Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

via Big Pharma’s control over the news   

By Jon Rappoport – Dec 15, 2017
Over the last 11 months, pharmaceutical companies have spent a stunning $3.2 billion on TV ads for drugs.
That much money buys you influence.
It buys you control.
If a major network suddenly decided to set its hounds loose and investigate the overall devastating effects of medical drugs on the public, there would be hell to pay at the network.
Drug companies wouldn’t stand for it.
Robert F Kennedy, Jr., whose film, Trace Amounts, about toxic mercury in vaccines, was getting no media coverage, made this comment:
“I talked to Roger Ailes [then CEO of FOX News], who I have known since I was 17 years old, he’s very sympathetic with this issue and saw the film Trace Amounts. I said to him, ‘I just want to go on one of your shows. Nobody will allow me to talk about this or debate me.’ He said to me, ‘I can’t allow you on any of them. I’d have to fire any of my hosts that allowed you on my station.’ Because he said, ‘My news division gets up to 70% of advertising revenues during non-election years from the pharmaceutical companies’.”
That’s called control.
There is a wider sphere to consider.
Through octopus foundations like Rockefeller and Gates, for example, the medical/pharma agenda is part and parcel of the Globalist agenda.
That is key.
Gathering in the world population under the umbrella of “humanitarian health care” is a covert op of the highest order.
How can you control billions of people, erase national borders, destroy untold numbers of communities and their traditions, wage senseless wars, send millions of jobs out of industrial countries to Third World backwaters, and build a de facto global management system—unless you can also debilitate, weaken, confuse, toxify, and thus pacify those billions of people?
Accomplishing this is the work of the pharmaceutical empire.
I have produced, many times, open-source mainstream reviews of the death and damage numbers wrought by “Rockefeller medicine.”
In the US, 106,000 deaths every year from government-approved medicines.
In the US and Europe, 330,000 die, every year, from correctly prescribed drugs.
6.6 million hospitalizations occur.
80 million adverse effects occur.
These are conservative estimates.
So…what is the likelihood that pharma-controlled mainstream news will dig deeply into the issue of Globalism, the major tyrannical movement of our time?
The likelihood is zero.
The influence of pharmaceutical interests on the news is, therefore, much greater than most people can fathom, in their wildest dreams.
Most people, when confronted with these pharmaceutical death-and-destruction reports, will immediately dismiss them as impossible.
Others, who accept the reports, will claim the “unfortunate” facts show no intention to harm whatsoever.
However, the reports are public knowledge.
They’ve been available to one and all.
Government officials—and particularly, pharma princes—know the truth.
And they’re doing nothing about it.
This is called a clue.
If you were in charge of a juggernaut operation that was causing this much horrific damage, and you knew it, would you stand by and let it keep happening?
Would you foster the development of new drugs whose effects would only add to the ongoing tragedy?
And would you exert such powerful control over major media that the truth could not be told?
I didn’t think so.
The pharma princes are not like you.
You can’t see who they are if you look through the lens of your morality.
They don’t share that morality.
They don’t resemble you.
Don’t ascribe your qualities to them.
They don’t respond to life as you do.
Their capacity for self-deception is awesome.
Your good is not their good.
It is as if they were born freezing and never recovered.
They come from an Ice Age and their blood is still cold.
They are rigid robots.
Muscular truth can take them down.
Here’s A Taste OF Life In Big Pharma Run America…Who Do You Really Think Is the Big Guns Behind The Killing Of Net Neutrality?
Ric A Ohge Aka Rex 12/14/17
Alternative Media [We Critically Thinking “Conspiracy Theorists” Purveying AND Posting “Fake News”] Are Panning Their Prescriptions, Outing Their Corruption, Outing Vaccines, Promoting Healthy Food, Herbs, And Natural Cures, Promoting Cannabis, Exposing Their Tricks And Leading People Away From Their Influence By Opening Up And Promoting New Forms Of INDEPENDENT Information, News And Entertainment Media On The Web They Can’t Load With Their Omnipresent Commercial Assault Of Cigarette Science Lies.
Big Ag Monsanto And Bff’s]Own The Majority Of Companies That Produce Organic Foods, So THEY Win Either Way That Wind Of Fortune Blows…Banks Get Money From Doing ANY Business, Wall Street Gains From ANY Investment-And Tax Reduction Doesn’t Matter To Any Of Them, As They Continue To Send It All Off-Shore Mostly Unchallenged.
But If People Get Well, Eat Healthy, And Heal Naturally, THEY STAND TO Lose BIG TIME…And Where Do YOU Think Folks Have LEARNED HOW TO DO All THAT?
Just Saying…

Jon Rappoport's Blog

Two huge current vaccine scandals the press isn’t covering

by Jon Rappoport

December 13, 2017

The old question about a tree falling in the forest is relevant here. Does the tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it?

If a scandal erupts and the press doesn’t cover it, is it a scandal?

If this sounds strange, consider that, since the dawn of time, whatever has passed for mainstream news has substituted for the direct observation of events by humans. The press has functioned as the eyes and ears and even mouths of the public.

If someone tells you, “I am your eyes, trust me,” and then they fail, on purpose, to see something vital, where are you if you trust them? You’re blind.

Two giant vaccine scandals are in progress at the moment. The mainstream press is mentioning them, here and there, but without any intent…

View original post 783 more words

The collapse of major media

Posted: December 11, 2017 in Uncategorized

Jon Rappoport's Blog

The collapse of major media

by Jon Rappoport

December 11, 2017

As I indicated in a recent article, the B-team, or even the C-team, is now heading up the national evening news in America. These anchors’ faces and voices (Muir, Glor, and Holt) are not even faint reminders of the so-called Golden Age, when father figures like Cronkite and Reasoner fed official truth into the brains of viewers. The new C-team is vague gloss from a paint job on a used car. This is an ominous sign for the news bosses in the upstairs suites. They can’t find adequate hypnotists anymore.

What happened?

Many things—among them, the father figures left the fold. They decided to sell real estate or take corporate work in PR. They saw the handwriting on the wall: the networks were fostering a youth movement, seeking younger and prettier talent. Why? Because Madison Avenue was convinced…

View original post 761 more words

via The evening news and the gunslinger called Trump

By Jon Rappoport - 12/08/17

Every television newscast: staged reality
The news is all about manipulating the context of stories. 

The thinner the context, the thinner the mind must become to accept it. If you want to visualize this, imagine a rectangular solid. 

The news covers the top surface. 

Therefore, the mind is trained to work in only two dimensions. 

Then it can’t fathom depth, and it certainly can’t appreciate the fact that the whole rectangular solid moves through time, the fourth dimension.

Focus on the network evening news. 

This is where the staging is done well.

First, we have the studio image itself, the colors in foreground and background, the blend of restful and charged hues. 

The anchor and his/her smooth style.

Then we have the shifting of venue from the studio to reporters in the field, demonstrating the reach of coverage: the planet. 

As if this equals authenticity.

Actually, those reporters in the field rarely dig up information on location. 

A correspondent standing on a rooftop in Cairo could just as well be positioned in a bathroom in a Las Vegas McDonald’s. 

His report would be identical.

The managing editor, usually the elite news anchor, chooses the stories to cover and has the final word on their sequence.

The anchor goes on the air: “Our top story tonight, more signs of gridlock today on Capitol Hill, as legislators walked out of a session on federal budget negotiations…”

The viewer fills in the context for the story: “Oh yes, the government. Gridlock is bad. Just like traffic on the I-5. A bad thing. We want the government to get something done, but they aren’t. These people are always arguing with each other. They don’t agree. They’re in conflict. Yes, conflict, just like on the cop shows.”

The anchor: “The Chinese government reports the new flu epidemic has spread to three provinces. Forty-two people have already died, and nearly a hundred are hospitalized…”

The viewer again supplies context, such as it is: “Flu. Dangerous. Epidemic. Could it arrive here? Get my flu shot.”

The anchor: “A new university study states that gun owners often stock up on weapons and ammunition…”

The viewer: “People with guns. Why do they need a dozen weapons? I don’t need a gun. The police have guns. Could I kill somebody if he broke into the house?”

The anchor: “Doctors at Yale University have made a discovery that could lead to new treatments in the battle against autism…”

Viewer: “That would be good. More research. Laboratory. The brain.”

If, at the end of the newscast, the viewer bothered to review the stories and his own reactions to them, he would realize he’d learned nothing. 

But reflection is not the game.

In fact, the flow of the news stories has washed over him and created very little except a sense of (false) continuity.

Therefore, every story on the news broadcast achieves the goal of keeping the context thin—night after night, year after year. 

The overall effect of this staging is: small viewer’s mind, small viewer’s understanding.

Next we come to words over pictures. 

More and more, news broadcasts are using the rudimentary film technique of a voice narrating what the viewer is seeing on the screen.

People are shouting and running and falling in a street. 

The anchor or a field reporter says: “The country is in turmoil. Parliament has suspended sessions for the third day in a row, as the government decides what to do about uprisings aimed at forcing democratic elections…”

Well, the voice must be right, because we’re seeing the pictures. 

If the voice said the riots were due to garbage-pickup cancellations, the viewer would believe that, too.

We see Building #7 of the WTC collapse. 

Must have been the result of a fire. 

The anchor tells us so. 

Words over pictures.

Staged news.

It mirrors what the human mind, in an infantile state, is always doing: looking at the world and seeking a brief summary to explain what that world is, at any given moment.

Since the dawn of time, untold billions of people have been urging a “television anchor” to “explain the pictures.”

The news gives them that precise solution, every night.

“Well, Mr. Jones,” the doctor says, as he pins X-rays to a screen in his office. “See this? Right here? We’ll need to start chemo immediately, and then we may have to remove most of your brain, and as a follow-up, take out one eye.”

Sure, why not? 

The patient saw the pictures and the anchor explained them.

Eventually, people get the idea and do it for themselves. 

They see things, they invent one-liners to explain them.

They’re their own anchors. 

They short-cut and undermine their own experience with vapid summaries of what it all means.

And then, of course, when the news cuts to commercial, the fake products take over:

“Well, every night they’re showing the same brand names, so those brands must be better than the unnamed alternatives.”

Which devolves into: “I like this commercial better than that commercial. This is a great commercial. Let’s have a contest and vote on the best commercial.”

For “intelligent” viewers, there is another sober mainstream choice in America, a safety valve: PBS. 

That newscast tends to show more pictures from foreign lands.

“Yes, I watch PBS because they understand the planet is interconnected. It isn’t just about America. That’s good.”

Sure it’s good, if you want the same thin-context or false-context reporting on events in other countries. 

Instead of the two minutes NBC might give you about momentous happenings in Syria, PBS will give you four minutes.

PBS’ experts seem kinder and gentler. 

“They’re nice and they’re more relaxed. I like that.”

Yes, the PBS experts are taking Valium, and they’re not drinking as much coffee as the CBS experts.

Anchors deliver the long con every night on the tube, between commercials.


They’re marketing thin context.

There are various forms of mind control. 

The one I’m describing here—the thinning of context—is universal. 

It confounds the mind by pretending depth doesn’t exist and is merely a fantasy.

The mind, before it is trained away from it, is always interested in depth.

Another way of putting it: the mind naturally wants more space, not less. 

Only constant conditioning can change this.

Eventually, when you say “mind,” people think you’re referring to the brain, or they don’t know what you’re talking about at all.

Mind control by eradicating the concept of mind.

That’s quite a trick.

But now, on the national evening news, something has changed. 

The quality of the elite anchors has plummeted. 

These mind-control pros are less and less capable of delivering: the voice of authority.

In the old days, you had Water Cronkite, Harry Reasoner, Chet Huntley, Tom Brokaw, and (before he crashed and burned) Dan Rather. 

Big-time fakers.

Eventually, this devolved into a B-team of bench players: Dianne Sawyer, Brian Williams, Scott Pelley. 

Less believable—but still fairly effective.

However, now, at the three major networks, it’s androids on parade. 

Two pretty boys, David Muir and Jeff Glor, and the NBC cadaver, Lester Holt.

The ship is sinking.

Instead of trying to label their competition Fake News, the networks should look to themselves and try to figure out why they can’t find father figures to deliver their no-context broadcasts.

The audience is wising up. 

The correct notes on the scale of mind control aren’t being struck.

The system is falling apart.

When I named this site No More Fake News 16 years ago, I could see a fatigue factor setting in—not only in the mainstream news audience, but in the networks themselves. 

They were playing out the string, hoping to coast on their prior reputations. 

They weren’t just putting their viewers to sleep (their covert goal), they were slowly falling asleep themselves.

In the following years, the situation grew worse. 

The networks were moving on auto-pilot.

And now, they’re reaching the end of the line. 

They’re focusing on the only story that can deliver them ratings: Trump.

They fear him, they hate him—and they love him, because he gives them the numbers that justify their advertising rates with sponsors.

It’s always problematical when the only thing maintaining your survival is your enemy. 

Especially an enemy whose whole method of attack is to accuse you of subverting your basic mission, which is telling the truth.

And it’s far worse when he’s right.

No matter what you think of Trump, he’s delivering hammer blows to the foundation of network news.

I’ve been aware of every president since Roosevelt, and nothing like this has happened in that time span. 

A sitting president is virulently going up against The News. 

Not just the content—which would be bad enough—but the people delivering it.

Since the dawn of time on this planet, news has been controlled, for good reason. 

It’s the source of supposed fact. Important objective fact. 

The people who own the news have therefore been able to paint an overall portrait of reality for the masses. 

Which has been their intent.

In this age of science, the news has donned that cloak. 

“We’re recording events in the lab. We only relay confirmed results, checked and double-checked.”

And now this crazy cowboy hustler comes along, swaggers into the spotlight, and demeans the whole enterprise. 


And millions of people, who have long believed that very thing in the recesses of their minds, sit up straight in their couches and say THAT’S RIGHT!

Overnight, the situation turns surreal.

Up is down, down is up.

The bull is wandering through the china shop, deciding which object to crash next.

Naturally, the networks call him crazy, mentally ill, unfit for office, a Russian agent—while they’re reaping ratings from going to war with him. 

They have to strike back, and it‘s good for their desperate business to do so.

Whether Trump is, in fact, unfit for office is beside the point of the war.

The truth about Trump, whatever it may be, went out the window a long time ago. 

It was never in the house.

As the network news business was in a long slide from its former prominence, Trump showed up and stepped on its neck and ground in his heel. Impolitely, he spat in its face.

If you think the total effect was to draw people to Trump’s side, or to the networks’ side, think again.

People began swimming out of their hypnotic attachment to The News. 

The spell broke. 


The swaggering gunslinger was showing up in their living rooms, accusing and laughing and setting off explosions.

And yes, you can separate that from everything else Trump has been doing or not doing, saying or not saying, committing or not committing.

And you should.

Because The News is supposed to be the ears and eyes and mouth and brain of the public.

And now—for several reasons, Trump very much included—it no longer is.

Which is a good thing, a very good thing.

Even if your hatred of Donald Trump knows no bounds.

Desultory Heroics

By Sheldon Greaves

Source: Cogito!

A few years ago I read somewhere about a trend in the “gig economy” in which people who had been reduced to living in their cars or RVs roamed the country by the thousands; homeless, nomadic workers driving from one temporary job to another. It painted a tragic picture; underpaid, overworked, often lacking health insurance, men and women, many of whom ought to be enjoying retirement but were working in warehouses filling orders for Amazon (“Camperforce”) or stocking shelves in a big-box store.

It sharply reminded me of the Great Depression, another time when mobile workers moved from place to place across the country in search of work. Thinking about this I realized that what we were seeing was the return of the migrant worker apart from the seasonal farm worker, i.e., the Hobo. Also called Tramps, Bums and other less charitable names, these…

View original post 809 more words

Posted: November 29, 2017 in Uncategorized
Study: Can Toxic Aluminum By Removed From the Body By Drinking Water Containing SILICON? [IMPORTANT-So I’m Combining Parts I & II Plus An Article With Additional Details-Ric/Rex:]
By Jon Rappoport – 11/29/17

Part-1: Super-High Levels Of Toxic Aluminum FOUND In The Brains Of Autistic Patients-Aluminum IS Present In Many [Read: MOST-Ric/Rex] VACCINES – By Jon Rappoport – 11/28/17

Here I am printing the abstract of a new study: “Aluminium in brain tissue in autism.”
The publication is Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology.

The authors of the study are associated with The Birchall Centre, Lennard-Jones Laboratories, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK; Life Sciences, Keele University; and the Department of Clinical Neuropathology, Kings College Hospital, London, UK.

From what I can see, the full text of the study has not been published yet.

I’m interested to know exactly how the study authors obtained brain tissue samples from patients.

The findings?

Shockingly high levels of aluminum were found in these brain samples.

It’s widely acknowledged that aluminum can enter the brain and disrupt its functions.

Of course, aluminum is present in many vaccines.

Here is the abstract of the study.

I’ve put several statements in caps for emphasis:

“Autism spectrum disorder is a neurodevelopmental disorder of unknown aetiology. It is suggested to involve both genetic susceptibility and environmental factors including in the latter environmental toxins.

Human exposure to the environmental toxin aluminium has been linked, if tentatively, to autism spectrum disorder.

Herein we have used transversely heated graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry to measure, for the first time, the aluminium content of brain tissue from donors with a diagnosis of autism.

We have also used an aluminium-selective fluor to identify aluminium in brain tissue using fluorescence microscopy.


The mean (standard deviation) aluminium content across all 5 individuals for each lobe were 3.82(5.42), 2.30(2.00), 2.79(4.05) and 3.82(5.17) μg/g dry wt. for the occipital, frontal, temporal and parietal lobes respectively.


Aluminium-selective fluorescence microscopy was used to identify aluminium in brain tissue in 10 donors [10 donors or 5, as mentioned above?].

While aluminium was imaged associated with neurones it appeared to be present intracellularly in microglia-like cells and other inflammatory non-neuronal cells in the meninges, vasculature, grey and white matter.

The pre-eminence of intracellular aluminium associated with non-neuronal cells was a standout observation in autism brain tissue and may offer clues as to both the origin of the brain aluminium as well as a putative role in autism spectrum disorder.”

The study authors mention “clues.”

What about the many aluminum-containing childhood vaccines now on official schedules? writes:

“What does this mean for today’s generation of children who receive 5,000 mcg of aluminum in vaccines by the age of 18 months and up to 5,250 additional mcg if all recommended boosters, HPV and meningitis vaccines are administered.”

This might well constitute a “clue,” pointing to where at least some of that highly toxic aluminum in autistic brains comes from.

As “the experts” deny this vaccine-aluminum-autism connection, I would suggest they back up their “science” by stepping forward themselves and taking ALL the vaccines on the official schedule, including boosters, in order to catch up with their shots.

They should do this in the limited time recommended by public health agencies.

After all, if aluminum (and other toxic substances) in vaccines aren’t a problem, what do they have to lose?

They’re desperate to mandate the full load of vaccines for every man, woman, and child—so they should start with themselves.
Otherwise, they have no standing to make claims.

Neither do “science bloggers” who embrace every official mainstream study as if it were manna from heaven.

To them, I offer the following quotes from two famous medical-journal editors, who have pored over more studies than these bloggers have dreamed of.

Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, in the NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption”:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.

I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

Here is Richard Horton (another pro’s pro), editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.

Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming.

In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world.

Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data.

Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too.

We aid and abet the worst behaviours.

Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals.

Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants.

Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…”

I want to see more on the new study showing shocking levels of aluminum in autistic people.

I want to see funding provided to other researchers—INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS with no ties to drug companies or government agencies—so they can follow up on the new study and come to their own conclusions.

And I want to see common sense applied to aluminum toxicity.

As in: why would anyone want to inject children with a known neurotoxin?

Would you be willing to spin the roulette wheel on YOUR child’s life and future and brain?
Well, would you?

Part-2: [Study: Can Toxic Aluminum By Removed From the Body By Drinking Water Containing SILICON?]

I’m not recommending a treatment for aluminum here. 

I’m reporting on a very interesting preliminary study.

First of all, there is widespread agreement that aluminum is a neurotoxin.
Whether it enters the body through vaccination, environmental pollution, geoengineering, or any other route, it can pass through the blood-brain barrier and wreak havoc.
The study I’m quoting is, “Silicon-rich mineral water as a non-invasive test of the ‘aluminum hypothesis’ in Alzheimer’s disease.” (The citation is J Alzheimers Dis. 2013;33(2):423-30. doi: 10.3233/JAD-2012-121231. PMID 22976072)
Here is the abstract. 

I’ve highlighted key passages in caps:


We contend that the only direct and ethically acceptable experimental test of the ‘aluminum hypothesis’, which would provide unequivocal data specific to the link, is to test the null hypothesis that a reduction in the body burden of aluminum to its lowest practical limit would have no influence upon the incidence, progression, or severity of Alzheimer’s disease.

Herein we are testing the hypothesis that silicon-rich mineral waters can be used as non-invasive methods to reduce the body burden of aluminum in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease and a control group consisting of their carers and partners.
WE HAVE SHOWN THAT DRINKING UP TO 1 L [LITER] OF A SILICON-RICH WATER EACH DAY FOR 12 WEEKS FACILITATED THE REMOVAL OF ALUMINUM via the urine in both patient and control groups without any concomitant affect upon the urinary excretion of the essential metals, iron and copper.

This is a first step in a much needed rigorous test of the ‘aluminum hypothesis of Alzheimer’s disease’ and a longer term study involving many more individuals is now warranted.”

The reduction of aluminum in the body, plus improved cognitive ability in several patients in this small group, is a promising start.

Obviously, the cost is very low, because we’re talking about water.

If this study had used a drug, you would have read about it in the mainstream press.

The drug company would have trumpeted the results as a potential breakthrough.

But pharmaceutical companies, and their medical and press and government allies, put up barriers against all natural solutions…
An historical example—Consider Pellagra.
In the first half of the 20th century, in the US, there were three million cases. 100,000 people died.
Researchers at health agencies insisted there had to be germ at the bottom of it.
They looked and looked and looked.
Meanwhile, other researchers found out Pellagra was mainly a deficiency of niacin.
They were pushed into the background.
“A bunch of whackos. Pay no attention to them.”
Finally, after 100,000 deaths, most of which were unnecessary, the “experts” grudgingly admitted, “Yes, it’s niacin.”



And Finally A Recent Article Outlining More About The DETOXIFICATION Process For Aluminum Toxicity:

3 Mineral Waters That Can Remove Aluminum From The Brain – By DailyHealthPost – March 17, 2016

Aluminum is everywhere : from tap water to most food products (including baby formula) and cookware to even the air you breathe.

And while multiple studies have labelled the metal as a carcinogen, other still debate whether or not it can be classified as a neurotoxin.

However, research has shown time and time again over the last 50 years that aluminum exposure causes neurofibrillary tangles, the same twisted proteins found in brain cells of patients with Alzheimer’s disease.

This is because exposure to airborne, topically applied or ingested aluminium makes its way into your blood stream and through your iron transport system and straight to your brain.

It can completely bypass the body’s natural toxin barriers.
While your digestive tract can remove great quantities of the metal, a small portion still accumulates in tissues with a slow cellular turnover, like in the brain, bones and heart.

Dangers of Aluminum Toxicity

Not surprisingly, it’s been linked to Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, MS, chronic fatigue and other neurological or auto-immune diseases.
It’s been suggested that it may even contribute to learning disabilities such as autism.

And since Alzheimer’s has no medical cure, scientist have gone to great lengths to find creative ways to manage the disease.

One of the most surprising potential treatments they found was mineral water.

Silica, a mineral commonly found in mineral water was found to reduce risk of dementia.

10 mg/day was enough to reduce oral absorption of aluminum, enhance aluminum excretion through urine and protect against aluminum-induced adverse effects.

Mineral Water To Detox Aluminum

As reported by Daily Mail, professor Christopher Exley, of Keele University, led a research on how to apply this knowledge in real-life applications.

The study followed 15 patients with Alzheimer’s as they drank a liter silica-rich Malaysian water called ‘Spritzer’ every day for 13 weeks.
Over the course of the study, their cognitive decline came to a halt and the aluminum levels in their bodies dropped by up to 70%.
Three participants even showed an improvement in their mental health.
He said: ‘There were two parts to our research. The first is that drinking silicon water does remove aluminum from the body. When you drink silicon-rich mineral water aluminium throughout the body is gathered up into the blood and then excreted through the urine. We now know we can use this silicon-rich “therapy” water to reduce aluminum.’
‘The most interesting thing was that we did see this potential relationship between the removal of aluminum and the positive improvement in cognitive function.’
‘The second part of our research was looking at the cognitive abilities of people with Alzheimer’s and whether these changed as the aluminum was reduced.’
While the mineral water studied contained 35mg of silicon per liter, it can be hard to find in North American stores.
Similar available brands include ‘Volvic’ which has 20mg/liter and Fiji water, which contains 45mg/liter.

Foods Naturally High In Silica:

Oats, 100g – 595mg
Millet 100g – 500mg
Barley 100g – 233mg
Potatoes 100g – 200mg
Jerusalem artichoke 100g – 36mg
Red beets 100g – 21mg
Asparagus 100g – 18mg
Banana (yellow, peeled), 250g – 13.60mg
Green beans (cooked), 250g – 6.10mg
Carrot (raw, peeled), 200g – 4.58mg
Brown rice, 200g – 4.14mg

Quick Facts About Silica:

1. Silica is short for silicon dioxide
2. Silica is also called silicon and is a natural substance while silicone is a man-made industrial substance which is popularly used in breast enlargement operations
3. Silica is present in soil, plants and water
4. Silica has a similar healing effect on cartilage and joint degeneration as sulphur
5. Silica is important for the health of hair, skin and nails
6. Silica is needed by the body to make the connective tissue collagen

Turmeric For Protection

7. Another great natural solution is curcumin, which protects against aluminum-induced damage by fighting oxidative stress.
It also decreases beta-amyloid plaques found in the brain of sufferers and soothes inflamed brain tissue.
The spice even improves memory function in Alzheimer’s patients.
Simply add a teaspoon into your glass of mineral water to keep your brain sharp.
If you don’t like the combination, drink mineral water throughout the day and yummy golden milk at night.

It’s Time To Call The Housing CRISIS What It IS-The LARGEST Transfer Of WEALTH In LIVING HISTORY!

Posted By Luther Blissett – By Laurie 11/21/17

One of the basic claims of capitalism is that people are rewarded in line with their effort and productivity. 

Another is that the economy is not a zero sum game. 

The beauty of a capitalist economy, we are told, is that people who work hard can get rich without making others poorer.

But how does this stack up in modern Britain, the birthplace of capitalism and many of its early theorists? 

Last week, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) released new data tracking how wealth has evolved over time. []

On paper, the UK has indeed become much wealthier in recent decades. 

Net wealth has more than tripled since 1995, increasing by over £7 trillion. 

This is equivalent to an average increase of nearly £100,000 per person. Impressive stuff. 

But where has all this wealth come from, and who has it benefited?

Just over £5 trillion, or three quarters of the total increase, is accounted for by increase in the value of dwellings – another name for the UK housing stock. 

The Office for National Statistics explains that this is “largely due to increases in house prices rather than a change in the volume of dwellings.” 

This alone is not particularly surprising. 

We are forever told about the importance of ‘getting a foot on the property ladder’. 

The housing market has long been viewed as a perennial source of wealth.

But the price of a property is made up of two distinct components: the price of the building itself, and the price of the land that the structure is built upon. 

This year the ONS has separated out these two components for the first time, and the results are quite astounding.

In just two decades the market value of land has quadrupled, increasing recorded wealth by over £4 trillion. 

The driving force behind rising house prices — and the UK’s growing wealth — has been rapidly escalating land prices.

For those who own property, this has provided enormous benefits. 

According to the Resolution Foundation, homeowners born in the 1940s and 1950s gained an unearned windfall of £80,000 between 1993 and 2014 alone. []

In the early 2000s, house price growth was so great that 17% of working-age adults earned more from their house than from their job. []

Last week The Times reported that during the past three months alone, baby boomers converted £850 million of housing wealth into cash using equity release products – the highest number since records began. []

A third used the money to buy cars, while more than a quarter used it to fund holidays. 

Others are choosing to buy more property: the Chartered Institute of Housing has described how the buy-to-let market is being fueled by older households using their housing wealth to buy more property, renting it out to those who are unable to get a foot on the property ladder. 

And it is here that we find the dark side of the housing boom. []

As house prices have continued to increase and the gap between house prices and earnings has grown larger, the cost of home ownership has become increasingly prohibitive. 

Whereas in the mid-1990s low and middle income households could afford a first time buyer deposit after saving for around 3 years, today it takes the same households 20 years to save for a deposit. 


Many have increasingly found themselves with little choice but to rent privately. 

For those stuck in the private rental market, the proportion of income spent on housing costs has risen from around 10% in 1980 to 36% today. []

Unlike homeowners, there is no asset wealth to draw on to fund new cars or holidays.

In Britain, we have yet to confront the truth about the trillions of pounds of wealth amassed through the housing market in recent decades: this wealth has come straight out of the pockets of those who don’t own property.

When the value of a house goes up, the total productive capacity of the economy is unchanged because nothing new has been produced: it merely constitutes an increase in the value of the land underneath. 

We have known since the days of Adam Smith and David Ricardo that land is not a source of wealth, but of economic rent — a means of extracting wealth from others. 

Or as Joseph Stiglitz puts it “getting a larger share of the pie rather than increasing the size of the pie”. []

The truth is that much of the wealth accumulated in recent decades has been gained at the expense of those who will see more of their incomes eaten up by higher rents and larger mortgage payments. 

This wealth hasn’t been ‘created’ – it has been stolen from future generations.

House prices are now on average nearly eight times that of incomes, more than double the figure of 20 years ago. []

It’s unlikely that house prices will be able to outpace incomes at the same rate for the next 20 years. 

The past few decades have spawned a one-off transfer of wealth that is unlikely to be repeated. 

While the main beneficiaries of this have been the older generations, eventually this will be passed on to the next generation via inheritance or transfer. 

Already the ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ has become the ninth biggest mortgage lender. []

The ultimate result is not just a growing inter-generational divide, but an entrenched class divide between those who own property (or have a claim to it), and those who do not.

Misleading accounting and irresponsible economics have provided cover for this heist. 

The government’s national accounts record house price growth as new wealth, ignoring the cost it imposes on others in society – particularly young people and those yet to be born. 

Economists still hail house price inflation as a sign of economic strength.

The result is a world which is rather different to that described in economics textbooks. 

Most of today’s ‘wealth’ isn’t the result of entrepreneurialism and hard work – it has been accumulated by being idle and unproductive. 

Far from the positive sum game capitalism is supposed to be, we have a system where most wealth is gained at the expense of others. 

As John Stuart Mill wrote back in 1848:

“If some of us grow rich in our sleep, where do we think this wealth is coming from?  It doesn’t materialise out of thin air. It doesn’t come without costing someone, another human being. It comes from the fruits of others’ labours, which they don’t receive.”

Britain’s housing crisis is complicated mess. 

Fixing it requires a long-term plan and a bold new approach to policy. []

But in the meantime let’s start calling it what it really is: the largest transfer of wealth in living memory.