Sandy Hook’s Case against Bushmaster, and Why the Gun Debate Is Already Over

Source: thedailysheeple



Last Sunday, the families of several Sandy Hook victims came together to remember the tragic shooting that transpired 2 years ago. However, they didn’t gather to light candles and lay wreaths on the graves of their children. Instead, they’ve decided to file a lawsuit against Bushmaster for the “crime” of manufacturing the weapon used by Adam Lanza.

At least that’s how they seem to view it. The parents are arguing that since the rifle used by Lanza was originally designed for military purposes, they had no business selling it to civilians. Thus, the company that built the rifle and the dealer who sold it to the shooter’s mother are both liable for monetary and punitive damages.

You can’t make this stuff up.

I’m not going to go over some of the Constitutional arguments, as that ground has been thoroughly covered, and I don’t think it would convince these folks to change their minds anyway. Nor am I going to go over any of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandy Hook shooting. Let’s take this story at face value for just a moment, and see if this case has any grounding in reality.

“Defendants know that, as a result of selling AR-15s to the civilian market, individuals unfit to operate these weapons gain access to them,” writes attorney Joshua Koskoff. Bushmaster is the country’s largest supplier of combat weapons to civilians, according to the complaint.

So should we hold car manufacturers responsible for the deaths of drivers? Granted, if your car was built with faulty brakes, it’s clear that the manufacturer is liable for any deaths or damages that occurred. But what if someone used that car to deliberately murder someone? Is the car company responsible then? After all, they had to have known that some of their cars would wind up in the hands of unstable people.

And don’t tell me that guns are an exception, because they are designed to kill. Cars may not be built for their ability to kill folks, but they’re damn good at it. Just ask the 33,000 people who are killed on America’s roadways every year.

The 40-page document goes into the history of the rifle: The AR-15 was developed after World War II, when the US Army analyzed casualty reports and determined that shooting lots of bullets fast meant soldiers could kill more people. A company called Armalite built a machine that was “lightweight, air-cooled, gas-operated, and magazine-fed” that was so good “its lethality was not dependent on good aim or ideal combat conditions.” When equipped with the equal-opportunity killing machine, five men became as deadly as 11.

The crux of the attorney’s case, is that since Bushmaster sold military weapons to a civilian, they are partly responsible for the deaths that occurred at Sandy Hook. Not only was their weapon built for war, but it was also advertised as such by Bushmaster. But as you’ll see, none of that is relevant for anyone with half a brain.

Never mind the statement “it’s lethality was not dependent on good aim or ideal combat conditions” is completely ridiculous, and any gun enthusiast, cop, or soldier, could tell you why. What’s bothering me is, how exactly does their case have a chance in hell of winning?

It’s not illegal to sell certain military weapons to a civilian. Bushmaster hasn’t done anything wrong. They manufactured and sold a rifle that was deemed by law, to be suitable for civilians. It’s not even fully automatic, as described by the attorney’s ridiculous statement on lethality. A gun is no more or less dangerous by virtue of it being made for the military. Should Beretta be sued for all the civilians that have been killed by their M9′s? Why hasn’t anyone sued Colt for the M1911? Is it because, those weapons are not scary “assault rifles?”

“The number of lives lost in those 264 seconds was made possible” by the rifle that was “engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency,” according to the lawsuit against AR-15 manufacturer Bushmaster.

The lawsuit was filed Monday morning in Connecticut superior court against Bushmaster, several other manufacturers, and Riverview Gun Sales, where Lanza’s rifle was purchased.

Oh ya? How about 44 people in a fraction of a second. That’s what happened at Bath Elementary School in 1927. Historically speaking, the Bath School Disaster is the most devastating school attack in the United States, and no guns were required. Just one crazy man and a lot of dynamite.

The only reason bomb attacks are not more common, is because firearms are only a little bit easier to get than explosives. If these weapons were banned, explosives would make a comeback among mass killers. What with the internet and all, it doesn’t take a genius to make your own bombs. And if you think it’s hard to stop a crazy person from getting a gun now, at least there’s a paper trail in most cases. Try tracking down a lunatic who’s ordering the raw materials for a bomb (which often have other innocent applications).

Under the title “The Road to Sandy Hook,” the lawsuit painstakingly details the use of the AR-15 in other mass shootings, including those at schools. Yet Bushmaster continued to market the AR-15 as a weapon that would make others “bow down” and kept selling high-capacity magazines with it.

After recounting the individual lives taken by Lanza and his Bushmaster AR-15, the lawsuit says the defendants “knew, or should have known” that the sale of the AR-15 “posed an unreasonable and egregious risk of physical injury to others.” In addition, it should’ve known it would’ve been used in a mass shooting to inflict maximum casualties.

Let’s go back to the car industry for a moment. Does anyone remember when that senior citizen plowed through a farmers market back in 2003? 9 people were killed and dozens were injured, in what was widely believed to be either an accident, or an act of gross negligence. In the aftermath of the event, no one tried to sue Mercedes for making the vehicle that killed those people. Nobody said “they should’ve known it would fall into the wrong hands.” Instead they blamed the driver, and there was a national debate over whether or not we should allow senior citizens to drive. Case closed.

But with guns the case is never closed. Some people seem to be completely incapable of viewing these weapons as inanimate objects. They can’t shake the stigma behind these objects, and they pour all of their attention towards stopping these “killing machines” while completely ignoring the many other ways an individual can kill a lot of people.

Gun control advocates just can’t accept the nature of the world. They can’t accept that they live in a world filled with killers, and as time goes on, they will have even more ways to kill people. As of right now there are plenty of ways for a lone wolf to commit mass murder, and there will never be a bureaucratic solution to stop them. Forget about guns. Someone can plant a bomb in a school, or crash their vehicle into a busy mall. They could cause a blackout in their city by blowing up a transformer, or they could dump a bunch of ricin in the water supply.

And in the future, anyone with a computer and a 3d printer will be able to make an assault rifle. And not just one assault rifle, but for a few thousand dollars they’ll be able equip a whole freaking battalion in a matter of days. And in a few years anyone with a computer and some basic equipment will be able to sequence the entire human genome. That means that someday soon, anyone with a biology degree and a few thousand dollars will be able to engineer a virus that could kill millions. What once took a warehouse full of scientists and equipment can now be done with one lunatic in his garage. The same will probably also follow with nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and nanotechnology.

So spare me the whole gun control debate. It’s over whether these people care to admit it or not. Not only have they lost the debate from an ethical and constitutional standpoint, but the march of technology is leaving their sentimental ideals in the dust. There is no law or government on Earth that can stop people from owning and building the means to kill other people, and whether those people are good or evil does not matter. It’s simply a fact of life that can no longer be ignored.

European Study Finds Raw Milk Boosts Immunity, Prevents Colds and Infections

Source: thedailysheeple.com

By Ethan A Huff

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims that it’s basically a death sentence for you and your children. But raw milk consumption, according to a new study published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, can actually help prevent colds, viruses and respiratory tract infections (RTIs) from forming in kids, as opposed to commercially processed milk which provides little or no health benefits.

A cohort of researchers, doctors and other medical professionals from across Europe investigated the effects of raw milk versus boiled farm-fresh milk and commercial processed milk as part of a larger investigatory project known as “PASTURE.” A group of women, roughly half of whom lived and worked on livestock farms in rural areas of mostly central Europe, were recruited to participate in the research.

All of the women were in their third trimesters of pregnancy at the time of the study, and detailed consumption and lifestyle patterns, including milk-drinking habits, were carefully evaluated and compared. In total, 983 children were included in the final data set, which revealed that milk in its pure, raw, unobstructed form is superior in terms of immune-boosting nutrition.

According to the research, raw milk works a lot like breast milk in providing protective, anti-infective health benefits to children. Compared to highly processed commercial milk, raw milk was found to help lower C-reactive protein levels, which are directly associated with inflammation. Raw milk, in other words, works against inflammation, while processed milk may help promote it due to its altered proteins.

“The main finding of this analysis was an inverse association between consumption of unprocessed cow’s milk and rhinitis [cold or runny nose], RTI [respiratory tract infections], and otitis [ear infection],” wrote the authors. “The effect was strongest when cow’s milk was consumed raw; boiled farm milk exhibited an attenuated effect.”

Does ultra-heat-treated commercial milk promote respiratory and other health problems?

Conversely, consumption of ultra-heat-treated commercial milk, the most widely available milk product on the market, was not found to decrease levels of C-reactive protein, which appear to be a leading cause of disease. With fevers specifically, commercial milk was found to actually increase their prevalence compared to raw milk.

Raw milk, on the other hand, is associated with a roughly 30 percent decrease in respiratory infections and fever, and could help babies and young children overcome these common ailments. Even minimally processed milk boiled directly on the farms was found to be beneficial, though much less so than true raw milk.

“[W]e are now not talking about asthma and allergies, but fever and infections in young children,” stated Dr. Ton Baars, a professor and senior scientist for milk quality and animal welfare at the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Germany, and one of the lead authors of the study. “It means there is additional new evidence that raw milk is a protective agent in infectious diseases in young children.”

Unlike in the U.S. where irrational superstition and paranoia have landed raw milk in the “dangerous” category, Europe is already widely accepting of raw milk, and increasingly so. In many countries, raw milk vending machines are prevalent on busy city streets, providing quick and easy access to fresh milk from local farms.

“In Europe, the consumption of unpasteurized milk has repeatedly correlated with protection against allergic disease,” wrote Moises Velasquez-Manoff in a piece for The New York Times late last year.
“In America, 80 percent of the Amish studied by Dr. [Mark] Holbreich consume raw milk. In a study published earlier this year, Dr. [Bianca] Schaub’s group showed that European children who consumed farm milk had more of those regulatory T-cells, irrespective of whether they lived on farms. The higher the quantity of those cells, the less likely these children were to be given diagnoses of asthma.”

Sources:

http://www.jacionline.org

http://www.en.uni

http://www.realmilk.com*
*[A Google web cache of this page is available here]

http://thebovine.wordpress.com

http://www.nytimes.com

http://www.drfranklipman.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

PETA Accused of Kidnapping and Euthanizing Family Dog

Source: thedailysheeple.com



For the longest time, PETA has been treated as nothing more than an annoyance for most people. Even among some animal activists, the organization is despised for its attention whoring antics. They’re notorious for their shallow, gimmicky media stunts involving scantily clad women, and caged protesters, and they never miss an opportunity to make their presence known in the news. Almost everything they do is a carefully crafted attempt draw attention to their cause, and the don’t even try to hide it.

But when it comes time to walk the walk, PETA has been accused of falling short of their lofty claims. Last year the organization found itself in hot water after it was discovered that one of their animal shelters was euthanizing many perfectly healthy animals. Despite adoption rates going up, and euthanization rates going down, it was found that PETA was killing 95 percent of the animals in their care; far more than neighboring shelters.

Why would they engage in such a terrible practice? It’s no secret that PETA despises the idea of having pets. Their members have frequently voiced their opinions on pet ownership, and their desire to rid the world of all animals that have been bred by humans.

More important to ask is: just how far are their members willing to go to make the world in their image? If one man’s claim is true, then they may go so far as to take your pets from your own private property.

ACCOMACK COUNTY, Va. (WAVY) – Maya the chihuahua was a comfort to a little girl who moved to the Eastern Shore from Mexico. The girl’s family said the dog had a good life in their Parksley home and was well cared for. They told WAVY.com they can’t wrap their heads around why an organization that looks out for animals, took the dog from her home.

The young girl is now devastated.

“She didn’t want to go to school, she didn’t want to do jobs, she’s crying,” said the girl’s father, Wilbur Cerate. He noticed Maya missing when he got home one Saturday in October. “My chihuahua, when she sees my car, she come to me,” Cerate said. “That Saturday she did not come.

Cerate checked his security camera and the video shows a van with “PETA” on the side back into his driveway. Two women got out of the van and one walked up his porch, took Maya, and put her in the back of the van.

“I was angry. I understand they pick up my dog, if it was in a tree or another place, but this is in my house,” Cerate said.

Those of you who are pet owners may want to check your blood pressure, because the story gets a lot worst from here. The father claims that after he viewed his security footage he contacted PETA to find out why his dog was taken. It turns out they were asked by the property owners to round up stray dogs in the area. So why exactly was his dog taken from his front porch?

Nobody knows, including the dog’s owner. What we do know is what happened to the dog. After PETA was contacted, they arrived at his front door a few days later bearing a token fruit basket, and informed him that his dog had been euthanized. So far the owner has showed more restraint than most people would be capable of during such a bizarre and painful experience.

And still, there have been no answers for this crime. Local reporters have been calling PETA’s headquarters for nearly a week now with no response, and no charges will be filed because the video of the theft “doesn’t prove criminal intent”. You can take a look at the security footage yourself. It looks downright criminal if you ask me.

The New World Order: Does It All Just Boil down to a Battle for Your Soul?

Source: thedailysheeple.com



From its very inception, the Leninist/Marxist ideology of the Soviet Union made it a central priority to dispel and subjugate religious and spiritual expression. The state was “god.” No other god could be allowed to flourish, for if the people were given license and freedom of belief in something beyond themselves and beyond the establishment, they would retain a sense of rebellion. The collectivist philosophy requires the utter destruction of all competitors; otherwise, it can never truly prevail.

Atheism became the cult of choice among the communists, for in an atheist world there is nothing beyond the veil. There is no greater goal and no inherent self. There is no true individualism, only self interest (not the same thing), the trappings of environmental circumstances, and the constant substantiation of the greater good. By extension, there is no inborn moral compass or conscience, only the social fashions and mores of the moment. In such a world, tyrants reign supreme because atheism allows relativism to flourish; and any crime, no matter how heinous, can be rationalized.  Beyond this, if you know and study the real history of the rise of communism, you know through great researchers like Antony Sutton that the very fabric of the system would never have existed without the monetary and military aid of international financiers (i.e. the NWO).

The atheist position uses the same arguments I have just made as a reason to remove religion and spirituality from our cultural influences. And in some respects, atheists are right. Religion is a tool that can be exploited to manipulate the masses. Any system of belief that is faith-based can be misinterpreted and abused in order to lure unwitting dupes and mindless followers into the fray of an engineered disaster. Atheists commonly argue that it is the encumbering nature of faith that causes mankind to destroy itself in the name of zealotry and self-righteous ignorance.

The difference, however, is that religious zealots are still required by the confines of their dogma to at least appear as though they follow a moral code. Therefore, they can be exposed as violators of this code and weakened over time. The atheist/collectivist system, though, thrives on the concept that there is no such thing as a moral code and that one is vindicated and heroic if he takes extreme action to prove that traditional morality is a vice, rather than a virtue. Atheists in positions of power often make no attempt to affirm their actions; rather, they demand that society abandon all conscience and sense of natural law. They do not ask for forgiveness; they order you to apologize for your moral compass.  Are some atheists good and honorable people?  Surely.  The point, however, remains; atheism is the new flavor of the era, the increasingly predominant gravitational center of modern culture, the philosophical soil in which the NWO has chosen to grow its globalist experiment.
What atheists don’t seem to grasp is that atheism is itself based on an act of faith: faith in the idea that there is nothing beyond our perceptions of existence. They have no more factual knowledge of what lay at the center of life than any of the religious acolytes they so fondly attack, yet their own hypocrisy is apparently lost on them.

I would not pretend to deny that religion has the ability to create a volatile atmosphere edging toward genocidal tendency, but so does any belief system that assumes it is the paramount of knowledge denying all others. The intellectual intolerance of the socialist atheism of the 20th century spawned a death machine that claimed the lives of millions of people. So, clearly, atheists should be more concerned with the violent tendencies of their own ilk rather than the religious “fiends” they seem so obsessed with. Of course, this is a history modern atheists would rather ignore or rewrite.

I have always been concerned with the dilemma of the collectivist ideology, but even more so in recent months, as our world creeps closer toward global crisis. Crisis always provides circumstance and cover for dangerous philosophical totalitarianism.

Not long ago I came across the column “Some Atheists And Transhumanists Are Asking: Should It Be Illegal To Indoctrinate Kids With Religion?” on Huffington Post. It was written by Zoltan Istvan, a transhumanist and self-proclaimed “visionary and philosopher.”

Firstly, I have a hard time taking anything published by the Huffington Post seriously. Secondly, I have a hard time taking anyone using the name “Zoltan” seriously. Thirdly, I have a hard time taking anyone who labels himself a “visionary” seriously. That said, it is important to study the propaganda of the other side carefully. You never know what kinds of truths you might come across amid all the lies.

The article does not really define what it considers “indoctrination”, but I would assume transhumanists and atheists would argue that anything not scientifically proven could become indoctrination. Interestingly, Istvan starts his tirade against the handing down of religious beliefs by admitting that science has added very little to our overall knowledge of the universe. After all, human beings experience only a narrow spectrum of the world around us, and there is indeed much we do not know. For some reason, it does not dawn on atheists that perhaps our limited scientific observations of the universe do not necessarily outweigh or deny the existence of an intelligent design.

In order to distract from their fundamental lack of knowledge, modern collectivist governments and movements have always made the promise of technological utopia and endless abundance in order to sway the populace into supporting establishment power. We will all work far less, or we will never have to work at all. Shelter, food, health and wealth will be provided for us. Our free time will be spent studying the nature of the cosmos and perpetuating the cult of academia, protected by a benevolent technocratic governing body straight out of an episode of “Star Trek.”

Not surprisingly, John Maynard Keynes himself predicted in 1930 that technological advancement and economic abundance would result in a three-hour workday and infinite time to amuse oneself by the year 2030 in his essay “The Economic Possibilities For Our Grandchildren.”

This was the same essay in which Keynes referred to the financial concerns of many at the onset of the Great Depression as “misinterpretations” and “pessimism.”

Transhumanism, a mainstay of global elitism and the New World Order, also uses fantastical images of scientifically created contentment to sell itself to starry-eyed rubes packed into the circus tent of the technocratic carnival. The very essence of the movement is the argument that one day ALL knowledge of the universe will be obtained by mankind and that through this knowledge, we (a select few anyway) will obtain godhood.

Again, as in the Huffington Post column, the claim is that science knows all or will eventually know all and that whatever has not been dissected and observed by science like the conceptions of religion must, therefore, be dubious myth.

Ironically, there is far more scientific evidence of God and spiritual life than there is evidence against. So by the very standards many atheists hold dear, it is they who are peddling indoctrination rather than truth.

In the world of mathematics, the good friend of Albert Einstein, Kurt Godel, is famous (but not as famous as he should be) for writing what would be called the “incompleteness proof.” In mathematics, a proof is a statement that is ALWAYS true and can always be proven true. Godel’s proof shook the very foundations of the mathematical world, because it outlined the fact that all mathematical knowledge is limited by numerical paradox, and that humanity will never be able to define all things through mathematical means.

Global elites such as Bertrand Russell had spent years of effort attempting to prove that mathematics was the unbridled code of the universe and that the universe could be understood in its entirety through the use of numbers. Godel shattered this delusion with his incompleteness proof, establishing once and for all that math is limited, not infinite. The existence of mathematical paradox along with an undefinable “infinity” lends credence to the religious view that there are indeed some things man will never know, but at least he has the ability to prove that he can never know them.

In the world of quantum physics, the work of Werner Heisenberg, along with that of many other scientists, has shown that the very mechanics of the world around us are not at all what they seem and that traditional physics is only a hollow shell of knowledge limited by our ability to observe.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle dictates that the observer of a particular physical state always affects the object being observed, making it impossible to know all the data necessary at one time to predict the future of that object. If a person hoped to become a god, he would certainly need to be able to tell the future; and to tell the future, one would need the ability to observe and record every aspect of every particle interacting in the environment around him. Any unknown quantity could change the outcome of any particular event. Heisenberg found that particles act very differently depending on how they are observed. In some experiments, he even discovered that individual particles appeared to be in two places at the same time, thus making them wholly unpredictable.

This behavior in the building blocks of matter is confounding to many in the realm of physics. Add to it the fact that scientists remain fixed on an endless and apparently futile quest to find the base particle that makes up the universe, and once again we find that the dreams of the transhumanist atheists to attain godhood fall terribly short.  In addition, the apparently “intelligent” behavior of inanimate particles under observation leads one to question whether the universe is really just a chaotic mess of matter, or a dynamic living machine.

In the realm of psychology, Carl Gustav Jung discovered through decades of research the existence of inborn psychological contents. That is to say, from the moment of our birth, human beings contain complex elements of knowledge and identity, meaning we are NOT merely products of our particular environments. Jung called these pieces of inherent information “archetypes.”

The most important aspect of archetypes for our discussion is the existence of opposing views, or “dualities.” The concepts of good and evil, the concepts of conscience as well as guilt and regret, are not necessarily taught to us. Rather, we are born with such elements already within us. The fact that we are born with an at least unconscious understanding of good versus evil means we have the potential power of choice, a power beyond the realm of environment and beyond the reach of would-be tyrants and collectivists. If this does not constitute scientific evidence of a human “soul,” then I do not know what does. The fact of archetypes is undeniable. The question is: Since they do not come from environment, where do they come from?

Istvan’s column doesn’t mention or regard any of the scientific evidence for the existence of an intelligent design. He merely argues that science is the only definable known quantity, and only the known quantity is an acceptable form of belief. But what if the known quantity is so limited as to make a society dangerously ignorant?

The article goes on to promote (somewhat shamelessly) the author’s book, in which the hero, a transhumanist atheist, is given the power to reshape society into any form he wishes. The hero questions whether he should remove religion from the picture entirely, for if religion were erased, wouldn’t the world finally be at peace? Istvan himself questions whether religious expression should be banned in the case of children, so that they are given the chance to “choose” what they wish to believe later in life. This, of course, disregards the fact that children are already born with the prospect of choice, which is why many children who grow up Christian do not practice it later in life, and why many children from atheist homes end up joining religious movements. The idea that all children are permanently molded or damaged by their parent’s unchecked beliefs is complete nonsense.

What the author reveals in his work of fiction is the greater threat of the atheist and transhumanist ideology — namely, the arrogant assumption that they know what is best for the world and the public based on their scientific observations, which are limited and often misinterpreted. This problem extends into the oligarchy of globalists, who adore the theories expressed in Plato’s “The Republic,” in which an elite cadre of “philosopher kings,” men who have achieved a heightened level of academic knowledge, are exalted as the most qualified leaders. However, leadership requires more than knowledge, even if that knowledge is profound. Leadership also requires compassion and informed consent, two things for which the elites have no regard.

The New World Order, an ideal often touted by globalists and defined by their own rhetoric as a scientific dictatorship in which collectivism is valued and individualism is criminalized, seems to me to be — in its ultimate form and intention — a battle for the human soul. They try to convince us that there is no such thing, that there is no inborn conscience, that there is a rationale for every action, that spiritualism is a frivolous and terroristic pursuit, and that cold logic and science, as defined by them, are the paths to prosperity and peace. They also seek to tempt the masses with imaginary stories of attainable godhood and artificial Eden, promises on which they can never deliver.  Anyone can point a gun at you and demand your fealty, but this is not what the elites want.  Rather, they want you to voluntarily resign yourself over to the hive mind and sacrifice your conscience in the process.  While one might argue over what it is they “truly” believe at the core of their cult, it is undeniable that collectivism, moral relativism, and atheism are their favorite promotional weapons.

The reactionary responses to my criticisms of the elitist philosophy will likely involve endless renunciations of crimes committed in the name of religious fervor. I agree; religion has always been exploited, usually by the elites themselves, to enslave as well as to murder. Even today, I hear some so-called Christians argue in favor of genocide using half-baked interpretations of biblical reference. But at bottom, I much prefer a world in which religious expression is free, rather than abolished in the name of an overarching zealotry in the form of a stunted mathematical morality. I prefer a world where the spiritual side of existence is allowed to add to observational awareness. Logic alone is not wisdom, after all. Wisdom is the combination of reason, intuition and experience.

I refuse to live under any form of theocracy, whether religious or scientific. The idea that we must choose between one or the other is a farce — a controlled debate. The individual soul (or whatever you want to call it) is the only thing that matters. It is important that we never forget that when we fight against the NWO, we are not just fighting for liberty; we are also fighting for something profoundly and inherently spiritual. Though we might not be able to define it, we can feel it. And that is enough.

Man Eats Sugar-Laden Diet for 60 Days and Gets Shocking Diagnosis

Source: thedailysheeple.com

By Lisa Egan

By now, most of us realize that sugar is not a health food and is meant to be consumed in moderation.

It’s been linked with poor dental health, obesity, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, type II diabetes, cell aging, heart disease, and cancer.

What is less commonly publicized is the link between sugar consumption and liver health.

For years, fat was the subject of a dietary witch-hunt. It was implicated in obesity, type II diabetes, and a myriad of other health problems. The 2004 documentary Super Size Me chronicled the 30-day McDonald’s-only diet of filmmaker Morgan Spurlock. During that month, Spurlock consumed 90 meals from the fast-food chain. He gained 24 pounds, his cholesterol level shot up to 230, and fat accumulated in his liver. Those results led many to believe that dietary fat was the culprit, despite the fact that Spurlock consumed over 30 pounds of sugar in that month.

In 2009, filmmaker Tom Naughton released a documentary titled Fat Head, in which he chronicled his own 30-day McDonald’s-based diet. Naughton restricted his calories to 2,000 per day and limited his carbohydrate consumption to around 100 grams per day. He didn’t limit his fat intake, thought – he consumed around 100 grams per day, with about 50 coming from saturated fat. Naughton lost 12 pounds and saw improvements in other health markers during his experiment.

The low-fat craze was based on flawed studies, political bias, and clever marketing by the food industry. It led to the mass availability and widespread promotion of low-fat “foods” like cookies, crackers, cheese, candy, and ice cream. You name it, and Big Food found a way to make it low-fat.

Not only did the low-fat craze fail to improve the health of those who fell for it, it also led to a dangerous increase in dietary carbohydrate consumption – mostly in the form of added sugars. That’s because when fat is removed from a food, something has to be added to make it more palatable. Usually, that thing is sugar.

A new documentary that is scheduled for release in 2015 focuses on the impact dietary sugar can have on health. The movie, aptly titled That Sugar Film, outlines filmmaker Damon Gameau’s 60-day experiment with a high-sugar diet.

Gameau did not binge on candy, sodas, or other sugary treats. He consumed low-fat foods that are commonly believed to be “healthful.”

He explained his food choices to Yahoo:

“I had no soft drink, chocolate, ice cream, or confectionery. All the sugars that I was eating were found in perceived healthy foods, so low-fat yogurts, and muesli bars, and cereals, and fruit juices, sports drinks … these kind of things that often parents would give their kids thinking they’re doing the right thing.”

Gameau increased his intake of sugar to 40 teaspoons per day, just slightly more than the average daily consumption of a typical teenager. According to the American Heart Association (AHA), the average American consumes 20 teaspoons of sugar daily. The AHA’s daily recommendations for sugar consumption are 6 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoons for men.

Within three weeks, the previously healthy Gameau noticed his mental and physical health declining:

During the filming, Gameau found the sugary diet affected his physical and mental health, and doctors called his mental functioning “unstable.” He also added nearly four inches of visceral fat around his waist, even though he said the diet left him feeling hungry, no matter how much he ate.

He also received a troubling diagnosis: his doctor told him he was beginning to develop fatty liver disease.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the accumulation of abnormal amounts of fat within the liver. It is closely linked to the obesity crisis, is a strong risk factor for heart disease and Type 2 diabetes, and in severe cases it can lead to liver failure.

Fatty liver disease rarely causes symptoms until the liver disease is far advanced. At most, there is enlargement of the liver which may cause mild discomfort in the right upper abdomen.

Other possible symptoms include fatigue, weakness, weight loss, loss of appetite, nausea, abdominal pain, spider-like blood vessels, yellowing of the skin and eyes (jaundice), itching, fluid build up and swelling of the legs (edema) and abdomen (ascites), and mental confusion.

The possible complications are serious and include liver failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, and liver cancer.

Unfortunately, NAFLD is becoming more common. It is estimated that 25% of people in the US have it. Adults aren’t the only ones who can develop the disease: children can be victims too. There aren’t many studies available, but the estimated prevalence among children 2-19 years of age is approximately 10%, the prevalence increases with the degree of obesity, and there is progression to cirrhosis, according to MedicineNet.

In the last twenty years, the prevalence of the disease has more than doubled in teenagers and adolescents.

There are no medications approved to treat the disease, and it is quickly becoming a leading cause of liver transplants.

Sugar is believed to be the main culprit in the development of NAFLD because it is metabolized in the liver and it is known to increase blood levels of triglycerides, a type of fat.

From Well:

Studies suggest that sugar consumption contributes to liver fat accumulation. And there is some data indicating that people who carry genetic variants associated with fatty liver are particularly sensitive to increased fat accumulation in response to sugar and refined carbohydrates.

One of the first pieces of dietary advice that clinicians who treat fatty liver give to their patients is to eliminate sugary drinks from their diets. But doctors say that patients with the disease are typically consuming too many calories of all kinds, not just sugar.

Studies have shown that people with fatty liver disease respond well to the Mediterranean diet, which includes plenty of fresh produce, nuts, olive oil, poultry and fish:

One small clinical trial published in The Journal of Hepatology last year found that a Mediterranean diet had a more favorable impact on liver fat and insulin resistance than a low fat, high carbohydrate diet. And another study in the journal Clinical Nutrition, which involved 90 overweight patients with fatty liver, found similar success with a Mediterranean approach. (source)

Treatment for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease include lifestyle changes (exercise, weight loss, diet), medications, supplements (antioxidants)

In his article titled Do You Have a Fatty Liver? 90 Million Americans Do! Dr. Mark Hyman offers some guidelines to help us avoid – or heal – fatty liver disease:

Cut out all high fructose corn syrup from your diet. If you see it on any label for any product—whether it’s a salad dressing or ketchup or tomato sauce—don’t eat it.
Reduce or eliminate starch. Get rid of white, processed flour. Even whole grain flours can be a problem. It’s common to find too much of these starchy foods in the classic American diet, or what we call the SAD (Standard American Diet). All of those things will promote a fatty liver. You may be surprised to learn that it’s actually not fat that causes a fatty liver. It’s sugar. (To learn more about why this is true, check out Dr. Hyman’s book, The Blood Sugar Solution.)
Add some good things to your diet to help heal your fatty liver. Add plenty of fruit, vegetables, nuts, and seeds. Add lean animal protein like chicken and fish. Add good oils like olive oil, macadamia nut oil, avocados, coconut butter, and fish oil. Good fats like these are anti-inflammatory, and they help repair your liver.
Improve your metabolism through exercise. This is a fabulous way to improve insulin resistance and reduce fatty liver.
Eat detoxifying liver-repairing super foods. Focus on the broccoli family. I love this family of foods, and I try to have at least a cup or two every day. Kale, collards, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, broccoli, arugula, daikon radish—all wonderful foods that help repair and heal your liver. Garlic and onions, also, are full of sulfur, which is a great detoxifier.

As for Gameau, he isn’t advocating for people to completely cut sugar out of their diets. He told News.com.au that the experiment’s findings suggest a need for more awareness about how much sugar has been added to perceptibly healthy food:

“Sugar’s now in 80 percent of the processed food we’re eating,” he said. “If we can remove that, that’s the first step towards making a change.”

For more about That Sugar Film, visit the documentary’s website.

Here’s the film’s official trailer.

One Reason Why Sickcare Is Outrageously Expensive in the USA: Needless Scans/Tests

Source: thedailysheeple.com



Why is sickcare (a.k.a. “healthcare”) absurdly unaffordable in America? There are many structural reasons which I have covered in depth for years, but one that most of us can relate to from personal experience is needless, hyper-costly scans and tests.

Even those of us who have never had a CT or MRI scan (and I hope I never will) know the drill from friends and family: practically every injury is now scanned by one device or another at enormous expense–not for treatment, as M.D. Ishabaka explains, but as defensive medicine to ward off future lawsuits or in response to patient demands.

Ishabaka (M.D.) walks us through the maze of CT and MRI by using his own injuries and treatments as examples of how our system has become unaffordable and ineffective.

“When I first got into the hospital as a medical student in 1977, MRI scanners did not exist, and the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal had the first CT scanner in Canada. A scan took an hour, and the images were blurry as heck, compared to modern scanners which take a few minutes and produce crystal clear images – but it was MAGNIFICENT. All of a sudden, we could see brain problems that could only be seen by operating, or doing a cerebral angiogram – a good but somewhat dangerous test (up to 3% of patients who have one suffer a stroke caused by the test).

When used appropriately, CT scans save lots of money and lives. One example is head trauma. Most people who are knocked out just have a concussion, but a few have bleeding either around or inside the brain that will kill or permanently disable them unless they are operated on ASAP.

In the old days, just when I was starting practice, most hospitals did not have a CT scanner. People who had been seriously knocked out were ALL admitted to the hospital for “neurological observation” – a nurse would check on them every hour to see how alert they were.

Two problems with that: for most patients it was a total waste of time and money (and hospitalization is way more expensive than a CT scan), and for some with a bleed – it wasn’t detected until too late.

Now, when someone gets knocked out, you do a CT scan, and within 30 minutes know whether it’s safe to send them home, or you need to call a neurosurgeon to operate on them – as an emergency physician working in a trauma center from 1985 – 1990 this was a REALLY GOOD THING.

Then MRI scanners came along. They show some things really well that a CT scanner doesn’t and vice versa. For example, an MRI scanner is unparalleled for showing a brain tumor. A CT is much better for showing bleeding inside the skull. An MRI scan will also show torn cartilage and ligaments in a joint with almost crystal clarity – a problem for which CT scanning is almost useless.

So – used appropriately, CT and MRI scans are two of the greatest inventions in my medical career.

But they are hellaciously expensive due to the fact that the machines are so expensive, and like computers, become obsolete within about 5 years – you have to pay of the multi-million dollar cost of the machine and make a reasonable profit within about 5 years.

Let me tell you from personal experience how they get overused: In 2004 I tore a cartilage (posterior third of the media meniscus if you need to know) in my right knee. I KNEW I tore a cartilage – I had the right kind of injury, the right symptoms, and the right findings on exam. I called up an orthopedic surgeon friend of mine and asked “Do you want to operate on my knee?” Somewhat dryly he said “Well, I think I should examine you first!”.

So I went to see him. He did a regular X-ray – only $60 – pretty reasonable, and my exam showed ALL the classic findings of a torn meniscus. I told him I was ready for surgery (I couldn’t run or do the martial arts classes I was taking at the time) – but he insisted on an MRI – I suspect because he was nervous about malpractice operating on a doctor in case the surgery was unnecessary – a risk I was willing to take – I would have signed papers releasing him from all liability.

Guess what – the $1,700 MRI showed a torn cartilage, I had surgery, and my knee is 99% as good as before I tore the cartilage – so basically the $1,700 (which was about half my total operation cost) was health care money down the toilet.

This is important: in the pre-MRI days, I would have been operated on based on my history, exam findings, and X-ray.

Now, my back and my neck – I have had recurring problems with both. The back issue came from lifting a heavy table the wrong way. It flares up every 8 – 9 years, I rest it, use a heating pad, take some ibuprofen or naproxen and cyclobenzaprine – and it gets all better.

In 1993, I tore something in my neck – I was lifting weights with my neck with a head harness. I was going up in weight and got to 37.5 pounds. As I extended my neck, I heard and felt a tearing sound. Idiot that I am, instead of dropping the weight, I finished the rep and REALLY heard and felt something tear. I had God-awful pain – for about a week, if I had to roll over in bed, I had to hold my head with my hands so my neck didn’t bear the weight – but I got better.

Once or twice a year it flares up, I have trouble swiveling my neck to back up my car. A chiropractor friend of mine gives me a free adjustment and it’s all better within 24 hours.

Now – here’s the deal – I don’t NEED an MRI of my neck or back. I’m SURE I have torn discs and/or ligaments – but I ALWAYS get better with very inexpensive meds, and a heating pad, plus chiropractic adjustment. BUT – every patient with spinal pain wants an MRI these days. ALL of them.

The fact is – it doesn’t matter a hill of beans if an MRI shows torn disc/ligaments UNLESS surgery is being contemplated. The indications for surgery are VERY CLEAR – they are loss of sensation or strength in a limb, loss of bowel or bladder control in the case of a very low back injury, or what is called “parasthesias” – burning, tingling, shock-like feelings, etc in a limb.

The most serious of these is weakness – if a person has injured their spine, and are weak in a limb, they almost all need surgery or they will be permanently paralyzed/disabled. In these instances, and MRI is marvelous – it will show the surgeon perfectly where the problem is, so he/she knows exactly where to operate and what needs to be done.

But for the gazillion and three patients who have pain only, and demand an MRI (and if I refuse one, they WILL find a doc to order one) it is complete and utter mal-investment of health care dollars. I have a friend who is REALLY in shape – a serious surfer and weight lifter. He injured his neck in a surfing wipe-out in his early 30′s and his right triceps became weak. He asked me what to do and I told him to get an MRI and see a neurosurgeon.

Well, he didn’t want to, so he tried all kinds of useless remedies – he kept coming to see me (as a friend, not as his doctor) – and I could see his weight-lifter’s triceps shrinking away to nothing. Finally I got him to see a neurosurgeon friend of mine, an MRI was done showing a ruptured disc pressing on (and slowly killing) the nerve that activated his right triceps – he was operated on – and ALL his strength came back.

So – bottom line – in appropriate circumstances, CT and MRI scans save lives and limbs – they are wonderful tools. However, my rough estimate is that probably around 90% of MRI scans and 80% of CT scans done in the USA now are a complete waste of time and money.

The real point about scans – and so many tests – is you treat the PATIENT – not the scan, or the test. Tests are just an aid in determining what is the best treatment for the PATIENT.

The corollary to this – and what it is SO HARD to convey to many patients – is that if the results of a test will not change the treatment – there is no reason to do the test. A classic ER example is an injured small toe (the big toe is different). It DOESN’T MATTER if the toe is broken or just sprained – the treatment is the same – taping, ice and elevation for 24 hours, rest, and mild pain medication. Try telling an injured patient that you are not going to order an X-ray of their toe – they will complain to the hospital administrator, and you will be lucky if you are not fired.”

Thank you, Ishabaka, for the detailed explanation. I should also add that scans costing thousands of dollars each in the U.S. are available in other countries with the exact same machines for a fraction of the cost in the U.S.
As I noted in Sickcare Will Bankrupt the Nation–And Soon (March 21, 2011), Pittsburgh has as many MRI machines as the entire nation of Canada.

Why is this so? Studies have found that a doctor who owns his own machine is four times as likely to order a scan as a doctor who doesn’t. Garsh, I wonder why.

Add easy profits from needless tests to defensive medicine and no cost controls or real competition, and we have the perfect formula for waste, fraud, profiteering, bad medicine and dysfunctional, unaffordable healthcare.

Dark Money Casts Shadow on Democracy

Source: thedailysheeple.com

Anthony Freda Art

The week before the general election, UNM Political Science Associate Professor Mike Rocca presented a primer on campaign financing and a troubling change in the way political campaigns are being financed with dark money.

The 2014 general election may not be the most expensive election in U.S. history, even though experts expect it to total more than $4 billion in money raised and spent. But it may win for the amount of dark money that flowed through the races.

Dark money is money collected by 501(c) organizations. There is no federal or state requirement that it be tabulated or reported by anyone, anywhere. It is money spent on behalf of a candidate by someone somewhere who probably now wants something from that candidate. New Mexico is one of six states that do not require disclosure about money collected and spent by 501(c) organizations.

“If this dark money continues, we are going to have less transparency and less accountability,” Rocca said. “We will be literally unable to hold our members of Congress to state legislators accountable. And this strikes at the heart of democracy. We’ve got to figure this out.”

In theory, the super PACs and 501(c) organizations collect and spend money on elections to discuss issues without any consultation or input from the candidate. 501(c) is an Internal Revenue Service designation for non-profits, and educational organizations.

Rocca says campaign reporting laws have allowed this kind of loophole for years, but it has only been recently exploited. Now the floodgates for dark money have opened. It’s very hard to track exactly who is spending money on what candidates nationally, but it is clear more money is being spent by outside groups than ever before. An article in the New York Times calculates outside groups supporting Republicans raised and spent about $205 million in television advertising, while Democratic supporters may have spent about $132 million.

“What is interesting,” Rocca says, “is who is giving. The top one percent of individual donors gives Super PACs 47 per cent of the money they spend. It is not organizations. It is not corporations. It is individuals.” For 501(c) groups it is even less clear who is giving. “We have no idea what is going on with 501(c) groups because they are not required by the IRS to disclose. And those donations are coming in unlimited numbers,” he says.

The money is used to support allies. “Money is not buying votes. Money is being given to allies. If I am giving money to an ally in congress, you are already on the same page. I am giving it to you because you are on the same page as me. It’s not getting votes. It’s being given because of the votes.” Rocca said. “By far the most important reason that groups give money at all is to keep allies in office. You are hoping for something in return of course, maybe an earmark, but that person is no good to you outside of office. Money keeps your allies in office.”

And the money is fundamental to campaigns. Rocca says anyone who wants to challenge a member of congress in 2016 had better have at least $1.5 million to do it with. Candidates who want to challenge an incumbent senator need to think about raising $11 million. The money those incumbents receive from their allies makes the difference. More than 90 percent of incumbents are reelected.

Rocca, who says he rarely gives opinions in classes, is more than ready to share an opinion on dark money.

“We’ve got to know where the money is coming from, Roccas said. “This 501(c) issue strikes at the heart of our democracy. So we’ve got outside interests giving money, spending money on behalf of a candidate, and you have the office holder giving some sort of service to that outside interest, but we’ve got to see those contributions. That’s the point. That’s what is at stake here.”

Press and charts from the University of New Mexico.