Zika virus, GM mosquitoes or TDAP vaccine?

.

More controversies and more "known unknowns"...

Zika Virus – What They Are Not Telling You

While the Brazilian government rushes to blame the Zika virus for this huge rise in abnormal birth defects, causation remains unclear. Only a small number of babies with birth defects, who died, had the virus in their brain or in the mother’s placenta. This means a large number of the babies who died had no Zika virus in their brain. Hard to blame Zika then, which has been around since before 1948 and has never been known to cause birth defects and/or death. In fact, Zika makes only one in five people get “mildly” sick with flu-like symptoms, with no symptoms at all in 4 out of 5 people. So why are they quick to blame a generally benign Zika virus?

In late 2014, the Brazilian minister of health announced that a new Tdap shot would be mandatory for all expectant mothers starting in 2015. Since it’s mandatory, mothers with birth defect babies received this newly formulated vaccine while pregnant. The timeliness of the Tdap vaccine and the sudden rise in birth defects is more than just a little coincidental. The consequences of this untested vaccine is being swept under the rug.

More links (far out warning - not for mainstream believer types!):

The CDC / Its agents run global covert ops / The virus hunters

Zika Outbreak Epicenter ... in Same Area where GM Mosquitoes were Released in 2015

Is the Dreaded Zika Virus Another Giant Scam?


Update 13/02/2016

A dissenting voice of reason. By Anonymous:

-------------------------

Zika virus damages babies when pregnant women initially become infected for the FIRST time. A mother who was previously exposed to Zika has natural immunity. Zika is native to West Africa, NOT to South America. Women in west Africa have natural immunity since they are exposed to it as children. But Zika was brought to Brazil by the World Cup a few years ago and introduced to a population that was not exposed to it before, leading to a LARGE number of first infections, many of whom were pregnant women.

In other words, a West African woman is unlikely to have her first Zika exposure while she is pregnant and her children will be protected by her already-developed immunity. However, South American women are NOT exposed to Zika endemically and therefore a first infection for them is catastrophic. Zika does its damage in the first 1-2 weeks of exposure, after which the body develops antibodies and fights it off so it is undetectable. This is why many pregnant women and children with microcephaly will not show signs of active Zika infection; the damage has already been done during the initial course of infection, which has resolved and been cleared by the immune system by the time of testing (testing for ANY virus outside of its initial symptomatic outbreak is not very effective, e.g. herpes simplex). Zika causes microcephaly through widespread clotting in the brain during the early weeks of fetal development. Infection with Zika resolves quickly for the mother.

TDAP has never been associated with these specific birth defects. It is in fact a very well tested vaccine which has never demonstrated an increase in microcephaly anywhere it has been used, e.g. in the Western world where it has been administered routinely for decades. Additionally, a 2015 rollout of TDAP would not have produced the massive increase in microcephaly incidence in time for it to be noticed this year (the data that showed the increase in microcephaly is from 2014 onwards).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819875/ - paper from 2009 detailing difficulty of accurately assessing Zika infection r/t cross-reactivity of tests with other dengue fever viruses. Also contains data on antibodies vs. Zika in endemic populations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4593454/  - paper from 2015 detailing clinical cases of Zika in women in Rio. Interestingly, many pts positive for Zika had not been exposed to dengue, an endemic cousin of Zika which may have granted partial cross-immunity?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6502e1.htm  - the CDC has a great, sourced write-up on guidelines for pregnant women concerned about Zika.

Added 20/02/2016:
Zika Virus Associated with Microcephaly

--------------------------


My comments:

There are still some doubts about TDAP vaccine in pregnancy, although the risk may be presumed but not proven.

For example this:

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/tdap-vaccine-pushed-on-pregnant-women-despite-fetal-risks/

Quote:

The truth is that the Tdap shot has never been proven safe for use during pregnancy. In fact, Tdap is classified by the FDA as a Class C drug.

The definition of a Class C drug which is how the Tdap shot is classified:

Animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans, but potential benefits may warrant use of the drug in pregnant women despite potential risks.

Sanofi Pasteur Adacel (TDAP) safety sheet (FDA document):

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm142764.pdf

Quote:

--USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS----
Safety and effectiveness of Adacel vaccine have not been established in pregnant women. (8.1)

http://www.vaxchoicevt.com/whooping-cough-shots-during-pregnancy/

Quote:

* from Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report February 23-24, 2011 minutes (p. 34-35)

"From January 1, 2005 through June 30, 2010, of 10,350 reports after Tdap vaccines, 129 involved pregnant women who submitted a report to VAERS. Although there were reports of 20 spontaneous abortions, 2 stillbirths, and 2 congenital anomalies, VAERS is not designed to assess whether a vaccine caused an adverse event. A review of VAERS reports in pregnant women who received Tdap vaccines revealed no elevated frequency or unusual patterns. Both GSK and sanofi pasteur maintain vaccination pregnancy registries to collect data on pregnancy outcomes and newborn health status outcomes following vaccination. Both were kind enough to allow Dr. Liang to present on their behalf. The work group reviewed their data in detail, and she provided the summary points. Boostrix® was licensed in 2005 for 10 through 18 year olds, and in 2008 for adults. GSK maintains a registry to collect data on pregnancy outcomes and newborn health status outcomes following vaccination. From its U.S. market launch in 2005 through August 2, 2010, 33 pregnancies were prospectively registered. Of these pregnancies, 18 were lost to follow-up. Outcomes were reported for seven pregnancies, and consisted of six live infants born without birth defects and one spontaneous abortion at seven weeks gestation. The remaining eight pregnancies were on-going at the time of last contact. In addition to the prospective reports of pregnancy received to the pregnancy registry from the U.S., GSK has received 13 reports from other countries. Just over half of these reported normal outcomes. The rest are on-going or were lost to follow-up. There have been no birth defects after Boostrix® vaccination reported to GSK."

Stan (Heretic)

They finally proved correlation between saturated fat and heart disease...

.

... and it is inverse!

From Wiki

In case you missed it, see the study link and the post on Diet Doctor.  See also an interesting post on the High Fat Hep-C Diet blog.  In a nutshell:

Each additional 5% of saturated fat (SFA) contents was associated with 17% lower risk of ischemic heart disease (IHD)  : Hazard Ratio 0.83 +/- 0.1.

RESULTS:
During 12 y of follow-up, 1807 IHD events occurred. Total SFA intake was associated with a lower IHD risk (HR per 5% of energy: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.93). Substituting SFAs with animal protein, cis monounsaturated fatty acids, polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), or carbohydrates was significantly associated with higher IHD risks (HR per 5% of energy: 1.27-1.37). Slightly lower IHD risks were observed for higher intakes of the sum of butyric (4:0) through capric (10:0) acid (HRSD: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.89, 0.99), myristic acid (14:0) (HRSD: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.83, 0.97), the sum of pentadecylic (15:0) and margaric (17:0) acid (HRSD: 0.91: 95% CI: 0.83, 0.99), and for SFAs from dairy sources, including butter (HRSD: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.90, 0.99), cheese (HRSD: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.86, 0.97), and milk and milk products (HRSD: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.86, 0.97).

Interestingly, equal-caloric substitution of 5% of SFA in the diet with:

•  any carbohydrate type (low GI, medium GI or high GI),
•  mono-unsaturated fats,
•  polyunsaturated fats,
•  animal protein,

- correlated positively with IHD, while substitution of SFA with vegetable protein correlated negatively! (Correlation calculations were corrected against known confounding factors such as age, sex, BMI, waist circumference, educational level, physical activity level, smoking status, alcohol intake, energy-adjusted intakes of cholesterol, fiber, and vitamin C.

Stan (Heretic)

Manufacturing of fake profits by some corporations

.

(Note: I rarely post that kind of analyses but this time it is probably important to know about, and interesting to watch).  

From Wiki

Surprized by the booming US stock market in the past few years 2012-2015 in spite of rotten business fundamentals and no growth?

How to transfer cheap credit into fake profit and create an illusion of growth, simple:

• borrow a few billions of dollars at near zero interest rate
• buy your own corporate stock back, which allows the company to increases dividend per free trading share without incurring extra costs or improving anything nor adding anything of value. It also triggers a buying momentum on the stock market, which other "investors" tend to follow. 
• wait until stock price increases due to higher dividend yield and due to momentum investing.  This will also increase a value of the previously purchased corporate stock held as the asset, making it available to use as a collateral for future loans.  
• repeat the above, roll-over the old loans if necessary.

In fact, one can argue that it makes no sense whatsoever to invest in production if stock buyback brings more return on “investment” and quicker since the lag is much shorter then a new product development cycle.

What can go wrong?

• if interest rates go up too much then rolling over the old loans would drain the cash and bankrupt the companies.  This is highly unlikely since the central banks are well aware of that kind of systemic risk and will not raise the interest rates substantially, any time soon.
• if the stock prices decline in spite of buybacks due to market correction or declining fundamentals (as in case of mining & energy sectors and some banks) , then the own corporate stock held as a collateral must also decline which may trigger the calls on the existing loans and may make it more difficult to borrow  and to roll-over the old debt.  This may potentially expose the company to a liquidity crisis.  We will probably see some interesting examples of this phenomenon in 2016, beginning with the mining sector  and some oil companies and then possibly some banks exposed to bad loans. Previously, the governments fought it by issuing another QE (“quantitative easing” of credit), will it work this time?  We shall see.     It will cause US dollar exchange rate to rapidly go down as it happened during 2008-9, which may trigger an outflow of capital out of the US stock and bond market, again as in 2008-9 (this time into the currencies of countries that are not exposed to deflationary risk of mining and energy markets).   This will exacerbate the stock market rout in the US.  Note that the above mechanisms are not self-correcting, they form a positive feedback loop, that is a movement in one direction, up or down tends to amplify itself reinforcing the trend.     

Stan (Heretic)

Updated 9/02/2016:

Big companies have lost billions buying their own shares

And it's not just a few big corporate losers accounting for all the pain. The group includes 229 companies in the Standard and Poor's 500 index, nearly half of the companies in the study prepared by FactSet for The Associated Press. When a company shells out money to buy its own shares, Wall Street usually cheers. The move makes the company's profit per share look better, and many think buybacks have played a key role pushing stocks higher in the seven-year bull market.

Updated 10/02/2016:

Why Stock Buybacks Won’t Save The Market This Time

There's a reason investors have blindly trusted Wall Street's "buy the dips" mantra since 2009. In fact… there are 2.3 trillion reasons. That's because since 2009 U.S. companies spent more than $2.3 trillion buying back their own shares, according to a report by Aranca Investment Research Services. All that buying acted as a floor for stocks and launched the major indices to new heights.
...
Fundamentally, spending cash on or debt-financing buybacks is touted by management as "returning cash to shareholders" by reducing share count, which reduces the number of shares the company's earnings are divided across. So, by reducing shares through buybacks, earnings per share can rise even if actual earnings are flat or falling. And that's a source of positive sentiment for those holding those stocks.

Update 14/03/2016:

There is only one buyer keeping S&P 500 bull alive

When The Prop Drops - Company Share Buybacks Accounted For 100% of New Stock Market Cash Since 2010

The Skinny on Fat by Credit Suisse

.

A better title would have been "Money and greed trump medical lies and stupidity"
I shall better be kind to the bankers, some of them are on our side!
 8-:)

Credit Suisse Investor's report   (a short summary titled The Real Skinny on Fat is available on The Financialist page) concludes that saturated and monounsaturated animal fat is healthy and was unjustifiably blamed for the health problems that were in fact more likely caused by the overconsumption of vegetable polyunsaturated  oils and carbohydrates.  The institute's report is thus    advising to invest in natural food producers selling product rich in saturated fats.  

Praising civilization for saving life on Earth by increasing carbon dioxide!

.
We should be proud of carbon emission rather than ashamed.  According to  one of the original Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore.  Read his excellent  presentation on October 2015,  Annual GWPF Lecture, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London.

Quote:

Here is the shocking news. If humans had not begun to unlock some of the carbon stored as fossil fuels, all of which had been in the atmosphere as CO2 before sequestration by plants and animals, life on Earth would have soon been starved of this essential nutrient and would begin to die.

Given the present trends of glaciations and interglacial periods this would likely have occurred less than 2 million years from today, a blink in nature's eye, 0.05% of the 3.5 billion-year history of life.

No other species could have accomplished the task of putting some of the carbon back into the atmosphere that was taken out and locked in the Earth's crust by plants and animals over the millennia.

This is why I honor James Lovelock [proponent of Gaia hypothesis] in my lecture this evening. Jim was for many years of the belief that humans are the one-and-only rogue species on Gaia, destined to cause catastrophic global warming. I enjoy the Gaia hypothesis but I am not religious about it and for me this was too much like original sin. It was as if humans were the only evil species on the Earth.

But James Lovelock has seen the light and realized that humans may be part of Gaia's plan, and he has good reason to do so. And I honor him because it takes courage to change your mind after investing so much of your reputation on the opposite opinion.

Rather than seeing humans as the enemies of Gaia, Lovelock now sees that we may be working with Gaia to "stave of another ice age", or major glaciation.

This is much more plausible than the climate doom-and gloom scenario because our release of CO2 back into the atmosphere has definitely reversed the steady downward slide of this essential food for life, and hopefully may reduce the chance that the climate will slide into another period of major glaciation.

We can be certain that higher levels of CO2 will result in increased plant growth and biomass.

We really don't know whether or not higher levels of CO2 will prevent or reduce the eventual slide into another major glaciation. Personally I am not hopeful for this because the long-term history just doesn't support a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature.

It does boggle the mind in the face of our knowledge that the level of CO2 has been steadily falling that human CO2 emissions are not universally acclaimed as a miracle of salvation.

From direct observation we already know that the extreme predictions of CO2's impact on global temperature are highly unlikely given that about one-third of all our CO2 emissions have been discharged during the past 18 years and there has been no statistically significant warming. And even if there were some additional warming that would surely be preferable to the extermination of all or most species on the planet.

You heard it here.

"Human emissions of carbon dioxide have saved life on Earth from inevitable starvation and extinction due to lack of CO2".

Updated link 08/01/2016:    Researchers Predict That A “Mini Ice Age” Is Coming Very Soon

USDA dietary recommendations of fruit & veg increase energy use and greenhouse gasses emission

.
New study:

Energy use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions for current food consumption patterns and dietary recommendations in the US

...This study finds that shifting from the current US diet to dietary Scenario 1 [eat less] decreases energy use, blue water footprint, and GHG emissions by around 9 %, while shifting to dietary Scenario 2 increases energy use by 43 %, blue water footprint by 16 %, and GHG emissions by 11 %. Shifting to dietary Scenario 3, which accounts for both reduced Caloric intake and a shift to the USDA recommended food mix, increases energy use by 38 %, blue water footprint by 10 %, and GHG emissions by 6 %. These perhaps counterintuitive results are primarily due to USDA recommendations for greater Caloric intake of fruits, vegetables, dairy, and fish/seafood, which have relatively high resource use and emissions per Calorie.

I like this. It makes me think I should be supporting the plant based lacto-ovo-pesco vegetarian diet since a little bit warmer climate is better for the environment than a new ice age (that we may be perilously close to).

Which is more "Climatologically Correct" ?
From  publicdomainpictures.net  

Lettuce-nibbling veggies menace Mother Earth /
'Three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon'

Mental health risk of going meatless

.
New article:

The Scary Mental Health Risks of Going Meatless
Vegetarianism can come with some unexpected side effects.
BY JILL WALDBIESER December 2, 2015

Quote:

Her symptoms were sudden and severe. Drew Ramsey's 35-year-old patient had always been fit and active, but her energy had flatlined. When she did manage to drag herself to the gym, it didn't help. She felt anxious and was often on the verge of tears for no reason, even when she was with friends. Worst of all were her panic attacks, a rare occurrence in the past but now so common that she was afraid of losing her job ...

Sure enough, six weeks after adding animal protein back onto her plate, her energy rebounded and her panic attacks dropped by 75 percent.

Her case is far from unique. "I hear from vegetarians every day; they have this terrible depression and anxiety, and they don't understand why," says Lierre Keith, author of The Vegetarian Myth. "People think they're eating a beautiful, righteous diet, but they don't realize there's a potential dark side."

It's true that many of America's estimated 8 million vegetarians are drawn to the diet's promise of a healthier weight, heart, and planet. They pass on beef, poultry, and pork, unaware that a growing body of research suggests a link between going meatless and an elevated risk for serious mental disorders.

...
So it was startling last year when Australian researchers revealed that vegetarians reported being less optimistic about the future than meat eaters. What's more, they were 18 percent more likely to report depression and 28 percent more likely to suffer panic attacks and anxiety. A separate German study backs this up, finding that vegetarians were 15 percent more prone to depressive conditions and twice as likely to suffer anxiety disorders.

Banned TED talks

.
You may enjoy it, well worth listening to:

Nick Hanauer "Rich people don't create jobs"

Graham Hancock - The War on Consciousness

The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake 

There is no such thing as too much heresy!

Stan (Heretic)

Non-religious upbringing makes children kinder, more altruistic!

.
... a newly published study has found:

The Negative Association between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism across the World

Here, we assessed altruism and third-party evaluation of scenarios depicting interpersonal harm in 1,170 children aged between 5 and 12 years in six countries (Canada, China, Jordan, Turkey, USA, and South Africa), the religiousness of their household, and parent-reported child empathy and sensitivity to justice.
...
However, religiousness was inversely predictive of children’s altruism and positively correlated with their punitive tendencies. Together these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children’s altruism, challenging the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior.

A song about Saint Dominique fighting Heretics....

Stan (Heretic)

Low fat diets are useless - new study

.
... a recently published study has found.   The Telegraph article  on the same topic:
Cut out carbs, not fat if you want to lose weight, Harvard study finds

Wiki Cereal

 The analysis of 53 studies, involving 67,000 dieters found who cut back on fat were two and a half pounds heavier after a year than those who embraced a “low carb” approach.

...
Dr Deirdre Tobias at Bingham's Division of Preventive Medicine said: "Despite the pervasive dogma that one needs to cut fat from their diet in order to lose weight, the existing scientific evidence does not support low-fat diets over other dietary interventions for long-term weight loss." "In fact, we did not find evidence that is particularly supportive of any specific proportion of calories from fat for meaningful long-term weight loss.” The study found low carbohydrate diets were the most successful.

It's sugar not calories!

.

New study just published in the Obesity Journal by Dr. Robert Lustig and others.
The results are described in this article:
The science is in: the case for a sugar tax is overwhelming,

Wiki: Soft drink

Quotes:

Is sugar dangerous because it’s calories? Or because it’s sugar?

...we took the added sugar away from 43 obese children who were already sick, to see if they got well. But if they lost weight, critics would argue that the drop in calories or the loss in weight was the reason for their improvement. Therefore, the study was “isocaloric”; that is, we gave back the same number of calories in starch as we took away in sugar, to make sure they maintained their weight.
For nine days we catered their meals to provide the same fat, protein, and total carbohydrate content as their home diet; but within the carbohydrate fraction we took the added sugar out and substituted starch. We took the pastries out, we put the bagels in; we took the yoghurt out, we put the baked potato chips in; we took chicken teriyaki out, we put turkey hot dogs in. We gave them processed food – kid food – but “no added sugar” food. We reduced their sugar consumption from 28% to 10% of their calories. They weighed themselves every day; if they were losing weight, we told them to eat more.
We were astonished at the results. Diastolic blood pressure decreased by five points. Blood fat levels dropped precipitously. Fasting glucose decreased by five points, glucose tolerance improved markedly, insulin levels fell by 50%. In other words we reversed their metabolic disease in just 10 days, even while eating processed food, by just removing the added sugar and substituting starch, and without changing calories or weight. Can you imagine how much healthier they would have been if we hadn’t given them the starch?
This study establishes that all calories are not the same (“a calorie is not a calorie”); substituting starch for sugar improved these children’s metabolic health unrelated to calories or weight gain.

Beliefs are harmful including this one...

.

I have to explain.

This statement is a logical contradiction - but only paradoxically, until it is expanded. In my personal experience, beliefs and thoughts are harmful causing divisions, hatred and in the most extreme cases make people fight each other - if and only if we identify with the "thing" inside our brains that actually does the believing and thinking! Likewise, the statement "Beliefs are harmful" is also harmful if we identify with it! Once the mind realizes that "The thoughts in my head are not Me" then the paradox disappears.

Stan (Heretic)

P.S.

I consider heretical mindset to be a good thing and one of the main factors, even a precondition behind creativity in general; in science, technology and art in particular.

Dangerous radiation?

.
Interesting article about Manhattan Project scientists contaminated by Plutonium.

The Scientists Who Pee Plutonium

Government conducted live-long study of the 26 contaminated people. Results, quote: "the mortality rate for the group is about 50 per cent lower than the national average."

It appears that up to a certain level of radiation, its effects don't seem to be harmful and it is possible (though not proven) that it may even be beneficial. See also the other posts on the subject.


More quotes:

It may be a surprise to learn that the members of the UPPU club have all done well, especially when compared to national averages. “They’ve fared pretty well as a group,” George Volez and expert on plutonium exposure told Los Alamos Science in 1995. “Of the original 26, only seven have died, and the last death was in 1990.

Update (20/07/2018, thanks @Hokushinsai )

Updated 31/07/2018 (thanks @TuckerGoodrich)

This Giant X-Ray Generator Helped Set Safe Doses for Radiation,
Physicist Lauriston Taylor also found X-rays effective against athlete’s foot and bursitis. By By Evan Ackerman, 28-April-2017

Quote:

“The only single documented whole body exposure that I know that I’ve had was in 1929, and it was measured to be 150 [Roentgen]…. I sat in an X-ray beam for 20 minutes or half an hour or something…. I was just sitting right smack in the beam…. [With that much radiation] you’re supposed to get nauseated, but we didn’t know that in 1929, so I wasn’t.”

For the record, 150 Roentgen is equivalent to 1.4 sievert, which according to this chart starts to put you in the realm of “severe radiation poisoning, in some cases fatal.” But since the chart wasn’t around in 1929, Taylor was just fine. Indeed, he told the interviewer in 1995, “I also used to treat [my] athlete’s foot.... I don’t remember what the dose was, but it was probably four or five hundred R [3.7 to 4.7 Sv].”

“That exposure in addition to medical radiation treatment for bursitis and other benign conditions and from radiation experiments resulted in an estimated whole-body dose-equivalent in excess of a thousand rem [10 Sv],” Taylor’s obituary for the Health Physics Society stated. “He experienced no discernible adverse effect.”

Taylor continued working until the age of 97, and having published over 160 scientific papers and writing or contributing to 24 books, he died in 2004 at the age of 102.

Off topic: TPP - triumph of bureaucracy over international trade

.

Proponents of "managed" economy are having a field day! Interesting summary of what our governments have in secrecy concocted may be found in the following article.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership - Statist Aggrandizement Posing As Free Trade, by Carmen Elena Dorobat, October 10, 2015

Quotes:

Although the text has not been made available to the public, and will not be for the next four years to avoid opposition, the TPP is publicized as a tremendous boost in free trade for the signing countries, and thus for almost 40% of world trade. It is supposed to ‘promote’, ‘enhance’, and ‘support’ many things, from innovation to investment and development, and job creation. The language used, characteristic now of all such governmental agreements, is a clear indicator that the TPP is nothing more than additional thousand(s) of pages of new trade regulations, with a sprinkling of tariff reductions that will benefit some industries and companies, and hurt others.
...

This illustrates what Ludwig von Mises pointed out half a century ago: that the focus of these agreements has long shifted from trade liberalization (defined as removal of barriers) to trade regulation (or what we know today as "managed trade") and the promotion of special interests.
...

As Rothbard amusingly wrote about the NAFTA myth,

The folks who have brought us NAFTA and presume to call it "free trade" are the same people who call government spending "investment," taxes "contributions," and raising taxes "deficit reduction." Let us not forget that the Communists, too, used to call their system "freedom."

BTW - Does it really exclude China? Are they kidding us?

Did a psychiatric drug or did guns trigger mass shooting?

.
This is speculative but the question must be asked in public and then must be answered by the authorities entrusted in regulatory duties.  No it is not about guns!

Michael Moore - Reveals the real cause of Columbine. (watch minute 1:30)

Quote:

... Eli Lilly for nearly 15 years covered up their own internal investigation that anyone on Prozac is 12 times more likely to commit suicide than on other anti-depressant.

See also this:

Oregon: Another Mass Shooting, Another Psychiatric Drug? 35 School Shootings/Mass Stabbings Tied to Psychiatric Drugs

Quote:

According to an article posted in the Oregonian, “There are a number of indications that Mercer had mental health or behavioral issues. His screen name on some social media sites was ‘lithium love.’ Lithium is a psychiatric medication.

The question is what a particular drug or a class of drugs may be triggering it?

It is the fettered capitalism that is the problem!

.

From Wiki

It is the "fettered" capitalism which sucks and taxes capital out of individuals and small businesses, taking from people who work and create wealth giving it to governments and corporate/banking oligarchs.

Pope calls unfettered capitalism 'the dung of the devil'

I disagree, I think the Pope is mistaken.   "Unfettered" capitalism, when it still existed, created the wealthiest country in the world by allowing the poor European peasant refugees who came here with nothing to keep the money they earned, to reinvest it to grow their own businesses.

No country in Europe including the part of Italy that was ruled by Vatican for long period of time,  allowed their poorest working class people to accumulate capital and become rich, they were always taxed out of their surplus income.   If that is the Pope's solution against poverty than no thanks.  I prefer the unfettered capitalism.  If I could only find one somewhere...

Heretic

Longevity genes, glucose and insulin sensitivity

.

Some of the most interesting longevity research concerns FOXO3A (homozygotic GG) and SIRT6 genes. In the case of FOXO3A, it seem to be associated also with the improved insulin sensitivity (thus allowing the body to maintain consistently LOW insulin level, reducing the risk of insulin resistance, metabolic factor and diabetes t2) throughout one's life. In the case of SIRT6 which plays a major role in DNA repair process, it appears to be upregulated with lower glucose consumption. Insulin and carbohydrates, carbohydrates and insulin...

Lots of unanswered questions: is the link accidental or not? Which is the primary and which is the secondary factor in the longevity?
Is (a) FOXO3A the primary cause of longevity while in addition improving also the insulin sensitivity? - Or, (b) is the improved insulin sensitivity and low glucose caused by the gene (or by whatever other factors...) - the primary longevity factor?

So far, the second answer (b) seems to be already demonstrated for the SIRT6 while there seems to be a growing suspicion that it is may be so for the FOXO3A as well!

This situation reminds me that the life forms may deals with any adverse environmental threat in the two-fold fashion: - either evolving a special resistance against a threat or simply avoiding the threat (in this case by not consuming the excessive carbohydrates...)

So, you either may already have the protective genes and in this case you can safely consume whatever high carbohydrate food is being marketed your way, or you minimize or avoid that stuff altogether. Everybody has a choice - and that's excellent news!


More links:

Bradley Willcox et al., "FOXO3A genotype is strongly associated with human longevity", PNAS, September 16, 2008, vol. 105 no. 37

Quote:

Human longevity is a complex phenotype with a significant familial component, yet little is known about its genetic antecedents. Increasing evidence from animal models suggests that the insulin/IGF-1 signaling (IIS) pathway is an important, evolutionarily conserved biological pathway that influences aging and longevity.
...
Long-lived men also exhibited several biological markers indicative of greater insulin sensitivity and this was associated with homozygosity for the FOXO3A GG genotype.

I also posted on this subject in post. See the following quote from this article about the SIRT6 gene:

Quote:

...
One explanation for this failure may relate to SIRT6’s critical role in DNA repair. Several studies have indicated that SIRT6 helps catalyze repair of the damage at numerous types of DNA lesions, including single- and double-strand breaks. A characteristic feature of aging cells is an increase in the amount of DNA damage.
...
While overexpression of SIRT6 may not be tractable in a therapeutic context, SIRT6 activity can be increased by caloric restriction, reducing glucose consumption, or increasing NAD+ bioavailability (**) - interventions that have already shown promise in increasing longevity in animal models. (Such interventions are also showing promise in slowing the progress of some age-related neurodegenerative disorders.

'Cool' teenagers at higher risk of becoming losers or criminals

.

Wiki

This is what the recent study has found:

"Whatever Happened to the Cool Kids?", published in the journal Child Development by researchers at the University of Virginia

Quote:

Pseudomature behavior—ranging from minor delinquency to precocious romantic involvement—is widely viewed as a nearly normative feature of adolescence. When such behavior occurs early in adolescence, however, it was hypothesized to reflect a misguided overemphasis upon impressing peers and was considered likely to predict long-term adjustment problems. In a multimethod, multireporter study following a community sample of 184 adolescents from ages 13 to 23, early adolescent pseudomature behavior was linked cross-sectionally to a heightened desire for peer popularity and to short-term success with peers. Longitudinal results, however, supported the study's central hypothesis: Early adolescent pseudomature behavior predicted long-term difficulties in close relationships, as well as significant problems with alcohol and substance use, and elevated levels of criminal behavior.

The abstract seems to be slightly toned down, while the actual correlation figures (see Table 1) are quite high and significant! For example, some correlation factors (age range in brackets):

"1.Pseudomature behavior (13-15)" versus "12.Problems related to substance use (21–23)", Correlation=50%.

"4.Precocious romantic behavior (13–15)" versus "12.Problems related to substance use (21–23)", Correlation=33%.

"1.Pseudomature behavior (13-15)" versus "14.Criminal behavior (21–23)", Correlation=27%.

"4.Precocious romantic behavior (13–15)" versus "14.Criminal behavior (21–23)", Correlation=31%.

Interestingly, both substance abuse and criminality appear to be also correlated with early puberty!

More reading:

The Independent article: 'Cool kids' can go on to become losers in later life, study finds

My essays on social regression and anthropology.

Myth of increasing interest rates

.

A recent news headline "US Fed data leak shows staff expect interest rate to increase"

Quote:

Data accidentally published on the US Federal Reserve website shows that staff economists at the central bank expect an about 25 basis point increase in interest rates in 2015.

I think they are probably lying!

1) It was not an accidental leak but an intentionally planted disinformation like many times before.

2) Interest rates will not significantly increase any time soon, under the present monetary system, because neither the government, central banks nor large corporations can afford the consequences of such a move! There is only one way the interest rates can go at the moment: down!

(see this graph)

Wiki

Many times in the last couple of years I have witnessed various banking or governmental officials, here in Canada and elsewhere, talking of some imminent interest rate increases - which never seem to materialize!

 Why are they misleading the people? My guess is that they are trying to cool off the property market and preempt the speculative bubbles. If the investors would suddenly rush to buy bonds believing the yields (and interest rates) to go down, then the yields and interest rate would come down faster than anticipated prior to the actual announcement, which would deprive the central banks and the governments of an advantage of being the prime movers.

Interest rates cannot go up, under the current monetary system, because it would probably bankrupt all government (addicted to cheap financing at low interests), most large corporations (ditto) and would instantaneously devalue almost all banking collateral (note: bonds and property go down in value if interest rates go up!).

-------------------
added 2/07/2015 - There is a better way of putting it:
Lowering of interest rates is inflationary (short term), while increasing them is deflationary (also short term).  Governments and banks cannot afford to initiate a deflationary move (of increasing the rates) under an already deflationary and stagnating economy, given a risk of recession!
------------------

I think that the authorities – governments, public sector institutions, large corporations and banks, cannot allow the capital market system to naturally correct towards the higher yields while at the same time obliterating the total value of their personal wealth, value of the entire banking collateral and devaluing most paper "assets"! This process (towards the higher yields) will certainly be opposed by the authorities as hard as they can, because it would render them poorer and less powerful!

The establishment have a very tight control over the system and will not allow that! Not unless they have an alternative. I don’t think they have an alternative at the moment - thus, the interest rates have only one way to go – down, asymptotically to zero!  [or become negative!]

This is the scenario similar to a classical deflationary spiral with decreasing yields (and profit margins), with diminishing velocity of money counteracted by an expansion of monetary mass. Deflationary trend caused by diminishing yields seems to be masked by an expansion of monetary mass (through credit and debt expansion i.e. "Quantitative Easing") that mitigates the deflationary effects and keeps the average prices more stable than they would have been otherwise.

The biggest drawback of this system, in my opinion, lies in the fact that the benefits of the monetary mass expansion apply to governments, large centralized institutions and large corporations, where as the recessionary hardship of the diminishing velocity of money is being felt on the lower and local market level. The current system is unbalanced and I think it will probably not improve much until an additional local multiple-currency system is introduced, that will balance that out and will reverse a recessionary pressure felt by the local markets.

I also suspect that the presence of the local currencies (at the township level, not countries!) may alter the entire dynamics of the central banks and the governments, but we won't know for sure until it is tried and tested.

-------------------
Update 28-Oct-2015
-------------------

FED KEEPS RATE AT RECORD LOW BUT WILL CONSIDER DECEMBER HIKE

Quote:

The Federal Reserve is keeping its key short-term interest rate at a record low in light of a weak global economy, slower U.S. hiring and subpar inflation. But it signaled the possibility of a rate hike in December.

Yeah, right! They can't even lie intelligently! [singing the same old tune lalalalalalala...]


-------------------
Update 22-Nov-2015
-------------------

Is this the future of service based non-manufacturing type of economy?  Isn't there something fake about t?

Swiss bank breaks negative interest rates taboo


Heretic

T1 diabetic discontinues insulin on paleo diet

.

A case study: Tóth C, Clemens Z. Type 1 diabetes mellitus successfully managed with the paleolithic ketogenic diet. Int J Case Rep Images 2014;5(10):699–703.

This graph from the paper tells the whole story:

Fig.1

Curing an incurable disease, this is not supposed to be happening, they may even get sued (if they tried it here...)

Wiki