When You Die, You Might Know That You’re Dead. Scientists Discover Signs of Life After Death







Next Story

It’s one of the biggest mysterious in human history: What happens when we die? Does ‘consciousness’ cease to exist, because it’s a product of the brain? Or does consciousness remain, because it does not require the brain or any other physical organ to exist? It’s hard to tell, because we don’t really have any specific tool for measuring consciousness, but things are changing. Non-material science is really starting to take giant leaps forward, and more studies are emerging every year suggesting that a persons’s consciousness continues to work after the body has died.

The newest one comes from a team from New York University’s Lagone School of Medicine. They investigated twin studies from Europe and the United States that looked at people who suffered cardiac arrest, flatlined, and then came back to life. We’re talking about people whose hearts have stopped; once this happens, blood no longer circulates to the brain, which means brain function is also completely dead.

As reported by Live Science, “The brain’s cerebral cortex — the so-called “thinking part” of the brain — also slows down instantly, and flatlines, meaning that no brainwaves are visible on an electric monitor, within 2 to 20 seconds. This initiates a chain reaction of cellular processes that eventually result in the death of brain cells, but that can take hours after the heart has stopped.”

The study, conducted in 2008, was the largest of its kind. It involved 2,060 patients from 15 different hospitals in the United Kingdom, United States, and Austria, and it emphasized the need for more studies of its kind to focus on cardiac arrest when asking these questions, because it is biologically synonymous with death.

The study found, as have several others, that many of these patients were still aware and able to see following their biological death, but from “outside” their body, so to speak.

The portion of the study that focused on UK cases, which was conducted over a four year period by researchers at the University of Southhampton, found that nearly 40% of people who survived described some type of ‘awareness’ during the time they were pronounced clinically dead, before their hearts were restarted.

For example, one patient, who was a 57 year old man at the time, despite being pronounced dead and completely unconscious, with no detectable biological activity going on, recalled watching the entire process of his resuscitation.

The study’s authors argue this “merits a genuine investigation without prejudice.”

When science examines non-material concepts such as this, it is often hindered by skeptics who are unable to set aside their beliefs in the quest for truth, which is perhaps why we have labels like “pseudoscience” draped upon concepts that have gone through rigorous investigation, and shown to be repeatable.

Dr. Sam Parnia, the study’s lead author, states:

We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating. . . . But in this case conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.

The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three-minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.

He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.

He went on to emphasize the significance of these results, since this phenomenon has often been associated with hallucinations or illusions. Yet we now have proof this might not be the case.

Out of the approximate 2,000 cardiac arrest patients, a staggering 330 survived, and 140 of those 330 experienced some type of awareness during the time they were clinically, biologically dead.

According to Live Science, Parnia and his colleagues are continuing on with their investigations into consciousness after death, including observing the brain in detail during the period of cardiac arrest, death, and revival so they can better understand how much oxygen is actually reaching the brain.

Parnia says, “In the same way that a group of researchers might be studying the qualitative nature of the human experience of ‘love,’ for instance, we’re trying to understand the exact features that people experience when they go through death, because we understand that this is going to reflect the universal experience we’re all going to have when we die.”

The Problem of Consciousness

Fascinating, isn’t it? How could almost half of these patients experience awareness during death if something extraordinary weren’t going on here? There are two possible explanations — either they are experiencing something phenomenal, and consciousness does continue on after death, or the slight brain activity that is going on is creating the experience. The latter is harder to believe, given the fact that if there is any brain activity happening beyond our ability to detect it, it’s minuscule. How could so little brain activity provide such an experience? How do we even know that there is any brain activity at all given the fact that it cannot be measured? Remember, these people were biologically dead.

The first is more believable, particularly if we correlate these findings to others within the realms of neuroscience and quantum physics. When it comes to quantum physics, according to Eugene Wignor, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”

Consciousness, according to many within the field, including the founding father of quantum mechanics, Max Planck, is the backbone of physical material matter, in that consciousness is first required for the creation of physical matter, not the other way around. So, if we take a quantum perspective and lay it over the above cardiac arrest study, it suggests that physical matter is not required for consciousness to exist, and this is perhaps what these doctors, patients, and researchers have found.

Dr. Eben Alexander is a Harvard trained brain neurosurgeon who published a book titled “Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife.” He once believed that consciousness was a product of our biology, but that all changed when he fell into a coma for seven days that was caused by severe bacterial meningitis, during which time he experienced himself outside of his body.

He explained the problem of consciousness succinctly in a lecture he gave about his experience a few years ago:

There are a lot of scientists around the world who realize that when you start getting into the mystery of consciousness, which in essence is the only thing anyone of us truly knows exists, and trying to see exactly what consciousness is, it’s kind of like asking a fish what it’s like in the water. We are so close to it that there’s no way to really separate it out. I assure you that the only thing you’ve ever really known is your own consciousness.

Here is a video of Dr. Bruce Greyson speaking at a conference held by the UN. He’s a professor emeritus of psychiatry and neurobehavioral science at the University of Virginia. In the video, he describes many instances of individuals who are able to describe things that should have been impossible to describe.

It was also encouraging to hear him mention how this type of study has been discouraged due to our tendency to view science as completely materialistic.

You can read more about that in this article.

The simple fact that “consciousness” itself is a non-physical “thing” is troubling for some scientists to consider, and as a result of it being non-material, they believe it cannot be studied by science. But this isn’t true. Studies like the one above and many more have shown that we can actually measure non-physical phenomenon in several ways.

“Some materialistically inclined scientists and philosophers refuse to acknowledge these phenomena because they are not consistent with their exclusive conception of the world. Rejection of post-materialist investigation of nature or refusal to publish strong science findings supporting a post-materialist framework are antithetical to the true spirit of science inquiry, which is that empirical data must always be adequately dealt with. Data which do not fit favoured theories and beliefs cannot be dismissed as priori. Such dismissal is the realm of ideology, not science.”

– Dr. Gary Schwartz, professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry, and surgery at the the University of Arizona

Below is a great lecture from him discussing the anomaly of consciousness, where he explores whether it exists independently of our biology or not.

 

 


How would YOU change the future?

Will “business as usual” take our planet and civilization down the road to complete destruction?.

In this new film called Prosperity, you can learn the ways in which companies are changing the game in order to change our world. CE’s founder Joe Martino is in this film talking about CE’s business practices.

Watch the film free to see how things are changing.

How would YOU change the future?

Watch the new film Prosperity for free and learn how the game is changing on this planet. Watch now!

×

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Collective-evolution/~3/x_eyd_PzYGc/

Yes, electric commercial flights might really become a thing

“Oh come on! Can we have some fact checking in journalism? THIS.JUST.WONT.HAPPEN.”

Thus was the response from one commenter when I wrote about EasyJet’s promise of electric passenger flights within a decade. And I must say, I kind of understand the response—it was not a possibility that had been very high on my radar either.

After all, while the idea that electric cars will dominate in the not-too-distant future has gone decidedly mainstream, we’ve long been told that the unique needs of air travel would mean that energy dense liquid fuels would remain the primary source of power for the foreseeable future.

Yet no sooner do I hear about EasyJet’s efforts than I also hear about two other exciting developments. The first story, reported by Fast Company and others, suggests that Zunum—a Seattle-based start-up recently out of stealth mode, and backed up by Boeing and JetBlue—is gunning for hybrid-electric passenger flights as early as 2022, and 100% battery electric flights not so long after.

That’s a pretty astounding ambition. Key to it, though, is understanding that Zunum isn’t trying to just superimpose electric propulsion over our current inefficient, centralized hub-and-spoke model for passenger air travel. Instead, Zunum is developing smaller, nimbler aircraft with between 10 and 50 seats that are capable of utilizing America’s network of regional airports to service point-to-point trips of 700 miles and less, slashing journey times in half and offering competitive pricing of somewhere around 8 cents per passenger mile. The model, they say, is capable of delivering an 80% cut in emissions on regional air travel.

Meanwhile, CNN reports that Boeing is also buying Aurora Flight Sciences. True, much of the hype around that particular acquisition has focused on the company’s expertise in robotic co-pilots and autonomous drones, but Aurora also specializes in electric propulsion systems, including an electric vertical takeoff aircraft.

None of this suggests that long-distance, hub and spoke air travel is going away anytime soon. But there does appear to be a sudden surge of interest in hybrid and even fully electric passenger travel as battery prices start dropping to a point that makes such travel commercially viable.

Given the fact that avoiding air travel is currently one of the single most impactful things you can do to cut your personal carbon footprint—and given that a large chunk of my family lives on the other side of the Atlantic ocean—I for one welcome our electric, autonomous, airborne future with open arms.

Source Article from https://www.treehugger.com/aviation/yes-electric-commercial-flights-might-really-become-thing.html

Why Mammagraphy Was Recently Condemned By The Swiss Medical Board: You Might Want To Think Twice Before Getting One

In 2013, the Swiss Medical Board, an independent health technology assessment initiative, was requested to prepare a review of mammography screening. The team of medical professionals included a medical ethicist, a clinical epidemiologist, a pharmacologist, an oncologic surgeon, a nurse scientist, a lawyer, and a health economist. Two of those members, Nikola Biller-Andorno, M.D. Ph. D. and Peter Juni, M.D, opened up about the project in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

They said: “As we embarked on the project, we were aware of the controversies that have surrounded mammography screening for the past 10-15 years. When we received the available evidence and contemplated its implications in detail, however, we became increasingly concerned.”

In 2016, it is estimated that approximately 246,660 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in women in the United States as well as 61,000 new cases of non-invasive breast cancer. Mammograms continue to be touted as the most effective screening tool we have today to find breast cancer.

However, these two doctors were shocked to discover that there is minimal evidence that actually indicates that the benefits of mammography screening outweigh the harms.

“The relative risk reduction of approximately 20 percent in breast-cancer mortality associated with mammography that is currently described by most expert panels came at the price of a considerable diagnostic cascade, with repeat mammography, subsequent biopsies, and over-diagnosis of breast cancers — cancers that would never have become clinically apparent.”

The Canadian National Breast Screening Study, which was conducted over the course of 25 years, concluded that 106 of 484 screen-detected cancers were over-diagnosed.

The doctors explained: “This means that 106 of the 44,925 healthy women in the screening group were diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer unnecessarily, which resulted in needless surgical interventions, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or some combination of these therapies.”

The fact that the benefits of this form of cancer screening are so overestimated seems worrisome for the medical community and patients at large. How, in this day and age, do we not have more awareness, more answers, and better technology?

Another review of 10 trials involving more than 600,000 women discovered no evidence that mammography screening was effective on overall mortality. This caused concern over the benefits of the medical practice. A survey of U.S. women’s views on the mammography screenings discovered that 71.5 percent of women think that it lessened risk of death from breast cancer by half, while 72.1 percent believed that 80 deaths could be avoided per each 1,000 women screened. Their perceptions were gravely over-calculated. In fact, when looking at the real numbers, mammography results in a risk reduction of 20 percent and only 1 death can be prevented per 1,000 women screened.

The Swiss Medical Board report became public in February 2014, provoking the board to advise that the quality of mammography screening ought to be evaluated and that women should be educated about both the benefits and the harms of the medical practice.

The report created controversy within the Swiss medical community, even though it supports a growing perspective around the world that mammography for breast cancer screening in asymptomatic populations is outdated and harmful at best.

When reviewing the data in regards to every breast cancer death prevented in U.S. women over a 10-year period of yearly screening starting at the age of 50, you will find that:

    • 490-670 women usually have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination
    • 70-100 women usually have an unnecessary biopsy
    • 3-14 women were the victim of over-diagnosed breast cancer that would never reach clinical relevance

Furthermore, up to 50 percent of women have breast tissue that is dense. This makes it very hard to read mammograms correctly, as dense breast tissue and cancer both show up white on an X-ray.

Due to the lack of evidence in support of mammography and the clear potential risks involved with them, the board chose to recommend cancelling mammography-screening programs altogether. Although their recommendations are not legally binding, the report caused an uproar amongst Swiss cancer experts and organizations. The doctors on board reported:

“One of the main arguments used against it was that it contradicted the global consensus of leading experts in the field… Another argument was that the report unsettled women, but we wonder how to avoid unsettling women, given the available evidence.”

It’s clearly no mystery why the board become increasingly concerned about their researcher. The “evidence” simply does not back up the global consensus of other experiences in the field suggesting that mammograms were safe and capable of saving lives.

When it comes down to it, we are dealing with outdated clinical trials, the benefits do not clearly outweigh the harms, and women’s perceptions of mammography benefits do not match reality.

More Information On Breast Screenings

I believe that if you did have a tumor, the last thing you would want to do is crush that tumor between two plates, because that would spread it. – Dr. Sarah Mybill, General Practitioner (taken from the documentary trailer below)

I think if a woman from the age of 50 has a mammogram every year, or every two years, she’s going to get breast cancer as a direct result from that – Dr. Patrick Kingsley, Clinical Ecologist (take from the documentary trailer below)

In 2011, 220,097 women and 2,078 men in the United States were diagnosed with breast cancer, and 40,931 women and 443 men in the United States died from breast cancer. It has become the most common type of cancer among women.

Below is a trailer to a documentary entitled, “The Promise.”  The film interviews various researchers, scientists, doctors (and more), all of whom are hoping to shed light on a practice which is turning out to be not only useless, but harmful to those taking part. There is more information below the video, but I highly recommend you watch the documentary.

There is a wealth of scientific data concluding that mammograms are not, as the CDC claims, the most effective way to detect breast cancer. In fact, having a mammogram is likely the last thing you want to do if you have breast cancer.

A study published in The European Journal of Public Healthtitled “Trends in breast cancer stage distribution before, during and after introduction of a screening programme in Norway” found that breast screenings actually increase the incidence of localized stage cancers without reducing the incidence of advanced cancers. (source)

The study, which used a huge population sample of 1.8 million Norwegian women diagnosed with breast cancer from 1987 – 2010, found that:

“The annual incidence of localized breast cancer among women aged 50–69 years rose from 63.9 per 100 000 before the introduction of screening to 141.2 afterwards, corresponding to a ratio of 2.21 (95% confidence interval: 2.10; 2.32).The incidence of more advanced cancers increased from 86.9 to 117.3 per 100 000 afterwards, corresponding to a 1.35 (1.29; 1.42)-fold increase. Advanced cancers also increased among younger women not eligible for screening, whereas their incidence of localized cancers remained nearly constant.”

This study outlines how Norway’s breast screening program has actually increased the chance of being diagnosed with early stage breast cancer by more than 200%, as well contributing to an increased chance of receiving advanced stage breast cancer diagnosis by 35%. This is the opposite of what mammograms are supposed to do; if they were useful then the incidence of cancers would be lower and not higher.

The study concluded that:

Incidence of localized breast cancer increased significantly among women aged 50–69 years old after introduction of screening, while the incidence of more advanced cancers was not reduced in the same period when compared to the younger unscreened age group.(source)

It’s important to note that, “although the study did measure the impact of Norway’s breast screening programme, a comparison of trends between participants and non-participants in the age group eligible for screening warrants further investigation. Also the causal link between stage distribution and mortality needs to be investigated in the context of screening.”

A paper published in 2011 in the British Medical Journal  set out to prove that breast screening by mammography is associated with a steeper fall in mortality cancer compared to other countries who were not offering this service. They did not expect to find the complete opposite; they found a drop in breast cancer mortality among women who were not screened. They concluded that the recent downward trend in breast cancer mortality had nothing to do with screening and everything to do with improvements in treatment and service provision. (source)

The new data published in the BMJ now suggests that none of the gratifying falls in breast cancer can be attributed to screening and that the very existence of a NHSBSP (national breast screening programme) should be questioned. Unless there is public pressure for an independent inquiry to challenge the status quo, it will be business as usual for the screening programme. Furthermore, the Department of Health has painted itself into a corner and it is no longer a question of scientific debate – the subject has become too politicized by those who like to avoid U-turns at all costs. –  Michael Baum, Professor Emeritus of Surgery and visiting Professor of Medical Humanities at University College London, is a leading British surgical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer treatment (source)

This would be an asymptomatic woman walking along the high street, having a mammogram, and then two weeks later she’s told she has to have a mastectomy. This is so cruel that it should make you weep. (quote taken from the documentary trailer above)

As Sayer Ji, founder of Greenmedinfo.com points out, a National Cancer Institute commissioned expert panel concluded that “early stage cancers” are not cancer, they are benign or indolent growths. This means that millions of women were wrongly diagnosed with breast cancer over the past few decades and have been subjected to harmful treatment, when they would have been better off leaving it untreated or diagnosed; frighteningly, it is not uncommon for a breast cancer misdiagnosis to occur.

Another study that was recently published in the British Medical Journal concluded that regular mammogram screenings do not reduce breast cancer death rates. And they found no evidence to suggest that mammograms are more effective than personal breast exams at detecting cancer in the designated age group. The study involved 90, 000 Canadian women and compared breast cancer incidence and mortality up to 25 years in women aged 40-59.(source)

The study was conducted over a period of 25 years.

Many Studies Showing The Same Thing

The sheer number of studies that have been published on breast mammography examinations and their failure to produce a benefit in screened populations is overwhelming. What’s even more disturbing is the fact that these types of examinations have also been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer, and to have negative implications for both physical and mental health.

U-turns do not embarrass clinical scientists, unlike politicians: if the evidence changes then our minds must change. As the national programme began to run its course, two disturbing observations made me begin to question my original support. First, about 10 years after the initiation of the service, updated analyses of the original data set by independent groups in Europe and the US found that the initial estimate of benefit in the reduction of breast cancer mortality was grossly exaggerated. –  Michael Baum, Professor Emeritus of Surgery and visiting Professor of Medical Humanities at University College London, is a leading British surgical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer treatment (source)

Other sources used not listed in the article.

collective-evolution

(1) eurpub.oxfordjournals.org

(2) www.bmj.com

www.greenmedinfo.com

Source Article from https://worldtruth.tv/why-mammagraphy-was-recently-condemned-by-the-swiss-medical-board-you-might-want-to-think-twice-before-getting-one/

US Might Not Even be Able to Shoot Down North Korean Rockets









 






Despite President Donald Trump telling the UN General Assembly that the US would “totally destroy” North Korea if it is attacked, the US arsenal may not be able to stop a nuclear strike if one is carried out, according to some analysts.

Some experts in the military and missile defense fields believe that even if the US had information that North Korea posed a real threat to America, or one of its allies, they may not be able to shoot down a missile headed for a target.

North Korea’s intermediate range missile launch over Japan’s Hokkaido Island on September 15 reached a maximum altitude of 480 miles (770 km), according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. But Joseph Cirincione, who is the founder of the Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation, says the US and Japan do not even have the capability to intercept a missile launched at that altitude.

Cirincione elaborated by saying that no ballistic missile defense system in existence can even reach the height which the North Korean missile test achieved, according to Defense One.

Bruce Bennett, an analyst from the nonprofit public policy group RAND Corporation, shares some of Cirincione’s skepticism.

“We could potentially miss or hit, we don’t know for sure,” he said, according to the Express.

Another expert has called into question the value of a Washington Post report last month stating that North Korea may be able to fit a miniaturized warhead on an intercontinental missile.

Tom Plant, Director of the Proliferation and Nuclear Policy Program at London’s Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), said that the country may still not possess the technology to support the critical reentry phase of a successful long-range missile strike.

Plant says the warhead mentioned in the report may only be designed to initially take off from inside the ICBM, but does not account for reentry into the atmosphere after it is launched. The missile’s reentry vehicle must endure scathing heat and cold temperatures when coming back into the atmosphere en route for its target.

Plant believes that “North Korea has successfully produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead but question remains if its missile technology could survive a launch into space, and subsequent re-entry to hit an intended target,” Plant told Newsweek.

“In relation to that particular U.S. intelligence assessment, the language is always worth paying very close attention to. The assessment states that North Korea has produced nuclear weapons for ballistic missile delivery, to include delivery by ICBM,” he said, according to Newsweek.

“That’s subtly different from saying that those weapons fit in a survivable reentry vehicle.”

Following the September 15 test, US Defense Secretary James Mattis said Monday that the US has not seen a reason to shoot down any North Korean missiles as of yet.

Mattis explained the recent threats by North Korea and how the US will deal with the alleged threats to them and their allies.

“The bottom line is: The missiles, were they to be a threat – whether it be to U.S. territory, Guam, [or] obviously Japan’s territory — that would elicit a different response from us,” he said, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Mattis elaborated and said the US would take “immediate actions” to intercept and shoot down any missile headed for Japan, South Korea or Guam.

Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga also explained Japan’s response to the provocative missile launch by Kim Jong-un’s government on September 15.

“We didn’t intercept it because no damage to Japanese territory was expected,” he said, according to the Japan Times.

President Trump, meanwhile, has gone further in his statements on addressing a hypothetical North Korean missile attack. Following in his predecessor’s footsteps, the president said he “will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” if forced to defend the US and its allies, during his first speech to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday.

During the speech, he also referred to Kim Jong-un’s regime in North Korea as “depraved,” and called the leader “rocket man.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reacted to Trump’s speech by saying threats will not help solve the North Korean missile problem.

“If we just condemn and threaten, then we are likely to antagonize the countries that we want to influence. That’s why we prefer to work with all interested parties, to give them incentives to enter a dialogue,” Lavrov said.

Source




RELATED ARTICLES


Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEuropeanUnionTimes/~3/6YD33oBlXuI/

Rolls-Royce Might Build the World’s First Autonomous Naval Vessel

By Kyree Leary via Futurism

Rolls-Royce has revealed plans for an autonomous naval ship. Using an electric propulsion system, a series of sensors, and AI, it could operate for over 100 days, and would reduce the dangers to crew and cut operational costs.

From Cars to Ships

Rolls-Royce, a brand typically associated with luxury cars, may soon have ties to sophisticated naval ships.

Yesterday the company revealed its desire to build an autonomous naval ship that would reduce the risk to crews, as well as cut down on operating costs. Coming in at 60 meters (196 feet) long, the ship would be able to reach speeds above 25 knots (28 mph), travel over 3500 nautical miles, and operate for over 100 days as it completes patrolling & surveillance, mine-detection, or fleet-screening missions.

A fully-electric 1.5MW propulsion system comprised of two Rolls-Royce MTU 4000 Series generators would provide the ship with around 4MW electrical power. A series of solar panels and 3000 kWh of energy storage would allow it to loiter around for as long as necessary, while also collecting additional energy.

A combination of artificial intelligence (AI) and sensors will be implemented to operate the vessel, with multiple systems and tools installed to allow the ship to gracefully switch between roles mid-mission.

A concept of Rolls-Royce’s autonomous ship detecting an object before switching to surveillance. Image Credit: Rolls-Royce

“The operational profile of these platforms will be more complicated than commercial unmanned vessels,” says Benjamin Thorp, general manager of Rolls-Royce Naval Electrics, Automation and Control. “They will be expected to sail from A to B on patrol, avoiding ships and other navigational hazards.

“At some point between A and B, they will detect something, maybe a submarine, and the mission will change to tracking and surveillance. The power and propulsion system will then need to adopt an ultra-quiet mode to avoid detection.”

Impact On Naval Fleets

Unmanned ships are not expected to replace manned ships, however. They will instead be mixed in with current fleets to offset operational costs — autonomous ships will be used for single-role missions, while crewed ships will handle missions requiring multiple roles. There’s also potential for models that are used solely to carry cargo.

As noted by Engadget, Rolls-Royce hasn’t revealed any partnerships yet, but has said there’s been an increased interest from major navies. The company has been leading the discussion about autonomous ships this year, and expects to see unmanned vessels incorporated into navy fleets over the next 10 years.

Source Article from https://truththeory.com/2017/09/14/rolls-royce-might-build-worlds-first-autonomous-naval-vessel/

Facts You Didn’t Know About Olive Oil That Might Make You Cut Down Your Use







Next Story

How often have you heard that olive oil is healthy? This has been presented as simple fact for as long as I can remember. As a child I was obsessed with the Food Network channel and, in every program, was told over and over again that olive oil is healthy for us to consume, and that cold-pressed EVOO — extra virgin olive oil — is the best option. Well, how much of what we have come to believe as a fact was actually just a very clever marketing ploy? Often, especially in recent years, when something is touted as being super healthy for us, and the media hops on board with it, that is when it’s time to investigate, because what I have come to realize is that the media rarely, if ever (believe it or not), prioritizes our health over their profit.

That being said, we can’t forget about all of the studies showing progress with regards to the benefits of real olive oil, like protection against alzheimer’s, for example.

Here are 64 abstracts with olive oil, that might show you a different perspective. It’s no doubt a controversial topic to say the least.

The Olive Oil Myth

The Mediterranean diet is the healthiest diet, we’ve been told. People living in the Mediterranean consume olive oil every day, which means olive oil must be healthy, right? Wrong. This is the flawed correlation that led millions to believe that olive oil consumption is the key to health and longevity. The Mediterranean diet is also loaded with fresh fruits and vegetables, but for some reason, we seem to be focusing on the olive oil. As you’ll soon see, this diet is healthy despite of the oil, not because of it.

Admittedly, something that is made with olive oil instead of margarine or other saturated or trans fats might be better for you to consume, but just because something is better does not make it healthy. This is where the myth comes in. While olive oil might be a lot less harmful than many other alternatives, this doesn’t actually make it a health food.

While there are healthier ways to choose your olive oil — Extra Virgin and Cold Pressed — what still remains is oil. Please don’t get me wrong; this is not to say that all fats are unhealthy for you to consume, as we do need fat in our diets, but the best sources are from nuts, seeds, and avocados.

Please see the video below where Dr. Michael Greger presents a case for this argument. Gregor is an American physician, author, and professional speaker on health issues. He used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to uncover how public perception can be manipulated so that food corporations profit.

For more short videos like this one made by Greger, you can visit this page of his website.

Let’s Look at the Hype Versus the Truth

The Hype: Olive oil will lower your levels of “bad” LDL cholesterol. The Truth: Olive oil in itself does nothing to lower LDL cholesterol. In the studies done that showed people lowered their levels of LDL cholesterol after starting to use olive oil, including extra virgin olive oil, the participants were using olive oil in place of other, unhealthy dietary fats, like saturated and trans fats.

According to the Food and Drug Administration:

Limited and not conclusive scientific evidence suggests that eating about 2 tablespoons (23 grams) of olive oil daily may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease due to the monounsaturated fat in olive oil. To achieve this possible benefit, olive oil is to replace a similar amount of saturated fat and not increase the total number of calories you eat in a day. One serving of this product contains [x] grams of olive oil.

You see how this data can be easily misconstrued. A more relevant study, perhaps, would examine people who switch from consuming healthier oils, like those derived from seeds, to olive oil.

The Hype: The Mediterranean diet is a heart healthy diet that is rich in olive oil. Therefore olive oil must also be heart healthy. The Truth: Those on the planet with the longest life expectancy actually don’t eat a diet rich in olive oil; they eat one rich in whole and primarily plant-based foods, including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes.

The Hype: Monounsaturated fats are better than saturated fats, so therefore they must be healthy. The Truth: Just because something is better than something else, does not mean that it is good or healthy for us to consume. The human body actually has no essential need to consume any monounsaturated fat. Our bodies only need the proper ratio of omega 6 and omega 3 fat.

The bottom line is, olive oil is not doing anything to enhance our health, but using it in place of other oils that are unhealthy for us to consume is just limiting our exposure to the worst oils. Consider cutting them out altogether and see how you feel.

Related CE Article: Poor Quality Olive Oil Companies Revealed – The Brands To Avoid


Get Your In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

×

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Collective-evolution/~3/TGFS999JjE4/

Amazon has made a fortune selling counterfeit products… and today it might cause thousands to lose their eyesight

Image: Amazon has made a fortune selling counterfeit products… and today it might cause thousands to lose their eyesightImage: Amazon has made a fortune selling counterfeit products… and today it might cause thousands to lose their eyesight

(Natural News)
Every tech giant has a dirty little secret that behind its market success. In the early days of dial-up internet, for example, AOL (which stands for America On Line) earned most of its revenues from pay-by-the-hour connection fees that granted users access to adult chat rooms. Google’s success has been ensured by it functioning as a surveillance engine for the NSA; eBay is the internet’s most popular sales hub for stolen goods; and Facebook was thrust into a dominant tech position by its alliance with intelligence entities (CIA, etc.) that use Facebook to track the whereabouts and social connections among hundreds of millions of users.

So what’s Amazon.com’s dirty little secret? Counterfeit products.

Amazon has been selling counterfeit products for over a decade

Amazon.com has, for over a decade, extracted obscene profits from the sales of counterfeit products of all kinds. Dietary supplements, Birkenstock sandals, luxury watches and brand-name clothing… it’s all being counterfeited and sold by Amazon.com by the minute. The problem is so bad, in fact, that Jeff Bezos — who also owns the counterfeit news publication known as The Washington Post — has a moral (and perhaps legal) responsibility to stop the mass counterfeiting of retail brands taking place at Amazon.com. Yet he does nothing.

See, Bezos makes money whether the products are authentic or not. Counterfeit sales earn Amazon just as much as the “real” brands, but customers are getting ripped off by being sold fake products at seemingly “reasonable” prices.

Now, Amazon may have finally crossed the line. The company has been selling counterfeit eclipse viewing glasses that falsely claimed to protect viewers from the eyesight-damaging effects of direct sunlight radiation. It turns out the fake viewing glasses don’t offer the protection they claimed, and potentially thousands of people may suffer permanent eyesight damage — or even blindness — after using these counterfeit products they purchased on Amazon.com. (These counterfeit products are made in China, the same country where a baby milk manufacturer replaced powdered milk with kidney-damaging melamine to boost their profits, resulting in the widespread deaths of hundreds of infants. So don’t have any illusions about what Chinese-based manufacturers will sell you in order to make an extra buck for themselves. They’re communists, after all. They have no morals or ethics whatsoever… just like communists everywhere.)

Amazon admits it sold counterfeit eclipse viewing glasses

Now, Amazon has been forced to admit it sold people counterfeit viewing glasses that offer no protection at all.

As CBS News 2 reports:

Millions of people have purchased special glasses to safely watch the solar eclipse that’s coming up August 21, but over the weekend Amazon notified some customers that the glasses they bought may not be safe. Hucksters out there who are making counterfeits claiming they are real, but aren’t.

Coincidentally, CBS News 2 doesn’t dare point out that Amazon.com is the “huckster” selling the counterfeit products to consumers, nor do they point out that Amazon has been selling counterfeit products for years and seems to take no real action whatsoever to try to stop doing so. So who’s the real huckster here? The counterfeit manufacturer, or the online retailer that has knowingly sold — and continues to sell — counterfeit products day after day, year after year?

American Paper Optics, a manufacturer and retailer of a variety of viewing glasses, is even reporting that their own brand is being counterfeited. They’ve posted this warning page to help people know the difference between real vs. counterfeit. Their warning seems to imply that counterfeit versions of their glasses are also being sold on Amazon.com, and they’ve now posted an “Amazon Approved Vendor List.”

How many people will go blind thanks to Amazon.com selling counterfeit products?

Amazon.com is already a hub of heavy metals contaminated food and supplements, many of which are counterfeit. But at least those products didn’t make people go blind. Now, thanks to Amazon selling fake eclipse viewing glasses that don’t protect eyesight from direct sunlight radiation, the reasonable question is simply this: How many people will go blind after buying counterfeit eclipse viewing glasses on Amazon.com?

Directly viewing the sun without proper protection is extremely dangerous and can cause permanent eyesight damage in seconds. As Karl Denninger explains on Market-Ticket.org:

There will be thousands of people who will either damage or entirely lose their eyesight tomorrow and there is exactly zero that a doc in the ER or anywhere else will be able to do for you if you wind up screwing yourself by being ignorant, stupid or both.

I smell a class action lawsuit forming. And I wonder if Amazon will ever get serious about halting its ongoing sales of fake products.

If that ever happens, then maybe they can figure out how to stop the Washington Post from publishing fake news, too.

And if Amazon.com is refunding customers who purchased fake eclipse viewing glasses, shouldn’t the Washington Post refund subscribers who bought all their fake news? (Notice how the “Russians hacked the election” conspiracy hysteria has suddenly vanished, by the way? That’s because it was a total hoax to begin with, backed by nothing but innuendo and junk journalism.)

 

<!–

–>

Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-20-amazon-has-made-a-fortune-selling-counterfeit-products-and-today-it-might-cause-thousands-to-lose-their-eyesight.html

GAB Might Want to Consider Filing Antitrust and Discrimination Suits

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

Internet services and others are using Terms of Service agreements as sham devices to discriminate and monopolize both the commercial marketplace and the marketplace of ideas. If the courts rule that the internet be incorporated into the Federal laws which bar discrimination in “public accommodations” and/or enforce antitrust laws to prohibit the use of TOS agreements as a sham device to monopolize and discriminate, the jewish ability to silence criticism and exposure of their crimes will be greatly diminished. There is ample proof that organized jewry has advocated for, encouraged and organized campaigns to draft and employ TOS agreements as a sham device to scrub criticism of jews and Israel from the internet, and to prevent Whites from speaking publicly and organizing in favor of their racial interests, as a jewish form of racial discrimination against Whites and to create a commercial and ideological monopoly on the internet which enables their criminal enterprises.

Source Article from http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2017/08/gab-might-want-to-consider-filing.html

Is Marijuana Good for Mental Health? It Just Might be, Review Says

The findings of an analysis published in the journal Clinical Psychology Review suggests that cannabis may potentially be an effective treatment for certain mental health disorders, and could even help people break free from serious drug addictions. [1]

Access to marijuana is growing. Cannabis is currently legal in some form in 29 U.S. states. And even despite marijuana being legalized for recreational use in a handful of states, it remains the most widely-used illicit drug in the United States.

 

Source: Marijuana Policy Project

But marijuana has proven to be an effective treatment for epilepsy (including rare forms of the seizure disorder) and has been shown to ease pain, prevent multiple sclerosis-related inflammation in the brain and spinal cord, and kill cancer cells. Cannabis has also been shown to be superior to drugs for Alzheimer’s disease.

Many marijuana users say the drug helps their depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and theis review seems to back their claims.

The Review

Led by Zach Walsh, an associate professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia in Canada, the researchers conducted a systematic review of 60 studies assessing the effects of either medical or non-medical marijuana on mental health and substance abuse.

The findings were sort of a mixed bag. The team found that medical marijuana shows potential for treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and social anxiety.

Walsh said:

“This is a substance that has potential use for mental health. We should be looking at it in the same way [as other drugs] and be holding it up to the same standard.” [1]

However, in people with psychotic disorders like bipolar disorder, the side effects may outweigh the benefits.

The review also indicated that marijuana could be a viable treatment for serious drug addiction, though more research is needed.

Walsh said:

“We are really excited about the potential substitution effect. If people use cannabis as a replacement for opioid medications, or to get off of opioids or cut back, we could see some pretty dramatic public health benefits. The level of opioid overdoses is so high right now.”

The evidence to date suggests that medical marijuana causes only minor side effects, such as impaired short-term memory and temporary problems with cognitive function. Medical cannabis does not appear to raise the risk of self-harm or harm to others. [2]

But researchers face a major hurdle in studying the efficacy of marijuana in treating mental illness and drug addiction: The federal government refuses to reschedule marijuana. Right now, it’s a Schedule I drug, meaning the government does not recognize its medicinal value, and it has a high potential for abuse.

Researchers argue that rescheduling cannabis would also help eliminate the stigma associated with it, which would open the door to better studies.

“I think people will derive more benefit if they can speak more openly with providers about whether they are using cannabis and why.” [1]

Source: Business Insider

Walsh envisions a “dream trial” that would compare whether people wanting to stop using opioids in favor of marijuana see better results than those who receive a marijuana placebo or those who try to quit with methadone or behavioral therapy. [3]

Even as we speak, Walsh is heading up a clinical trial of cannabis that is being funded by a medical marijuana producer, Tilray. Another researcher on the study has been a consultant for other medical cannabis producers. Walsh sees no conflict of interest, because it’s difficult to secure funding for marijuana-related research. He explained:

I think we are entering a different world, but for now a lot of the research, at least in Canada [where Walsh is based], is funded by the producers.” [1]

Sources:

[1] Time

[2] Medical News Today

[3] The Globe and Mail

Marijuana Policy Project

Business Insider


Storable FoodStorable Food


About Julie Fidler:

Author ImageAuthor Image

Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Source Article from http://naturalsociety.com/marijuana-good-mental-health-review-says-yes-1938/