wakingtimes--2020-01-29--China “epidemic”: the strange role of the middle class

Sometimes , during years of research , unusual dots pop up , and you see connections you never suspected were there .
Here is a bottom line connection .
When the poor and disenfranchised people mount a protest against some draconian action of the State or corporation , the super-rich controllers don ’ t register outright panic .
They believe they can manage the situation .
They can offer more aid , more welfare , more sympathy , more empty promises .
They can divert and re-channel problems .
They can form groups that essentially go nowhere .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the middle class , alarm bells sound .
These middlers are supposed to be allies of the controllers .
They have very nice perks from the system .
They know how to look the other way when horrible things happen to others .
They spend most of their time protecting what they have .
At that point , when the middle class goes rogue , weird things happen .
Unpredicted things .
In 1982 , when I was just starting out as a reporter for LA Weekly , I interviewed Bill Perry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as head of PR for Lawrence Livermore Labs in Berkeley , California , where they do research on better nuclear weapons .
Bill told me this job was the culmination of a long upward struggle for him .
He had arrived at a pinnacle .
He could now call press conferences in fancy hotels , and reporters would flock to his events and cover them .
A dream realized .
This was the time of a movement called the Nuclear Freeze .
Groups around the world were calling for a moratorium on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Outside the gates of Lawrence Livermore , protestors gathered every day .
At first , Bill paid no attention to them .
But eventually , he began looking .
He saw more and more people wearing suits and business clothes .
These were the middle class .
That shook him up .
He started thinking about the real meaning of his job and the work of the Lab .
He found a conscience .
You could say he was a representative of “ the controllers.
” One day , he just handed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job he would ever have .
Who could have foreseen that ?
Recently , as New Jersey legislators were trying to pass a bill that would eliminate religious exemptions from the vaccination of children , a large group of protestors gathered every day outside the building where the debate was taking place .
Again , many of these parents were middle class .
They should have been happy robots—but they weren ’ t .
Far from it .
Suddenly , the pro-vaxx legislators didn ’ t have the votes to pass the bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China , a city where air pollution often reaches very dangerous levels , protests erupted .
Against all odds , in a brutal police State , thousands of people took to the streets .
They and their children were experiencing serious lung problems .
Again , many of these protestors were the very people who were benefiting from the economic juggernaut that is Wuhan .
Middle class .
And a few months later , voila .
Suddenly , China announces that a very convenient coronavirus is causing a very serious disease .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epidemic ?
Lung problems .
Not only that , the whole city of Wuhan must be locked down .
Protests ?
Totally vanquished .
Outlawed .
Is it fair and just that the poor and disenfranchised are ignored or “ re-purposed ” when they rebel , while the middle class is paid great attention ?
Of course not .
But that ’ s the way it is .
And it ’ s understandable when you think about it , because : FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE STATE , OR A MAJOR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being groomed for success .
They ’ re being “ paid off ” to think like properly programmed entities .
They ’ re supposed to support whatever the State is doing , because they benefit .
From the point of view of the State , when the “ payoffs ” stop working , that ’ s a sign of trouble .
And when significant numbers of the middle class gather and show up in one place and make it clear they ’ re sick and tired of the all-powerful dragon blowing smoke at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bigger sign of trouble .
Here ’ s a fourth example .
Go watch Vaxxed2 , a new film in which parents tell the heartbreaking stories of what happened to their children after they received vaccinations .
Damage .
Brain damage .
These parents are credible .
Some of them look and sound like the middle class neighbors of other middle class people .
They ’ re supposed to be happy and complacent , and walled off from the problems of society .
But they aren ’ t .
They ’ re grief-stricken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were protected from the usual tragedies that beset others , they don ’ t believe it anymore .
The State and its corporate partners have a monolithic view of power and how it operates .
They can lay on fancy propaganda and media drivel , but underneath it all , they think they ’ re kings .
Kings rule , everyone else follows .
When that concept begins to break down , the kings start looking at themselves and wondering where their vestments have gone and why they are naked .
Jon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collections , THE MATRIX REVEALED , EXIT FROM THE MATRIX , and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX , Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29thDistrict of California .
He maintains a consulting practice for private clients , the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power .
Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize , he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years , writing articles on politics , medicine , and health for CBS Healthwatch , LA Weekly , Spin Magazine , Stern , and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Europe .
Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics , health , logic , and creative power to audiences around the world .
You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine .
Like Waking Times on Facebook .
Follow Waking Times on Twitter .

China “epidemic”: the strange role of the middle class
Jon Rappoport, Guest
Waking Times
Sometimes, during years of research, unusual dots pop up, and you see connections you never suspected were there.
Here is a bottom line connection. When the poor and disenfranchised people mount a protest against some draconian action of the State or corporation, the super-rich controllers don’t register outright panic. They believe they can manage the situation. They can offer more aid, more welfare, more sympathy, more empty promises. They can divert and re-channel problems. They can form groups that essentially go nowhere.
However, when protestors show up who are obviously from the middle class, alarm bells sound. These middlers are supposed to be allies of the controllers. They have very nice perks from the system. They know how to look the other way when horrible things happen to others. They spend most of their time protecting what they have.
At that point, when the middle class goes rogue, weird things happen. Unpredicted things.
I have three examples.
In 1982, when I was just starting out as a reporter for LA Weekly, I interviewed Bill Perry, who had quit his plush job as head of PR for Lawrence Livermore Labs in Berkeley, California, where they do research on better nuclear weapons.
Bill told me this job was the culmination of a long upward struggle for him. He had arrived at a pinnacle. He could now call press conferences in fancy hotels, and reporters would flock to his events and cover them. A dream realized.
This was the time of a movement called the Nuclear Freeze. Groups around the world were calling for a moratorium on the production of atomic and hydrogen weapons. Outside the gates of Lawrence Livermore, protestors gathered every day.
At first, Bill paid no attention to them. But eventually, he began looking. He saw more and more people wearing suits and business clothes. These were the middle class. That shook him up. He started thinking about the real meaning of his job and the work of the Lab. He found a conscience. You could say he was a representative of “the controllers.” One day, he just handed in his resignation papers and left the cushiest job he would ever have. Who could have foreseen that?
Recently, as New Jersey legislators were trying to pass a bill that would eliminate religious exemptions from the vaccination of children, a large group of protestors gathered every day outside the building where the debate was taking place. Again, many of these parents were middle class. They should have been happy robots—but they weren’t. Far from it. Suddenly, the pro-vaxx legislators didn’t have the votes to pass the bill.
Last summer, in Wuhan, China, a city where air pollution often reaches very dangerous levels, protests erupted. Against all odds, in a brutal police State, thousands of people took to the streets. They and their children were experiencing serious lung problems. Again, many of these protestors were the very people who were benefiting from the economic juggernaut that is Wuhan. Middle class.
And a few months later, voila. Suddenly, China announces that a very convenient coronavirus is causing a very serious disease. One of the major features of this supposed epidemic? Lung problems. Not only that, the whole city of Wuhan must be locked down. Protests? Totally vanquished. Outlawed.
Is it fair and just that the poor and disenfranchised are ignored or “re-purposed” when they rebel, while the middle class is paid great attention? Of course not. But that’s the way it is. And it’s understandable when you think about it, because: FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE STATE, OR A MAJOR CORPORATION, these middle class people are being groomed for success. They’re being “paid off” to think like properly programmed entities. They’re supposed to support whatever the State is doing, because they benefit. From the point of view of the State, when the “payoffs” stop working, that’s a sign of trouble.
And when significant numbers of the middle class gather and show up in one place and make it clear they’re sick and tired of the all-powerful dragon blowing smoke at them, that’s an even bigger sign of trouble.
Here’s a fourth example. Go watch Vaxxed2, a new film in which parents tell the heartbreaking stories of what happened to their children after they received vaccinations. Damage. Brain damage. These parents are credible. Some of them look and sound like the middle class neighbors of other middle class people. They’re supposed to be happy and complacent, and walled off from the problems of society. But they aren’t. They’re grief-stricken and outraged. If they once believed they were protected from the usual tragedies that beset others, they don’t believe it anymore.
The State and its corporate partners have a monolithic view of power and how it operates. They can lay on fancy propaganda and media drivel, but underneath it all, they think they’re kings. Kings rule, everyone else follows.
When that concept begins to break down, the kings start looking at themselves and wondering where their vestments have gone and why they are naked.
About the Author
Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29thDistrict of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


wakingtimes--2020-01-29--Harvard Experts Critique Cozy FDA-Pharma Relationship

Anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to the doings of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) in recent decades knows that accusations of “ regulatory dereliction and corporate capture ” are no exaggeration .
In fact , where regulation and approval of drugs and biologics are concerned , the mainstream media—including outlets such as Reuters , Slate , The New Republic and PBS—are rife with stories of FDA misconduct .
The latest FDA critique comes not from the popular press , however , but from three high-powered experts affiliated with Harvard Medical School—who air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American Medical Association ( JAMA ) .
With combined degrees in medicine , law , business and public health , the trio examines trends at the FDA since 1983 , reviewing evolving regulatory standards and drug approval processes over a nearly four-decade period .
The review reveals a troubling shift toward FDA use of “ less data ” to approve drugs and biologics—alongside an escalating reliance on pharmaceutical industry payments to cover the salaries of the very FDA reviewers issuing the approvals .
Ordinarily , drug companies must complete three phases of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( including vaccines ) before the companies can submit an application to the FDA for approval .
However , both companies and patients have often pushed for a faster FDA turnaround— “ seen as a means of getting drugs to patients more quickly as well as allowing pharmaceutical companies to realize sales revenues sooner.
” As outlined by the Harvard authors , five “ special programs ” introduced from 1992 on allow pharmaceutical companies to dispense with some of the customary requirements ( such as phase 3 clinical trials ) under some circumstances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act ( PDUFA ) and the 2012 Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act ( FDASIA ) —include the Orphan Drug Act ( 1983 ) ; the Fast Track program ( 1987 ) ; Accelerated Approval ( 1992 ) ; Priority Review ( 1992 ) ; and Breakthrough Therapy ( 2012 ) .
All five seek to speed up drug development and “ reduce evidentiary requirements ” for drug approval .
These legislative and regulatory initiatives have “ substantially changed drug approval at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authors , who report that in 2018 , four out of five drugs ( 81 % ) benefited from one or more forms of expedited approval .
As one example , the proportion of drugs approved via the 1983 Orphan Drug Act ( ODA ) more than doubled , going from 18 % in the decade after the Act ’ s passage ( 1984-1995 ) to 41 % ( 2008-2018 ) .
The original premise underlying the ODA ’ s passage was that a pharmaceutical company developing an “ orphan drug ” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might—in the FDA ’ s words— “ reasonably expect the drug to generate relatively small sales in comparison to the cost of developing the drug and consequently to incur a financial loss.
” However , a 2017 analysis reported that orphan drug status now confers significant market advantages : “ Due to lower [ research and development ] costs .
.
.
, expedited regulatory reviews , and minimal competition .
.
.
, rare-disease-targeting orphan drugs are now amongst the most expensive and profitable drugs on the market in the world.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitals could obtain orphan drugs at a congressionally mandated discounted rate ( 30 % to 50 % ) , but after the Affordable Care Act eliminated the discounts , hospital officials began complaining about a jeopardized “ ability to care for some of the sickest children with the most complex health care needs.
” The FDA also increasingly allows drug companies to substitute surrogate measures for clinically meaningful endpoints in clinical trials , a replacement enabled by the 1992 Accelerated Approval program .
( A “ surrogate ” measure or marker is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proven—to predict the effect of the drug or biologic . )
Nearly three out of five pivotal efficacy trials ( 59 % ) for new drug approvals relied on surrogate measures in the most recent time period ( 2015-2017 ) , versus 44 % in 2005-2012 .
In 2004—a dozen years after surrogate measures came into widespread use—an FDA official admitted that no surrogate markers had ever been validated ( “ that is , shown to predict the effect of the treatment on the clinical outcome of interest ” ) , adding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in interpreting trials that use surrogate markers as primary measures of drug effect.
” As the JAMA authors put it , “ a surrogate measure that does not predict actual patient benefit may accelerate approval of a drug that presents risk but could be of little clinical use.
” The PDUFA legislation passed in 1992 gave pharmaceutical companies the green light to make payments to the FDA ( called “ user fees ” ) in exchange for expedited approval of drugs and biologics .
For the FDA , user fees have turned out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giving .
In 2018 alone , according to the Harvard trio , user fees covered “ 80 % of the salaries of review personnel responsible for the approval of new drugs.
” From 2013-2017 , user fees amounted to $ 4.1 billion , up from $ 330 million over the period from 1993-1997 ( an 1142 % increase ) .
By way of comparison , the user fee amount that flowed in from industry from 2013-2017 ( five years ) is roughly the same as the total compensation ( $ 4.2 billion ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program since 1988 ( 32 years ) .
In an editorial accompanying the JAMA review , a former FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner wrote that “ The overall picture is not of a struggling FDA , but rather of a regulatory process that has evolved over time into a thicket of special programs , flexible review criteria , and generous incentives.
” Others who commented on the JAMA findings alluded to the potential for user fees to introduce conflicts of interest into the FDA ’ s regulatory process—but stopped short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joffe of the University of Pennsylvania stated : There is certainly a potential for conflict in the [ FDA ’ s ] decision-making between the interests of the regulated industry and the interests of the public ’ s health , and so it would be better if the bulk of the agency ’ s budget came from the public—i.e.
, taxpayers—whose interests it is charged with protecting .
However , I do not mean to imply that the agency ’ s decision-making has in fact been compromised by this arrangement .
Dr. Sidney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Health Research Group , was more blunt when interviewed by PBS ’ s Frontline about the pharmaceutical industry ’ s “ inroads into the FDA.
” Dr. Wolfe noted that when drug companies started “ paying cash right up front , for FDA review , ” the FDA “ started looking upon the industry as their client , instead of the public and the public health , which should be the client.
” Referring , in addition , to the FDA ’ s aversion to controversy—and an appalling lack of congressional oversight—Wolfe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have become : “ Please the industry .
Avoid conflict .
Look upon our role as getting out as many drugs as possible.
” In 2000 , Wolfe commented on the withdrawal from the market of drugs that had received expedited FDA review—including widely used allergy and diabetes drugs—stating that “ [ the ] fast track [ process ] is being abused.
” In 2016 , the author of an article in the Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics agreed that there is a firm basis for this conclusion , pointing to the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received a black box warning ” from 2011-2015 and furnishing a lengthy table of significant adverse event alerts issued for products with fast-track designations .
From 1998 to 2018 , states the JAMA review , the FDA approved 42 new vaccines , which fall under the even less stringent category of biologics .
A number of these vaccines received expedited approval , including Merck ’ s disastrous Gardasil vaccine—fast-tracked in six months in 2006 .
In 2014 , the FDA granted a Breakthrough Therapy designation and then quickly approved Pfizer ’ s meningococcal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine now widely administered to college students despite “ limited quantifiable safety data.
” In the context of hype about potential pandemics , vaccine scientists continue to push for more fast-track approvals .
Others argue that biologics need longer review times , speculating that “ [ e ] xpedited approval may cure an autoimmune disorder and incite another one.
” As the most vaccinated generation of American children ever has developed historically unprecedented levels of chronic illness , the FDA continues to bestow its regulatory largesse on drugs designed to profitably manage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine-linked conditions such as atopic dermatitis and asthma .
In 2018 , for example , the FDA granted a Breakthrough Therapy designation to the Genentech and Novartis biologic omalizumab ( marketed as Xolair ) —already approved for young people ages 12 and up for severe asthma ( 2003 ) and chronic hives ( 2014 ) —to extend the drug ’ s indications to life-threatening food allergies .
This , despite prior safety review warnings that prompted the FDA , in 2014 , to approve label changes to describe Xolair ’ s “ slightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events.
” The FDA also noted at that time that it could not rule out a potential risk of cancer .
In 2016 , Genentech paid user fees to the FDA when it submitted a request to extend Xolair ’ s target population to 6- to 11-year-olds .
The fact that the public ’ s health seems to occupy last place on the FDA ’ s priority list is , in some respects , unsurprising , particularly to those who have followed the agency ’ s behavior with regard to vaccine approvals and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below ) .
Other recent reports paint an equally unflattering picture of the FDA and its dereliction of duty .
For example , a 2015 discussion in Slate described the agency ’ s shocking “ pattern of burying the details of [ scientific ] misconduct ” and mused , “ For an agency devoted to protecting the public from bogus medical science , the FDA seems to be spending an awful lot of effort protecting the perpetrators of bogus science from the public.
” Reuters was no less scathing when it published a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FDA ’ s half-century-long efforts to minimize the dangers of asbestos in talc-based baby powders and cosmetics ; Reuters concluded , “ Again and again since at least the 1970s , the agency has downplayed the risk of asbestos contamination and declined to issue warnings or impose safety standards.
” In 2018 , The New Republic shed light on another aspect of the FDA ’ s and U.S. government ’ s close relationship with the pharmaceutical industry , pointing to the government ’ s central role in drug development and the boondoggle that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TNR : A 2020 letter in JAMA Internal Medicine calls attention to the fact that when the FDA allows drugs or medical products to proceed to market without thorough premarketing clinical studies , postmarketing studies become “ the principal way [ that ] adverse events and risks become apparent.
” Yet here , too , the FDA is falling short , they state , with a high rate of misclassification of adverse events , including deaths .
The letter-writers also refer to recent news reports “ that the FDA allowed [ medical ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a hidden database.
” What is the result of this type of nontransparent behavior ?
At a minimum , the JAMA Internal Medicine writers warn , public and physician perceptions of safety will be “ inaccurate ” —increasing the odds of adverse events befalling an unsuspecting public .
Like Waking Times on Facebook .
Follow Waking Times on Twitter .

Harvard Experts Critique Cozy FDA-Pharma Relationship
Children’s Health Defense Team, Guest
Waking Times
Anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to the doings of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in recent decades knows that accusations of “regulatory dereliction and corporate capture” are no exaggeration. In fact, where regulation and approval of drugs and biologics are concerned, the mainstream media—including outlets such as Reuters, Slate, The New Republic and PBS—are rife with stories of FDA misconduct.
The latest FDA critique comes not from the popular press, however, but from three high-powered experts affiliated with Harvard Medical School—who air their appraisal in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). With combined degrees in medicine, law, business and public health, the trio examines trends at the FDA since 1983, reviewing evolving regulatory standards and drug approval processes over a nearly four-decade period. The review reveals a troubling shift toward FDA use of “less data” to approve drugs and biologics—alongside an escalating reliance on pharmaceutical industry payments to cover the salaries of the very FDA reviewers issuing the approvals.
… in 2018, four out of five drugs (81%) benefited from one or more forms of expedited approval.
“Special programs” = special shortcuts
Ordinarily, drug companies must complete three phases of clinical trials on new drugs or biologics (including vaccines) before the companies can submit an application to the FDA for approval. However, both companies and patients have often pushed for a faster FDA turnaround—“seen as a means of getting drugs to patients more quickly as well as allowing pharmaceutical companies to realize sales revenues sooner.”
As outlined by the Harvard authors, five “special programs” introduced from 1992 on allow pharmaceutical companies to dispense with some of the customary requirements (such as phase 3 clinical trials) under some circumstances. The five programs—ushered in through legislation such as the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) and the 2012 Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA)—include the Orphan Drug Act (1983); the Fast Track program (1987); Accelerated Approval (1992); Priority Review (1992); and Breakthrough Therapy (2012). All five seek to speed up drug development and “reduce evidentiary requirements” for drug approval.
These legislative and regulatory initiatives have “substantially changed drug approval at the FDA,” according to the Harvard authors, who report that in 2018, four out of five drugs (81%) benefited from one or more forms of expedited approval. As one example, the proportion of drugs approved via the 1983 Orphan Drug Act (ODA) more than doubled, going from 18% in the decade after the Act’s passage (1984-1995) to 41% (2008-2018). The original premise underlying the ODA’s passage was that a pharmaceutical company developing an “orphan drug” (a drug for a rare disease) might—in the FDA’s words—“reasonably expect the drug to generate relatively small sales in comparison to the cost of developing the drug and consequently to incur a financial loss.”
“the benefits of earlier access [to drugs] must be weighed against the possibility that patients will be exposed to drugs with benefit-risk profiles that may turn out to be less favorable than expected or for which clinical benefit is never confirmed.”
However, a 2017 analysis reported that orphan drug status now confers significant market advantages: “Due to lower [research and development] costs . . . , expedited regulatory reviews, and minimal competition . . . , rare-disease-targeting orphan drugs are now amongst the most expensive and profitable drugs on the market in the world.” Up until 2010, children’s hospitals could obtain orphan drugs at a congressionally mandated discounted rate (30% to 50%), but after the Affordable Care Act eliminated the discounts, hospital officials began complaining about a jeopardized “ability to care for some of the sickest children with the most complex health care needs.”
Another outcome of the changing regulatory environment, conclude the JAMA authors, is that the FDA increasingly issues its approvals on the basis of “less data.” Eighty-one percent of new approvals in the mid-1990s (1995-1997)—versus only about half (53%) of new approvals in 2015-2017—benefited from at least two “pivotal” clinical trials. As “regulatory standards and approval come to rely on less substantial evidence,” say the authors, “the benefits of earlier access [to drugs] must be weighed against the possibility that patients will be exposed to drugs with benefit-risk profiles that may turn out to be less favorable than expected or for which clinical benefit is never confirmed.”
The FDA also increasingly allows drug companies to substitute surrogate measures for clinically meaningful endpoints in clinical trials, a replacement enabled by the 1992 Accelerated Approval program. (A “surrogate” measure or marker is a lab measurement or physical sign expected—but not proven—to predict the effect of the drug or biologic.) Nearly three out of five pivotal efficacy trials (59%) for new drug approvals relied on surrogate measures in the most recent time period (2015-2017), versus 44% in 2005-2012. In 2004—a dozen years after surrogate measures came into widespread use—an FDA official admitted that no surrogate markers had ever been validated (“that is, shown to predict the effect of the treatment on the clinical outcome of interest”), adding that “there are a number of difficulties in interpreting trials that use surrogate markers as primary measures of drug effect.” As the JAMA authors put it, “a surrogate measure that does not predict actual patient benefit may accelerate approval of a drug that presents risk but could be of little clinical use.”
… when drug companies started paying cash right up front, for FDA review, the FDA started looking upon the industry as their client, instead of the public and the public health, which should be the client.
User fees = conflicts of interest
The PDUFA legislation passed in 1992 gave pharmaceutical companies the green light to make payments to the FDA (called “user fees”) in exchange for expedited approval of drugs and biologics. For the FDA, user fees have turned out to be the gift that keeps on giving. In 2018 alone, according to the Harvard trio, user fees covered “80% of the salaries of review personnel responsible for the approval of new drugs.” From 2013-2017, user fees amounted to $4.1 billion, up from $330 million over the period from 1993-1997 (an 1142% increase). By way of comparison, the user fee amount that flowed in from industry from 2013-2017 (five years) is roughly the same as the total compensation ($4.2 billion) slowly and begrudgingly awarded by the taxpayer-funded National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program since 1988 (32 years).
In an editorial accompanying the JAMA review, a former FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner wrote that “The overall picture is not of a struggling FDA, but rather of a regulatory process that has evolved over time into a thicket of special programs, flexible review criteria, and generous incentives.” Others who commented on the JAMA findings alluded to the potential for user fees to introduce conflicts of interest into the FDA’s regulatory process—but stopped short of issuing any accusations. Dr. Steven Joffe of the University of Pennsylvania stated:
There is certainly a potential for conflict in the [FDA’s] decision-making between the interests of the regulated industry and the interests of the public’s health, and so it would be better if the bulk of the agency’s budget came from the public—i.e., taxpayers—whose interests it is charged with protecting. However, I do not mean to imply that the agency’s decision-making has in fact been compromised by this arrangement. Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, was more blunt when interviewed by PBS’s Frontline about the pharmaceutical industry’s “inroads into the FDA.” Dr. Wolfe noted that when drug companies started “paying cash right up front, for FDA review,” the FDA “started looking upon the industry as their client, instead of the public and the public health, which should be the client.” Referring, in addition, to the FDA’s aversion to controversy—and an appalling lack of congressional oversight—Wolfe suggested that the FDA’s watchwords have become: “Please the industry. Avoid conflict. Look upon our role as getting out as many drugs as possible.”
In 2000, Wolfe commented on the withdrawal from the market of drugs that had received expedited FDA review—including widely used allergy and diabetes drugs—stating that “[the] fast track [process] is being abused.” In 2016, the author of an article in the Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics agreed that there is a firm basis for this conclusion, pointing to the fact that 57% of “fast-track molecules received a black box warning” from 2011-2015 and furnishing a lengthy table of significant adverse event alerts issued for products with fast-track designations.
As the most vaccinated generation of American children ever has developed historically unprecedented levels of chronic illness, the FDA continues to bestow its regulatory largesse on drugs designed to profitably manage these chronic conditions, including drugs for vaccine-linked conditions such as atopic dermatitis and asthma.
Implications for children and adolescents
From 1998 to 2018, states the JAMA review, the FDA approved 42 new vaccines, which fall under the even less stringent category of biologics. A number of these vaccines received expedited approval, including Merck’s disastrous Gardasil vaccine—fast-tracked in six months in 2006. In 2014, the FDA granted a Breakthrough Therapy designation and then quickly approved Pfizer’s meningococcal group B (MenB) vaccine, a vaccine now widely administered to college students despite “limited quantifiable safety data.” In the context of hype about potential pandemics, vaccine scientists continue to push for more fast-track approvals. Others argue that biologics need longer review times, speculating that “[e]xpedited approval may cure an autoimmune disorder and incite another one.”
As the most vaccinated generation of American children ever has developed historically unprecedented levels of chronic illness, the FDA continues to bestow its regulatory largesse on drugs designed to profitably manage these chronic conditions, including drugs for vaccine-linked conditions such as atopic dermatitis and asthma. In 2018, for example, the FDA granted a Breakthrough Therapy designation to the Genentech and Novartis biologic omalizumab (marketed as Xolair)—already approved for young people ages 12 and up for severe asthma (2003) and chronic hives (2014)—to extend the drug’s indications to life-threatening food allergies. This, despite prior safety review warnings that prompted the FDA, in 2014, to approve label changes to describe Xolair’s “slightly higher risk of heart and brain adverse events.” The FDA also noted at that time that it could not rule out a potential risk of cancer. In 2016, Genentech paid user fees to the FDA when it submitted a request to extend Xolair’s target population to 6- to 11-year-olds.
For an agency devoted to protecting the public from bogus medical science, the FDA seems to be spending an awful lot of effort protecting the perpetrators of bogus science from the public.
Putting the public last
The fact that the public’s health seems to occupy last place on the FDA’s priority list is, in some respects, unsurprising, particularly to those who have followed the agency’s behavior with regard to vaccine approvals and regulation (see list of further reading below). Other recent reports paint an equally unflattering picture of the FDA and its dereliction of duty. For example, a 2015 discussion in Slate described the agency’s shocking “pattern of burying the details of [scientific] misconduct” and mused, “For an agency devoted to protecting the public from bogus medical science, the FDA seems to be spending an awful lot of effort protecting the perpetrators of bogus science from the public.” Reuters was no less scathing when it published a special report in December 2019 about the FDA’s half-century-long efforts to minimize the dangers of asbestos in talc-based baby powders and cosmetics; Reuters concluded, “Again and again since at least the 1970s, the agency has downplayed the risk of asbestos contamination and declined to issue warnings or impose safety standards.”
In 2018, The New Republic shed light on another aspect of the FDA’s and U.S. government’s close relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, pointing to the government’s central role in drug development and the boondoggle that this represents for taxpayers. According to TNR:
Of the 210 medicines approved for market by the FDA between 2010 and 2016, every one originated in research conducted in government laboratories or in university labs funded in large part by the National Institutes of Health [emphasis added]. Since 1938, the government has spent more than $1 trillion on biomedical research, and at least since the 1980s, a growing proportion of the primary beneficiaries have been industry executives and major shareholders. Between 2006 and 2015, these two groups received 99 percent of the profits, totaling more than $500 billion, generated by 18 of the largest drug companies. This is not a “business” functioning in some imaginary free market. It’s a system built by and for Wall Street, resting on a foundation of $33 billion in annual taxpayer-funded research.
A 2020 letter in JAMA Internal Medicine calls attention to the fact that when the FDA allows drugs or medical products to proceed to market without thorough premarketing clinical studies, postmarketing studies become “the principal way [that] adverse events and risks become apparent.” Yet here, too, the FDA is falling short, they state, with a high rate of misclassification of adverse events, including deaths. The letter-writers also refer to recent news reports “that the FDA allowed [medical] device manufacturers to file reports of malfunctions in a hidden database.” What is the result of this type of nontransparent behavior? At a minimum, the JAMA Internal Medicine writers warn, public and physician perceptions of safety will be “inaccurate”—increasing the odds of adverse events befalling an unsuspecting public.


wakingtimes--2020-01-29--Confirmed: Breast Screenings Cause More Harm Than Good

A study published in the British Medical Journal confirms an earlier , highly controversial finding by the Cochrane Database Review ( 2009 ) , which concluded that breast screenings are likely causing more harm than good .
Published last month ( Dec. 2011 ) and titled “ Possible net harms of breast cancer screening : updated modeling of Forrest report , ” its authors concluded : “ This analysis supports the claim that the introduction of breast cancer screening might have caused net harm for up to 10 years after the start of screening.
” Keep in mind that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the “ food chain ” of truth , in the highly touted “ evidence-based model ” of conventional medicine .
Cochrane Database Reviews are produced by The Cochrane Collaboration , which is internationally recognized as the benchmark for high quality , evidence-based information concerning the effectiveness ( or lack thereof ) of common health care interventions .
The organization , comprised of over 28,000 dedicated people from over 100 countries , prides itself on being an “ independent ” source of information , and historically has not been afraid to point out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly co-opts the biomedical research and publishing fields .
In the original 2009 Cochrane Database Systematic Review , also known as the Gøtzsche and Nielsen ’ s Cochrane review , titled “ Screening for breast cancer with mammography , ” the authors revealed the problem with breast screenings in the following way : Screening led to 30 % overdiagnosis and overtreatment , or an absolute risk increase of 0.5 % .
This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years , one will have her life prolonged and 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been diagnosed if there had not been screening , will be treated unnecessarily .
Furthermore , more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings .
It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm .
In this review , the basis for estimating unnecessary treatment was the 35 % increased risk of surgery among women who underwent screenings .
Many of the surgeries , in fact , were the result of women being diagnosed with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ ( DCIS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not exists as a clinically relevant entity were it not for the fact that it is detectable through x-ray mammography .
In the vast majority of cases , DCIS has no palpable lesion or symptoms , and some experts believe it should be completely reclassified as a non-cancerous condition .
What is perhaps most disturbing about these findings is that , while they clearly call into question the safety and effectiveness of breast screenings , the studies upon which they are based use an outdated radiation risk model , which minimizes by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the “ low-dose ” ( 30 kVp ) x-rays generated by mammography .
What this indicates , therefore , is that breast screenings are not just “ causing more harm than good , ” but are planting seeds of radiation-induced cancer within the breasts of millions of women .
With the advent of non-ionizing radiation based diagnostic technologies , such as thermography , it has become vitally important that consumers educate themselves about the alternatives to x-ray mammography that already exist .
Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com , a reviewer at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Functional Medicine , Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed , Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation , Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation .
1 .
Possible net harms of breast cancer screening : updated modeling of Forrest report .
BMJ .
2011 ; 343 : d7627 .
Epub 2011 Dec 8 .
PMID : 22155336 Disclaimer : This article is not intended to provide medical advice , diagnosis or treatment .
Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of WakingTimes or its staff .
© @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC .
Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo ?
Sign up for the newsletter here //www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter..

Confirmed: Breast Screenings Cause More Harm Than Good
Sayer Ji, GreenMedinfo
Waking Times
A study published in the British Medical Journal confirms an earlier, highly controversial finding by the Cochrane Database Review (2009), which concluded that breast screenings are likely causing more harm than good.
Published last month (Dec. 2011) and titled “Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modeling of Forrest report,” its authors concluded: “This analysis supports the claim that the introduction of breast cancer screening might have caused net harm for up to 10 years after the start of screening.” Keep in mind that the Cochrane Database Review is at the top of the “food chain” of truth, in the highly touted “evidence-based model” of conventional medicine.
Cochrane Database Reviews are produced by The Cochrane Collaboration, which is internationally recognized as the benchmark for high quality, evidence-based information concerning the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of common health care interventions. The organization, comprised of over 28,000 dedicated people from over 100 countries, prides itself on being an “independent” source of information, and historically has not been afraid to point out the corrupting influence of industry, which increasingly co-opts the biomedical research and publishing fields.
In the original 2009 Cochrane Database Systematic Review, also known as the Gøtzsche and Nielsen’s Cochrane review, titled “Screening for breast cancer with mammography,” the authors revealed the problem with breast screenings in the following way:
Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.
In this review, the basis for estimating unnecessary treatment was the 35% increased risk of surgery among women who underwent screenings. Many of the surgeries, in fact, were the result of women being diagnosed with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), a “cancer” that would not exists as a clinically relevant entity were it not for the fact that it is detectable through x-ray mammography. In the vast majority of cases, DCIS has no palpable lesion or symptoms, and some experts believe it should be completely reclassified as a non-cancerous condition.
What is perhaps most disturbing about these findings is that, while they clearly call into question the safety and effectiveness of breast screenings, the studies upon which they are based use an outdated radiation risk model, which minimizes by a factor of 4-5 the carcinogenicity associated with the “low-dose” (30 kVp) x-rays generated by mammography. What this indicates, therefore, is that breast screenings are not just “causing more harm than good,” but are planting seeds of radiation-induced cancer within the breasts of millions of women.
With the advent of non-ionizing radiation based diagnostic technologies, such as thermography, it has become vitally important that consumers educate themselves about the alternatives to x-ray mammography that already exist.
About the Author
Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.
References
1. Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modeling of Forrest report. BMJ. 2011 ;343:d7627. Epub 2011 Dec 8. PMID: 22155336
2. Screening for breast cancer with mammography.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(4):CD001877. Epub 2009 Oct 7. PMID: 19821284
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of WakingTimes or its staff.
© [Article Date] GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here //www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter..


wakingtimes--2020-01-30--How Sugar Changes Your Brain Chemistry

How Sugar Changes Your Brain Chemistry

If you ’ re like most people , chances are you ’ re consuming unhealthy amounts of sugar on a regular basis .
Even if you ’ re not big on candy , most processed foods will provide you with an excessive amount of added sugars .
As noted in the BBC One report “ The Truth About Sugar , ” a serving of Pad Thai noodles contains 9.5 teaspoons of sugar and a package of sweet and sour chicken with rice contains 12.5 teaspoons , which is more than a can of soda .
A can of baked beans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would ideally be your grand total for the day , so it ’ s important to realize that it ’ s not merely cakes , cookies , candy and ice cream that get people into trouble .
Even many baby foods contain shocking amounts of sugar , which can set your child on the path of lifelong sugar addiction and the health problems that go along with it .
The idea that sugar is addictive is not new .
A number of studies have shown it acts much like other addictive substances .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the addictive potential of sugar was published in the November 2019 issue of Scientific Reports , in which they point out that “ Excessive sucrose consumption elicits addiction-like craving that may underpin the obesity epidemic.
” By using PET imaging along with beta-opioid and dopamine receptor agonists , the researchers were able to show how sucrose affects the brain chemistry in miniature pigs .
The miniature pigs were chosen for the fact that they have well-defined subcortical and prefrontal cortical regions , which “ enable a more direct translation to human brain function.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even a single exposure to sucrose produced as much as a 14 % decrease in carfentanil ( a beta-opioid receptor agonist ) binding in the nucleus accumbens and cingulate cortex , which is consistent with opioid release .
In more layman terms , sugar consumption triggers the release of natural opioids and dopamine in your brain , thus lowering the availability of those receptors .
Reduced receptor availability is a sign of overstimulation , as when your brain gets overstimulated , it downregulates the receptors in order to protect your brain from damage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that you now need a higher dose of the substance to get the same pleasure response , and this is a key mechanism by which addiction develops .
You can learn more about the mechanics of addiction in my interview with Dr. Pamela Peeke , author of “ The Hunger Fix : The Three-Stage Detox and Recovery Plan for Overeating and Food Addiction.
” Sugar Affects Your Brain Like Other Addictive Drugs Figure 4 from the Scientific Reports study shows how carfentanil binding potential changed from baseline levels over the course of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change in raclopride , a selective antagonist on dopamine receptors .
Figure 4 : Regional analysis of carfentanil bonding potential between baseline and after 12 days of sucrose water exposure .
Figure 6 : Regional analysis of raclopride bonding potential between baseline and after 12 days of sucrose water exposure .
According to the authors , “ The results clearly demonstrate that sucrose affects reward mechanisms in a manner similar to that of drugs of abuse.
” In the discussion section of the paper , they further explain : “ The intake of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to release DA [ dopamine ] and induce dependency in rodents , with sucrose shown to be even more pleasurable than cocaine in rodents in certain contexts .
Thus , rodents work more intensely to obtain sucrose than cocaine , even in the absence of food deprivation .
However , the effects of sucrose are regulated both by the homeostatic system and by hedonic reward circuits that may mediate the distinction between nutritional and hedonic aspects of sucrose action .
We opted for a one-hour per day schedule in order to promote ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intake often target food-restricted animals , but the design may not necessarily reflect the same neural mechanisms active in obesity .
Pigs in the present study were not food restricted and were fed the usual amounts of their normal diet in addition to access to sucrose .
Opioid receptors ( OR ) are widely expressed in the brain , specifically in structures known to modulate eating and reward processes .
ORs have been shown to be important in the rewarding and relapsing effects of cocaine … Previous studies have shown that palatable food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stimulating opioid release .
After 12 days of sucrose access , we observed decreased carfentanil binding , which has several possible explanations , including endogenous opioid release and binding to μOR [ beta-opioid receptors ] , μOR internalization as a result of increased opioid binding , and increased DA D2/3 receptor activation leading to heterologous desensitization of μOR … In a study of acute feeding behavior in healthy men , feeding led to robust and widespread endogenous cerebral opioid release , both in the presence and absence of hedonia , suggesting that opioid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as hedonic , responses.
” Other Brain Changes Triggered by Excessive Sugar Other research has shown daily sugar consumption impairs spatial memory and inhibits neurogenesis in the hippocampus , a brain area involved in learning and memory processes .
Research on rats has also shown a high-sugar diet tends to alter inhibitory neurons in the prefrontal cortex , where decision-making and impulse control are centered .
Aside from impaired impulse control and the inability to delay gratification , this alteration may also increase the risk of mental health problems in children and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study : Needless to say , a high-sugar diet will also take a toll on your health by packing on unwanted pounds , and the pace can be remarkably rapid .
As noted in the BBC program , “ The Truth About Sugar ” ( hyperlinked at the beginning of this article ) , drinking three cups of tea or coffee per day with 2 teaspoons of sugar added to each cup can result in a 9.9-pound weight gain ( 4.5 kilos ) in a single year , provided you don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extra calories .
When you consider that most consume five or six times more added sugar than that each day , it ’ s easy to see how obesity has become more the norm than the exception .
The World Health Organization recommends limiting your daily sugar consumption to 10 % of your total intake , or better yet , 5 % , which equates to about 6 teaspoons or 25 grams , if you want to really optimize your health .
The good news is research shows reducing added sugars from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calories down to about 10 % can improve biomarkers associated with health in as little as 10 days — even when overall calorie count and percentage of carbohydrates remains the same .
While this sounds simple enough , it can be tricky business if your diet consists primarily of processed foods .
According to SugarScience.org , added sugars hide in 74 % of processed foods under more than 60 different names .
For a full list , please see SugarScience.org ’ s “ Hidden in Plain Sight ” page .
When you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to avoid any and all of these , as they all have similar effects , although processed fructose — such as high fructose corn syrup — tends to have the most adverse health effects and is a primary driver of obesity and diabetes .
How to Break Your Sugar Addiction If you find yourself struggling with sugar cravings , intermittent fasting can help .
For optimal results , you ’ ll want to replace the calories from sugar and non-vegetable carbs with vegetables and healthy fats , as this will help reset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to effectively burn fat for fuel again .
When sugar is not needed for your primary fuel and when your sugar stores run low , your body will crave it less .
Another helpful technique , which addresses the emotional component of food cravings , is the Emotional Freedom Techniques ( EFT ) .
If you maintain negative thoughts and feelings about yourself while trying to take physical steps to improve your health and body , you ’ re unlikely to succeed .
While traditional psychological approaches may sometimes work , EFT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not to mention inexpensive , solution .
If you feel that your emotions , or your own self-image , may be your own worst enemy when it comes to altering your relationship with food , I highly recommend you read my free EFT manual and consider trying EFT on your own .
A version of EFT specifically geared toward combating sugar cravings is called Turbo Tapping .
For further instructions , please see The Epoch Times article , “ Turbo Tapping : How to Get Rid of Your Soda Addiction.
” My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Weight Loss ” also offers helpful guidance .
To get an idea of how it works , see the video below , in which EFT practitioner Julie Schiffman demonstrates how to use EFT to fight food cravings of all kinds .

How Sugar Changes Your Brain Chemistry
Dr. Mercola, Guest
Waking Times
If you’re like most people, chances are you’re consuming unhealthy amounts of sugar on a regular basis. Even if you’re not big on candy, most processed foods will provide you with an excessive amount of added sugars.
As noted in the BBC One report “The Truth About Sugar,” a serving of Pad Thai noodles contains 9.5 teaspoons of sugar and a package of sweet and sour chicken with rice contains 12.5 teaspoons, which is more than a can of soda.
A can of baked beans contains 6 teaspoons of sugar, which would ideally be your grand total for the day, so it’s important to realize that it’s not merely cakes, cookies, candy and ice cream that get people into trouble.
Even many baby foods contain shocking amounts of sugar, which can set your child on the path of lifelong sugar addiction and the health problems that go along with it. The idea that sugar is addictive is not new. A number of studies have shown it acts much like other addictive substances.
One of the latest studies looking at the addictive potential of sugar was published in the November 2019 issue of Scientific Reports, in which they point out that “Excessive sucrose consumption elicits addiction-like craving that may underpin the obesity epidemic.”
Sugar Alters Your Brain Chemistry
By using PET imaging along with beta-opioid and dopamine receptor agonists, the researchers were able to show how sucrose affects the brain chemistry in miniature pigs. The miniature pigs were chosen for the fact that they have well-defined subcortical and prefrontal cortical regions, which “enable a more direct translation to human brain function.” As explained by the authors:
“After 12 days of sucrose access, BPND [non-displaceable binding potentials] of both tracers had declined significantly in striatum, nucleus accumbens, thalamus, amygdala, cingulate cortex and prefrontal cortex, consistent with down-regulation of receptor densities … The lower availability of opioid and dopamine receptors may explain the addictive potential associated with intake of sucrose.”
Even a single exposure to sucrose produced as much as a 14% decrease in carfentanil (a beta-opioid receptor agonist) binding in the nucleus accumbens and cingulate cortex, which is consistent with opioid release.
In more layman terms, sugar consumption triggers the release of natural opioids and dopamine in your brain, thus lowering the availability of those receptors. Reduced receptor availability is a sign of overstimulation, as when your brain gets overstimulated, it downregulates the receptors in order to protect your brain from damage.
The drawback of this protective mechanism is that you now need a higher dose of the substance to get the same pleasure response, and this is a key mechanism by which addiction develops.
You can learn more about the mechanics of addiction in my interview with Dr. Pamela Peeke, author of “The Hunger Fix: The Three-Stage Detox and Recovery Plan for Overeating and Food Addiction.”
Sugar Affects Your Brain Like Other Addictive Drugs
Figure 4 from the Scientific Reports study shows how carfentanil binding potential changed from baseline levels over the course of 12 days. Figure 6 shows the change in raclopride, a selective antagonist on dopamine receptors.
Figure 4: Regional analysis of carfentanil bonding potential between baseline and after 12 days of sucrose water exposure.
Figure 6: Regional analysis of raclopride bonding potential between baseline and after 12 days of sucrose water exposure.
According to the authors, “The results clearly demonstrate that sucrose affects reward mechanisms in a manner similar to that of drugs of abuse.” In the discussion section of the paper, they further explain:
“The intake of sucrose as a palatable substance is known to release DA [dopamine] and induce dependency in rodents, with sucrose shown to be even more pleasurable than cocaine in rodents in certain contexts. Thus, rodents work more intensely to obtain sucrose than cocaine, even in the absence of food deprivation. However, the effects of sucrose are regulated both by the homeostatic system and by hedonic reward circuits that may mediate the distinction between nutritional and hedonic aspects of sucrose action. We opted for a one-hour per day schedule in order to promote ‘binging’ … Behavioral studies of food intake often target food-restricted animals, but the design may not necessarily reflect the same neural mechanisms active in obesity. Pigs in the present study were not food restricted and were fed the usual amounts of their normal diet in addition to access to sucrose. Opioid receptors (OR) are widely expressed in the brain, specifically in structures known to modulate eating and reward processes. ORs have been shown to be important in the rewarding and relapsing effects of cocaine … Previous studies have shown that palatable food can lead to feelings of pleasure by stimulating opioid release. After 12 days of sucrose access, we observed decreased carfentanil binding, which has several possible explanations, including endogenous opioid release and binding to μOR [beta-opioid receptors], μOR internalization as a result of increased opioid binding, and increased DA D2/3 receptor activation leading to heterologous desensitization of μOR … In a study of acute feeding behavior in healthy men, feeding led to robust and widespread endogenous cerebral opioid release, both in the presence and absence of hedonia, suggesting that opioid release reflects metabolic and homeostatic, as well as hedonic, responses.”
Other Brain Changes Triggered by Excessive Sugar
Other research has shown daily sugar consumption impairs spatial memory and inhibits neurogenesis in the hippocampus, a brain area involved in learning and memory processes.
Research on rats has also shown a high-sugar diet tends to alter inhibitory neurons in the prefrontal cortex, where decision-making and impulse control are centered. Aside from impaired impulse control and the inability to delay gratification, this alteration may also increase the risk of mental health problems in children and adolescents. As noted in a 2015 study:
“We found that sucrose-exposed rats failed to show context-appropriate responding … indicative of impairments in prefrontal cortex function. Sucrose exposed rats also showed deficits in an on object-in-place recognition memory task, indicating that both prefrontal and hippocampal function was impaired. Analysis of brains showed a reduction in expression of parvalbumin-immunoreactive GABAergic interneurons in the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, indicating that sucrose consumption during adolescence induced long-term pathology, potentially underpinning the cognitive deficits observed. These results suggest that consumption of high levels of sugar-sweetened beverages by adolescents may also impair neurocognitive functions affecting decision-making and memory, potentially rendering them at risk for developing mental health disorders.”
Eliminating Sugar Is a Quick Route to Improved Health
Needless to say, a high-sugar diet will also take a toll on your health by packing on unwanted pounds, and the pace can be remarkably rapid. As noted in the BBC program, “The Truth About Sugar” (hyperlinked at the beginning of this article), drinking three cups of tea or coffee per day with 2 teaspoons of sugar added to each cup can result in a 9.9-pound weight gain (4.5 kilos) in a single year, provided you don’t increase your physical activity to burn off the extra calories.
When you consider that most consume five or six times more added sugar than that each day, it’s easy to see how obesity has become more the norm than the exception.
The World Health Organization recommends limiting your daily sugar consumption to 10% of your total intake, or better yet, 5%, which equates to about 6 teaspoons or 25 grams, if you want to really optimize your health.
The good news is research shows reducing added sugars from an average of 27% of daily calories down to about 10% can improve biomarkers associated with health in as little as 10 days — even when overall calorie count and percentage of carbohydrates remains the same.
While this sounds simple enough, it can be tricky business if your diet consists primarily of processed foods. According to SugarScience.org, added sugars hide in 74% of processed foods under more than 60 different names. For a full list, please see SugarScience.org’s “Hidden in Plain Sight” page.
When you’re trying to avoid sugar, you need to avoid any and all of these, as they all have similar effects, although processed fructose — such as high fructose corn syrup — tends to have the most adverse health effects and is a primary driver of obesity and diabetes.
How to Break Your Sugar Addiction
If you find yourself struggling with sugar cravings, intermittent fasting can help. For optimal results, you’ll want to replace the calories from sugar and non-vegetable carbs with vegetables and healthy fats, as this will help reset your body’s metabolism, allowing it to effectively burn fat for fuel again. When sugar is not needed for your primary fuel and when your sugar stores run low, your body will crave it less.
Another helpful technique, which addresses the emotional component of food cravings, is the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT). If you maintain negative thoughts and feelings about yourself while trying to take physical steps to improve your health and body, you’re unlikely to succeed.
While traditional psychological approaches may sometimes work, EFT has shown to be a far better, not to mention inexpensive, solution. If you feel that your emotions, or your own self-image, may be your own worst enemy when it comes to altering your relationship with food, I highly recommend you read my free EFT manual and consider trying EFT on your own.
A version of EFT specifically geared toward combating sugar cravings is called Turbo Tapping. For further instructions, please see The Epoch Times article, “Turbo Tapping: How to Get Rid of Your Soda Addiction.”
My previous article, “EFT: Tapping for Weight Loss” also offers helpful guidance. To get an idea of how it works, see the video below, in which EFT practitioner Julie Schiffman demonstrates how to use EFT to fight food cravings of all kinds.
http://youtu.be/L92oOPJlfyg


wakingtimes--2020-01-30--Who is Pushing Epidemics? What are Their Crimes?

With my coverage of the China epidemic ( archive here ) , we are seeing many new readers showing up and paying attention .
So I want to expose a few facts about the modern medical system—facts I ’ ve presented many times over the past 10 years .
I do this because of a little thing called REPUTATION .
If the track record of major medical officials is really understood , people would view their unproven pronouncements with considerable skepticism .
Pronouncements like : THE VIRUS IS SPREADING ; THIS IS A MAJOR EPIDEMIC ; WE ’ RE RUSHING @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MUST TAKE IT .
I also expose facts because MEDICALLY CAUSED DEATH is routinely swept under the carpet by the mainstream press .
Actually , as a result of media silence , the subject of medical harm is where the subject of grossly poisoned food was in the 19th and early 20th centuries .
At that time , giant food processors had created their own Wild West , where they could sell lethal poison ( eat , fall down dead ) hidden in products .
The press helped expose these crimes and transfix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reforms .
Now , in the medical arena , the press is a partner in capital crimes .
Major medical officials have been sitting on a time bomb of information .
The range of medical maiming and killing is astonishing .
Imagine a Congressional hearing held before media cameras , with reporters all over the US and Europe ready with shocking articles about one of the leading causes of death— SENATOR : Sir , I have the medical death numbers in front of me .
How can you keep this secret from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not a secret , sir .
Many experts know about it .
SENATOR : I ’ m looking through the trillion-dollar federal budget .
I ’ m looking for the money allocated to fix this horrible situation .
Where are those funds ?
I know major media won ’ t investigate medically-caused death numbers , because I ’ ve published reports for years , and I ’ ve contacted news people with the facts ; and nothing happens .
So we begin with a few citations .
July 26 , 2000 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author , Dr. Barbara Starfield , revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health ; “ Is US health really the best in the world ?
” Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year .
106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs , and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals .
Extrapolate the numbers to a decade : that ’ s 2.25 million deaths .
You might want to read that last number again .
I interviewed Starfield in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was aware of any overall effort by the US government to eliminate this holocaust , and whether she had ever been contacted by any government agency to consult on such an effort .
She answered a resounding NO to both questions .
Therefore , to say the FDA isn ’ t aware of this finding would be absurd .
The FDA knows .
The FDA knows and it isn ’ t saying anything about it , because the FDA certifies , as safe and effective , all the medical drugs that are routinely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another citation : The article is , “ The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.
” The author is Donald Light , who teaches at Rowan University , and was the 2013 recipient of ASA ’ s [ American Sociological Association ’ s ] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology .
Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania .
In 2013 , he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard .
He is a Lokey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statistics I ’ m quoting reveal a problem on the level of a tsunami sweeping across the whole of America and Europe .
The obvious reason : their big-spending pharmaceutical advertisers would drop them like hot potatoes .
But there are other reasons .
Every medical bureaucrat or medical shill or medical expert who jumps aboard the media train , to assure the public that drugs and vaccines are remarkably safe , is sitting on the time bomb I have described above .
If this bomb were widely recognized , who would continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would accept anything they say ?
How could they possibly sustain their credibility ?
Every single pronouncement , on any subject , issued via the medical cartel ’ s Ministry of Truth , would fall on disbelieving ears , and only increase general outrage .
Mainstream reporters and editors and publishers are well aware that telling the truth and continuing to pound on it would undermine a basic institution of society .
The media are there to give credibility to society and its structures .
That ’ s why they ’ re called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” When hard rains fall , the media are there with an umbrella to hold over organized society ’ s head .
To walk away in the middle of a downpour would leave the status quo unprotected .
“ Defending the Crown ” is another way to put it .
The King may make mistakes , he may commit heinous offenses , but he is the King , and therefore his position must remain secure .
Young journalists learn this point quickly .
If in their zeal , they cross the threshold and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fairy tale , legend , they ’ re put back in their place .
They absorb the message .
Journalism has limits .
Certain truths are silent truths .
Over the years , I ’ ve talked to reporters who are solidly addicted to obfuscations .
Like any addict , they have an army of excuses to rationalize their behavior .
The medical experts are worse .
Their pretense of idealism knows no limits , and is matched only by their claim to bullet-proof knowledge .
When you peel the veneer away , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , co-conspirators .
There is nothing quite like a high-minded , socially-positioned , card-carrying member of the King ’ s circle of protectors .
The arrogance is titanic .
Because what is being hidden is so explosive .
It is the duty of the Crown to make his subjects feel safe and protected and even loved .
No wonder he needs such a large army of trained helpers in and around the press .
He has them .
But their monopoly is breaking down .
We ’ re in a new breakout level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent media .
So…on the subject of epidemics , when public health officials , and their government enablers , and the compliant press , and doctors tell us that a new virus is sweeping the world , a vaccine will stop it , and we must take that vaccine…why should anyone fall in line and accept their words ?
Professional liars , professional criminals may pretend they are spouting science , but they are merely relying on the ignorance of the public .
Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MATRIX , and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX , Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29thDistrict of California .
He maintains a consulting practice for private clients , the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power .
Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize , he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years , writing articles on politics , medicine , and health for CBS Healthwatch , LA Weekly , Spin Magazine , Stern , and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ global politics , health , logic , and creative power to audiences around the world .
You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine .
Like Waking Times on Facebook .
Follow Waking Times on Twitter .

Who is Pushing Epidemics? What are Their Crimes?
Jon Rappoport, Guest
Waking Times
With my coverage of the China epidemic (archive here), we are seeing many new readers showing up and paying attention. So I want to expose a few facts about the modern medical system—facts I’ve presented many times over the past 10 years.
I do this because of a little thing called REPUTATION. If the track record of major medical officials is really understood, people would view their unproven pronouncements with considerable skepticism. Pronouncements like: THE VIRUS IS SPREADING; THIS IS A MAJOR EPIDEMIC; WE’RE RUSHING A NEW VACCINE INTO PRODUCTION; EVERYONE MUST TAKE IT.
I also expose facts because MEDICALLY CAUSED DEATH is routinely swept under the carpet by the mainstream press. Actually, as a result of media silence, the subject of medical harm is where the subject of grossly poisoned food was in the 19th and early 20th centuries. At that time, giant food processors had created their own Wild West, where they could sell lethal poison (eat, fall down dead) hidden in products. The press helped expose these crimes and transfix the public, which led to partial reforms. Now, in the medical arena, the press is a partner in capital crimes.
Major medical officials have been sitting on a time bomb of information. The range of medical maiming and killing is astonishing.
Imagine a Congressional hearing held before media cameras, with reporters all over the US and Europe ready with shocking articles about one of the leading causes of death—
SENATOR: Sir, I have the medical death numbers in front of me. How can you keep this secret from the public?
FDA COMMISSIONER: It’s not a secret, sir. Many experts know about it.
SENATOR: I’m looking through the trillion-dollar federal budget. I’m looking for the money allocated to fix this horrible situation. Where are those funds?
FDA COMMISSIONER: Nowhere. Don’t blame us.
I know major media won’t investigate medically-caused death numbers, because I’ve published reports for years, and I’ve contacted news people with the facts; and nothing happens.
So we begin with a few citations.
July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association; author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; “Is US health really the best in the world?”
Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. 106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals. Extrapolate the numbers to a decade: that’s 2.25 million deaths. You might want to read that last number again.
I interviewed Starfield in 2009. I asked her whether she was aware of any overall effort by the US government to eliminate this holocaust, and whether she had ever been contacted by any government agency to consult on such an effort. She answered a resounding NO to both questions.
Here is another citation: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer. Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It [the Institute] calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’” The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.” The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”
Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans.
Here is another citation: The article is, “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author is Donald Light, who teaches at Rowan University, and was the 2013 recipient of ASA’s [American Sociological Association’s] Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology. Light is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University.
Donald Light: “Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed, prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death, tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each week in the United States. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the United States and Europe. They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations [6.6 million annually], as well as falls, road accidents, and [annually] about 80 million medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others. Deaths and adverse effects from overmedication, errors, and self-medication would increase these figures.” (ASA publication, “Footnotes,” November 2014)
The statistics I’m quoting reveal a problem on the level of a tsunami sweeping across the whole of America and Europe.
Why won’t major media report these facts?
The obvious reason: their big-spending pharmaceutical advertisers would drop them like hot potatoes.
But there are other reasons.
Every medical bureaucrat or medical shill or medical expert who jumps aboard the media train, to assure the public that drugs and vaccines are remarkably safe, is sitting on the time bomb I have described above.
If this bomb were widely recognized, who would continue to believe these professional pundits? Who would accept anything they say? How could they possibly sustain their credibility?
“Well, the system I represent kills 2.25 million people per decade, and maims between 20 and 40 million more people per decade, but I want to assure you this vaccine presents no problems at all. It’s incredibly safe.”
Every single pronouncement, on any subject, issued via the medical cartel’s Ministry of Truth, would fall on disbelieving ears, and only increase general outrage.
Mainstream reporters and editors and publishers are well aware that telling the truth and continuing to pound on it would undermine a basic institution of society.
The media are there to give credibility to society and its structures. That’s why they’re called “major” instead of “minor.”
When hard rains fall, the media are there with an umbrella to hold over organized society’s head. To walk away in the middle of a downpour would leave the status quo unprotected.
“Defending the Crown” is another way to put it. The King may make mistakes, he may commit heinous offenses, but he is the King, and therefore his position must remain secure.
Young journalists learn this point quickly. If in their zeal, they cross the threshold and attempt to expose a central myth, fairy tale, legend, they’re put back in their place. They absorb the message. Journalism has limits. Certain truths are silent truths.
Over the years, I’ve talked to reporters who are solidly addicted to obfuscations. Like any addict, they have an army of excuses to rationalize their behavior.
The medical experts are worse. Their pretense of idealism knows no limits, and is matched only by their claim to bullet-proof knowledge.
When you peel the veneer away, they are enablers, persons of interest, co-conspirators.
There is nothing quite like a high-minded, socially-positioned, card-carrying member of the King’s circle of protectors. The arrogance is titanic. Because what is being hidden is so explosive.
It is the duty of the Crown to make his subjects feel safe and protected and even loved.
No wonder he needs such a large army of trained helpers in and around the press.
He has them.
But their monopoly is breaking down.
We’re in a new breakout level of truth. It’s called independent media.
So…on the subject of epidemics, when public health officials, and their government enablers, and the compliant press, and doctors tell us that a new virus is sweeping the world, a vaccine will stop it, and we must take that vaccine…why should anyone fall in line and accept their words?
Professional liars, professional criminals may pretend they are spouting science, but they are merely relying on the ignorance of the public.
About the Author
Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29thDistrict of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


wakingtimes--2020-01-30--Single Dose of ‘Magic Mushrooms’ Provides Long-Term Anxiety Relief for Cancer Patients, Study Sugges

A single experience with “ magic mushrooms ” has long-lasting effects on cancer patients , according to a new study that found patients still felt positive benefits five years later , as CNN reported .
Not only did the patients feel reductions in anxiety , a slew of other mental health symptoms were relieved as well , including depression , hopelessness , demoralization and death anxiety , according to CNN .
In addition to self-reported improved well-being or life satisfaction , some patients rated the treatment as being “ among the most personally meaningful and spiritually significant experiences of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Medscape Medical News reported .
The study , published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology , followed up on a study published in 2016 that gave cancer patients a single dose of synthetic psilocybin , the psychoactive chemical present in mushrooms , in a controlled setting where the patients were monitored the entire time , as NBC News reported .
The study was featured recently in the documentary Fantastic Fungi .
The new follow-up tracked 15 of the first 29 participants from the study nearly five years after their guided experience with synthetic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 80 percent were still experiencing significant improvements in cancer-related depression and anxiety .
Furthermore , almost all of the participants chalked up their positive life changes to the psychedelic-assisted therapy , according to NBC News .
“ Our findings strongly suggest that psilocybin therapy is a promising means of improving the emotional , psychological , and spiritual well-being of patients with life-threatening cancer , ” said Dr. Stephen Ross , associate professor of psychiatry in the Department of Psychiatry at NYU Langone Health , as CNN reported .
“ This approach has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the psychological and existential care of patients with cancer , especially those with terminal illness , ” Ross added , as Medscape Medical News reported .
That said , it is important to note that this was a single controlled-dose from pharmacy-made synthetic psilocybin , and a trained nurse monitored the patients while they were under the influence of the narcotic .
Possessing hallucinogenic mushrooms is a felony and ingesting them is potentially hazardous .
The researchers are not sure why psilocybin produced such long-lasting relief , but they previously theorized that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s neuroplasticity — the brain ’ s ability to adapt and change with various experiences , according to CNN .
One of the patients , Dinah Bazer , suffered from ovarian cancer in her 60s .
After a successful round of chemotherapy , her anxiety inexplicably overwhelmed her .
“ I thought that when the chemo ended , I would celebrate but instead , I went into a tailspin .
Even though my prognosis was really excellent , I was worried about a relapse , ” Bazer said to NBC News .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went through six-months of no anxiety at all .
“ What is permanent is that I don ’ t have anxiety about cancer .
Not only about my cancer returning , but how I viewed my reoccurrence when it did happen , ” said Bazer , who was diagnosed last March with a type of rare gastrointestinal cancer , as NBC News reported .
While the results are promising , they are limited because of the small number of patients in the study and the follow-up .
“ The conclusions that can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a crossover design , ” said James Rucker , who leads the Psychedelic Trials Group at the Centre for Affective Disorders at Kings College London in the UK , to CNN .
“ This means that in the original trial every participant eventually received psilocybin .
Because of this , there is no control group in this current study .
This means that we do not know whether the participants might have improved long term anyway , regardless of the treatment.
” However , Ross sees a bright future for the future @ @ @ @ @

Single Dose of ‘Magic Mushrooms’ Provides Long-Term Anxiety Relief for Cancer Patients, Study Suggests
Jordan Davidson, EcoWatch
Waking Times
A single experience with “magic mushrooms” has long-lasting effects on cancer patients, according to a new study that found patients still felt positive benefits five years later, as CNN reported.
Not only did the patients feel reductions in anxiety, a slew of other mental health symptoms were relieved as well, including depression, hopelessness, demoralization and death anxiety, according to CNN.
In addition to self-reported improved well-being or life satisfaction, some patients rated the treatment as being “among the most personally meaningful and spiritually significant experiences of their lives,” the authors wrote, as Medscape Medical News reported.
The study, published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, followed up on a study published in 2016 that gave cancer patients a single dose of synthetic psilocybin, the psychoactive chemical present in mushrooms, in a controlled setting where the patients were monitored the entire time, as NBC News reported.
The study was featured recently in the documentary Fantastic Fungi.
The new follow-up tracked 15 of the first 29 participants from the study nearly five years after their guided experience with synthetic psilocybin. After five years, nearly 80 percent were still experiencing significant improvements in cancer-related depression and anxiety. Furthermore, almost all of the participants chalked up their positive life changes to the psychedelic-assisted therapy, according to NBC News.
“Our findings strongly suggest that psilocybin therapy is a promising means of improving the emotional, psychological, and spiritual well-being of patients with life-threatening cancer,” said Dr. Stephen Ross, associate professor of psychiatry in the Department of Psychiatry at NYU Langone Health, as CNN reported. “This approach has the potential to produce a paradigm shift in the psychological and existential care of patients with cancer, especially those with terminal illness,” Ross added, as Medscape Medical News reported.
That said, it is important to note that this was a single controlled-dose from pharmacy-made synthetic psilocybin, and a trained nurse monitored the patients while they were under the influence of the narcotic. Possessing hallucinogenic mushrooms is a felony and ingesting them is potentially hazardous.
The researchers are not sure why psilocybin produced such long-lasting relief, but they previously theorized that it has to do with the brain’s neuroplasticity — the brain’s ability to adapt and change with various experiences, according to CNN.
“These results may shed light on how the positive effects of a single dose of psilocybin persist for so long,” said Gabby Agin-Liebes, lead investigator and lead author of the long-term follow-up study, and co-author of the 2016 parent study. “The drug seems to facilitate a deep, meaningful experience that stays with a person and can fundamentally change his or her mindset and outlook.”
One of the patients, Dinah Bazer, suffered from ovarian cancer in her 60s. After a successful round of chemotherapy, her anxiety inexplicably overwhelmed her.
“I thought that when the chemo ended, I would celebrate but instead, I went into a tailspin. Even though my prognosis was really excellent, I was worried about a relapse,” Bazer said to NBC News. After her experience with synthetic psilocybin, Bazer went through six-months of no anxiety at all. “What is permanent is that I don’t have anxiety about cancer. Not only about my cancer returning, but how I viewed my reoccurrence when it did happen,” said Bazer, who was diagnosed last March with a type of rare gastrointestinal cancer, as NBC News reported.
While the results are promising, they are limited because of the small number of patients in the study and the follow-up.
“The conclusions that can be drawn are limited because the original trial was a crossover design,” said James Rucker, who leads the Psychedelic Trials Group at the Centre for Affective Disorders at Kings College London in the UK, to CNN. “This means that in the original trial every participant eventually received psilocybin. Because of this, there is no control group in this current study. This means that we do not know whether the participants might have improved long term anyway, regardless of the treatment.”
However, Ross sees a bright future for the future of psilocybin in oncology.
“This could profoundly transform the psycho-oncologic care of patients with cancer, and importantly could be used in hospice settings to help terminally ill cancer patients approach death with improved emotional and spiritual well-being,” Ross said, as CNN reported.
By Jordan Davidson | Creative Commons | EcoWatch


wakingtimes--2020-01-30--This Building Is Made From Mushrooms And It Purifies The Air

A creative organization called “ Company New Heroes ” and the biotechnology company “ Krown Design , ” have teamed up to create an incredible building made of mushrooms , which they call the “ The Growing Pavillion.
” The structure was built for Dutch Design Week , and was created entirely out of materials that grow on earth , including timber and mycelium .
Krown Design says that the team who built the structure filled molds with a hemp waste substrate where mycelium was placed to grow .
In just four days time , the mycelium is able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at which point it is dried by heat so it stops growing .
Company New Heroes creator Diana van Bokhoven said that this structure can clean the air as well .
Dutch Design Week is attended by more than 75,000 people from a variety of different professions and backgrounds , including government figures , many of whom were able to get an up-close look at the revolutionary design .
Bokhoven pointed to the unsustainability of traditional building materials like concrete , which is responsible for a high level of emissions , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly diminishing in supply , so sustainable alternatives are going to become extremely important in the years to come .
“ For now , good materials alone are not enough to make large-scale applications possible .
Think about scaling up production , appropriate regulations , innovative designers , and conscious consumers .
With The Growing Pavillion and through this atlas , we put this conversation on the world ’ s agenda and facilitate it .
This is an essential step in order to achieve the desired change in thinking and acting , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author and journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture , and focuses solutions-oriented approaches to social problems .
He is also a host of The Free Your Mind Conference and The Free Thought Project Podcast .

This Building Is Made From Mushrooms And It Purifies The Air
John Vibes, Truth Theory
Waking Times
A creative organization called “Company New Heroes” and the biotechnology company “Krown Design,” have teamed up to create an incredible building made of mushrooms, which they call the “The Growing Pavillion.”
The structure was built for Dutch Design Week, and was created entirely out of materials that grow on earth, including timber and mycelium.
Krown Design says that the team who built the structure filled molds with a hemp waste substrate where mycelium was placed to grow. In just four days time, the mycelium is able to grow enough to fill in the mold, at which point it is dried by heat so it stops growing.
Company New Heroes creator Diana van Bokhoven said that this structure can clean the air as well.
“Social challenges such as climate change, subsidence, CO2 emissions, and the scarcity of fossil fuels require new, sustainable solutions. The call for a more biobased and circular economy is becoming increasingly necessary,” Diana van Bokhoven said.
Dutch Design Week is attended by more than 75,000 people from a variety of different professions and backgrounds, including government figures, many of whom were able to get an up-close look at the revolutionary design.
Bokhoven pointed to the unsustainability of traditional building materials like concrete, which is responsible for a high level of emissions, and is actually a limited resource that is quickly diminishing in supply, so sustainable alternatives are going to become extremely important in the years to come.
“For now, good materials alone are not enough to make large-scale applications possible. Think about scaling up production, appropriate regulations, innovative designers, and conscious consumers. With The Growing Pavillion and through this atlas, we put this conversation on the world’s agenda and facilitate it. This is an essential step in order to achieve the desired change in thinking and acting,” she said.
About the Author
John Vibes is an author and journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture, and focuses solutions-oriented approaches to social problems. He is also a host of The Free Your Mind Conference and The Free Thought Project Podcast.