Over 31,000 scientists say global warming is a total hoax - against junk science

Over 31,000 scientists say global warming is a total hoax; now they’re speaking out against junk science

Over 31,000 scientists have united against the political agenda of global warming. The scientific consensus, which includes over 9,000 scientists with Ph.D.s, supports the necessity of carbon dioxide and sheds light on the agenda of global warming, which includes industrial energy rationing, central economic planning, and global taxation schemes. These scientists are now speaking out against the hoax of global warming and how global agreements to limit greenhouse gases are actually destructive to all plant and animal life on the planet.

The petition, which includes important peer-reviewed research, is backed by various scientists with a wide spectrum of expertise. The petition warns the United States about signing international treaties that only put a financial burden on the citizens of the country, steal national sovereignty, and restrict its energy production. The global warming alarmism, in other words, is pseudo-warfare designed to take down a country.

A letter from Frederick Seitz, President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, is also being circulated with the petition. The letter warns about the flawed science against carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is essentially a miracle molecule of life, not a dangerous pollutant that needs to be eradicated from the atmosphere. His letter also shines a light on the dangers of the U.S. entering global treaties which will ration energy and confiscate the Nation’s wealth.

Just because climate alarmist Al Gore can walk a stage, point to a graph, and correlate rising temperatures over oceans with a rise in greenhouse gases, does not make global warming a real issue or some kind of “settled science” that is going to destroy the planet. As the scientists point out, the vapor pressure of CO2 over sea water is temperature dependent. It’s natural for the two data sets to go up together. It’s not something to be alarmed about.

The petition urges elected leaders to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997 and all other proposals similar in nature. Thankfully, President Trump broke the U.S. free from the Paris Climate Accord. Removing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide would actually hurt the planet, taking away the compound that plants need to thrive. If carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?

The petition and its accompanying research dispel the myth that projected carbon dioxide levels are going to cause a catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and the disruption of climate. The evidence is actually in favor of greenhouse gases, which are beneficial to plant and animal environments on Earth. The petition also takes aim at the global warming agenda, and says that it will hinder the advancement of science and technology around the world. The confiscation of U.S. energy output is a threat to U.S. sovereignty and the nation’s ability to offer aid to other countries. What if climate change alarmists just took a deep breath, exhaled some carbon dioxide, and actually focused on real pollutants that are plaguing our environment and health? (Related: Read more at ClimateScienceNews.com.)

Sunlight May Reduce Risk of Nearsightedness

More Proof That Nuts Are Part of a Healthy Diet

Immunotherapy for Cancer — This Lauded Breakthrough Is Far More Dangerous Than Advertised

By Dr. Mercola

Sunlight is good for you. Seriously good for you. In fact, a new study shows that people, teens in particular, who spend time outside basking in the sun have better vision later in life.

Conversely, those who don’t get a lot of sun when they’re in their teens or early 20s can expect the opposite. The types of vision problems the study¹ showed improvement on included myopia, a type of nearsightedness.

Researchers from King's College London, the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and other universities reviewed 371 Europeans with nearsightedness, as well as 2,797 people without the condition, all 65 and older.

Each participant underwent an eye examination, had blood samples taken and had an interview about their health behaviors in previous years, primarily to estimate their exposure to ultraviolet B rays between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., and between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m.

Those with the most ultraviolet B exposure, especially when they were teenagers and young adults between 14 and 29 years old, had a 30 percent lower risk of myopia, the inability to see clearly at a distance, than those who had the lowest exposures. However, the link wasn’t meant to prove cause and effect — just an association.

The researchers wrote that myopia is becoming more and more common and is increasingly associated with complications that could ultimately threaten peoples’ eyesight, or introduce complications. They added that while exposing oneself to sunlight is actually protective, most people have no idea.

Myopia is considered a genetic problem only a mere fraction of the time, but the study authors say that while the environment appears to have something to do with it, it’s not yet clear what that is.

The Problem With Kids Today

It’s notable that 80 percent to 90 percent of youth in East Asia have problems with myopia nowadays, while in Europe as well as the U.S.,² it’s more like 40 percent to 50 percent. Research suggests that it’s more common among people who have higher education and less common with people who regularly spend time outdoors.

“Increasing the amount of time outdoors in schools in Taiwan over the past five years has led to decreases in the prevalence of myopiafor the first time in 40 years,” said Ian Morgan, Ph.D., a vision researcher and visiting fellow at Australian National University, who was not involved in the study.

A survey done in the United Kingdom (which may be a good representation of youth throughout the world) revealed not only that a fifth of the population that could be called “kids” spend zero percent of their time outdoors but, worse, that 75 percent spend less time outdoors than — get this — prison inmates. Stgist.com noted:

“The paper’s findings underline the importance of having outdoor activities especially now as humanity enjoys the so-called information technology boom, with most eyes glued to smartphones, tablet computers, laptops and so on.

It is quite obvious that this generation has a problem. Teens and young adults nowadays spend more time indoors as they are greatly engaged with their computers and other similar devices.”³

Nature.org reported the reason for this phenomenon is because, according to 80 percent of the kids, “it was uncomfortable to be outdoors due to things like bugs and heat.” Sixty percent said they had no transportation so they could travel to natural areas.

Visible Light

Factors such as climate, terrain and geographical coordinates were scrutinized in the study as well, as some climates tend to be rainy or foggy. Some areas of the world have used innovative ways to deal with mountains blocking sunlight availability.

One of the studies covered by the review concluded that there was a 2 percent decrease in the odds of ending up with myopia for every additional hour spent outdoors per week.⁴

According to U.S. News & World Report, scientists involved in the study say they aren’t sure that the present myopathy prevalence means that it’s sun exposure that has this positive effect on vision. It might actually be “visible light.” Dr. Donald Mutti, a professor at the Ohio State University College of Optometry, explained:

“UVB here seems to be a proxy for simply spending more time outside. The current thinking is that the brighter light outside stimulates a release of dopamine from the retina and that dopamine slows down the growth of the eye, preventing myopia.

Our group's work has shown that being outside only affects myopia before it occurs. Once a child needs glasses, being outside has no effect on myopia.”⁵

Mutti said he believes kids should spend more time outside, but that they should also wear sunglasses and sunscreen; however, these things have the potential to cause other more serious problems.

To Wear Sunglasses or Not

As a matter of fact, “protecting” your eyes from sunlight can actually do more harm than good, because certain wavelengths from light nourish your eyes.

Shielding them too often prevents you from absorbing sunlight that’s meant to allow full-spectrum light into your eyes, not just to be able to see but to kick in your brain’s hypothalamus gland.

Your hypothalamus could be considered your master control for everything from your blood pressure to body temperature. It’s in charge of balancing your body clock and circadian rhythm, and natural sunlight is essential to this process. Without it, your body has trouble functioning properly.

Think of it like this: Light deprivation to your eyes, aka mal-illumination, could be compared to malnutrition to your body. Not just your bare skin requires 20 minutes of sun exposure every day, your eyes need sunlight, too. Mark’s Daily Apple notes the results of one experiment:

“Researchers trying to study the link between light exposure and myopia exposed chicks to various amounts of light. Normal laboratory lighting was 500 lux, 'intense' laboratory lighting was 15,000 lux, and sunlight was 30,000 lux.

Only intense lab light and sunlight were able to retard the development of myopia, while normal lab lighting — which is still quite bright and very similar to standard office lighting conditions — did not adequately protect.”

Note that direct sunlight is ridiculously bright (up to 130,000 lux), while just being outside in 'full daylight' will provide plenty of light for your retinal dopamine labs …

Just be outdoors and the sun will take care of the rest. If you can see stuff, that means light is getting to your eyes; it’s from the sun (and thus bright enough) and you’re good to go.”⁶

Myopia in Relation to Other Eye Diseases

Nearsightedness is measured in diopters (D), the same way eyeglasses and contacts are measured. Corrections are preceded by a minus sign (-) and measured in 0.25 D increments. Myopia of -0.25 or -3.00 is considered mild, moderate can be 3.25 to -6.00 and anything higher is characterized as high.

Both medium and high myopia can be associated with “serious, vision-threatening side effects, it’s termed “degenerative” or “pathological.”

More people have this condition today than they did just 30 years ago, and the prevalence is growing both steadily and alarmingly. In fact, in the early 1970s, around 25 percent of people living in the U.S. were affected. Thirty years later, it’s jumped to 42 percent.⁷

For whatever reason, nearsightedness seems to play a role in the prevalence of other eye diseases, some of them quite serious, such as:

•Cataracts — Another study showed that cataracts, characterized as the lens of the eye becoming progressively opaque and resulting in blurred vision, tend to develop more quickly in people who have high myopathy, especially Koreans. Additionally, cataract surgery outcomes are not as successful.

•Glaucoma — A condition that causes damage to the optic nerve, glaucoma is often linked to pressure building up inside the eye. Even mild cases of myopia are associated with greater incidence of this eye disease.

An Australian study reported that nearsighted individuals are two to three times more likely to suff from glaucoma than those without myopia.

•Retinal detachment — American Journal of Epidemiology reported on a study in which scientists concluded that myopia was a “clear risk factor for retinal detachment.” All About Vision noted:

“Eyes with mild myopia had a four-fold increased risk of retinal detachment compared with non-myopic eyes. Among eyes with moderate and high myopia, the risk increased 10-fold.”

The study also noted that about 55 percent of retinal detachment cases not caused by trauma can be attributed to myopia.⁸Further, people with an elongated eye shape (axial myopia) have a 1.72 percent greater risk of this condition after cataract surgery, as opposed to .28 percent among people with a rounder eye shape.

Does the Food You Eat Have Anything to Do With Eye Health?

While experiencing moderate amounts of skin exposure to sunlight also increases your vitamin D levels, the authors of the study said it has no connection to nearsightedness. The researchers also noted:

“The recommendation for children to spend time outdoors provides an attractive option, and intervention studies are in progress. However, it remains unclear which of the numerous elements associated with time spent outdoors, such as light intensity, ultraviolet radiation (UVR) or distant focus, confers the reduced risk of myopia.”

Not just the amount of sunlight your eyes are exposed to, but also the foods you eat can affect your eyesight, now and later in life. Harvard Health lists⁹ a number of nutrients your body needs to optimize your eyesight and several foods that provide them:

• Lutein and zeaxanthin can be found in several brassica foods, such as broccoli, Brussels sprouts, collard greens, kale, Romaine lettuce, spinach, squash and eggs.
• Animal-based omega-3 fatty acids are found in the greatest concentrations in wild-caught Alaskan salmon, sardines and krill, and the plant-based variety in flaxseeds and flaxseed oil and walnuts.
• Vitamin A is found in good amounts in apricots and cantaloupe
• Vitamin C is present in grapefruit, kiwifruit, oranges, red peppers and strawberries
• Vitamin E can be found in almonds, broccoli, spinach and sunflower seeds

Singapore says Zakir Naik, Ismail Menk a threat to multiracial society

FMT Reporters

 | September 14, 2017

Minister laments worrying trend of exclusivist religious views, adding that Singapore disallowed two foreign Christian preachers from entering the island state for denigrating other religions.

SINGAPORE: Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam has raised the alarm over what he calls a “worrying trend” in the region: the rise of exclusivist views, and the influence of foreign preachers who lead young men astray.

The Straits Times (ST) quoted him as saying: “Unfortunately, in this region no one is stopping this kind of teaching.”

Praising Singapore’s Malays for their success and tolerance, Shanmugam noted that they faced many challenges today, especially radicalism and terrorism.

The ST report said he singled out Islamic preachers Zakir Naik and Ismail Menk, who have preached in the region, as being among those teaching exclusivist views.

The ST reported that Naik had said Muslims could not vote for non-Muslims, or have Christians and Jews as friends while Menk had said it was blasphemous for Muslims to greet believers of other faiths during festivals such as Christmas or Deepavali.

Both these preachers have also given speeches in Malaysia. Naik, who has been given permanent resident status by the Malaysian government, has come under fire by various groups which claim his speeches are a danger to national unity.

Naik is on the run from India as he is wanted for questioning over money laundering and terrorism-related charges.

Shanmugam said exclusivist preachers were also found in other religions, noting that the Singapore ministry of home affairs had denied entry to two foreign Christian preachers.

The home ministry said last Friday that it had rejected applications by the two Christian preachers for short-term work passes to speak in Singapore as they had made “denigrating and inflammatory comments” on other religions in the past.

Shanmugam warned that the government would take a tough stand against anyone who denigrated another race or religion.

Shanmugam was addressing about 400 Malay grassroots leaders and People’s Association staff at a dialogue on religious harmony and resilience on Sept 13 at the Grassroots’ Club.

According to the report he called on the community to stay alert for signs of radicalism, urging them to help the security agencies.

He urged grassroots leaders to help the youth understand the “multi-racial ethos” of Singapore society.

“Without the community this cannot be done, and if this is not done, we get more radicalisation. Ultimately… we will get more Islamophobia and all of us will lose. The country will lose,” the ST quoted Shanmugam as saying.

He said Singapore’s Malay/Muslim community, given the progress it had made, could be “a beacon” in the present troubled times.

Noting that the community was better educated, had more assets, and was more resilient, he added: “The Muslim society in Singapore can be an example, on tolerance, on success, on education. In every field… we can be the example. Look around at other societies in the world, how many have this kind of success.”

The ST reported that Shanmugam highlighted successful members of the community from the public and private sectors, and urged the community to continue working hard.

He told them to be confident in their culture, traditions and religion, while integrating into Singapore’s multi-racial fabric.

You CAN reverse tooth decay with ASPIRIN

Contrary to what your dentist may tell you, you CAN reverse tooth decay

 

 A recent study brings good news to people who have a sweet tooth and those who neglect to properly brush their teeth. Scientists were able to discover that teeth have the ability to reverse tooth decay; meaning, traces of such tooth damage can be totally gone, thus doing away with the necessity to undergo oral surgeries or have tooth fillings.

What would this miracle entail? Simple, researchers said. Just take a single aspirin.

“Our initial research findings in the laboratory suggest that the use of aspirin, a drug already licensed for human use, could offer an immediate innovative solution enabling our teeth to repair themselves,” principal investigator, Professor Ikhlas El Karim, a senior lecturer in the School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences at Queen’s University Belfast (QUB), said.

“Ideally, what we’re reporting here is that we’re hoping to be able to develop a therapy [so] that the teeth could repair themselves,” Karim added. (Related: Stop gum pain and tooth decay with sustainable dentistry.)

What the researchers did was collate previous research data to be able to point to aspirin as a compound that can induce the gene signature that is needed to make new dentine. Having done so, the QUB scientists treated stem cells in a Petri dish and identified “genetic and also material evidence that it can produce dentine”.

“The next step is to go and try and figure out how you are going to apply the aspirin to the teeth, to regenerate the dentine, and to replace the need for fillings. You need to put it [on the tooth] in a way that bit can be easily released over a long period of time, if you put an aspirin now on a cavity, it’s going to be washed away.

We are not encouraging that, there is a scientific way to go about this, so that we produce a final product that can be used by a dentist, not by a patient. The next step is to work with our pharmacy colleagues to try to develop a vehicle to put it in to the teeth, after the clinical trials,” Karim said.

The fact that aspirin is already a commercially-manufactured product is a boon to the dental industry’s longing to have this endeavor materialize.

“We are not really talking about 10 or 20 years time, it will probably be in the near future that it could be tried in a clinical trial with patients. This novel approach could not only increase the long-term survival of teeth, but could also result in huge savings for the [National Health Service] and other healthcare systems worldwide,” Karim concluded.

Aspirin, which is also called acetylsalicylic acid, is a drug that has been popular for many years now as an effective painkiller. It has anti-inflammatory properties, and is used to soothe headaches, menstrual cramps, and muscle pain. People can get it for merely a penny a tablet.

According to recent data, tooth decay is one among the most common tooth ailments in the world today; it affects a third of adults the world over. Also, it is the number one problem in the teeth of children who are residing in the United Kingdom.

Tooth decay happens when oral acids dissolve the enamel and dentine of the teeth, causing black holes or cavities to form within, around, or on the teeth. The oral acids are caused by bacteria that are found within the plaque – a sticky and thin film – that gets deposited in and around our teeth.

Fillings are usually used to prevent bacteria from totally ruining a single tooth by hindering the cavity from reaching the tooth’s most critical component: the pulp.

Normally, our teeth do not recuperate from the onset of cavities. If worse comes to worst, they can produce a thin band of dentine – the layer just below the enamel – if the inner dental pulp becomes exposed, but other than that they can do nothing: a large cavity cannot possibly be repaired.

Bisphenol S INCREASES the growth of breast cancer cells

BPA free substitute bisphenol S INCREASES the growth of breast cancer cells

 

 Bisphenol A (BPA) is a component of the strong, clear plastics used in the food packaging industry. However, the majority of over 1,000 studies of the chemical show its link to numerous health problems including increased risk of cancer, impaired brain development and cardiovascular issues.

BPA can also contribute to obesity, depressed immune system functioning and mood disorders. It is a known endocrine disruptor that can throw off hormonal balance in the human body, damage chromosomes and lead to birth defects and miscarriage in pregnant women. Despite this, both the BPA industry trade group the American Chemistry Council and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continually affirm BPA’s safety.

BPA free bottles just as dangerous as those made with bisphenol S

As a response to increased consumer demand for an alternative to Bisphenol A, bisphenol S (BPS) was introduced. However, BPS seems to be at least as toxic to the human system as BPA. In addition to food packaging and BPA free bottles, BPS is also used in thermal receipt paper and currency bills.

A 2013 University of Texas Medical Branch study found that even tiny concentrations of BPS (under one part per trillion) disrupt cellular functioning. This can lead to metabolic disorders such as diabetes, obesity and cancer.  Consumers believe they are safer when choosing BPA free bottles and other BPA-free products, but this is not the case.

Unfortunately, it seems that one endocrine-disrupting chemical has been traded for another.

Growth of cancer cells triggered by endocrine disruptors like BPA and BPS

A recent study has found that BPA causes the cancer cells related to breast cancer to multiply exponentially. Study co-author and Oakland University of Rochester, Michigan researcher Katie Aleck presented the new data at ENDO 2017, the Endocrine Society’s 99th annual meeting.

BPA was studied related to its effects on the BRCA1 gene and estrogen receptors. Around 60 percent of women with the BRCA1 gene mutation get breast cancer, and the majority of breast cancers are estrogen receptor positive.

BPA alternative bisphenol S increases breast cancer cell growth by 60 percent

For the study, breast cancer cells were exposed to a range of BPS concentrations as well as an inactive substance as a control. Breast cancer cells were also treated with estrogen (estradiol) and anti-estrogen drugs that block estrogen receptors in breast cancer cells.

It was determined that BPS essentially acts like estrogen in breast tissue, causing breast cancer cells to multiply much more aggressively. Even a small amount of BPA (8 micromolars) triggered a 60 percent increase in the growth of breast cancer cells.

These results add to the evidence that BPS disrupts the endocrine system just like BPA, creating serious health risks.  So, as the saying goes, let the buyer beware.  BPS in BPA free bottles and other food packaging is NOT a safer alternative to BPA.

 

Disinfecting wipes are loaded with pesticides

The choice to employ antibacterial and disinfecting wipes to clean dirty surfaces seems like a no-brainer. Not only are wipes convenient to use, fairly inexpensive and pleasantly scented, but they give the user the reassuring conviction that pathogens and dangerous microbes are being killed.

For most unsuspecting buyers of these wipes, that would seem like a win-win scenario, right? Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth!

Exposing the sickening truth about disinfecting wipes

It turns out that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates all disinfecting wipes as pesticides – because they are. If a product label makes claims towards killing, controlling, repelling, mitigating or reducing a pest – which can mean germs – it is officially a pesticide, and subject to specific regulations.

According to the National Pesticide Information Center, wipe containers that say “EPA” on the label must include specific instructions on how to use the product to kill pests – as well as first aid instructions in case of accidental exposure.

And, many disinfecting wipes include some toxic ingredients, particularly quaternary ammonium compounds – or “quats” – which can cause asthma, allergies and irritation of the skin, eyes and lungs. The words “n-Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride,” “Alkyl C12-18” and “Alkyl C12-14” are all tipoffs to the present of quats.

Another compound found in some disinfecting wipes, ortho-phenylphenyl, can cause cancer. And chlorine bleach has been linked to asthma as well.

Are your disinfecting wipes “premoistened?” If so, you can be assured that some type of chemical has been used to suppress bacterial growth in the package – including parabens, formaldehyde releasers and MI/MCI – all of which have been associated with adverse health effects.

Experts call for a sharp reduction in the use of disinfecting wipes

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) define “cleaning” as removing dirt and germs from surfaces, while “disinfecting” is the process of actively killing germs or inhibiting their growth.

And, in many cases, “cleaning” is just as effective. To the surprise of many, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has admitted that there is no evidence that cleaning with disinfectants is any better at preventing illness than cleaning with good old-fashioned soap and water.

Experts are now recommending that the use of disinfecting wipes be eliminated in standard offices and classrooms, and only used in specific areas – such as athletic mats and changing tables – or for certain situations, such as cleaning a cutting board exposed to raw meat, or wiping up bodily fluids from a contagious illness. In other words, they should only be used when their benefits will exceed their health hazards.

Children are particularly vulnerable to the hazards of pesticides in disinfecting wipes, due to their still-developing organs and smaller size. According to Healthy Schools, Inc., a non-profit organization that fosters environmental health in schools, children should never use disinfecting wipes.

Another excellent reason to avoid disinfecting wipes is the “hygiene hypothesis:” the fact that exposure to some living bacteria actually helps to strengthen the immune system. Scientists report that excessive use of disinfectants is actually contributing to the development of “superbugs” – microbes that are resistant to antibiotics.

Important to note: the rise of superbugs, such as MRSA, has been labeled a global public health crisis by the World Health Organization.

Substitute non-disinfecting wipes for routine cleaning

Instead of disinfecting wipes, you can use wet paper towels, good old fashion soap and water or essential oils in a spray bottle to clean surfaces – as well as hands.

When germs absolutely must be put on the run, experts recommend opting for certified “green” cleaning products and safer substances, such as hydrogen peroxide, lactic acid, caprylic acid and citric acid. The Environmental Working Group, a non-profit environmental organization, also advises the use of thymol – the active constituent in oil of thyme.

Of course, frequent hand-washing is one of the most effective ways to control germs and the spread of infection.

A final word of caution about disinfecting wipes

If you have to use a disinfecting wipe, keep in mind: not only are disinfecting wipes being used excessively, but experts say they are being used improperly.

Merely swiping them across a surface is not sufficient, because most disinfectants require a “dwell time” – in which they stay in contact with the surface for a full ten minutes – to effectively kill microbes.

(When’s the last time you saw anyone leave a disinfecting wipe or a cleaning product on a surface for that amount of time?)
In addition, the disinfected surface must be rinsed with water afterwards – and the object should be washed thoroughly before being used again. Disinfecting wipes should never be used on skin, and you should also wash your hands with soap and water after using them.

Finally, don’t use the same wipe on multiple surfaces – which can spread germs from one surface to another.

With an average of 20,116 cases of pesticide poisoning being treated in healthcare facilities every year, there’s no reason to expose ourselves to the hazards of even more toxins lurking in disinfecting wipes. With the exception of rare instances, it’s time to show them the door.