news to share these facts.

CBC News reporter Sharyl Attkisson is another one. She delivered a hard-hitting TEDx talk showing how fake grassroots movements funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages.

Another great example is Amber Lyon, a three-time Emmy award winning journalist at CNN who said that they are routinely paid by the U.S. government and foreign governments to selectively report and even distort information on certain events. She has also indicated that the government has editorial control over content.

The War Against ‘Other Media’

Millions of people around the world are now tuning in to alternative media outlets every single day, and mainstream outlets are doing everything in their power to change that. For example, Facebook decided to team up with Snopes and corporations like Disney to determine, for the people, what is credible and what isn’t. Thus, algorithms have changed and a lot of content that now threatens the interests of the global elite is censored. This is yet another example of just how many people are waking up and starting to see through the lies, manipulation, and false information offered by mainstream media networks. And that is encouraging.

Waking up to this information can be difficult and uncomfortable, but it’s better to be aware than asleep, and we’ve come a long way. As a result of simple awareness, false flag terrorism (one topic of many that the elite want to hide) has now made its way into the mainstream, thus ‘waking up’ even more people.

There are people out there who say “It will never change,” but the truth is, they’re just not the ones who will do it or contribute to that change. The change is evident, and we’ve come such a long way it’s almost hard to believe.

As it was exciting to see what the future would bring five years ago, it’s even more exciting now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

via IFTTT

Forget Terrorism: The Real Reason Behind the Qatar Crisis Is Natural Gas

ORIGINAL LINK

(ZHE) — According to the official narrative, the reason for the latest Gulf crisis in which a coalition of Saudi-led states cut off diplomatic and economic ties with Qatar, is because – to everyone’s “stunned amazement” – Qatar was funding terrorists, and after Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia in which he urged a crackdown on financial support of terrorism, and also following the FT’s report that Qatar has directly provided $1 billion in funding to Iran and al-Qaeda spinoffs, Saudi Arabia finally had had enough of its “rogue” neighbor, which in recent years had made ideologically unacceptable overtures toward both Shia Iran and Russia.

However, as often happens, the official narrative is traditionally a convenient smokescreen from the real underlying tensions.

The real reason behind the diplomatic fallout may be far simpler, and once again has to do with a long-running and controversial topic, namely Qatar’s regional natural gas dominance.

Recall that many have speculated (with evidence going back as far back as 2012) that one of the reasons for the long-running Syria proxy war was nothing more complex than competing gas pipelines, with Qatar eager to pass its own pipeline, connecting Europe to its vast natural gas deposits, however as that would put Gazprom’s monopoly of European LNG supply in jeopardy, Russia had been firmly, and violently, against this strategy from the beginning and explains Putin’s firm support of the Assad regime and the Kremlin’s desire to prevent the replacement of the Syrian government with a puppet regime.

Now, in a separate analysis, Bloomberg also debunks the “official narrative” behind the Gulf crisis and suggests that Saudi Arabia’s isolation of Qatar, “and the dispute’s long past and likely lingering future are best explained by natural gas.”

The reasons for nat gas as the source of discord are numerous and start in 1995 “when the tiny desert peninsula was about to make its first shipment of liquid natural gas from the world’s largest reservoir. The offshore North Field, which provides virtually all of Qatar’s gas, is shared with Iran, Saudi Arabia’s hated rival.”

The result to Qatar’s finances was similar to the windfall that Saudi Arabia reaped from its vast crude oil wealth.

The wealth that followed turned Qatar into not just the world’s richest nation, with an annual per-capita income of $130,000, but also the world’s largest LNG exporter. The focus on gas set it apart from its oil producing neighbors in the Gulf Cooperation Council and allowed it to break from domination by Saudi Arabia, which in Monday’s statement of complaint described Qataris as an “extension of their brethren in the Kingdom” as it cut off diplomatic relations and closed the border.

In short, over the past two decades, Qatar become the single biggest natural gas powerhouse in the region, with only Russia’s Gazprom able to challenge Qatar’s influence in LNG exports.

To be sure, Qatar has shown a remarkable ability to shift its ideological allegiance, with the FT reporting as recently as 2013, that initially Qatar was a staunch supporter, backer and financier of the Syrian rebels, tasked to topple the Assad regime, a process which could culminate with the creation of the much maligned trans-Syrian pipeline.

The tiny gas-rich state of Qatar has spent as much as $3bn over the past two years supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government, but is now being nudged aside by Saudi Arabia as the prime source of arms to rebels.

The cost of Qatar’s intervention, its latest push to back an Arab revolt, amounts to a fraction of its international investment portfolio. But its financial support for the revolution that has turned into a vicious civil war dramatically overshadows western backing for the opposition.

As the years passed, Qatar grew to comprehend that Russia would not allow its pipeline to traverse Syria, and as a result it strategically pivoted in a pro-Russia direction, and as we showed yesterday, Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund agreed last year to invest $2.7 billion in Russia’s state-run Rosneft Oil, even as Qatar is host of the largest US military base in the region, US Central Command. This particular pivot may have also added to fears that Qatar was becoming a far more active supporter of a Russia-Iran-Syria axis in the region, its recent financial and ideological support of Iran notwithstanding.

As a result of the tiny nation’s growing financial and political “independence”, its neighbors grew increasingly frustrated and concerned: “Qatar used to be a kind of Saudi vassal state, but it used the autonomy that its gas wealth created to carve out an independent role for itself,” said Jim Krane, energy research fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute, quoted by Bloomberg.

Furthermore, Qatar’s natural gas output has been “free from entanglement” – and political pressure – in the OPEC, the oil cartel that Saudi Arabia dominates.

“The rest of the region has been looking for an opportunity to clip Qatar’s wings.”

And, as Bloomberg adds, “that opportunity came with U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia, when he called on “all nations of conscience” to isolate Iran. When Qatar disagreed publicly, in a statement the government later said was a product of hacking, the Saudi-led retribution followed.”

To be sure, in a series of tweets, Trump himself doubled down on the “official narraitve”, taking credit for Qatar’s isolation (perhaps forgetting that a US base is housed in the small nation).

So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017

…extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017

The cynics may be forgiven to assume that if Trump is tweeting that the reason for Qatar’s isolation is “to end the horror of terrorism”, even as the US just signed a $100+ billion arms deal with the single biggest supporter of terrorism in the world, Saudi Arabia, then indeed the Trump-endorsed “narrative” is to be dismissed outright.

Which again brings us back to nat gas, where Qatar rapidly emerged as the dominant, and lowest cost producer at a time when its neighbors started demanding the commodity on their own, giving the tiny state all the leverage. As Bloomberg adds “demand for natural gas to produce electricity and power industry has been growing in the Gulf states. They’re having to resort to higher-cost LNG imports and exploring difficult domestic gas formations that are expensive to get out of the ground, according to the research. Qatar’s gas has the lowest extraction costs in the world.”

Of course, with financial wealth came the need to spread political infludence: ”

Qatar gas wealth enabled it to develop foreign policies that came to irritate its neighbors. It backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and armed factions opposed by the UAE or Saudi Arabia in Libya and Syria. Gas also paid for a global television network, Al Jazeera, which at various times has embarrassed or angered most Middle Eastern governments.

And, above all, “gas prompted Qatar to promote a regional policy of engagement with Shiite Iran to secure the source of its wealth.”

And here the source of tension emerged: because as Steven Wright, Ph.D. Associate Professor at Qatar University told Bloomberg, “you can question why Qatar has been unwilling to supply its neighboring countries, making them gas poor,” said Wright, the academic, speaking by telephone from the Qatari capital Doha. “There probably was an expectation that Qatar would sell gas to them at a discount price.”

It did not, and instead it took a step backward in 2005, when Qatar declared a moratorium on the further development of the North Field that could have provided more gas for local export, adding to the frustrations of its neighbors.

Qatar said it needed to test how the field was responding to its exploitation, denying that it was bending to sensitivities in Iran, which had been much slower to draw gas from its side of the shared field. That two-year moratorium was lifted in April, a decade late, after Iran for the first time caught up with Qatar’s extraction rates.

As Qatar refused to yield, the resentment grew.

“People here are scratching their heads as to exactly what the Saudis expect Qatar to do,” said Gerd Nonneman, professor of international relations and Gulf studies at Georgetown University’s Doha campus. “They seem to want Qatar to cave in completely, but it won’t call the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, because it isn’t. And it isn’t going to excommunicate Iran, because that would jeopardize a relationship that is just too fundamental to Qatar’s economic development.”

* * *

Whether nat gas is the source of the Qatari isolation will depend on the next steps by both Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia, along with the United Arab Emirates and Egypt – are all highly reliant on Qatari gas via pipeline and LNG.

According to Reuters, traders startled by the development, have begun to plan for all eventualities, especially any upsets to piped gas supplies from Qatar to the UAE. The UAE consumes 1.8 billion cubic feet/day of Qatari gas via the Dolphin pipeline, and has LNG purchase agreements with its neighbor, leaving it doubly exposed to tit-for-tat measures, industry sources and traders said.

So far flows through Dolphin are unaffected but traders say even a partial shutdown would ripple through global gas markets by forcing the UAE to seek replacement LNG supply just as its domestic demand peaks.

With LNG markets in bearish mood and demand weak, the UAE could cope with Qatar suspending its two to three monthly LNG deliveries by calling on international markets, but Dolphin piped flows are too large to fully replace.

“A drop off in Dolphin deliveries would have a huge impact on LNG markets,” one trader monitoring developments said.

And since it all boils down to who has the most leverage as this latest regional “balance of power” crisis unfolds, Qatar could simply take the Mutual Assured Destruction route, and halt all pipeline shipments to its neighbors crippling both theirs, and its own, economy in the process, to find just where the point of “max pain” is located.

By Tyler Durden / Republished with permission / ZeroHedge.com / Report a typo

via IFTTT

Study Confirms: Trans Fats Policy Killed Millions

ORIGINAL LINK

By Dr. Mercola

For the past six decades, saturated fats and cholesterol have been wrongly vilified as the central culprit of heart disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease. However, research has demonstrated that it's actually sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats and processed vegetable oils found in many processed foods that are the real enemy.

In the decades saturated fats were demonized, the food industry responded by replacing saturated fats with more shelf-stable trans fats and a new market of low-fat (high-sugar) foods was born.

Americans' health has plummeted ever since, and millions have been prematurely killed by this mistake. Making matters worse, genetically engineered soy oil, which is a major source of trans fat, can oxidize inside your body, thereby causing damage to both your heart and your brain.

One of the first articles published exonerating saturated fats was in 1957 by Dr. Fred Kummerow,¹ who has now spent eight decades absorbed in the science of lipids and heart disease. In 2013, Kummerow sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for not withdrawing trans fats from the market.² It was Kummerow's lifetime work that revealed the dangers of trans fat and oxidized cholesterol and the relationship to heart disease.

Not surprisingly, trans fat is also linked to dementia as the arterial changes that occur in the heart muscle also occur in the brain, triggering neurological damage. Recent research has once again demonstrated the dangers to health and a great financial burden that eating a diet with trans fat has placed on the American public.

The Rise and Fall of Trans Fats

In 1912, Paul Sabatier won a Nobel Prize in chemistry for discovering the hydrogenation method that led to the production of partially hydrogenated oils, or trans fat.³ Proctor and Gamble first introduced Crisco in 1911 to the public as an economical substitute for beef lard and butter.

Unfortunately, this cost billions of dollars in health care and hundreds of thousands of premature deaths over the past eight decades. During World War II butter was rationed to control supply while manufacturing plants were used to support the war, increasing the popularity of margarine containing trans fat. In 1957, the U.S. government encouraged people to limit their saturated fat intake, propelling the sales of margarine.⁴

The sale of partially hydrogenated oils snowballed in the 1980s when opponents of saturated fat campaigned against beef fat and tropical oils for frying and at fast food restaurants. Several studies in the early 1990s received media attention, demonstrating a link between an increased intake of trans fat and heart disease. By 1993 advocacy groups were calling for fast food chains to eliminate trans fat from cooking oil.⁵

At this time Americans were consuming 4 to 7 percent of calories from trans fat.⁶ In 2004 Denmark made it illegal for any food to contain more than 2 percent trans fat.⁷ Policies in other countries limiting trans fat proved effective according to the World Health Organization, which now calls for a total elimination of trans fat from global food supplies.⁸

In 2007, New York City became the first city to ban the use of partially hydrogenated oils in foods and spreads in restaurants. A five-year follow up demonstrated the average content of customer meals dropped in total calories from trans fat from 3 percent to 0.5 percent.⁹

What Are Trans Fats?

Partially hydrogenated oils can tolerate repeated heating without breaking down, can turn a liquid oil into a solid and is less expensive than animal fat — making the product attractive to food manufacturers.¹⁰ Baked goods and snack foods had a greater shelf life and manufacturers enjoyed higher profit margins. Trans fats are different from an unsaturated fat by just one hydrogen molecule on the opposite side of a carbon bond.¹¹

This one positional change is responsible for the difference in characteristics of the fat, and the increased danger to your health. Most trans fat is produced in a manufacturing plant, although some does occur naturally in ruminant animals such as cows, sheep and goats. These trans fats occur when bacteria digest grass in the stomach of the animals. They may make up 2 percent to 5 percent of the fat in dairy products and 3 percent to 9 percent in beef and lamb.

However, while similar in molecular nature, several review studies demonstrate that this type of naturally-occurring trans fat is not dangerous to your health.^12,13,14 These comprehensive reviews found that while manufactured trans fat demonstrated significant health risk, those from ruminant animals were much more limited.

A well-known ruminant trans fat is conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which is believed to be highly beneficial and is used as a supplement to improve glucose tolerance and lipid metabolism.^15,16 CLA is found in high amounts in dairy products from grass fed cows and linked to a reduced risk of heart disease.

Residents Enjoy Better Health After New York Places Restrictions

When New York severely limited the amount of trans fat allowed to be served at restaurants, it offered a unique opportunity for researchers to study the effects on residents and compare rates of heart attack and stroke before and after the restriction.¹⁷

Three or more years after the restrictions were imposed on specific counties in New York City, researchers found a 6.2 percent reduction in heart attacks and stroke in those counties compared to areas of the city where the restrictions on trans fat were not imposed.

Considering trans fat has proliferated in the American diet since the late 1950s — some 60 years now — the unnecessary death toll attributable to trans fat likely numbers in the millions each year, nationwide. As noted by lead author Dr. Eric Brandt, clinical fellow in cardiovascular medicine at Yale School of Medicine:¹⁸

"It is a pretty substantial decline. Our study highlights the power of public policy to impact the cardiovascular health of a population. Trans fats are deleterious for cardiovascular health, and minimizing or eliminating them from the diet can substantially reduce rates of heart attack and stroke."

Research in Denmark, the first country to act following research demonstrating the dangerous health effects from trans fat, had similar results, finding a reduction in cardiovascular disease in the population several years after trans fat was limited in food production.¹⁹ Other research concluded a mere 2 percent increase in calories from trans fat can double your risk of heart attack,²⁰ which means even minute amounts of trans fat may have a significant effect on your health.

Trans Fat Linked to Neurological Damage, Heart Disease and Diabetes

In fact, just small amounts of manufactured trans fat may have dangerous effects on your heart, insulin sensitivity and neurological system. In a unique study, Dr. Gene Bowman, assistant professor of neurology at Oregon Health and Science University, found a strong correlation between trans fat and cognitive performance.²¹ People with high levels of trans fat in their blood performed significantly worse in cognitive testing and had reduced brain volume. Bowman commented on these results:²²

"It's clear that trans fats are bad — both for your heart and now, we see, for your brain. So I would recommend that people stay away from all trans fats. If you aren't sure whether something has them, just look at the ingredients … if there's vegetable shortening, partially hydrogenated anything ... just put it down. That's the big message here."

Trans fat also damages your heart muscle and arterial system, and is associated with coronary heart disease and sudden death from cardiac causes.²³ In both observational and clinical studies, researchers have found associations between trans fat and cardiovascular disease.²⁴ A large study of over 80,000 women has demonstrated a 40 percent increased risk of diabetes when the participants ate a diet that was high in trans fats from processed foods, baked goods and junk foods.²⁵

Other studies are not as consistent, either with triggering diabetes or with insulin sensitivity. However, while the research on trans fat and glucose modulation is inconclusive, there is an association between eating foods with trans fat and weight gain, a significant risk factor for diabetes and heart disease.

In one animal study, researchers demonstrated an increase in abdominal obesity²⁶ and another an increase in weight, even when caloric intake was the same between the group eating a diet rich in trans fat and those eating a diet without trans fat.²⁷

What About Vegetable Oil?

In response to research and public opinion, many restaurants have turned from partially hydrogenated oils to 100 percent vegetable oil. However, while these oils do not have trans fats, when heated they may degrade to even more dangerous toxic oxidation products, including cyclic aldehydes. Many of the vegetable oils produced today — peanut, corn and soy — are products of genetic engineering and are a significant source of glyphosate exposure. This is yet another reason for eliminating these oils from your diet.

Vegetable oils cannot be pressed from corn, soy or peanuts, but instead must be chemically extracted, deodorized and altered before they are considered safe for eating. This type of oil is found in most processed foods, from salad dressing and mayonnaise to conventionally prepared nuts and seeds.²⁸

While fats are essential for your body to produce hormones and rebuild cells, it is vital your body is able to use the fat you consume. The problem with vegetable oils is they are unstable, oxidize easily in the body or during production, and trigger cell mutation and inflammation. Vegetable oil is also high in omega-6 fats, creating an imbalance in your omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, which can trigger or contribute to cardiovascular problems, diabetes, arthritis, cognitive decline and specific cancers.²⁹

Decode Your Food Labels

It is fairly easy to eat well over 1 gram of trans fat each day, as you'll see in this short video. FDA labeling rules allow manufacturers to list the amount of trans fat as zero percent if there is less than 0.5 grams per serving in the product.³⁰ While you may think that sounds reasonable, manufacturers are able to navigate this rule by changing portion sizes.

By reducing the portion size, they reduce the amount of trans fat found in each serving, thus fulfilling FDA rules for the "zero trans fat" label. In fact, they may even advertise the product does not have trans fat on the front label.³¹ So, make it a habit to read the label on any processed foods you purchase. If the serving size is ridiculously small, this is a tipoff you may be getting trans fat after all.

Partially hydrogenated oils are the primary source of trans fat in processed food and are indicated as partially hydrogenated oil on the ingredient list. These oils can be partially hydrogenated palm, cottonseed, soybean, vegetable and canola oils. Unfortunately, they hide in many processed foods you may have at home.³²

Flaky crusts on your pie are often made with vegetable shortening loaded with partially hydrogenated oil. Artificial creamers, frozen dairy desserts and cake icing are just a couple of places where partially hydrogenated oils hide, providing the "creaminess" in thoroughly processed foods.

 Comments (1)


via IFTTT