Never mind about resignations. Let’s tar and feather these sold-out frauds! Now watch this scumbag obtain a cushy job in the corporate world.
CDC site: Ominous , isn’t it?
July 13, 2016
We have two choices when it comes to food. We can either feed disease or we can fight it. Unfortunately, many of us are electing for the former, and our eating habits, ingrained from childhood, aren’t helping. Sugar continues to be named among the worst disease-promoting culprits, and yet from a young age, we crave (and are rewarded with) cookies, candy, soda, and so on.
The WHO published a sugar guideline in March 2015 that targeted sugary beverages as the primary cause for global childhood obesity, specifically in developing nations where the soda industry is currently pushing their efforts.
We are, in many ways, brainwashed to desire the things we do — especially food. From calculated advertisements to grocery story layouts, our sugar cravings are being programmed into us. We want sugar. We even feel like we need sugar. And we also put our trust in powerful organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to inform us of what is considered valuable for our health, what is working against it, and what we absolutely need to avoid for our safety. We try to be well-informed, but sometimes, if not often, it’s hard to know what’s valuable information, and who we can trust.
Reports reveal evidence that a CDC executive helped a Coca-Cola representative influence WHO officials to relax recommendations on sugar limits. Email correspondence between the two organizations was obtained by the nonprofit consumer education group U.S. Right to Know (USRTK):
The emails were between Dr. Barbara Bowman, director of the CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and Alex Malaspina, a former Coca-Cola scientific and regulatory affairs leader and the founder of a food industry-funded group, International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI).
They allegedly show Bowman’s multiple attempts to aid Malaspina’s relationship with WHO leaders whose actions (think soda tax) were hurting the beverage industry.
As part of her job, Bowman must work to help prevent obesity, diabetes, and other health problems, but seemed more than willing to help the beverage industry sway the WHO.
Marion Nestle, Ph.D., professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University, and author of the book Soda Politics, responded to the CDC-Coke scandal by saying that the “fact that a high-level U.S. health official is communicating in this way with a beverage industry leader appears improper,” adding that the emails “suggest that ILSI, Coca-Cola and researchers funded by Coca-Cola have an ‘in’ with a prominent CDC official.”
She goes on:
The official appears to be interested in helping these groups organize opposition to ‘eat less sugar’ and ‘disclose industry funding’ recommendations.
The invitation to dinner suggests a cozy relationship… This appearance of conflict of interest is precisely why policies for engagement with industry are needed for federal officials.
Nestle’s book discusses how the soda industry is very much aware of the devastating connection between soda consumption, obesity, and obesity-related diseases, and once the truth comes out, they will no longer be of value.
For many years now, health advocates have warned people about the connection between sugary drinks and obesity, and the message has slowly but surely started to take hold. People are beginning to come to terms with the detriments of soda, with U.S. soda sales having dropped 25 percent since 1998.
According to USRTK:
Alex Malaspina, was able to ask for and receive regular input and guidance from a top official at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on how to address actions by the World Health Organization that were hurting the food and beverage industry.
The emails . . . reveal that . . . Bowman … tried to help Malaspina find inroads to influence WHO officials to back off anti-sugar talk.
Bowman suggested people and groups for Malaspina to talk to, and solicited his comments on some CDC summaries of reports, the emails show.
Bowman chose to step down immediately in response to the exposed emails, announcing her departure from the agency two days after it was revealed she was providing guidance to a leading Coca-Cola advocate on how to influence world health authorities on how to get sugary beverages to slip through the health cracks.
Her boss, Ursula Bauer, Ph.D., confirmed Bowman’s correspondence with Coca-Cola, stating that the “perception that some readers may take from the article [revealing Bowman’s dealings with Malaspina] is not ideal,” and that the situation “serves as an important reminder of the old adage that if we don’t want to see it on the front pages of the newspaper then we shouldn’t do it.”
Are we living in a world where we are constantly being lied to about what is good for us, and what is bad for us? That question seems like a no-brainer in today’s society, especially given this recent news, which exposes the sickening amount of power behind the corporate and federal regulatory agency revolving door allegiances.
Public servants must be mindful to expose what’s best for the public, not be swayed by what their former bosses and acquaintances say and want.
The soda industry is struggling to keep its head above water, and so it only makes sense that scandals continues to surface. But how willing are they to allow their consumers to contract diseases and die by pushing backdoor dealings to make a buck? Only time will tell.
With thanks to Gigoid at https://gigoid.me
July 14, 2916
Do you remember the first time you noticed those long puffy clouds emanating from jets that didn’t just evaporate?
You saw them spread out, dissipating a cloudy mist that blocked the sunshine. Maybe a friend, or an online source informed you that those were chemtrails, containing aerosol toxins that could be turned on or off at will.
The American population have been test cases for whatever is purposely dropped from above
According to Global Research, since the 1940s, the American population have been guinea pigs for a variety of biological and chemical concoctions courtesy of the U.S. military.
These chemtrails are just the latest in a long line of assaults. What’s inside this spray? It varies, and it’s not good for us, nor the hydrological processes of the planet.
Independent testing has confirmed a boatload of nano particle toxic chemicals inside chemtrail sprays, including aluminum, barium, yellow fungal mycotoxins, cadmium , polymer fibers, “dessicated blood, mold spores” and much more.
We are under a poisonous attack under the guise of protecting the earth from over heating. Official denials have been consistent and those who speak out against these practices have been ridiculed.
But, according to The Free Thought Project, there’s been a chemtrail confession by none other than John A. Brennan, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
CIA Director Brennan says that stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has “gained his attention.” Does that mean he looks up? Not exactly.
In late June, 2016, the CIA chief spoke about “instability and transnational threats” at a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington D.C.
Much like those “scientists” that depend on the lies about genetic engineering to keep their funding dollars coming, it appears that John A. Brennan has been talking to “scientists” that depend on the myth of man made global warming to keep their boat afloat.
When the head of the CIA says that stratospheric aerosol injection programs (SAI) “could limit global temperatures” but “SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere,” it sounds like he’s working for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
By the way, that EPA Clean Power Plan is all about reducing carbon – that “deadly” greenhouse gas – and it’s being challenged in the courts by 24 states. Think about this.
Co2 is called a greenhouse gas because greenhouses use Co2 to make plants grow bigger and more robust! Since we exhale Co2 to feed the trees, is our breath next to be taxed?
What’s Al Gore got to do with it? Plenty. Just follow the money.
In 2007, former Vice President Al Gore received a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. In his acceptance speech, he claimed that the Artic ice caps would disappear by 2014.
(Incidentally, in 2016, Forbes says that NASA has reported the Artic ice is doing just fine.)
A few years before Gore’s acceptance speech, and his infamous documentary, Mr. Gore, and business partner David Blood, formed Generation Investment Management LLP.
According to Forbes, by 2011, these two raked in $218 million from investors who wanted to cash in on the wave of cap and trade. But it’s not labeled global warming anymore.
Today all weather changes – heat, earthquakes, volcanos, cold, tornadoes, floods, fires, drought and more – are bundled under a bigger tent called climate change.
Here’s a great mini debate about just that between Bill Nye, the “science guy” and “climate realist” Mark Morano of Climate Depot from 2012.
With permission from
Being a dual citizen has little benefit, I still have to wait at the border when I go to a Mariners game, I still have to wait when I come back. I only bring it up because I wish to make it clear that I have experienced the differences between an American and a Canadian. I’m not educated on the matter, I’ve lived it. I’ve also heard all the jokes. Today these differences are no laughing matter, for I believe that America, on the whole and in general, needs to chill the fuck out. Of course, I’m a socialist Canadian, what else would I think? Hear me out brothers and sisters, for you all can take a big clue from your nerdy upstairs neighbour, maybe even stop killing one another.
1.) In 2015, America was the ninth richest country in the world (by GDP PPP) and the fourteenth in average ranking of its educational system. By comparison, Canada, a very similar nation culturally, was the fifteenth richest country in the world and seventh in its educational system. Our national IQ’s are 98 in America, one point higher in Canada. From these fact we can deduce that wealth doesn’t necessarily beget an education and that an education, while nurturing intelligence by exercising thought, doesn’t necessarily enhance intelligence testing. IQ tests, it turns out, are always calibrated to average 100. Meaning, that if I could transport 50 average subjects from the year 1916 and give them today’s IQ test, they would score lower than they would taking a similar test from their year. Oddly, if we were to take an intelligence from their year, we too would probably also score lower than we would taking our own time’s test. This is because of the differences in language and fortunately, reason. It is the same reason that I find it hard to understand Shakespeare, or read Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. While I don’t have much faith in IQ tests, I do hold out hope, both for myself and humankind, for if it is true that our species is experiencing an overall intellectual growth, it has to be due to improvements in our ability to be logical creatures. Reason always wins because it must.
2.) America is the most armed nation in the world. Not everyone in America has a gun, but there are enough guns in America to accommodate its citizenry. With 112.6 guns for every 100 Americans, I think we should all feel confident that there will never be a moment in history where Red Dawn comes true and any force should paratroop into suburban neighbourhoods. Such a farce would end in corpses gently floating to the ground in a rain of blood. If we again compare ourselves (being Canadian) to our neighbours to the south, they have ten times the deaths caused by gun violence per year, but they also have ten times the population. I think the more telling stat is while they have more than a gun per citizen, we have three for every ten.
3.) Everyone is afraid. It might be because they know everyone is armed. They react from a place of fear, combined with a substandard education, an inability to cope with the stress of change. If they react, it too will likely take a violent form. The cycle has been socially engineered into their lives: you have the right to perpetuate this existence, perhaps even the duty. You have it all and want to keep it. You are correct to fear terrorists, criminals and nut jobs, they have weapons and ideals. You have ideals too, luckily you’re in the right. Quick kill that guy before he kills you! Of course the problem here is that you don’t have any really valid reason for killing that guy, in exactly the same way he has no valid reason to kill you. You’re both programmed to believe the things you do by a system that wants you to do it. If you happen to be hungry, you’re in possession of what I consider a valid reason to take action. Also, if you’re: oppressed, violated, or otherwise damaged by the actions of others. But if you are killing people for things other people have done, there’s something wrong with you, not them.
If your populace is entitled, armed and afraid, with a poor education, misguided since birth, it should come to no surprise that by way of competition rather than cooperation, we should end up killing each other rather than those who make us do these things. Wouldn’t you rather just put down the gun and party with your neighbour, the gay, black, policeman. (You know he’s got all the good drugs.) I know I would. What the world needs to see right now is the Chill American. Said American, having taken a moment to chill, might have a second to think about what is going on around them, what everyone is doing and more importantly, why? I fear that the only Chill American is a Canadian.
Brian C. Taylor is a writer of fiction, criticism, philosophy and for film as well as a filmmaker.
He has published 7 books since 2010.
His production company En Queue Film has produced many short films and one feature, Battle at Beaver Creek.
Brian lives a quiet life in a small farming community in western Canada with his wife.
by: J. D. Heyes
July 14, 2016
(NaturalNews) In January 2002, a Boston Globe report – the first in a lengthy, Pulitzer Prize-winning series – shocked the world of Catholicism to its core when it revealed that a beloved local parish priest had sexually abused choir boys for over three decades.
What’s worse, the Globe reported that the offending priest, Fr. John J. Geoghan, was known by the Catholic hierarchy to be sexually abusive of children, but was moved from parish to parish in a concerted effort to hide his behavior. From there, the story grew, and more priests were eventually identified.
The same pattern appears to be repeating itself in the medical community. As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in its own special report, doctors all over the country are betraying their patients’ trust by engaging in physical and verbal acts of sexual abuse. And like the priest scandal, many of those doctors are allowed to continue practicing.
In conducting its national investigation, the paper found more than 3,100 cases of sexually abusive doctor-initiated patient contact, 2,400 of whom were disciplined, but not always run out of the industry.
In Missouri, one physician asked a woman who was badly injured in a sexual assault if she liked being tied up and urinated on, and whether she was easily stimulated.
In Texas, a doctor fondled female patients’ breasts during exams and pressed his erections up against them.
In New Mexico, for years a physician performed genital exams under anesthesia that she claimed were part of necessary screening for ear, nose and throat patients, even though the patients had not given their consent.
In California, a male psychiatrist put his hand down a female patient’s blouse, took out one of her breasts and put his mouth on it, while exposing himself and ejaculating into her hand.
In Kentucky, a male doctor examining an infection on a female patient’s abdomen told her she had sexy underwear before he rubbed her genital area and placed his mouth on it.
The paper noted further:
In each of these cases, described in public records, the doctors either acknowledged what they’d done or authorities, after investigating, believed the accusations. While the scale and scope of the physicians’ misdeeds varied tremendously, all were allowed to keep their white coats and continue seeing patients, as were hundreds of others like them across the nation.
Some of the worst abuse included rapes by OB/GYNs, psychiatrists who seduced vulnerable patients, fondling by anesthesiologists and ophthalmologists, and outright molestations by pediatricians and radiologists. What’s more, the victims were diverse: babies and 80-year-old women; jail inmates; drug addicts; even survivors of childhood sexual abuse.
While some physicians were disciplined after a single episode of sexual misconduct, more than half were not, the paper found.
How does this happen? How are doctors permitted to get away with such regular abuse of their patients?
Investigators found a number of reasons. Some patients stay silent over shame. Some say they don’t speak up because they don’t think their word will be believed over the testimony of a physician.
Another reason is that nursing and support staff either condone the abuse or don’t reveal it, essentially making themselves accessories.
The investigation also found that hospitals and medical organizations do what the Catholic Church did with some priests for decades: They quietly move doctors around or push them out without reporting them to police, in an attempt to protect their own reputations. Sometimes, like the Church, they simply brush off accusations.
Offenders are also often given second chances by medical review boards.
Talk radio host Ronald Scott Bell talked recently about the Journal-Constitution’s report, noting in particular that it well-justified his long-held view that government licensure is no guarantee of competence or safety. He’s right of course; just because someone has to obtain a government-issued license or permit does not mean he or she won’t abuse someone’s trust.
While the vast majority of doctors are not predators, the paper noted, you can improve your chances of staying safe in a number of ways, like by avoiding the need to visit the doctor in the first place, with better nutrition.
Paul Craig Roberts
July 13, 2016
FBI Director James Comey got Hillary off the hook but wants to put you on it. He is pushing hard for warrantless access to all of your Internet activity.
Comey, who would have fit in perfectly with Hitler’s Gestapo, tells Congress that the United States is not safe unless the FBI knows when every American goes online, to whom they are sending emails and from whom they are receiving emails, and knows every website visited by every American.
In other words, Comey wants to render null and void the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and completely destroy your privacy rights.
The reason Washington wants to know everything about everyone is so that Washington can embarrass, blackmail, and frame on felony charges patriots who stand up in defense of the US Constitution and the rule of law, and dissidents who criticize Washington’s illegal wars, reckless foreign policies, and oppression of American citizens.
Washington’s demand for power has nothing to do with our security. It has to do with destroying the security that the US Constitution gives us.
The security that Comey wants to protect is not our security or the national security of the United States. Comey’s intent is to make Washington secure despite its violations of statutory law and the US Constitution. The way Comey intends to do this is by intimidating, harassing, and arresting Washington’s critics.
Comey wants the unconstitutional power to demand from the providers of telephone and Internet services all records and information about you. These demands are not to be subject to oversight by courts, and the communication companies that serve you are prohibited from telling you that all of your information has been given to the FBI.
US Senators rushed to stick their swords into the Fourth Amendment. John Cornyn slapped an FBI-written amendment on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2015. This caused the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International to withdraw their support for the act, which caused the act to be withdrawn.
Senator John McCain rushed to the aid of the FBI. This Constitution-hating senator proposed an amendment to a criminal justice appropriations bill that would use a provision in the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act to grant the unlimited unaccountable power to the FBI to totally destroy your privacy.
McCain’s amendment failed, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R,KY) changed his vote so that he could negate the Senate’s vote with a vote to reconsider.
The FBI’s senators will continue with amendments to legislation, related or not, until they deliver to the FBI the power it wants.
Unfortunately, most Americans today, unlike their forebears, are too ignorant and uneducated to know the value of the privacy rights that our Founding Fathers put in the US Constitution. The imbeciles say nonsense such as: “I haven’t done anything wrong. I have nothing to fear.” God help the imbeciles.
If the American people were sufficiently sophisticated, they perhaps would wonder why such a large chunk of the US Senate had rather represent the FBI than the American people, their constituents who elected them to represent the people in the state, not a police power in Washington.
Why are so many US senators more responsive to the FBI’s desire for Gestapo police power than they are to the civil liberties embodied in the US Constitution?
As the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and the Defending Dissent Foundation show, the Orlando shootings, the Dallas shootings and whatever shootings, real or staged, next occur have nothing to do with the FBI’s demand to completely destroy all privacy rights of the American people. http://bordc.org/news/senate-rejects-amendment-expanding-fbi-surveillance-powers-by-narrow-margin/
What’s that I hear? You say you knew nothing about this? Little wonder. Your media consist of people well paid to deceive you and to deliver you into a Police State. To strip you of all constitutional protection and deliver you unprotected to a police state is the function of the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox “News,” CNN, the rest of the presstitute print and TV media and many Internet sites.
Adolf Hitler is alive and well in the United States, and he is fast rising to power.