Discussing Climate Change, uh Global Warming, uh Global Cooling… Whatever

The Fraud of ‘Global Warming’

Taking Aim at One of the Most Pervasive Lies of the Modern Age

In a recent article, Defeating the Depopulation Agenda, I took aim at an insidious ideology which has infiltrated society in the form of a movement to ‘protect nature from humanity’.

In that feature, we reviewed how those forces behind this revival of the pagan Gaia earth mother cults of ancient times were directly connected to the Anglo-Dutch royal families- with explicit focus on Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (‘former SS officer) and Prince Philip Mountbatten.

While I received much positive feedback from readers who appreciated gettting greater clarity to the cultish Gaia worship underlying the eco-imperial agenda which has infested so much of our western education, cultural and even religious institutions… something was missing.

In this article, I will attempt to address that missing ingredient which will involve a summary appreciation of the fraud of climate science per se which has perverted science itself, around a statistical mode of analysis designed to frame a wonderful molecule named carbon dioxide for genocide.

After introducing a rehabilitation and defense of CO2, I will end with some basic facts about the essentials of a true climate science premised around astro-climatology and the actual galactic forces shaping earth’s climate.


Development Greens the Earth

Many people were taken aback by the findings published by a team of scientists analyzing the results of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instruments on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.

NASA’s website[5] described the findings (published on February 11, 2019[1]) in the following way:

“The research team found that global green leaf area has increased by 5 percent since the early 2000s, an area equivalent to all of the Amazon rainforests. At least 25 percent of that gain came in China.”

Up until this study’s publication, scientists were not certain what role human economic activity played in this anomalous greening of the earth.

The NASA study demonstrated that this dramatic rate of greening between 2000-2017 was being driven largely by China and India’s combined efforts at eradicating poverty, which involves both reforestation, desert greening efforts (see China’s Move South Water North megaproject[2]), agricultural innovation and also, general industrial growth policies.

The later policies represent genuine efforts by Asian nations to wipe out poverty by investments into large scale infrastructure… a practice once used in the west before the days of “post-industrialism” induced a collective insanity of consumerism in the early 1970s.

A perplexed reader might now be heard to ask: but how can industrial growth have anything to do with greening of the planet?

One simple answer is: carbon dioxide.


CO2: An Innocent Victim Framed for Genocide


As children, we are taught that CO2 is an integral part of our ecosystem and that plants love it.

The processes of photosynthesis, which evolved over long spans of time with the advent of the chlorophyll molecule eons ago requires constant infusions of carbon dioxide that are broken down along with H2O, releasing oxygen back into the biosphere. Over time, free oxygen slowly formed the earth’s ozone layer and fueled the rise of ever higher life forms that relied on this “plant waste” for life.

Today, large amounts of carbon dioxide is regularly generated by biotic and abiotic activity from living animals, decaying biomass as well as volcanos which constantly emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases. A surprisingly small portion of that naturally occurring CO2 is caused by human economic activity.

Taking the entire composition of greenhouse gases together, water vapour makes up 95% of the bulk, carbon dioxide makes up 3.6%, nitrous oxide (0.9%), methane (0.3%), and aerosols about 0.07%.

Of the sum total of the 3.6% carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, approximately 0.9% is caused by human activity.

To restate this statistic: Human CO2 makes up less than 1% of the 3.6% of the total greenhouse gases influencing our climate.

During the mid-20th century, a belief began to emerge among some fringe climate scientists that the 400 parts per million (PPM) average carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the “natural and ideal amount”, such that any upset of this mathematical average would supposedly result in destruction of biodiversity.

These same mathematicians also presumed that the biosphere could be defined as closed systems, such that rules of entropy were the natural organizing principles- ignoring the obvious fact that ecosystems are OPEN, connected to oceans of active cosmic radiations from other stars, galaxies, supernova and more, while being mediated by nested arrays of electromagnetic fields.

As film maker Adam Curtis demonstrated in his, All Watched Over By Machines of Love and Grace (2011)[3], this belief slowly moved from the fringe into mainstream thinking despite the fact that it is simply wrong.

Beyond the facts already presented above, another persuasive piece of evidence can be found in carbon dioxide generators that are commonly purchased by anyone managing a greenhouse[4]. These widely-used generators increase CO2 to amounts as high as 1,500 PPM.

What is the effect of such increases?

Healthier, happier, greener plants and vegetables.


Temperature and CO2: Who Leads in this Dance?

Amidst the frantic alarms sounding daily over the impending climate emergency threatening the world, we often forget to ask if anyone ever actually proved the claim that CO2 drives the climate.

To begin to answer this question, let’s start with a graph showcasing the rise of human industrial CO2 from 1751-2015 broken down into various regions of the earth. What we can see is consistent increase from the mid 19th century until 1950, when a vast spike of emission rate increases can be viewed.

This increase obviously accompanies world population growth and the correlated agro-industrial output.

Next, let us look at the global mean temperature changes from 1880-present.

Here, several anomalies strike the thinking mind.

For starters, absolutely no warming accompanies the period of intensive industrial growth of 1940-1977. In fact during this period, many climate scientists were ringing the alarm over an impending ice age![5]

Another anomaly: Since carbon dioxide emissions have increased continuously over the past 20 years, one would expect to see a correlated spike in warming trends; however, this expected correlation is entirely absent between the year 1998 and 2012, when warming tappers off to a near standstill, sometimes called “the global warming pause” of 1998-2012[6]. This has been an embarrassment for all modellers whose scare-mongering predictions have fallen to pieces to the point that they can only pretend this pause doesn’t exist.

Again, the question must be asked: why would this anomaly appear if CO2 drove temperature?

Let’s take one more anomaly from our temperature records before digging into the hard proof that CO2 does not cause temperature changes: The medieval warming period [see graph].

While certain proven fraudsters like Michael Mann[7] have attempted to erase this warming period from existence with things like the famous “hockey stick” model, crafted with the help of East Anglia’s Phil Jones, the fact remains that from 1000-1350 A.D. global mean temperatures were significantly warmer than anything we are currently living through.

The Vikings in Greenland had no coal plants or SUVs, and yet, mean temperatures were still warmer than today by a long shot.

Why?

Perhaps taking a wider look at the CO2:climate correlation might give us a better idea of what is actually happening.

Below, we can see a chart taking 600,000 years of data into account.

It is certainly the case that CO2 and temperature have a connection on these scales… but correlation is not causation, and as the author of How to Lie with Statistics[8] famously stated, “a well-wrapped statistic is better than Hitler’s Big Lie; it misleads, yet it cannot be pinned on you.”

When a 70,000 year sampling is inspected, we find the slight of hand fully exposed by observing the peaks and troughs of temperature and CO2.

If the later were truly the driving force, as the Great Resetters of our day proclaim, then CO2 peaks and troughs would happen before temperature, but the evidence shows us the inverse.

Let’s look at one more example of an 800 year CO2/temperature lag about 130,000 years ago…

Going back even further into the climate records, it has been revealed that during many of the past ice ages, carbon dioxide had risen up to 800% higher than our current levels, despite the fact that human activity played zero role[9].


A Brief Look at Space Weather

Technically, I could end right now and feel like any honest jury would conclude that CO2 has been falsely framed for murder. But I would like to introduce one more dramatic piece of evidence that gets us back on the path of a true science of climate change and ecosystems management: Astroclimatology.

The fact that the earth is but one of a multitude of spherical bodies in space speedily revolving around an incredibly active sun within the outskirts of a galaxy within a broader cluster of galaxies is often ignored by many computer modelling statisticians for a very simple reason: anyone who has been conditioned to look at the universe through a filter of linear computer models is obsessed with control, and is incredibly uncomfortable with the unknown.

The amount of actual factors shaping the weather, ice ages, and volcanism are so complex, vast and mostly undiscovered that computer modellers would prefer to simply pretend they don’t exist… or if they do acknowledge such celestial phenomena to have any function in climate change, it is often dismissed as “negligible”.

Despite this culture of laziness and dishonesty, the question is worth asking: WHY does evidence of climate change occur across so many other planets and moons of our solar system?

Ice caps on Mars melt periodically[10] and have been melting at faster rates in recent years. Why is this happening? Could the sun’s coronal mass ejections, solar wind, or electromagnetic field be affecting climate change within the solar system as one unifying process?

Often Venus with its atmosphere of 96.5% CO2 is used as a warning for people on the earth what sort of terrible oven we will create by producing more CO2. It is hot, after all, with temperatures averaging 467 degrees Celsius (872 degrees Fahrenheit); however, if CO2 were truly to blame for the heating, then why is Mars so cold with temperatures averaging minus 125 degrees Celsius (-195 degrees Fahrenheit) despite the fact that it’s atmosphere is 95% CO2?

Similarly, what role does cosmic radiation play in driving climate change? Based on the recent discoveries of Heinrich Svensmark and his team in Denmark, strong correlations were found linking cloud formation, climate and cosmic radiation flux over time. Cosmic radiation flux into the earth is a continuous process mediated by the earth’s magnetic field, as well as the oscillating magnetic field of the sun, which shapes the entire solar system as we revolve around the galactic center of the Milky Way every 225-250 million years.

Svensmark’s discovery was outlined beautifully in the 2011 documentary, The Cloud Mystery.[11]


A Return to a True Science of Climate

The point to re-emphasize is that the weather is, and always has been, a complex process shaped by galactic forces that have driven a miraculous system of life on the earth over hundreds of millions of years.

During this time, amounting to approximately two revolutions around the galactic center, living matter has transformed from relatively boring (high entropy) single celled organisms, through a continuous process of increased complexity, and increased power of self-direction (low entropy). Up until now, there is no actual evidence that this process is a closed system, and as such, that any fixed state of no change/heat death is controlling its behavior.

While some might deny this claim, citing the redshifts of galaxies as proof that the universe is in fact dying (or inversely had a starting point “in time” 13.6 billion years ago before there was nothing), I refer you to the work of Halton Arp[12].

This process has been characterized by non-linear discontinuities of living matter emerging where only nonliving matter previously existed, followed later by conscious life having appeared where only non-conscious life had been found and most recently self-conscious life endowed with creative reason appearing onto the scene. While this process has been punctuated by sometimes violent mass-extinction cycles, the overall direction of life has not been shaped by randomness, chance or chaos, but rather improvement, perfectibility and harmony.

When humanity appeared onto the scene, a new phenomenon began expressing itself in a form which the great Russian academician Vladimir Vernadsky (1863-1945) described as the Noosphere (as opposed to the lithosphere and biosphere). Vernadsky understood this new geological force to be driven by human creative reason, and devoted his life to teaching the world that the law of humanity must accord with the law of nature, stating:

“The noösphere is a new geological phenomenon on our planet. In it, for the first time, man becomes a large-scale geological force. He can, and must, rebuild the province of his life by his work and thought, rebuild it radically in comparison with the past. Wider and wider creative possibilities open before him. It may be that the generation of our grandchildren will approach their blossoming”.[13]

In Vernadsky’s mind, neither the noosphere, nor the biosphere obeyed a law of mathematical equilibrium or statis, but was rather governed by an asymmetrical harmony and progress from lower to higher states of organization. It was only by coming to understand the principles of nature that mankind became morally and intellectually fit to improve upon nature by turning deserts green, harnessing the power of the atom or applying scientific progress to health and agriculture.

Some of his most important insights were published in his Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomena (1938), Evolution of Species and Living Matter (1928,) Some Words About the Noosphere (1943), and The Transition of the Biosphere to the Noosphere (1938).[14]

Despite the lasting contributions made by Vernadsky to human knowledge, here we sit, 76 years after the end of WW2, tolerating an unscientific policy of mass decarbonization, which threatens to radically undermine civilization for countless generations.

Is this change being forced upon humanity?

Unlike the forces of fascism and imperialism of the past, today’s terrible self-implosion of civilization is occurring via the consent of those intended to perish under a Great Reset via the collective guilt for the crime of simply being human. It has become the norm for the majority of today’s children to think of themselves as belonging not to a beautiful species made in the image of a Creator, but rather to a parasitic race guilty for the crime of sinning against nature.

So let’s take this opportunity to re-introduce truth back into climate science, and let the social engineers drooling over a Great Reset scream and whine as nations choose a new open system paradigm of life and anti-entropy rather than a closed system world of decay and heat death.

This positive new paradigm of cooperation, scientific and technological progress, and cultural optimism is getting stronger by the day led by Russia, China and other nations joining the international New Silk Road.

Most importantly, let’s finally absolve CO2 of its accused sins, and celebrate this wonderful little molecule as our friend and ally.


Matthew Ehret is the editor-in-chief of The Canadian Patriot Review, Senior Fellow of the American University in Moscow and Director of the Rising Tide Foundation. He has written the four volume Untold History of Canada series, four volume Clash of the Two Americas series and Science Unshackled: Restoring Causality to a World in Chaos. He is also the host of Pluralia Dialogos and Breaking History on Badlands Media where this article was first published.

from:    https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/the-fraud-of-global-warming?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email

Where Will You Get Your Chicken?

How Farmers Become Serfs or Bankrupted by the Illegal, Monopolistic Practics of Big Meat, Big Chicken and Big Food companies

You never hear about this method of bankrupting family farms and forcing them to sell out. 2 stories from Investigate Midwest on how Tyson deliberately broke contracts and bankrupted farmers

https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/05/08/early-morning-calls-barren-chicken-barns-millions-in-debt/

… The company’s plans came at a human cost. Tyson closed eight meatpacking plants in 2023, six of them chicken processing and two beef processing. It laid off more than 4,200 workers across all of its plants last year.

The company has a lot to gain from its contract growers. In 2023, Tyson Foods had nearly $53 billion in sales — a third of which was from chicken. The company operates 183 chicken facilities across the country, which include processing plants, hatcheries, feed mills and grain elevators. The company’s website states it contracts with more than 3,600 poultry farmers nationwide.

The vertical consolidation (the same company owning hatcheries, feed mills, grain elevators and processing plants) and horizontal consolidation (contracts with over 3600 farmers growing eggs, broiler, chicks, etc.) give Tyson extraordinary power to control all aspects of the chicken business and squeeze the biggest profits from everyone it deals with. It also has extraordinary power in other meat industries.

It did make chickens cheap—but now this monopoly power is also directed at the consumer, who is paying a lot more for less quality. Food in nearly all of Europe and the rest of the world is now cheaper than in the US. But the quality in the US is one of the worst, due to the immense consolidation and use of the cheapest inputs to feed poultry and livestock, and lack of care by agribusinesses to give back to the soil what is taken out using compost and manure, instead pushing chemicals that fail to provide the nutrition we seek.

From the pivotal early morning phone calls to the millions in debt, former Tyson contract growers who spoke to Investigate Midwest said they have had to take out upwards of $2 million loans to become Tyson contract growers. Their contracts canceled, they’re now saddled with massive debt. They said the company pushed them to go into more debt to upgrade their barns to meet company demands. Growers also said the company told them that they would be given chickens to raise for as long as they had loans on their barns.

Now that their contracts have abruptly ended, Tyson contract growers said they aren’t able to pay off the debt. Growers are staring down bankruptcy and foreclosures. Some have sold off land or other property to pay off debt while others have retired or looked for work off the farm….

Here is another story. Why is this happening? Because in large part, the mega-food companies have been able to get away with it. Now farmers are banding together and filing antitrust lawsuits, while the federal government should have stopped these practices already.

https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/12/17/tyson-foods-cut-contracts-with-poultry-farmers-now-the-company-is-working-to-silence-their-legal-fight/#:~:text=Missouri%20growers%2C%20including%20Arnold%2C%20file,collusion%20to%20prevent%20meatpacking%20competitors

DEXTER, Missouri – On an early August morning in 2023, Shawn Hinkle received a call from one of his technicians at Tyson Foods who, through tears, told him the company’s plant in Dexter was shutting down.

Hundreds of jobs at the poultry slaughterhouse would be lost and farmers like Hinkle, who contracted with Tyson to raise egg-laying hens, would be out of business.

A decade earlier, Hinkle borrowed $2.3 million to build two chicken houses on his land. After struggling to keep up with Tyson’s standards and investing in his farm, Hinkle now owed $2.8 million and faced the prospect of losing it all in bankruptcy.

Tyson said the Dexter plant closure was part of a national effort to streamline production and boost profits — the company also closed three other poultry plants and two beef packing plants.

But Tyson’s explanation didn’t make sense to Hinkle and several other farmers who, in December 2023, sued the giant meat company for breaking its contracts.

As the lawsuit moves forward, a Watchdog Writers Group analysis of documents filed in the case, in partnership with Investigate Midwest, reveals Tyson coordinated closely with Cal-Maine Foods, the company that ended up buying the Dexter plant. That coordination prevented farmers from continuing their same operations with another Tyson competitor.

Documents also show Tyson tried to prevent its former contract farmers from seeking legal remedies over the broken contracts, and has possibly attempted to discourage farmers from speaking with federal officials and journalists.

Tyson Foods declined to answer detailed questions about the allegations of the lawsuit.

After purchasing the Dexter plant, Cal-Maine offered contracts to local farmers if they retrofitted their farms to raise table egg-laying hens rather than chickens for meat. [Putting them even more into debt—Nass]. Unlike many area farmers, Hinke raised egg-laying hens to produce more chicks, which were sent to other farmers. Raising hens for Cal-Maine would have required a significant operational overall for Hinkle and other farmers.

But Cal-Maine’s offer came with a catch: The farmers would have to agree not to sue Tyson Foods for any losses because of the plant closure, according to court filings…

from:    https://merylnass.substack.com/p/how-farmers-become-serfs-or-bankrupted?publication_id=746368&post_id=167223283&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Save the CHildren!!!

Raising Healthy Children

July’s Open Thread

This newsletter was created with the goal of helping others, and over time, I’ve received many messages from people with important questions I’d love to answer. However, writing each article takes a considerable amount of time—just as an example, I’ve spent the past month working on the final installment of the DMSO series, and it’s still not quite finished. Because of this, I’m not always able to respond individually to every inquiry I get.

While I truly wish I could, the most practical solution I’ve found is to host monthly open threads. These provide readers with a space to ask any outstanding questions—especially those left over from previous content—and I make it a priority to respond. Having all the questions in one place also makes it easier for others to benefit from those answers as well.

For each of these open threads, I like to tie in a topic I’ve been meaning to discuss—usually something I’ve been thinking about but haven’t felt warrants a full-length article. This time, I want to focus on a topic near and dear to my heart, healthy children.

The Chronic Disease Epidemic

One of RFK’s rallying cries has been that our children are being stricken by an onslaught of chronic diseases and that this is undermining the strength that is our future, and his organization, the Children’s Health Defense frequently references this chart:

Note: that data comes from this study and this study.

Since trends in motion tend to persist unless significant measures are taken to shift them, as a recently published study confirmed, this problem has continued to worsen.

Nearly half of all children receiving care in the PEDSnet multicenter network had a chronic health condition, while one-third of children in the general population experience from 1 to 15 parent-reported chronic conditions. Furthermore, obesity now affects 20% of children, and early puberty is increasingly common among girls, with 1 in 7 beginning menstruation before age 12 years. Temporal trends also showed deterioration in sleep health and increasing limitations in activity, alongside worsening of an extensive range of physical and emotional symptoms.

In turn, the study’s data shows that the rates of these conditions have roughly doubled over the last 12 years.

Likewise, many other things have rapidly gone awry

Note: this study also highlighted a myriad of other issues, such as our children being more likely to die than other developed nations, in large part due to sudden infant death syndrome (a condition strongly linked to vaccination).

The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. To see how others have benefitted from this newsletter and its community, click here

The Other Half of The Picture

While I agree with the gravity of these findings and the urgency to re-evaluate our vaccination program, I feel they only tell half of the story. That is because:
•There are many other factors besides vaccines that also adversely affect children’s health.
•All illnesses (particularly those which result from being poisoned) tend to distribute on a bell curve, so that the severe, easy to spot reactions are only a minority, whereas less severe (and harder to spot) reactions are much more common.

To some extent this is recognized, as autoimmune disorders (a frequent complication of vaccination) are much more common than vaccine sudden deaths—but in most cases it’s missed.

On the one hand, this is due to the “measurement” problem in science, where scientific studies can generally only be conducted if they have a clear metric by which to measure things, thereby creating clear, reproducible data. This becomes an issue when an agent has so many different symptoms that it can make (many of which are quite subtle), they typically will be written off as anecdotal unless they are deliberately traced, and as a result, many common side effects of vaccines are never formally associated with them.
Note: the most recent glaring example of this happened with the COVID vaccines where trial participants were only given a small list of (relatively benign) symptoms they could check off (e.g., fevers or fatigue) so as a result, those were the side-effects that appeared in the published trial reports. Likewise, V-Safe, the CDC program designed to monitor vaccine side effects, did the same; however fortunately, it also included a free text field where participants could enter other symptoms—most of which were never publicly analyzed (and which the government fought in court to avoid disclosing). Because of all of this, the majority of the medical field assumed most of the side effects patients reported from the vaccines (despite many others experiencing the same symptoms) were anecdotal and had nothing to do with the vaccines).

On the other hand, it’s because many of these pathological changes are more subtle and more complex to spot, so since people aren’t trained to notice them, and have gradually become habituated to all of it “being normal” they don’t realize how much things have changed.
Note: doctors are virtually never trained to recognize the subtle neurological injuries which follow vaccination (which indicate damage has also occurred within the brain).

The Hidden Chronic Disease Epidemic

For as long as I can remember, many natural healers have told me that they can normally spot the unvaccinated children as they are much healthier and vibrant than their peers. For example, after I explained some of the ways this can be identified, two readers shared:

Thanks to this substack, I am now the unofficial medical godfather of 4 unvaccinated babies across several families. All are incredibly healthy with none of the typical problems associated with the microstrokes. All have been described by strangers and family as, “wow, your baby is really aware and paying attention. It’s like they’re sentient, I don’t know how else to say it”. And I am sad when I see those other people’s babies because I know they were supposed to be more, undergo less suffering when I hear their random high pitched shrieks.

Last year I attended a fundraiser auction to raise money for local Mennonite schools. Many families, many children. I was struck by the fact that there was a light, a brightness, in these children’s eyes that I had not seen for decades in other children. The Mennonites here do not vaccinate. Now I understand. It hurts my heart.

Likewise, I received this email a few weeks ago from a mother who followed all of my suggestions for a healthy child:

Other than a minor rash, my daughter has never had any health issues. She’s been ahead on all her developmental milestones, and from the very beginning, she’s been incredibly alert and engaged with her surroundings. She’s always exploring, and only cries when there’s a clear reason—if she’s hungry, tired, hurt, or not getting the attention she wants.

When we’re out in public, she smiles at everyone and tries to make friends. People constantly stop us to comment on how beautiful and full of life she is—some even ask if they can hold her. It wasn’t until I had her that I realized how unusual that kind of energy is in a baby. So many infants I see seem withdrawn, like they’re in a kind of daze, avoiding eye contact, and often looking genuinely sickly.

I’m incredibly grateful we were spared that, but at the same time, I’ve started to feel increasingly unsettled by what I see around me. I think a lot about what other parents must be going through—especially single mothers trying to raise kids on limited incomes—and I honestly don’t know how they manage.

One of the most challenging things when you “step out of the matrix” is becoming able to see (fairly disturbing) things all around you, and one of the key reasons why I appreciate stories like these three is because they illustrate that’s what’s been hidden right in front of us is at last becoming more and more visible.

Screens and Children

As cell phones and tablets became widely available, I would see more and more parents (who had their children with them) at medical visits using devices to keep their children content. In many cases, if a device was withdrawn, the children would have a fit (at which point the device was returned to them).

Well, I Guess We All Knew

How Google Search Rankings Are Silencing Alternative Health Websites

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
google silencing alternative health websites

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Google slashed traffic to Mercola.com by 99.9%, replacing years of trusted content with pharma-backed search results that promote junk food and drugs as “healthcare” solutions
  • A new term, “nonaginate,” describes Google’s tactic of wiping out 90% or more of alternative health websites’ visibility — a practice now threatening hundreds of holistic sources
  • Under the guise of safety, Google uses vague policies like EEAT and YMYL to bury licensed doctors and researchers who question mainstream pharmaceutical narratives
  • Google’s so-called “quality raters” depend on Wikipedia for judgments about credibility — even though its anonymous editors openly oppose natural health and block factual corrections
  • To protect your health freedom and privacy, I recommend ditching all Google products — from search to Gmail — and switching to platforms that respect your data and independence

Have you noticed how it’s getting more challenging to find non-mainstream health info in your search results lately? That’s not your imagination — it’s a deliberate tactic employed by Google to control the information you see. They’re targeting websites that question pharmaceutical orthodoxy or promote natural approaches to health, even those that are run by licensed practitioners, researchers, and authors with longstanding reputations — myself included.

I’ve been sounding the alarm on Google’s monopoly for several years now, and how they’re gravely endangering the free-flow of information, particularly in the health industry. Google views alternative health as a threat to Big Pharma, and uses its search ranking system to severely reduce natural health websites’ visibility and accessibility to the general public.

‘Nonagination’ — Google’s Attempt to Suppress Alternative Health Information

In his Substack page, Bill Dembski, a researcher, design theorist, and mathematician, wrote an extensive exposé on “the evilization of Google,”1 and how this nefarious company strategically dismantled the reach and visibility of alternative health websites, including Mercola.com. Dembski introduced the term “nonaginate” to describe a tactic that goes far beyond censorship.2

What does “nonaginate” mean? Dembski says this word was inspired by “decimate,” which dates to the old Roman practice of eliminating “one-tenth of an unruly band of Roman soldiers.” However, what Google does is so much worse, so using the word decimate is a grave understatement.

It’s much worse than decimation — Dembski then turned to the Latin term for 90, “nonaginta,” and from here, he coined the word “nonaginate,” saying that this was a better-suited word for what this company does.

“Nonaginate — hat tip to Google for inspiring the term — is thus defined as destroying at least ninety percent of a thing. Nonagination is therefore much more extreme than decimation (in decimation’s strict literal sense of only destroying ten percent). Google prefers to nonaginate sites it doesn’t like,” he writes.

I first-handedly experienced nonagination back in 2019 — Six years ago, on June 3, 2019, to be exact, Google implemented a broad “core update” that eliminated most Mercola.com pages from its search results. Virtually overnight, Google traffic to my site dropped by approximately 99.9%.

Decades of valuable health information has been buried — Since 1997, Mercola.com has been considered a highly relevant source of health content, and has been one of the top natural health websites worldwide. But in one fell swoop, Google removed all our high-ranked results, and replaced them with health information from advertising companies that promote junk food and drugs instead.

Google Hides Behind Its So-Called ‘Policies’

Mercola.com wasn’t the only victim of nonagination — countless alternative health websites were also hit with similar penalties, losing their visibility, reach, and revenue streams. For many, this meant bankruptcy. Yet, Google does not publicly admit to this bias; instead, it hides behind abstract policy language.3

Bias is hidden behind policies that claim neutrality — To justify its move to downrank alternative health websites, Google invokes content guidelines like “Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness” (EEAT), and “Your Money or Your Life” (YMYL).4

On paper, these standards sound like they exist to protect users — But in practice, they create a false sense of objectivity that allows Google to bury dissenting voices without admitting to any ideological filtering. Even licensed physicians and researchers are downgraded if they suggest that healing might come from something other than patented drugs.

This suppression is systemic, not incidental — EEAT and YMYL policies are enforced by both machine algorithms and human raters, all trained to flag anything outside of conventional dogma as untrustworthy — even if that information is backed by clinical experience or published studies.

The result? Websites that promote natural, research-backed concepts like real food, mitochondrial health, sunlight exposure, or EMF reduction are treated the same way as snake oil scams. Google nonaginates them in the name of “safety.”

From Crowdsourcing to Crowd Control

In the past, google search results were based on crowdsource relevance. An article’s rankings on Google search would ascend based on the number of people who clicked on it. Basically, if you produced unique and high-quality content that matched what people were looking for, you were rewarded by ranking in the top of search results.

To help you ideate this, here’s an example — Let’s say you have an article about Akkermansia that is found on the seventh page of Google’s search results, and then your competitor also has an Akkermansia article on the fifth page of search results. If more people click on your article than your competitor’s, your article will move up in rank. So, in a nutshell, these search results are based on popularity.

But this is no longer the case — Now, Google is manually lowering the ranking of undesirable content with the help of “quality raters.” These raters are basing their feedback largely on Wikipedia’s assessment of the author or site (more on this in the next section).

Who are these so-called quality raters? According to the company’s Search Quality Rater Guidelines, they have 16,000 external search quality raters working for them to “provide ratings based on our guidelines and represent real users and their likely information needs, using their best judgment to represent their locale.”5

However, these raters are not Google employees — Rather, they are employed by external firms who have contracted them to Google. According to an article by ARS Technica:

“They’re carefully trained and tested staff who can spend 40 hours per week logged into a system called Raterhub, which is owned and operated by Google. Every day, the raters complete dozens of short but exacting tasks that produce invaluable data about the usefulness of Google’s ever-changing algorithms.

They contribute significantly to several Google and Android projects, from search and voice recognition to photos and personalization features.”6

Google Quality Raters Rely on Wikipedia for ‘Expertise’ and ‘Trustworthiness’

As mentioned earlier, one of the primary sources Google’s quality raters are instructed to use when assessing the expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness of an author or website is Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia.”

Wikipedia is highly biased against natural health — Unfortunately for many of us in the field of alternative health, Wikipedia’s founder and editors are well-known to have extreme bias against natural health content and authors.

What’s more, the editors are completely anonymous — Wikipedia’s editors are purely volunteers, and there are a few who have reached the most powerful editing status. They’re known as the administrators. However, you will not know their identity as they hide behind pseudonyms and usernames.

So, basically, you have no idea whether the editors who are editing your content are truly experts on the topic. So how can we consider Wikipedia to be an authority of credibility when the editors are anonymous and uncredentialed?

Wikipedia Is Aggressive When It Comes to Censorship

While Google’s censoring of content started just several years ago, Wikipedia has been censoring information and blocking editors since the beginning. About 1,000 users are blocked from the platform on any given day.

Wikipedia is often edited by people with a very specific agenda — According to investigative journalist Sheryl Attkisson, anyone who tries to clarify or clear up inaccuracies on the site is simply blocked. The reality is a far cry from Wikipedia’s public promise, which is to provide readers with unbiased information.

Google is funding Wikipedia — Considering its history of bias and its incredibly effective blocking of opposing views, no matter how factual, it’s not surprising that Wikipedia is Google’s chosen arbiter of expertise and credibility. And Wikipedia is profiting from this partnership, financially speaking. In January 2019, Google donated $2 million to Wikimedia Endowment, Wikipedia’s parent organization, and another $1.1 million to the Wikimedia Foundation.

So what does this mean? Since Google’s freelance raters rely on Wikipedia, it means the whole “quality rating” system they’ve set up is rotten from the ground up, as its quality raters are instructed to base their quality decisions on an already biased source.

Google Is the World’s Biggest Monopoly

There’s no doubt that Google is now one of the largest and clearest monopolies in the world. It monopolizes several different markets, including search and advertising. In the case of search, it controls 90% of the market; its closest competitor, Bing, only has 2% of the market.7 Google also controls about 60% of the global advertising revenue on the internet.

Google’s primary business is the harvesting of user data — Google catches every single thing you do online if you’re using a Google-based feature, and this data is then used to build powerful personality profiles that are sold for profit and used in a variety of different ways.

This data gathering goes far beyond what most people realize was even possible and is one of the primary reasons smaller advertisers cannot compete — they don’t have the user data Google has.

Google also owns DeepMind, the world’s greatest artificial intelligence (AI) company — With nearly 6,000 employees worldwide,8 many of them AI researchers, it is not hard for them to sort through all your data with their deep learning algorithms to detect patterns that can be exploited for profit.

Unfortunately, many still fail to see the problem Google presents — Its services are useful and practical, making life easier in many ways, and more fun in others. However, the complete and utter loss of privacy is a high price to be paid for such conveniences. Ultimately, your user data and personal details can be used for everything from creating personalized advertising to AI-equipped robotic warfare applications.

Say Goodbye to Google Today

Today, being a conscious consumer includes making wise, informed decisions about technology, and one of the greatest personal data leaks in your life is Google. If you need an extensive list on just how pervasive Google is, I recommend reading my article, “Goodbye Google.”

Here’s a summary of action steps for you to take right now to protect your privacy. I recommend sharing them with your friends and family so they too can protect themselves from Google’s data theft practices.

Swap out your browser — Uninstall Google Chrome and use Brave or Opera instead. Everything you do on Chrome is surveilled, including keystrokes and every webpage you’ve ever visited. Brave is a great alternative that takes privacy seriously.

Switch your search engine — Stop using Google search engines or any extension of Google, such as Bing or Yahoo, both of which draw search results from Google. Instead, use a default search engine that offers privacy, such as Presearch, Startpage, DuckDuckGo, Qwant and many others.

Use a secure email — Close your Gmail account and switch to a secure email service like ProtonMail. If you have children, don’t transfer their student Google account into a personal account once they’re out of school.

Switch to a secure document sharing service — Ditch Google Docs and use another alternative such as Zoho Office, Etherpad, CryptPad, OnlyOffice or Nuclino, all of which are recommended by NordVPN.9

Delete all Google apps from your phone and purge Google hardware — Better yet, get a de-Googled phone. Several companies now offer them, including Above Phone.

Avoid websites that use Google Analytics — To do that, you’ll need to check the website’s privacy policy and search for “Google.” Websites are required to disclose if they use a third-party surveillance tool. If they use Google Analytics, ask them to switch!

Use a secure messaging system — To keep your private communications private, use a messaging tool that provides end-to-end encryption, such as Signal.

Use a virtual private network (VPN) such as NordVPN or Strong VPN — This is a must if you seek to preserve your online privacy.

Don’t use Google Home devices in your house or apartment — These devices record everything that occurs in your home, both speech and sounds such as brushing your teeth and boiling water, even when they appear to be inactive, and send that information back to Google. The same goes for Google’s home thermostat Nest and Amazon’s Alexa.

Don’t use an Android cellphone, as it’s owned by Google.

Ditch Siri, which draws all its answers from Google.

Don’t use Fitbit — It was recently purchased by Google and will provide them with all your physiological information and activity levels, in addition to everything else that Google already has on you.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/07/14/google-silencing-alternative-health-websites.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20250714_HL2&foDate=true&mid=DM1774998&rid=340020525

Nowhere to go in an Emergency

Why Private Equity Is Buying Hospitals & Shutting Them Down

There is a growing trend for private equity firms to buy companies and then bankrupt them to enrich their investors. A formula used by private equity involves buying hospitals, loading them up with debt by taking out loans that obligate the hospitals, paying off investors, and then selling the facilities and leasing the real estate back to them, resulting in the closure of hospitals. The people in the community pay the price. In addition, private equity owned physician staffing groups operate nearly one-third of all emergency departments across the country. 

Emergency departments are the last resort for low income and uninsured and low income people who wait for an emergency to get care. Private equity is attractive to investors because it has an average return on investment rate of 13%, compared to 8.6% in the stock market. Patients are a captive market in emergency situations. Private equity cuts costs by requiring doctors to see more patients, reducing time spent with each patient that reduces quality of care. Private equity often reduces staff and hospitals are short handed, resulting ibn long wait times. Private equity often increases billing and price gouging is the “secret” for increased profits.

Private equity acquired companies have had a 25% rise of patient adverse events that include bloodstream infections, falls, and a doubling of surgical infections.

.

An example is the Crozer-Chester Medical Center, located in Delaware County, Pennsylvania that was the busiest ER in the area, that treated tens of thousands of patients per year. Crozer Health system was in financial trouble because it was a safety-net hospital that cared for patients covered by Medicaid or uninsured people. In 2016, the non-profit hospital was sold to a for-profit California company called Prospect Medical Holdings, with Leonard Green & Partners, a private equity firm, as its principal owner.

In 2018, just two years after buying Crozer Health, Prospect took out a $1.1 billion loan and then sent nearly half of it straight to their investors while Crozer continued to suffer. The private equity firm is not on the hook for any of that debt. Leonard Green sold Prospect in 2019, but Prospect and its hospitals were still on the hook for the debt. In order to pay down that debt, Prospect sold the real estate of its hospitals, including Crozer, to an Alabama company called Medical Properties Trust, or MPT. These deals are known as sale-leaseback transactions. What MPT does is it partners with health systems like Prospect to buy up their real estate and then rent it back. A critic called it a ‘hospital landlord’. Most of the time the revenue that’s generated from these one-time sales of the real estate doesn’t go back into the hospital. It’s being pocketed by investors. And like a tenant, Crozer had to start paying rent— $35 million a year. Last year, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office sued Prospect and Leonard Green for mismanagement and breach of contract. This January, Prospect filed for bankruptcy and within months it closed its last hospitals in Delaware County.

 

from: https://needtoknow.news/2025/07/why-private-equity-is-buying-hospitals-shutting-them-down/

And Now, An AI Mind Reader

New ‘Mind-Reading’ AI Predicts What Humans Will Do Next, And It’s Shockingly Accurate

FACT CHECKEDVERIFIED

 

Artificial Intelligence As Human

(Image by metamorworks on Shutterstock)

In a nutshell

  • Scientists created an AI called Centaur that can predict human behavior across any psychological experiment with unprecedented accuracy
  • The AI outperformed decades-old specialized models and successfully predicted behavior in completely new scenarios it had never seen before
  • Centaur’s internal workings became more aligned with human brain activity just by learning to predict our choices, potentially revolutionizing our understanding of cognition

MUNICH — An artificial intelligence system can now predict your next move before you make it. We’re not just talking about whether you’ll click “buy now” on that Amazon cart, but rather how you’ll navigate complex decisions, learn new skills, or explore uncharted territory.

Researchers have developed an AI called Centaur that accurately predicts human behavior across virtually any psychological experiment. It even outperforms the specialized computer models scientists have been using for decades. Trained on data from more than 60,000 people making over 10 million decisions, Centaur captures the underlying patterns of how we think, learn, and make choices.

“The human mind is remarkably general,” the researchers write in their paper, published in Nature. “Not only do we routinely make mundane decisions, such as choosing a breakfast cereal or selecting an outfit, but we also tackle complex challenges, such as figuring out how to cure cancer or explore outer space.”

An AI that truly understands human cognition could revolutionize marketing, education, mental health treatment, and product design. But it also raises uncomfortable questions about privacy and manipulation when our digital footprints reveal more about us than ever before.

How Scientists Built a Digital Mind Reader AI

The research team started with an ambitious goal: create a single AI model that could predict human behavior in any psychological experiment. Their approach was surprisingly straightforward but required massive scale.

Scientists assembled a dataset called Psych-101 containing 160 experiments covering memory tests, learning games, risk-taking scenarios, and moral dilemmas. Each experiment was converted into plain English descriptions that an AI could understand.

Rather than building from scratch, researchers took Meta’s Llama 3.1 language model (the same type powering ChatGPT) and gave it specialized training on human behavior. They used a technique that allows them to modify only a tiny fraction of the AI’s programming while keeping most of it unchanged. The entire training process took only five days on a high-end computer processor.

Image depicting a human brain connected to artificial intelligence
Centaur could mark a new turning point in AI in its unprecedented ability to understand the human mind. (Image by Shutterstock AI Generator)

Centaur Dominates Traditional Cognitive Models

When tested, Centaur completely crushed the competition. In head-to-head comparisons with specialized cognitive models that scientists spent decades perfecting, Centaur won in almost every single experiment.

The real breakthrough came when researchers tested Centaur on completely new scenarios. The AI successfully predicted human behavior even when the experiment’s story changed (turning a space treasure hunt into a magic carpet adventure), when the structure was modified (adding a third option to a two-choice task), and when entirely new domains were introduced (logical reasoning tests that weren’t in its training data).

Centaur could also generate realistic human-like behavior when running simulations. In one test involving exploration strategies, the AI achieved performance comparable to actual human participants and showed the same type of uncertainty-guided decision-making that characterizes how people behave.

Neural Alignment: Centaur Mimics Human Brain Activity

In a surprising discovery, Centaur’s internal workings had become more aligned with human brain activity, even though it was never explicitly trained to match neural data. When researchers compared the AI’s internal states to brain scans of people performing the same tasks, they found stronger correlations than with the original, untrained model.

Learning to predict human behavior apparently forced the AI to develop internal representations that mirror how our brains actually process information. The AI essentially reverse-engineered aspects of human cognition just by studying our choices.

The team also demonstrated how Centaur could accelerate scientific discovery. They used the AI to analyze human behavior patterns, leading to the discovery of a new decision-making strategy that outperformed existing psychological theories.

“We’ve created a tool that allows us to predict human behavior in any situation described in natural language – like a virtual laboratory,” says lead author Marcel Binz in a statement.

What’s Next for Human Behavior AI?

While impressive, this research represents just the beginning. The current version focuses primarily on learning and decision-making, with limited coverage of areas like social psychology or cross-cultural differences. The dataset also skews toward Western, educated populations, a common limitation in psychological research.

The team plans to expand their dataset to include more diverse domains and populations, envisioning a comprehensive model that could serve as a unified theory of human cognition. They’ve made both their dataset and AI model publicly available for other researchers to build upon.

“We combine AI research with psychological theory – and with a clear ethical commitment,” adds Binz. “In a public research environment, we have the freedom to pursue fundamental cognitive questions that are often not the focus in industry.”

For the first time, we have an artificial system that can predict human behavior across the full spectrum of psychological research with unprecedented accuracy. Whether that development excites or concerns you may depend on how confidently we can ensure such tools are used responsibly.

from:    https://studyfinds.org/ai-thinks-like-humans-unprecedented-accuracy/

 

“You Don’t Need A Machine to Tell You How You Feel”

The Great Surrender

A Document from 2065

Back to the Future came out 40 years ago last week. While the original took us back to 1955, the end of the movie and the sequels imagined 2015 with flying cars and hoverboards. What they missed was the real transformation: how eagerly we’d hand over our most intimate biological data to corporations and governments.

Yesterday, someone sent me a document. I can’t verify its authenticity or origin, but they claimed it was leaked from a government archive dated 2065. Given what we already know about the current surveillance infrastructure—and the economic incentives driving the “Internet of Bodies”—it feels disturbingly plausible.

Sometimes, the best way to understand the present is to imagine how future historians might view our choices.


1985 BASELINE ASSESSMENT

Citizens showed dangerous levels of independence. Key problems:

  • Made Their Own Choices: 97% decided what to eat without consulting optimization algorithms
  • No Biometric Monitoring: 0% shared heartbeat, sleep, or activities with approved wellness partners
  • Relied on Primitive Instincts: Used outdated “gut feelings” to make decisions
  • Untracked Movement: Moved freely without carbon calculations or behavioral analysis
  • Suboptimal Decision-Making: Made incorrect choices 73% of the time when left unguided

Research Note: Citizens were obsessed with antiquated concepts like “privacy” and “personal autonomy.” Substantial cultural engineering would be required.


2025 MIDDLE PHASE

After making monitoring trendy and incentivized, citizens began voluntary participation:

  • Wellness Device Adoption: 73% wearing biometric optimization devices
  • Economic Compliance: 89% modified behavior when insurance adjusted rates in real-time
  • Algorithm Consultation: 45% check apps before making health decisions
  • Privacy Redefinition: Successfully rebranded “privacy” as “missing out on personalized optimization”
  • Identity Integration: 34% voluntarily linked biometric data to government systems for “seamless experience”
  • Social Media Conditioning: Platforms provided crucial behavioral modification infrastructure. Citizens voluntarily documented their lives for algorithmic analysis while competing for validation metrics. Personas replaced personhood with minimal resistance
  • Security Convenience Celebration (2025): TSA elimination of shoe removal requirements was celebrated by the public, including freedom advocates who failed to recognize the requirement was removed only because comprehensive body scanning infrastructure was now operational

Implementation Note: “Health freedom” extremists were neutralized by recruiting trusted celebrities. The “Make America Healthy Again” campaign proved highly effective, ironically accelerating acceptance of monitoring systems among traditionally skeptical populations.


2029-2037: TOTAL SYSTEM INTEGRATION

Key discovery: Citizens who embraced biometric monitoring were 340% more likely to accept additional systems when marketed as “feature upgrades.”

Integration Milestones:

  • Climate Fear Acceleration (2025-2027): Increased atmospheric modification programs generated optimal citizen anxiety levels about “climate crisis.” Geoengineering operations, previously denied, rebranded as “emergency planetary cooling” with 94% public acceptance
  • Conspiracy Theorist Classification (2025): Citizens investigating HAARP and atmospheric programs successfully marginalized as “climate deniers”
  • Atmospheric Wellness Enhancement (2027): Aluminum and barium particulate distribution normalized citizens to environmental chemical modifications. Transition from “chemtrail conspiracy” to “necessary climate intervention” achieved seamlessly
  • Medical Compliance Acceleration (2020-2023): Global health emergency provided unprecedented opportunity to test population-wide acceptance of experimental interventions. Citizens initially questioning protocols were successfully re-educated through social pressure
  • Frictionless Verification (2029): Biometric data auto-populates all government interactions
  • Movement Optimization Zones (2031): 15-minute wellness districts eliminate suboptimal route planning
  • Behavioral Prediction Integration (2032): Palantir’s wellness algorithms achieved 94% accuracy in identifying future non-compliance, enabling preemptive optimization interventions
  • Carbon-Biometric Fusion (2032): Personal carbon allowances calibrated to real-time health metrics
  • Social Compatibility Scoring (2033): Employment, housing, and dating filtered by wellness compliance
  • Public-Private Wellness Partnership (2034): Meta, Google, Amazon, and Palantir integrated seamless citizen engagement across all life domains. Alexa wellness coaching achieved 87% compliance with daily optimization directives
  • Universal Wellness Grid (2035): All systems merged. Citizens compete for monitoring privileges

Breakthrough: Each system enhanced perceived value of previous adoptions. The transition from “posting for likes” to “living for optimization scores” required minimal cultural adjustment. Citizens never recognized they were constructing their own containment infrastructure.


2038-2050: VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION

Revolutionary discovery: Citizens who chose optimization voluntarily showed 3500% higher compliance than those subjected to mandates. They became enthusiastic evangelists, shaming non-participants as “selfish.”

Resistance Elimination:

  • Non-participants excluded from financial services and employment
  • Social ostracism as monitored citizens avoided “optimization resisters”
  • Citizens who refused experimental medical interventions during 2020-2023 compliance testing pre-classified as “wellness non-compliant” and systematically excluded from society
  • Montana Privacy Commune Incident (2043): Final holdouts surrendered after their children were classified as “educationally at-risk.” Exit interviews showed 94% satisfaction with transition to monitored living

Critical Learning: Children proved optimal leverage points for behavioral modification of non-compliant adults.


2051-2065: PERFECT HARMONY

Consciousness Integration (2051): Direct neural interfaces eliminated the inefficiency of manual device checking. Thoughts now require pre-approval through the Wellness Grid.

Current Success Metrics (99.7% voluntary participation):

  • Complete Monitoring: 98.9% connected to behavioral prediction systems 24/7
  • Cognitive Pre-approval: Protocols automatically accepted before conscious processing
  • Thought Optimization: 87% reduction in “counter-wellness ideation”
  • Identity Dissolution: Citizens cannot distinguish personal desires from system recommendations
  • Decision Elimination: Zero unauthorized movements, purchases, or social connections

Recent Citizen Testimonial: “I wake up knowing exactly what to think, feel, eat, and believe. My carbon allowance perfectly matches my health goals. I am grateful the burden of choice has been eliminated. There is no confusion about what it means to be human—the system tells me.”

(Administrative Note: This citizen was processed 11 hours later for expressing individual gratitude, indicating dangerous residual self-awareness.)


ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

  • Language Optimization: Terms like “freedom,” “gut instinct,” and “individual” reclassified as “wellness-negative vocabulary”
  • Generational Success: Citizens born post-2040 cannot differentiate between self and monitoring systems; personal identity successfully converted to subscription service
  • Economic Optimization: Wellness Grid generates $4.7 trillion annually through behavioral data monetization

NEXT PHASE OBJECTIVES

  1. Neural infrastructure completion in remaining rural zones (Montana, Wyoming, Northern Idaho)
  2. Deploy genetic optimization ensuring future generations born pre-compliant
  3. Phase out museums containing pre-optimization historical materials (citizens request removal of “depressing old human content”)

PROJECT CODENAME: GRATEFUL CITIZEN Classification Level: COSMIC


A Final Thought

If this document seems impossible, remember: 40 years ago, no one imagined we’d voluntarily carry tracking devices everywhere, share our private thoughts on corporate platforms, or ask machines what to think, feel, eat, and believe.

The future isn’t inevitable. But it is predictable—if we refuse to change course.

The first act of resistance is remembering: You don’t need a machine to tell you how you feel.

from:    https://stylman.substack.com/p/the-great-surrender?publication_id=24667&post_id=167869315&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

How About Trying a SmartPhone Diet?

Giving Up Your Phone For Just 3 Days Can Reshape Your Brain Activity

HEALTH

How far away is your phone right now? When did you last look at it? For many of us, these digital devices are almost constantly in our hands, and a new study highlights the effects on brain activity that can happen when we cut back on using them.

The research involved 25 young adults aged between 18 and 30, who were asked to restrict their smartphone use as much as possible for 72 hours: Only essential communications and work-related activities were allowed.

Researchers from Heidelberg University and the University of Cologne in Germany used magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI) scans and psychological tests before and after the phone diet to determine what kind of effect this had on neural patterns and activity.

“We used a longitudinal approach to investigate effects of smartphone restriction in smartphone users,” write the researchers in their published paper.

“Associations between changes of brain activation over time and addiction-related neurotransmitter systems were found.”

During the scans run after the 72-hour period, the participants were shown a variety of image prompts – including pictures of smartphones turned on and turned off, as well as more ‘neutral’ images showing subjects such as boats and flowers.

Phone images
Images of phones and other objects were used to spark brain activity. (Schmitgen et al., Computers in Human Behavior, 2025)

When phone image prompts were used, changes were observed in parts of the brain linked to reward processing and cravings, similar in some ways to brain signals connected to substance addictions – suggesting our phones can be addictive like nicotine or alcohol.

That the changes seen in the brain were associated with dopamine and serotonin systems backs up this idea of phone addiction. These two neurotransmitters are linked to multiple brain functions, including compulsive behavior and mood control.

Based on the psychological tests, however, there were no changes in the mood of the participants or any feelings of craving, despite the limited phone access. Some volunteers did report improvements in mood, but this didn’t show up in the test data as significant.

The study didn’t delve into any detail about why the smartphone behaviors prompted the brain activity changes, but there are likely to be several factors at play. It’s possible that not all phone-based activities are as addictive as others.

“Our data does not disentangle craving for smartphone use and craving for social interaction, nowadays two tightly intertwined processes,” write the researchers.

“Although our data shows relatively robust findings without unraveling these processes, future studies should clearly aim to address this aspect.”

Scientists are still figuring out how phones are changing our lives, and our brains – it’s less than 20 years ago since the first iPhone appeared – but now we know a little more about some of the subtle withdrawal symptoms that happen when we aren’t picking up our mobiles every few minutes.

“The identified neural mechanisms may substantially promote addictive behavior in people at risk for excessive smartphone use,” write the researchers.

The research has been published in Computers in Human Behavior.

from:    https://www.sciencealert.com/giving-up-your-phone-for-just-3-days-can-reshape-your-brain-activity

Smart Phones = Dumb Users

Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity

Abstract

Our smartphones enable—and encourage—constant connection to information, entertainment, and each other. They put the world at our fingertips, and rarely leave our sides. Although these devices have immense potential to improve welfare, their persistent presence may come at a cognitive cost. In this research, we test the “brain drain” hypothesis that the mere presence of one’s own smartphone may occupy limited-capacity cognitive resources, thereby leaving fewer resources available for other tasks and undercutting cognitive performance. Results from two experiments indicate that even when people are successful at maintaining sustained attention—as when avoiding the temptation to check their phones—the mere presence of these devices reduces available cognitive capacity. Moreover, these cognitive costs are highest for those highest in smartphone dependence. We conclude by discussing the practical implications of this smartphone-induced brain drain for consumer decision-making and consumer welfare.

We all understand the joys of our always-wired world—the connections, the validations, the laughs … the info. … But we are only beginning to get our minds around the costs.

Andrew Sullivan (2016)

to Access the full article, go to:  https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691462

What Does “Organic” Really Mean?

Food Labels: Chicken, Eggs, Beef, Pork, Lamb, Produce

Know what they mean and How to read them

With the recent focus on Making America Healthy Again (MAHA) with food, knowing a bit about the USDA and food labeling has never been more important.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is a huge executive division within the US government. It is subdivided into 15 agencies with oversight by 15 administrative offices. The USDA employs nearly 100,000 people, working at more than 4,500 locations nationwide and abroad. For 2024, the USDA was given an operating budget of $24.46 billion, an increase of 11.5% over the previous year. The bureaucratic behemoth has oversight regarding food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and issues related to public policy.

One agency is the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The AMS creates and administers domestic and international marketing opportunities for producers of “food, fiber, and specialty crops.” This includes commodity procurement and contract management for cotton, tobacco, livestock, poultry, specialty crops, and all types of food labeled organic.

As it turns out, the National Organic Program (NOP) is the federal regulatory program within the AMS that develops then enforces national standards for organically produced agricultural products sold within the United States. Run by only 34 employees and the Office of the Deputy Administrator, the NOP was allocated $24 million within the 2024 operating budget to oversee and regulate all elements of the organic food industry. For comparison, the budget for the Packers and Stockyards program, which regulates and monitors the activities of livestock, meat, and poultry, was allocated $35 million.

NOP oversees the work of 84 certifiers who perform audits, write audit report reviews, send out notices of noncompliance, issue corrective action reviews, and respond to consumers and producers seeking information and assistance regarding all food categories of organic food and labeling, including meat. The expanded availability of organic products in retail stores, supermarkets, and online platforms has made it easier for consumers to access organic meat and has contributed to its market’s growth. In 2021, just over 16,000 certified organic farms were in operation in the US, with California having the most certified farms by far (3,061) while nearly 7,000 farms were certified as organic pastureland and rangeland.

Want to become an organic farmer? There’s a lot to know…

The organic food market’s overall growth has impacted the organic meat sector in many positive ways. As consumers become more aware and critical of the quality of food they eat and prepare for their families, their concerns are driving the availability of organic products in retail stores, supermarkets, and online platforms, including the search for organic meat.

The size of the Global Organic Meat Market was valued at USD $18.78 Billion in 2022 and is poised to grow to USD $37.39 Billion by 2031. The concern for animal welfare is a significant driver for the organic markets. North America is expected to lead the global demand for organic meat. This is, at least in part, due to NOP and USDA programs that support the production of organic meat and meat-related goods.

There is also a growing emphasis on regenerative organic practices for the organic meat industry. Organic meat production typically adheres to stricter animal welfare standards than conventional meat production.

Regenerative farming has been used since the late 1970s, but the terms Regenerative Agriculture and Regenerative Farming came into wider circulation in the early 1980s and is becoming a very popular buzzword now. The technology focuses on restoring soil health via holistic land management, rotational grazing, and enhancing crop biodiversity. While organic farms also prioritize soil health, regenerative practices often go beyond organic standards.

Under NOP regulations, each certified organic farm must have an organic systems plan (OSP), a detailed outline that explains how the farm operations will satisfy the requirements of the NOP regulations. Just understanding all the rules used to monitor and market the organic food market is onerous. This includes (in part) keeping track of updates to each of these regulations:

What does “organic” really mean?

According to the USDA,

Organic is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural products have been produced through approved methods. These methods integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster the recycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used.

The Organic Standards can be found here.

The Label Quiz

Many consumers want to eat as “clean” as possible, meaning they want real food that is not contaminated with chemicals, antibiotics, pesticides, GMOs, and toxic vaccines.

Livestock and poultry farmers have caught on to this. Many farmers believe in the organic certification concept but are unwilling to go through the long, and often very expensive, certification program process. After the certification, farmers have to pay an annual, often pricey, fee to maintain the certification.

When consumers see the word “organic” on a package or a label, they have expectations about the product they are purchasing. USDA-certified organic foods must be grown and processed according to federal guidelines that take into consideration soil quality, animal raising practices, pest and weed control, and the use of antibiotics and hormones.

USDA organic regulations prohibit the use of GMO ingredients, listing them as “excluded methods.” Foods labeled organic are also not allowed to contain bioengineered ingredients (BE), which means ingredients made using recombinant DNA technology such as gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes. (NOTE: These ingredients ARE in foods that are NOT organic).

Organic products are labeled according to the percentage of organic ingredients they contain. There are four distinct labeling categories for organic products:

  • 100 Percent Organic – Products with this label contain only certified organic ingredients, including any processing aids.
  • Organic – For products in the “organic” category, at least 95% of the ingredients must be certified organic. The remaining five percent of ingredients must be organically produced, unless commercially unavailable or allowed on the National List.
  • Made With Organic ***– For multi-ingredient agricultural products, the “Made with organic ***” label means the product must contain at least 70 percent certified organic ingredients. These products may contain up to 30% of allowed non-organic ingredients. All ingredients – including the 30% non-organic ingredients – must be produced without GMOs.

If a product states, “Made with organic grains,” all ingredients derived from grains— including enriched wheat flour, corn oil, or oats—must be certified organic. If a product contains both organic and non-organic forms of the same ingredient, they must be identified separately in the ingredient statement.

  • Specific Organic Ingredients – This label is a mixture of non-organic and certified organic ingredients. The ingredient statement of the products identifies that the product contains less than 70% organic content.
Chart Source: Cetrafoods.com

These labeling differences help educated consumers to distinguish between products that are either labeled as “made with organic ingredients” or products that are made with a mix of ingredients.

The USDA and NOP organic regulations prohibit organically labeled food from being contaminated with residues from pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, and genetically modified (GMO) or bioengineered (BE) ingredients. Products undergo required residue testing. If foods are found to be even minimally contaminated (there is no minimum level that is tolerated), penalties and warning letters are issued. (In other words, organic food appears to have a zero tolerance level for these residues. That’s good!)

Labels for Meat

Chicken

To be designated as organic, the birds must be raised organically, starting no later than two days after they hatch. The USDA requires the chicken’s feed to be grown without pesticides or synthetic fertilizers and certified.

Being free-range is not the same as being organic. Free-range and cage-free refers to where/how the chickens lived, not what they were fed, and gives no indication about the quality of the air or hygiene levels where they lived. According to the New Roots Institute,

“Outside space provided to free-range chickens is loosely defined and often just a formality: it’s likely too small, barren, and otherwise inadequate for the thousands of chickens being raised in a farm for slaughter.’

  • Free-range. “Free-range” is a marketing term used by the food industry. It means the bird was provided shelter, unlimited access to food, fresh water, and outdoor access during their production or life cycle for at least 51% of their lives (making it “the majority” of their lives).
  • Cage-free. This label indicates that the bird could roam within a building, a room, or an enclosed area with unlimited access to food and fresh water. Cage-free hens generally have no access to the outdoors.

Don’t be fooled by food labels that sound like the living conditions are better for chickens. The ASPC (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals®has a table to help make informed choices about chicken meat. The guide helps consumers make choices based on chicken welfare. These three are the best choices:

Source: ASPC table

Eggs

With labels like “organic,” “free-range,” “cage-free,” and “vegetarian fed” it’s hard to know which eggs are the best to buy. While food labeling should be simple and transparent, unfortunately, is mostly about marketing.

Conventional Eggs

Conventional eggs are not the most ethical or nutritious eggs. These birds are generally fed poor quality feed that often contains antibiotics and hormones. Hens live in stacked rows of cages and live in a space approximately the size of a sheet of paper. The vast majority of egg-laying hens are confined in battery cages. Unable to spread their wings, caged laying hens are among agribusiness’s most intensively confined animals. The poor living conditions increase the risk of bacterial contamination.

Globally, non-typhoidal Salmonella is the most frequently documented cause of foodborne disease. In the US, it is the second most common cause of foodborne outbreaks, and around 20% of the illnesses caused by Salmonella are related to poultry, poultry products, and eggs.

In a study from 2023, Salmonella contamination varies widely among egg-producing countries. Contamination in US is low, and reported to be 0.005%. In Europe, Salmonella contamination has been found to be about 0.37%, and in China, the world’s largest egg producer eggs, between 0.5% and 5.6% of eggs were found to be contaminated with the bacteria.

Free-Range Eggs

Lines can get blurred when it comes to the free-range egg label. This is because organic eggs must be from free-range hens, but free-range eggs aren’t necessarily organic, because the birds do not need to be fed organic feed. The USDA only requires free-range eggs come from “free-range” chickens but most really only have limited access to a small, fenced in outdoor area.

Likewise, eggs labeled as “vegetarian,” “antibiotic-free,” or “all-natural” don’t have to meet the strict standards required for certified organic eggs. There’s little oversight, so it’s often up to individual farms or companies to define what those labels mean

Organic Eggs

Under the USDA Organic Certification Requirements, organic eggs must come from chickens that are fed only organic feed that is free of animal by-products, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, or chemical additives. These chickens must not be given any antibiotics or additional hormones.

Organic eggs must be laid by 100% free-range, cage-free chickens with access to an outdoor area, even if it’s small. Overall, organically raised hens offer the highest standard of animal welfare, making them the most ethical egg option available.

Organic eggs are more nutritional sound, even though the industry says there is no difference between organic and non-organic eggs. Since the hens are fed high-quality feed, have more movement, and are drug-free, they produce fresher eggs with more nutrients. The yolks of organic eggs have a richer orange color; they certainly taste richer and healthier. After eating organic eggs, I find the non-organic eggs served in most restaurants taste like styrofoam in comparison.

While organic eggs are often more expensive, sometimes double the cost of commercial eggs, they’re worth it. Look for the USDA Certified Organic label on the egg carton or buy from local farmers who follow the strict standard s for raising organic birds.

Beef

NOTE: Grass-fed describes WHAT the animal was eating, whereas pasture-fed describes WHERE the animal was being fed.

Organic means the cows ate only organic feed and were not given antibiotics or hormones.

Grass-fed

Animals receive most of their nutrients from grass and forages (such as hay) throughout their life. However, the animal’s diet has nothing to do with whether or not it received hormones or antibiotics, or was exposed to toxic pesticides, including glyphosate. In other words, just because it the meat is labeled grass-fed, doesn’t necessarily mean it is organic.

The American Grassfed Association (AGA), a non-governmental organization, developed an approval label to clear this concern. If the meat has an AGA label , it means the animal was raised in a pasture, only fed grass or hay, and was never treated with hormones or antibiotics. American Grassfed Association (AGA) is a producer-founded and run non-profit organization that supports American Family Farms and Ranchers through certification, advocacy, and education programs.

A list of AGA-approved providers can be found here.

Pasture-raised

A pastured-raised animal must have had access to the outdoors for at least 120 days per year. According to USDA regulations, this label includes terminology that refers to only a particular animal. For example, the animal may have lived in a field or on a wide-open ranch, or it may have lived outside in a small pen. The USDA has not developed a labeling policy regarding hormones and antibiotics for pasture-raised products.

Pork

Pigs intended for meat products must be raised organically from the last third of gestation and, like beef, without the use of antibiotics and growth hormone stimulants. To be labeled USDA certified organic, the pork must not only come from pigs raised on organically certified farms but also be processed by a USDA certified organic processing plant.

There are four major aspects of USDA-certified organic regulations relating to pig production—source of animals, feed, healthcare, and living conditions. The only piglets that can be sold as organic are those who whose mother (the sow) has been managed organically from the last third of gestation to birth (gestation ranges from 111 to 120 days.) Federal organic regulations require that organic pigs have access to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean drinking water, and direct sunlight. Organic pigs must have access to clean, dry bedding. If the bedding has crop residue, it must be from organic crops. (Pigs are treated more humanely than chickens).

Pork labeled as organic must come from pigs that have only been fed a diet consisting of organic grains and protein sources, including organic soybean meal. The animal feed must be 100% organically produced and without animal byproducts or daily drugs. GMOs, or hormones. While antibiotics are strictly prohibited, vaccines are allowed….and they get many.

Sheep

As of Jan. 31, 2024, there were 5.03 million head of sheep in the United States, with the largest numbers being located in Texas, California, and Colorado. Even though sheep are produced in all 50 states, most large sheep ranches are located west of the Mississippi River. When it comes to the countries with the most sheep, the US isn’t even in the top 10.

Difference Between Lamb and Mutton

Lamb is meat from a young sheep, under one year of age. Lamb is said to have a very delicate, even slightly sweet, grass-fed flavor; the meat is very tender. Lamb is usually 60-70% more costly than mutton. Mutton is the meat of mature sheep, harvested between 2 to 3 years of age. Mutton is said to have a robust, greasy, even gamey taste compared to true cuts of lambBecause the animal is older, the meat tends to be tougher and more “chewy.” Most lamb meat sold in the US comes from older sheep.

The USDA does not have clear labeling rules that differentiate between lamb and mutton. Classifying and labeling the meat lamb, yearling, or mutton is left to producers. Therefore, any sheep meat under 24 months at the time of harvest can be labelled as lamb when it is actually mutton.

An astonishingly large and diverse number of products are made from sheep and their byproducts, from food to cosmetics and shaving cream to surgical sutures. Check out this American Sheep Industry Association flier to see the full list.

What about produce labels?

Produce can be labeled organic if it was grown in soil that has not had any prohibited substances applied to it for at least three years before harvest. Products that are clearing not organic have no misleading labeling, except for products that now bear the label coated with Apeel, which I’ve written about previously.

Another chemical used on produce since 1996 is called 1-MCP, which stands for methyl-cyclopropane, marketed under the name Smart Fresh. When sprayed on apples and oranges, the shelf life can be extended for up to three years by blocking the replication of bacteria on the surface of the fruit, but it can also disrupts human and animal gut microbiome.

Other labels found on produce are the PLU labels, standing for Price-LookUp codes. They allow retailers to manage inventory, process customer checkout faster, and help manage the produce industry supply chain. Assigned by the International Federation for Produce Standards (IFPS), more than 1,400 PLU codes have been assigned to various types of fruits and vegetables. The labels also identify if the produce is organic or conventionally grown.

  • four-digit code starting with the number 3 or 4 (3000 or 4000 series) is used for conventionally grown produce. This means synthetic fertilizers, chemicals, and/or pesticides might have been used during the growth of the produce.
  • five-digit code starting with the number 3 identifies fruits and vegetables that have been irradiated or electronically pasteurized.
  • five-digit code starting with the number 6 identifies pre-cut fruits and vegetables.
  • five-digit code starting with the number 8 is designated for fruits and vegetables that have been genetically modified or bioengineered.
  • five-digit code starting with the number 9 is designated for organic fruits and vegetables.
  • If the code contains more than five digits, it is not part of the IFPS standardized system.

Summary

the next time you go to the grocery store, spend a little more time reading food labels. Now that you know a little more how they are categorized, you can be an even better consumer for yourself and your family. You’ll want to chose organic eggs, Certified Humane chicken, and AGA labeled beef. You may want to shop using the ASPC food shopping list. They say on their website, but it’s a place to start.

Where to buy” information is kept up-to-date by individual companies; please contact the store or seller directly to confirm product availability.

*The ASPCA does not audit farms or ranches and instead relies on independent animal welfare certifications as the basis for evaluating different food brands in the marketplace.

from:    https://drtenpenny.substack.com/p/food-labels-chicken-eggs-beef-pork?publication_id=931759&post_id=166770095&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email