Author: Garfield Benjamin
Straight out of a science fiction novel, our future might be as cyborgs, and those who don’t adapt will lose out.
Not content with monitoring almost everything you do online, Facebook now wants to read your mind as well. The social media giant recently announced a breakthrough in its plan to create a device that reads people’s brainwaves to allow them to type just by thinking. And Elon Musk wants to go even further. One of the Tesla boss’s other companies, Neuralink, is developing a brain implant to connect people’s minds directly to a computer.
Musk admits that he takes inspiration from science fiction and that he wants to make sure humans can “keep up” with artificial intelligence. He seems to have missed the part of sci-fi that acts as a warning for the implications of technology.
Facebook's vicious cycle: Regularly using social media causes people to get stressed which then fuels addiction to the sites
Author: Ian Randall
EEE fears sweep US: Officials in 3 states warn residents to stay inside at dawn and dusk and to NOT touch dying birds
Author: Natalie Rahhal
Mr. Paumgarten, it’s long past time to address the misinformation in articles like yours, The Message of Measles, which paints such an intensely biased, extremist picture of those who delay or even refuse vaccines, that by my definition, it does not qualify as journalism.
In the first place, please stop calling us “anti-vaxxers.” WE VACCINATED OUR CHILDREN. Our sons and daughters had medically-documented, serious adverse reactions to vaccines. Not redness, swelling, or a little fever, but autoimmune reactions, neurological reactions like seizure, encephalopathy, or loss of consciousness, and a host of others with long-term sequelae. Yet our children’s injuries are dismissed and ignored, while we are inexplicably —and unethically— told we must continue to vaccinate to protect others.
Why wouldn’t we protest?
When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released its biannual overview of autism prevalence in early 2018, it reported that one in fifty-nine 8-year-olds (born in 2006) had an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This represented a 15% increase from the rate of one in sixty-eight described in the CDC’s 2016 and 2014 reports (for 8-year-olds born in 2004 and 2002, respectively). A federal snapshot of 3 through 17 year-olds in 2016 reported diagnosed autism in one in thirty-six children--23% more than in 2014.
Despite the two-year jump in ASD prevalence, the CDC cast a positive spin on its 2018 findings. Recognizing that white ASD prevalence had been higher, in the past, than prevalence among other race/ethnicity groups, the agency hypothesized that “white ASD prevalence had largely stabilized” and praised the 15% increased prevalence as a reflection of “the catch-up of Hispanics and blacks who had been historically underascertained.” The media readily acquiesced to this worn-out narrative, implying that latent autism cases had simply been waiting to be discovered through more effective outreach and better screening. According to PBS, “[I]f it’s the case that the rate grew only because of better diagnosis, that would mean that autism spectrum disorder isn’t becoming more common among American children. Doctors are just better at spotting it.”
Dissatisfied with the “better diagnosis” explanation, University of Colorado researcher Cynthia Nevison wrote of a 1000-fold increase in autism prevalence since the 1930s and a 25-fold increase since the 1970s in a December 2018 publication in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Now, Nevison and Rutgers researcher Walter Zahorodny—who regularly contributes New Jersey data to the biannual CDC reports—have published a new study critiquing the “catch-up” hypothesis. Their analysis further undermines officials’ complacent narrative by highlighting upward ASD trends among black and Hispanic children above and beyond mere “catch-up”—as well as pointing to worsening racial/ethnic disparities.
In the United States and Canada, exposure to fluoride is widespread and comes primarily through ingestion of fluoridated water supplied by community water systems. Although some U.S. residents consume drinking water that is fluoride-free, the majority of Americans served by community utilities—an estimated 74%—receive water to which industrial fluoride compounds have been added. The utilities do so in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) recommendations, which promote water fluoridation for the purpose of altering the consumer’s oral health.
The CDC acknowledges no dangers of water fluoridation other than mentioning the risk of dental fluorosis. However, as the first—and most visible—sign of fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis should trouble the nation’s leading public health agency, particularly given that mild to severe fluorosis affected fully two-thirds of 12- to 15-year-olds as of 2012.
Even more worryingly, dozens of studies outside the U.S. have linked fluoride exposure to reduced IQ. Each time one of the studies appears, American media outlets—which represent “a powerful tool for directing [or not directing] attention to specific issues”—have remained mostly silent. For example, a rigorous Mexico-based study published in September 2017 went without mention by virtually all the major U.S. media, despite being funded by the U.S. government. For some reason, the latest study on fluoride’s IQ effects (published on August 19) has received more attention, perhaps because it appeared in one of the nation’s top pediatric journals, JAMA Pediatrics. Once again funded in part by the U.S. government, the Canada-based study indicates that moms’ exposure to fluoride during pregnancy can result in lower IQ scores in their children. These conclusions may discomfit fluoride’s most ardent proponents, but, as the study’s senior author states, “It’s important that decisions about safety…be based on evidence.”
In Part I, “The Disturbing Increase in Colorectal Cancer in Young Adults,” we called attention to the steep rise in colorectal cancer incidence in young people in their twenties and thirties and discussed the risks associated with viral vaccines. In Part II, we discuss glyphosate as another plausible culprit in the colorectal cancer epidemic.
Gut bacteria play a pivotal role in shoring up brain health and overall health. This fact has become a widely acknowledged talking point in scientific circles as well as in the popular press. The reverse is also true—when diet or environmental factors produce gut dysbiosis (an imbalance of the microbes that reside in the gastrointestinal tract), the imbalance can “impact the pathologies of many diseases.”
Colorectal cancer has increased by 51% in Americans under age 50 since the mid-1990s, and researchers suggest that “early life exposures…may be contributing to the rise” in that age group. A leading hypothesis is that gut dysbiosis is playing an active part—perhaps by disrupting young people’s immune response and triggering overactivation of cell signaling proteins in the colon. Some researchers have even posited a “bidirectional self-feeding relationship” between the gut microbiome and colorectal cancer, with gut dysbiosis contributing to colorectal cancer growth and progression, and tumor growth in turn disturbing the gut microbiome.
Autism investigators have been at the forefront of research on the gut microbiome. They point to environmental toxins and antibiotic use as two influences that can shift the gut’s microbial composition in an unfavorable direction. Scientists attribute up to 85% of colorectal cancers to environmental and microbial factors. Glyphosate (the leading ingredient of Roundup) is both an herbicide and a patented antimicrobial. Could the upward trend in glyphosate usage that began roughly three decades ago have something to do, therefore, with the skyrocketing incidence of colorectal cancer in young people? Although recent court cases linking Roundup to cancer have focused mostly on other types of cancer such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the evidence that glyphosate wreaks havoc with gut bacteria has led many researchers to suspect that the answer is yes.
Prenatal ultrasound is a taken-for-granted component of modern maternity care, to such an extent that most obstetrician-gynecologists find it impossible to practice their profession without it. American women now routinely undergo four to five ultrasounds per pregnancy. Despite the absence of demonstrated benefits, there is also a trend toward “new applications of ultrasound…at earlier stages in pregnancy” (p. 47), including Doppler fetal heart rate monitoring that magnifies the unborn baby’s exposure manyfold.
A Scottish physician developed the first 2D ultrasound machine in the late 1950s. Intended for prenatal scanning as well as gynecological tumor diagnosis, the machine drew on the doctor’s prior experience with military radar technology. Now, the latest growth sector in ultrasound technology is 3D imaging (which shows the baby’s face) or 4D ultrasound that creates a “live video effect, like a movie”—luring parents into stockpiling “keepsake” footage of their baby’s in utero facial expressions.
While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tells prospective parents that ultrasound exams provide “a valuable opportunity to view and hear the heartbeat of the fetus, bond with the unborn baby, and capture images to share with family and friends”—and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) denies any association between ultrasound and adverse maternal, fetal or neonatal outcomes—not everyone shares the agencies’ complacency. In fact, two recent books make the opposite case. One author—backed up by over 1500 scientific citations—argues that prenatal ultrasound is so harmful to children that it “should be banned from obstetrics immediately.” The other contends that the “subtle and not-so-subtle” biological effects of ultrasound “have set the human species on a tragic path” from which it may take generations to recover.
Author: Fluoride Action Network
STUDY PROMPTS CALL FOR LOWER FLUORIDE CONSUMPTION BY PREGNANT WOMEN
The world’s premier pediatric journal has published a new government-funded study confirming our worst fears, linking exposure to “optimally” fluoridated water during pregnancy to lowered IQ for the child.
You can repair a cavity, but you cannot repair a child’s brain.
The American Medical Association’s journal on pediatrics (JAMA Pediatrics) has published the second U.S. Government-funded study linking low-levels of fluoride exposure during fetal development to cognitive impairment. The observational study, entitled Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada, was led by a team at York University in Ontario, Canada and looked at 512 mother-child pairs from six major Canadian cities. It was funded by the Canadian government and the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Science.
Author: Sean Keach
GOOGLE has warned users that billions of passwords – and hundreds of thousands of username and password combinations – have been hacked.
Cyber-experts are now urging users to make sure they're using tough passwords that haven't already been stolen.
Earlier this year, Google launched a Password Checkup add-on for the Google Chrome web browser.
It displays a warning whenever you sign in to a website using "one of over 4billion usernames and passwords" that have been hacked.
Google does this by cross-referencing your log-in details for different sites with a huge list of hacked log-ins.