Welcome to

Recommend this Site to a Friend

This site is for those who want to know what is happening to their world, and why,
and what they can do about it. This information is already on site, just start reading.

Retired Editorials

Editorial #2 - September 20, 2003

"Fake Research to Deliver Fake Evidence"

Dear Readers,
As the pharmaceutical companies, with government support, persist in turning a biased eye to medical reality and persist in pouring public money into dead-end avenues of research, then, considering the huge resources and numbers of people involved, there can be little doubt that this is because the interests of their concern are not the public interests.

Given knowledge of what is at stake and the arrogance and pride involved we need to accept that, because eating is so united with and so basic to health, then our many health problems are bound to a philosophic/cultural base. A base we now see is created by deliberate design; they entice us to eat foods of poor nutritional value.

In other words our main health problems are caused by the ideology that, by trickery and seduction, has imposed false values on a trusting humanity. If truth is not put first in formation of our attitudes, good turns to evil and love to destruction. Physical and social sickness is imposed by the teaching a false biology as a base for ideology that is planned and designed purposefully to achieve self-interest Globalist goals.

As promised, here are two samples to include fake research, fake promotion and fake reporting. I am limiting here to these two HSI sample quotes because of time and also of space needed for meaningful examples. I have read many such reports of recent years, not all from HSI - we are led every which way but truth. You can see other examples of professional deceit in our "Health Files" past editorials, etc. This does not mean that doctors and educators deliberately deceive us. It means that these, as we ourselves, are deceived by teachings funded by Globalist money.

However there is a common thread in fake research, mass-media reporting and professional promotion. First the testing is often done using smaller then usual numbers of people; then the trial dose is less, often much less than is known to be useful, third; the time taken for the trial is usually shorter than needed. Last but not least we find mass media reporting of the trial features only the negative. It is made evident by the amount of misleading information that 'expert' groups are established to produce fake reports and public advice.

The above features you will see are all features of the below reports. For myself I took a 750 mg tablet of Ginkgo Biloba daily for about a year as a health safeguard and it appeared to serve my general health, I have clear arteries and mind.

Quotes from Health Sciences Institute e-Alert
"August 21, 2003
Then & now

First - a quick background check: Ginkgo Biloba is the oldest living tree species - possibly as much as 200 million years old - and has been cultivated in Asia for almost 5,000 years. Although the Ginkgo leaf was used for many centuries to enhance memory and cognitive function, modern research on the pharmacological value of GBE didn't begin until the late 1950s when it was first concentrated into a standardized extract by German scientists. In 1965 Ginkgo Biloba as we know it today was introduced to the European market where it has been widely used for more than 30 years to treat circulation problems, sexual dysfunction, and cerebral disorders, including Alzheimer's disease. In 2001, retail sales of Ginkgo Biloba in America alone totaled $46 million.

But then came the report from researchers at Williams College in Williamstown, Mass., who said their primary objective was to evaluate the memory enhancing ability of Ginkgo Biloba in elderly adults. At the beginning of the report they point out that some GBE supplement makers claim that memory, attention, and related cognitive functions may improve in as little as 4 weeks. Given the short length of the study, it would seem that the researchers were specifically testing the claim about how quickly results MIGHT be experienced by SOME people.

The Williams team tested 230 men and women, all over the age of 60. Half the group received 40 mg of GBE 3 times per day, and the other half received a placebo. Before, during, and after the trial period, a series of tests were conducted to measure changes in memory, attention and concentration. In addition, the researchers interviewed a spouse or a caregiver of each subject to assess their impressions of changes in cognitive abilities.

The conclusions of the research are summed up with this comment: "These data suggest that when taken following the manufacturer's instructions, Ginkgo provides no measurable benefit in memory or related cognitive function to adults with healthy cognitive function." And from that comment, the media heard exactly 7 words -
"... Ginkgo provides no measurable benefit in memory... " [
Of 'healthy' subjects, Ed.]
- and the rush was on to shout the news with banner headlines: "Ginkgo Supplements Don't Help Memory!" exclaimed MSNBC. "New Study a Blow to Ginkgo's Reputation!" declared CNN. Reuters Health, a slightly more reserved news outlet, used the word "suggests" to temper the conclusion, but still ended up slamming the door with, "Study Suggests Ginkgo Ineffective Memory Enhancer." No matter how you read these headlines and their accompanying reports, there is only one impression the average reader will come away with: Ginkgo Biloba doesn't work. That would be your impression, that is, unless you happened to know the truth.

What Ginkgo Biloba can really do
In October of 1997 the Journal of the American Medical Association reported on a study that tested Ginkgo Biloba against something far more difficult than everyday memory functions - namely Alzheimer's disease and dementia. In that study 309 patients were studied, and the trial lasted 52 weeks - more than 8 times longer than the Williams trial. The conclusion: Ginkgo Biloba is capable of stabilizing and in many cases improving cognitive performance of demented patients. That's right: it was shown to actually stop and even reverse the onset of Alzheimer's.

The message here is clear: a six-week test is worthless - especially when it involves a supplement that affects memory. And that should have been the headline: "Effectiveness of Ginkgo Biloba Questioned by Flawed and Pointless Study."

In the past 35 years there have been over 300 clinical trials of Ginkgo Biloba, and the evidence from those trials is overwhelming: GBE's excellent antioxidant qualities protect cells from free radical damage, and GBE improves blood flow and oxygen supply to the brain and throughout the body. For most people this results in improved cognitive abilities.

Most herbalists and medical professionals who use alternative treatments agree that the recommended daily dosage of 120 mg of Ginkgo Biloba is too low. Many suggest that the dosage should be 240 mg or more per day. But almost certainly they would all agree that the most effective results of a regimen of Ginkgo Biloba would be seen over a long period of time, not just a month and a half.

Among the many wise medical instructions that Hippocrates gave to modern medicine, perhaps the wisest, and best known, was this: "First, do no harm." I thought of this when I read the Williams study and the news reports that followed. The researchers provided a study that was misguided and irrelevant to the genuine usefulness of GBE. That was the first harm. The second harm came when their "news" was widely reported: Ginkgo Biloba does not improve memory. That's the sound bite that will leave a lasting impression in the minds of consumers. And once it's rung, it's very hard to un-ring the bell.

The irresponsible media coverage of this topic may have drawn plenty of attention and upped readership, but it did so at the cost of misinforming their audience.

[Now another extract from "HSI" sorry but this is convenient for me and books could easily be filled with similar information. Ed.]

Sweetening the Pyramid
Health Sciences Institute e-Alert

August 27, 2003
The pyramid I'm talking about, of course, is the USDA Food Guide Pyramid, which illustrates federal dietary guidelines. Every five years the guidelines are reevaluated and updated, and that process is currently underway by representatives of the [US] Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
[Sounds impressive doesn't it! Ed.]

Right now the lobbyists for special interest groups within the food industry are waiting to hear what the preliminary recommendations will be; ready to apply pressure, influence, accommodations - whatever it takes to help tip the recommendations to benefit their niche of an annual $1.3 trillion industry.

Guiding the way
Of course, anyone who looks to the USDA Food Pyramid for dietary guidance is barking up the wrong pyramid.

For ten years now, the base of the pyramid has been the "Bread, Cereal, Rice, and Pasta Group" of foods, with the USDA recommending a whopping 6 to 11 servings each day from this group. And as we now know, this is a perfect recipe for obesity.

In an interview on ABC News, Walter Willett - chair of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health - pointed out that the idea of carbohydrates being good and fats being bad is "not really true." He added that this has been "known for 30 or 40 years." Known, perhaps, but for most of those years this idea was widely vilified by the majority of nutritionists.

Last year, Mr. Willet headed up a Harvard team that examined the dietary records of more than 100,000 subjects in the Nurses' Health Study and Health Professional's Follow-up Study. Willet's report (published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition), concluded that diets considered to be alternative to the high-carb/low-fat federal guidelines were "associated with significant reductions in risk of major chronic disease" including cardiovascular disease and cancer.

Of course, this is just one of many studies that reveal how the government guidelines have been guiding consumers to dietary disaster.

Living too large
When the UDSA introduced the Food Guide Pyramid a little over 10 years ago, it was already widely speculated that lobbyists for the wheat and grain industries were instrumental in establishing the strong wheat-and-grain-based structure. As with the example of the sugar lobby above, [Deleted for space. Ed.] it would appear that corporate pressure prevailed and sound dietary advice took a back seat.

So when the new guidelines are announced in 2005, don't expect to see the result of an unbiased assessment of recent dietary research, but rather a compromise that government scientists and the lobbyists can all live with - whether it's good for our health or not." End HIS quotes.

Awake! Awake!
The above is just a small sample of what has been going on for years, Globalists are robbing us of our intellectual capacity with a confusion of false information designed to abort rational decision-making - our human birthright! They train us to behave within the restraints of common animals! They entice us to love unhealthy foods and lifestyles and ban or discredit what is healthy under claim of a health service. When we get sick they dose us with drugs that may give temporary relief often at a cost of health damaging side effects: we now seem unable to appreciate the enormity of it!

Human means human, any addition to the word adds impurity. A commune means a small close-knit community; communism SUGGESTS a commune based culture. We give ourselves titles to say that we support a political party, sport or whatever but this does not mean we know the rules or the forces manipulating the party, sport or whatever. When we say we are humanists or support humanism that only means we like to think that humanism promotes what is human or is a representation of something that has supportive links with human. But humanism is not human it is just a decoy, a substitute to mislead those who seek to be human.

How can these humanists/globalists assume any right to ban or discourage our use of any natural medication or any form of treatment or any choice, even the most foolish? How can they have such contempt for us when THEY have so conclusively demonstrated that they cannot, or will not teach doctors how to reduce the plagues of sicknesses that advance to destroy economic welfare and our health! Are they not, of themselves, an atrocity - if not by their inhumanity then by their incompetence?

TheMindWeb.com, is the site for those who care enough
to work for social justice, true democracy and the human future.

On this site has been shown the cause and the practical cure of our cultural problems; also the true nature of our creation. There has been no challenge to the fact, science or logic of what is presented. Also shown is that we can never gain our social ideal without dedication to "TRUTH" above ego adopted preferences. We continue this series in the October 4th editorial.
Best wishes,

Remember: For past editorials see "Retired Editorials"
Service files: "Fast Downloads" download and print out our small books for quick reference and portability. These downloads have small revisions and are specially formatted for reduction and economic bookmaking see "Bookmaking Instructions". A photocopy service such as Xerox will download and create as few as five books of any title for a reasonable price.

Return to Home Page | Other Retired Editorials