America Is Changing Rick Sapp – 09/27/2019

Rick-CCR-Featured-9-27-19

America Is Changing
Rick Sapp – 09/27/2019

America Is Changing

In 13 months, we will defeat and send into well-deserved obscurity most of the violently anti-gun, anti-American candidates who are monopolizing the airways with whining. And good riddance.

But all of the “issues,” real or invented, that O’Rourke, Booker, Klobuchar, Castro, Harris and the rest are blathering about today will remain with us for many years. The vehemence of their attacks on America has, I believe, begun to change and divide this democratic republic permanently.

* How do we stop Planned Parenthood and find good homes for the 330,000 babies the organization murders every year?
* How do we end the “my-way-or-the-highway” attitude that has brought our government to a halt?
* How do we convince millennials that without viable borders, we will have chaos?
* How do we remind everyone who is not already a millionaire that capitalism offers a chance — the only chance in the world — to join that exclusive club?
* How, with the study of history dropped in favor of STEM studies, do we show that differences between rich and poor are part of every civilized society … and that this is a good thing?
* How do we address the basic issues that cause individuals to pick up a weapon and indiscriminately harm others?

The Use of Weapons in Society

We in the concealed carry community may be interested in all of the above issues, but we have a special concern about the use of weapons in our society.
Two banned novels with colorfully illustrated book covers: The Man Who Would be King by Rudyard Kipling and Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe

Banned-300x248

Because they present history at variance with the lens of political correctness, many classic books and writers are now banned from school and public libraries. (Rick Sapp photo)

Whether we find ways to reduce violence in America or not, whether there is an “epidemic of gun violence” as the buffoon candidates screech or not, if the Socialist left wins elections, we will find our firearms options severely limited. Should the screechers come to power and dominate politics in America (as they do the mass media now), the Second Amendment will not stand.

The fact that these “leaders” do not understand the difference between a semi-automatic and a tank or between a hair clip and a semi-auto magazine won’t stop them from implementing anti-gun agendas. Neither will their anti-gun agendas, if fulfilled, put a dent in violence in America.

What’s to Be Done?

We must address two factors to make a dent in America’s “epidemic of gun violence.” First, we must strengthen our mental health community and insurance support for counseling and intervention. Second, inner-city communities with high rates of gangs and violence must recognize that violence is a cultural issue and can only be solved within the culture. The imposition of programs, outreach and activism of all sorts will fail unless communities accept the responsibility to teach their children that the “culture of violence” is unacceptable.

The concealed carry community is part of the great silent majority who live in “fly-over land” between the coasts. But we can ill afford to be silent as the Socialist left reshapes our country. In the end, the attack on guns, religious faith and fundamental American principles is an attack on us. It’s personal. America may very well be changing, but this is a culture war. And we cannot afford to lose.

About Rick Sapp

Richard “Rick” Sapp was a U.S. Army infantry platoon leader until recruited to the 66th Military Intelligence Group. There, he worked with the West German KRIPO (Criminal Police) at Czechoslovakian border stations during the Soviet invasion of 1968.

Returning to the U.S., he earned a Ph.D. in social anthropology after studies at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Catholic University of America and the University of Florida, following which he moved to Paris, France, for a year.

After four years with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, he turned to journalism and freelance writing, specializing in outdoor features. His journalism experience includes newspapers and magazines. He has authored more than 50 books for a variety of international publishers.

Rick is married and lives in Florida.

New This Week
Amber Guyger: Right Intentions, Wrong Door?
Amber Guyger: Right Intentions, Wrong Door?
John Caile — September 27, 2019
A Motel Break-In: Should I Shoot?
A Motel Break-In: Should I Shoot?
Kevin Michalowski — September 26, 2019
Crimson Trace CMR-206 Rail Master: Universal Green Laser Sight
Crimson Trace CMR-206 Rail Master: Universal Green Laser Sight
Scott W. Wagner — September 26, 2019
USCCA Carry Confidence
USCCA

Welcome to Disqus! Discover more great discussions just like this one. We’re a lot more than comments.Get Started
Dismiss ×

USCCA Comment Policy

We welcome relevant and respectful comments. Vulgarity, Profanity, Name Calling etc. will be deleted.

8 comments
USCCA
Janet McDonald
Avatar
If there is enough tinkering with the voting booths, Trump may not be re-elected. That is what fears me. Last elections showed that it is not that hard for “them” to screw with the voting machines. “They” did not think that Trump would get so many votes, and “they” were very ill prepared. This time “they” know that Trump is going to get the votes, so if they cannot destroy him before elections, I feel “they” will see he don’t get elected, at any cost.

Avatar
Extremely Handsome Herb • 4 hours ago
Does no $hyt ring a bell in regard to the title of the article? And yes, people are very stupid, in fact, the more stupid you are the more likely you are to get into politics, Mr. Trump excepted.

For all of the do gooders we have in this Country facts make no difference, crime is down with the exception of about 4 Cities, and no they will never understand, because they do not want to understand. If they every bother to learn what they are talking about then they will think like us, and us is who they are against, so why would they ever want to be like us?

You have to keep in mind that the best job these people will ever have is to be elected to some office. And the only better job is to run for a higher office, these people will do anything to keep their job and will set their own mother on fire for a better job. There is no lie too great, no trick too dirty, whatever they can get away with is just fine. Every other person on the planet is expendable as long as they get elected.

Why would you spend $1 Billion to get a job which pays less than $450.000.00, it does not make any sense, but take a look at Uncle Joe, his whole family has been enriched by his being elected to every office which he has ever held and he cannot even find his way home all by himself.

We had better hope things change, but I mean for the American People to actually wake up to the facts which are very simple to find, you only have to be willing to learn and that my friends is why change is so very hard!

Semper Fie

Avatar
Steve H. • 6 hours ago • edited
They won’t just stop at the 2nd amendment, that is just the beginning. When that falls we will be unarmed, then they will take the 1st then the 4th………. Not on my watch!

Avatar
Frederick Davison • 7 hours ago
It isn’t the guns that they are after. It’s control! Plain and simple they want total control over the people of this great nation.

Avatar
John Kaline Frederick Davison • 5 hours ago
I’ve said it several times before, but those FEMA camps were put in place for some particular purpose, and it’s never been satisfactorily explained or proved to the general public who may soon become those camp occupants. If you just look around, I believe the state and federal governments already have all power they believe they need to exercise martial law and simply collect all the firearms the FFLs were required to keep records on about who and where they are presently located. Label me paranoid, but I still believe it.s better to be prepared than not.

Avatar
Juke 1751 John Kaline • 4 hours ago
NM has a large FEMA camp under the quise of holding illegal aliens.

Avatar
Frederick Davison John Kaline • 5 hours ago
That’s why it’s nice that I had a boating accident and lost ALL of my firearms

Avatar
GuitarsNguns • 8 hours ago
Just two years ago these same Dems were saying “nobody wants to take your guns we just want common sense gun laws”. Today they want to take our guns. We all know that this was their plan all along but now they are not hiding it and much to the chagrin of the establishment Democrats, they are saying it. We need to teach these little socialists a lesson by soundly defeating their sorry butts in the upcoming. I don’t worry much about Mr Trump getting re-elected but we all need to work to take back the House and increase our lead in the Senate where there are a half dozen RINOs we just can’t trust. If we can do this we will set the progressive movement back 20 years.

Avatar
Clark Kent • 8 hours ago
HOORAY for the ‘my way or the highway’ attitude that has brought our government to a halt! ‘Be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for’ – Will Rogers.

“Global dimming” is a plot to EXTERMINATE humanity by terraforming the atmosphere with SMOG pollution, killing Earth’s food crops and unleashing ecological collapse

China-City-Pollution-Smog 
TERRAFORMING has begun: “Global dimming” is a plot to EXTERMINATE humanity by terraforming the atmosphere with SMOG pollution, killing Earth’s food crops and unleashing ecological collapse
12/04/2018 / By Mike Adams
https://www.chemtrailsnews.com/2018-12-04-global-dimming-globalist-plot-to-eliminate-humanity-terraforming-food-crops-pollution.html

Now we come to the end game for humanity. This is it, folks: They have a plan to collapse global food production, kill off over 90% of the human race, devastate natural ecosystems and pollute the Earth’s atmosphere… and it’s all being sold to you under the banner of “environmentalism.”

The scheme is called “global dimming,” and it’s a dangerous geoengineering plot to spray billions of tons of smog into the atmosphere so that pollution levels would block sunlight and halt global warming. This is literally what the mad environmental scientists are now proposing — the very same people who have, for years, claimed that “chemtrails” are a conspiracy theory and don’t exist. Now, all of a sudden, they want to chemtrail the entire planet in order to “save” us all from global warming.

“Stratospheric aerosol injection” now the new name for chemtrails / geoengineering

The global dimming scheme is, of course, based on spraying chemtrails into the upper atmosphere using thousands of high-altitude flights that release pollution to dim the sun. The very idea of “chemtrails” has, until now, been mocked by the media and the science establishment, who have for years claimed the very idea of chemtrails is a lunatic conspiracy theory. So they’ve changed the name to “stratospheric aerosol injection,” and they now have a science paper that outlines all the costs involved.

“We lay out a future solar geoengineering deployment scenario of halving the increase in anthropogenic radiative forcing,” writes Wake Smith and Gernot Wagner in their paper, “Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment.” Published in Environmental Research Letters, you can view the full text of the study at this link.

Geoengineering is another term that many people use synonymously with “chemtrails.” And now it’s a strategy being openly advocated by scientists to halt so-called “climate change,” a fake science hoax that has been perpetrated on the world by power-hungry globalists who want humanity to surrender to global rule in the name of “saving the planet.”

The study cites the specific aircraft that would be needed to achieve chemtrails pollution. “[P]urpose-built high-altitude tanker with substantial payload capabilities” would be deployed to spray sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. The paper proposes 4000 flights a year, costing $2.25 billion per year, continuing over 15 years to make sure the atmosphere is significantly polluted to dim the sun and achieve the terraforming goals of globalists (see more details, below).

In the conclusion of their abstract, the study authors explain the program would require, “thousands of flights annually by airliner-sized aircraft operating from an international array of bases,” making it almost impossible to keep secret.

Of course, this very program has already begun, and secrecy isn’t necessary when you have the entire media and science establishment condemning any belief in chemtrails as a form of mental illness. So just remember: As they pollute the skies and dim the sun, if you point out that they’re polluting the skies and dimming the sun, you’re a “conspiracy theorist.”

And there’s no such thing as chemtrails, you see. Nope, it’s “stratospheric aerosol injection” now, which sounds almost sciency. That’s how this program is already being perpetrated right under our noses, right now, even while the media runs a global cover-up to dismiss such ideas as bizarre theories.

The global controllers hope you never read the science papers, of course, because there, geoengineering is routinely cited and even advocated as the “solution” to climate change.

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) explained… and yeah, it’s just another name for chemtrails

“Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) would require lofting hundreds of thousands to millions of tons of material each year to altitudes up to ~20 km,” explain study authors. They also ask, “Could it be done in secret?”

The study offers heavy discussion on the design and costs of aircraft that could deliver the planned pollution to the upper atmosphere:

IPCC (2018) states that ‘there is high agreement that aircrafts after some modifications could inject millions of tons of SO2 in the lower stratosphere (~20 km)’.

The overall goal of the geoengineering program is to inject 5 million tons of SO2 (sulfur dioxide, otherwise known as “smog”) into the atmosphere. Achieving that goal, “assumes a rational actor seeking to implement a scientifically sensible SAI program,” write the study authors, somehow claiming it is “rational” to disperse mass pollution across the atmosphere of your own planet. The same authors also claim this program must be conducted, “purely out of humanitarian and environmental considerations.”

Shocking realization: This is terraforming planet Earth to collapse the global food supply and kill off humans

In considering the sheer lunacy of the “Stratospheric Aerosol Injection” plan, I feel compelled to state that these climate change / global warming scientists are dangerously insane sociopaths and they must be stopped before they murder us all. These lunatics, if given enough government funding, will literally murder our planet and destroy human civilization. Such is the cost of the decades of false propaganda in our public schools that has brainwashed children into believing “climate change” is real and must be halted. The schemes now being proposed to halt this non-existent problem will, themselves, bring about the global destruction that children are being warned about with global warming.

This global pollution / terraforming program, if allowed to continue, could unleash the following devastating consequences, especially if deployed at a time when the sun is in its own dimming cycle that would accelerate global cooling.

#1) Global collapse of food crops – The reduction in solar radiation caused by geoengineering, combined with the natural cycle of global cooling from sun cycles, could produce a sharp reduction in food crop production across the globe. This would result in increased food prices and reduced food supplies, adding to vectors for civil unrest and “climate refugees” invading First World nations to escape starvation.

#2) Global rise in cancer from vitamin D deficiency – Reduction in solar radiation reaching the surface of the planet would exacerbate vitamin D deficiencies that already strongly contribute to cancer fatalities around the world. Sunlight is currently the primary source of vitamin D for billions of world citizens. Dimming the sun would be a death sentence for millions each year who would suffer the dire consequences of chronic vitamin D deficiencies.

#3) Global drop in IQs due to increased air pollution – Increases in air pollution have been scientifically found to lower children’s IQs. In addition, air pollution is scientifically documented to damage DNA in the womb, increase the risk of ventricular arrhythmia and increase the risk of bone loss in humans.

#4) Massive loss of habitat and ecosystems due to decreased sunlight and colder temperatures – Entire ecosystems — such as rainforests — could be devastated by a pollution-initiated drop in solar radiation. Marine ecosystems also rely heavily on solar radiation to power the photosynthesis of ocean plants such as seaweeds, grasses and algae, which serve as a pillar food source for the entire marine food web. Dimming the sun would have devastating consequences for all ecosystems on the planet, resulting in a catastrophic loss of life, habitat and eco-diversity.

#5) Huge increase in global acid rain that will devastate forests and food crops – The mass injection of SO2 into the atmosphere will result in SO2 being dispersed into lower levels of the atmosphere over time. There, mixed with rain storms, it will create sulfurous acid, otherwise known as acid rain. This acid rain will devastate forests and food crops and result in the acidification of crop soils, destabilizing soil microbes and leading the widespread crop losses.

#6) Decreased plant production of oxygen that’s necessary for humans, primates and mammals to survive – Nearly all plants depend on solar radiation for photosynthesis, which uses CO2 as a “fuel” and produces oxygen (O2) as a byproduct. Reducing solar radiation through chemtrails pollution would reduce the production of oxygen by plants, resulting in a global fall in atmospheric oxygen levels, ultimately leading to the mass asphyxiation of humans, primates and mammals if allowed to continue. Even the EPA (see source below) admits that SO2 interferes with human respiration and makes it difficult for people to breathe.
Photosynthesis-600

Even the EPA recognizes sulfur dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that makes it difficult for humans to breathe

Note carefully that the geoengineering efforts being advocated to dim the sun are based on sulfur dioxide, a known pollutant. “Short-term exposures to SO2 can harm the human respiratory system and make breathing difficult,” warns the EPA. “…[G]aseous SOx can harm trees and plants by damaging foliage and decreasing growth… SO2 and other sulfur oxides can contribute to acid rain which can harm sensitive ecosystems,” the EPA writes.

In other words, it isn’t even debated whether sulfur dioxide is a pollutant. It’s smog (or technically, it reacts to create smog), and the very idea that mass polluting the atmosphere with SO2 would somehow “save” the planet is rooted in nothing less than advanced psychosis or some other dangerous form of mental illness. That such schemes are marketed under the banner of “science” just shows how twisted the institution of science has now become.

Why would any rational institution seek to mass pollute our entire planet and destroy food crops, forests, mammals, primates and humans? The answer is even more shocking than the proposal itself, it turns out. Keep reading, as one possible explanation for all this continues below…
Stratospheric-Aerosol-Injections-Liberals-600

It wasn’t long ago that scientists warned about “global cooling” and the coming Ice Age

It was only a generation ago that young scientists were being warned that Earth was entering a “global cooling” crisis that would bring about a whole new ice age. This was the climate panic of the 1970s and early 1980s. Today’s older scientists remember the warnings quite well. We were all told that if we didn’t find a way to warm the planet, we would all perish as Earth was turned into a ball of ice.

Beginning in the 1990s, the scientists flipped the script, reversing their warning and suddenly claiming the problem was too much heat. We were all going to die from global warming if we didn’t change something, we were told. A decade or so later, when it was revealed that government science scammers were faking all the warming data, they changed the scam to “climate change,” since they couldn’t scientifically support either warming or cooling.

Here’s the cover of TIME Magazine from 1977, which warns, “How To Survive The Coming Ice Age,” then urges readers to get on board to save the planet, saying, “51 Things You Can Do to Make a Difference.”
Time-Magazine-Ice-Age-400

Today, we’re told the most absurd, insane things by these scientists who insist that the climate never changed at all before the year 1920, with the rise of the combustion engine and “human activity.” And now we’re constantly terrorized by the fake news media into thinking that if we don’t pollute the Earth’s atmosphere with smog, we will all somehow die from the rise of carbon dioxide, the No. 1 most important greening nutrient for plants, forests and food crops.

So now they’ve decided they have to poison the atmosphere to fight climate change, and they’ve got about a billion gullible world citizens convinced that this is somehow an amazing idea. What they would really unleash, of course, is absolutely catastrophic to all life on our world. Remember: They want to disperse billions of tons of sulfur dioxide (smog) into the atmosphere through massive government-funded chemtrailing of the planet. The question now emerges: Is the destruction of humanity deliberate? If so, who would hatch such a nefarious plan?

Geoengineering is a planet-wide weapon system being deployed to eliminate human life on Earth while terraforming the planet for some other purpose

Here’s the cosmic inconvenient truth that Al Gore doesn’t want you to consider. What we are really witnessing here is the planned terraforming of planet Earth for some other purpose. And by “other,” I mean other than human.

If you wanted humans to thrive on planet Earth, you would not unleash mass pollution, acid rain, food crop failures, oxygen depletion and global dimming. You would, instead, try to reduce pollution, support plant life, enhance food crop production and protect global ecosystems from pollution. That’s the normal, rational thing that any human being would naturally want to pursue.

Yet we are subjected to these nefarious geoengineering schemes that directly contradict every principle of sustainable life on Earth. And it’s all described as a way to “save” the planet, even as it would destroy global life support for humans.

I can’t help but be reminded of the outstanding film Oblivion, starring Tom Cruise. In the film, the Cruise character thinks he’s protecting human civilization, but he’s actually (unknowingly) working for extraterrestrials who are stealing Earth’s resources and exterminating humans. The film is one of the best science fiction films of all time, and its story sounds eerily similar to what may be happening right now with so-called “geoengineering.”

Who (or what) would want to alter the atmosphere, decimate oxygen levels, destroy the food supply and collapse human civilization? The answer should be obvious: Something that is in competition with humans and sees no further use for humanity. Human life on Earth appears to be in the process of being “cleansed” in a cosmic ethnic cleansing scheme that will produce an altered, low-oxygen atmosphere that might prove advantageous to a life form which isn’t already part of Earth’s existing ecosystem. The reduction in solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface would make the planet more hospital to a life form that originated from a planet located farther from its home sun than Earth is from our own sun.

It raises the obvious, if bizarre-sounding, question: Are Earth’s globalists preparing the planet for a post-human era? And is that plan disguised as a “climate change” emergency course of action so that the sheeple can be told the mass pollution of the skies is a bold plan to save humanity rather than exterminate it? What if “climate change” is actually a cosmic false flag hoax that was designed from the very start to convince Earthlings to support their own extermination? Given the now-planned destruction of Earth’s atmosphere in the name of “climate change,” we must now consider such possibilities, no matter how bizarre they first seem.

Why are all the globalists suddenly talking about escaping to Mars and terraforming Mars into a habitat where humans can survive? Why are globalists now so desperate the alter Earth’s atmosphere and make the planet inhospitable to humans? Why such a recent focus on the Arctic seed vault to preserve the seeds of life in preparation for a global cataclysm? Why are so many globalist insiders building underground bunkers and living in them?

I don’t have the answers to all these questions, but I do know that the fairy tale stories we’re being told about “climate change” and how we must save the planet by polluting the skies are rooted in complete quack science fiction and brainwashing propaganda.

On the other hand, if humans are stupid enough to destroy their own planet in the name of saving the planet, perhaps they’re simply not qualified to participate in an intelligence universe after all. Natural selection, after all, is likely playing out on a cosmic scale, and Earth appears to be flunking the cosmic IQ test that wonders, “Hey, is that civilization stupid enough to commit suicide based on a fairy tale hoax?”

So far, it appears the answer for Earth and humans is a resounding “Yes!”

This entire topic, by the way, will be featured in this Sunday’s broadcast of Counterthink, airing at 6pm cental at InfoWars.com, with the full episode also appearing at Counterthink.com a few days later. Don’t miss it.

 

HPV Vaccine leaves ANOTHER teenager chained to a wheelchair for LIFE. By Tracey Watson

HPV-vaccine-young-girl

HPV Vaccine leaves ANOTHER teenager chained to a wheelchair for LIFE
05/01/2019 / By Tracey Watson
https://www.newstarget.com/2019-05-01-hpv-vaccine-leaves-another-teenager-chained-to-a-wheelchair-for-life.html

The human papillomavirus, known as HPV, is an incredibly common sexually transmitted infection. Though just the name HPV strikes fear into the hearts of many, for the most part, it is totally harmless. The CDC’s website notes that, “HPV is so common that nearly all sexually active people get it at some point in their lives.” While the agency warns that HPV can cause genital warts and cervical cancer, and that the vaccine is therefore vitally important, the figures just don’t back that statement up. The CDC’s own statistics show that 79 million Americans are currently infected with HPV, yet only about 100 of these will have genital warts at any given time, and only about 11,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer in any given year.

While it is not my intention to diminish the suffering of those 11,000 women in any way, it does seem startling that the CDC is recommending that everybody be vaccinated against a disease that only affects around 0.014 percent of all those infected with the virus – especially when hordes of distraught families have spoken out about the devastating effect this vaccine has had on their children.

One of the affected families is the Beattie family from Wigton, England. Zara Beattie, 13, was once a sporty young girl who loved football, netball and cycling. She now virtually never leaves her bed, and is wheelchair-bound when she does leave home, after suffering a reaction to the Gardasil HPV vaccine back in 2015.

Zara’s mom, Anthea, describes her daughter as an “80-year-old in a teenager’s body.” Zara is unable to stand without feeling faint, has to be homeschooled because she’s simply too exhausted to go to school, and can barely cope with sitting up to have a meal. She also suffers from constant headaches, as well as muscle and joint pain.

Mother Nature’s micronutrient secret: Organic Broccoli Sprout Capsules now available, delivering 280mg of high-density nutrition, including the extraordinary “sulforaphane” and “glucosinolate” nutrients found only in cruciferous healing foods. Every lot laboratory tested. See availability here.

“On a bad day the poor girl can’t even stand up,” Anthea explains. “She will stay in bed all day and crawl to the toilet. She’s got a stool by the sink for when she cleans her teeth.”

What is particularly noteworthy about this story is that Anthea is a nurse who has practiced for over 30 years. This really is one of medicine’s own speaking out against a procedure she obediently subjected her daughter to because she believed in the system. The entire family will now have to live with that decision for the rest of their lives.

Zara has been diagnosed with a condition called postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (PoTS), but her doctors at the University of Newcastle Royal Victoria Infirmary, while staunchly insisting that the vaccine didn’t cause her illness, have been unable to come up with a viable alternative cause.

Doctors claim that around 400 lives are saved each year because of the HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix. That figure looks dubious when one considers the overall HPV statistics, but even if their claim is true, it fails to take into account all the damage the vaccine also causes.

At least 44 girls have died from these vaccines, and more than 15,000 have reported adverse effects, including seizures, blood clots, lupus, brain inflammation and Guillain-Barré syndrome. (RELATED: Lead developer of HPV vaccine admits it’s a giant, deadly scam.)

In Ireland, more than 200 teenagers have reported “acute physical side-effects” after being given the HPV vaccine at their schools.

In Denmark, one of the country’s national television stations, TV2, aired a documentary entitled The Vaccinated Girls – Sick and Betrayed, which revealed that many young girls had developed severe health problems after being vaccinated against HPV.

And in Japan, dozens of teenage girls injured by the toxic HPV vaccine have filed suit against both the government and the drug companies who produce the vaccine.

How many more young girls and their families will have to suffer before these governments stop focusing on lining the pockets of Big Pharma, and start focusing on protecting the people under their care?

Sources include:

DailyMail.co.uk

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

CDC.gov

Dirty electricity in the home threatens human health

Dirty electricity in the home threatens human health
https://www.naturalhealth365.com/dirty-electricity-emf-2822.html
Posted by: Lloyd Burrell in EMF Pollution, Natural Personal Care December 31, 2018 0 Comments

What if electromagnetic or EMF pollution wasn’t strictly a wireless technology problem? Well, it turns out that dirty electricity – mainly caused by the electrical wires in your home – can cause serious health issues like, migraines, poor brain function and, even, contribute to cancer cell growth.

This is clearly a much more serious health concern – almost never addressed by the mainstream media. Bottom line: wouldn’t you want to know if the electrical supply that powers your home was a major source of electrical pollution and the cause of health problems?

As a little background, the standard electrical frequency – that is in North American homes and offices – is 60 hertz. This is what’s used to operate our TVs, cookers, refrigerators, washing machines and lights.

But, increasingly so, there are a large number of other electrical frequencies that can be found on our wiring. These frequencies are known as ‘high frequency voltage transients.’ The problem is these high frequencies are believed to cause a number of serious health problems.

Hence, these high frequencies have earned the name, ‘dirty electricity’.

Where can I find dirty electricity inside the home?
A major source of dirty electricity is the electronic devices that are in our homes and in the homes of our neighbors.

Dave Stetzer, a leading expert on dirty electricity, and other scientists, have found that these high frequency voltages come from our computers, printers, copiers, TVs, game consoles, tube fluorescent lights, compact florescent light bulbs, dimmer light switches, variable speed motors, treadmills, vacuum cleaners, sewing machines, wind turbines, solar energy inverters, smart meters, and other electronic devices.

Many modern electronic devices add high frequency transients to our home electrical wiring.

Dirty electricity can also be caused by arcing on power lines during storms when lines touch trees. It can also be created from unfiltered cell phone and broadcast frequencies from nearby antennas.

The rarely spoken truth about premature aging and death
Leading epidemiologist Samuel Milham, MD, MPH – who has studied this subject in detail and even wrote a book on it – believes that these exposures coupled with the proliferation of wireless technology mean that “we may be facing a looming epidemic of morbidity and mortality”.

Dirty electricity in electrical wiring has been linked to many serious diseases and health conditions, including:

Cancer
Multiple Sclerosis
Elevated blood sugar
Obesity
Migraine headaches
Attention deficit disorders
Asthma
Chronic fatigue syndrome
Multiple chemical sensitivities
Miscarriages
Infertility
Depression and suicide
How is dirty electricity created inside the homes?
Most modern electronic devices now use Direct Current (DC) power. These devices are equipped with switch-mode power supply (SMPS) converters that convert the alternating electrical current (AC) from the wall outlets into DC current.

These SMPS converters can create dirty electricity – which are then added to our electrical wires. These converters can often be found in rectangular boxes in surge protector strips or on larger electronic devices. And, they may be built into the equipment.

Let’s talk about the worst offenders.

Compact florescent light (CFL) bulbs are believed to be among the worst contributors to dirty electricity.

They use ‘pulsed electronic technology.’

These new bulbs, unlike the old incandescent variety, switch on and off some 20,000 times per second. And, it’s this switching activity, which breaks up the normal 60-hertz sine wave of electrical power into fragments, returns the unused electrical fragments to the electrical system and thereby creates dirty electricity.

Compact florescent light bulbs add pollution to house and office wiring in the 50 to 100 KHZ range. One CFL bulb can contaminate the electrical system of an entire house when it’s in use.

The mainstream media continue to ignore the ‘biological effects’ of dirty electricity
Dr. Magda Havas, of Trent University, in Canada has been studying the biological effects of high frequency voltage transients and similar forms of electromagnetic pollution since the early 1990s. She says:

“Most of the research on the biological effects of nonionizing radiation is done at one of two frequency ranges: extremely low frequency associated with electricity (50/60 Hz) and radio frequency associated with wireless telecommunication devices (800 MHz to 2.5 GHz range).

An intermediate frequency range [high frequency voltage transients], at the low end of the RF spectrum (kHz), flows along and radiates from wires and thus has characteristics of the two major types of electromagnetic pollution mentioned above.

Scientists doing research on the biological effects of power line frequencies seldom measure this frequency range and thus ignore the effects it might have on health.”

How can electricity in a wire be a health risk?
First, there is the issue of ground current. According to Dave Stetzer ground current has become a major problem in the U.S. since 1992 when the electric utility companies started using the earth, the ground we walk on, as if it was an electric wire.

Previously utility companies used a neutral wire to return unused electricity to their substations.

Since 1992, energy companies have decided to just run wires down the side of electrical poles into the ground.

In North America ground current is now practically everywhere. These dangers are compounded by the presence of large amounts of dirty electricity – which flow through the ground and our electrical wiring.

Dirty electricity does not stay in your wiring. It manifests the skin effect.

It travels on the outer skin of the wire and can easily radiate through walls into our living spaces and our bodies.

Great tips on protecting your health
Here are some simple ways to reduce your exposure to dirty electricity:

1. Eliminate/minimize the use of these devices in your home.
2. Replace dimmer switches with on/off switches.
3. Replace CFLs with traditional light bulbs.
4. Replace smart (utility) meters with an analog meter.
5. Eliminate/minimize use of any device susceptible to be equipped with a SMPS converter.

To deal with this issue effectively you need to measure the dirty electricity levels in your home and install dirty electricity filters if the readings are above 50 GS units. GS units are measured with a Graham micro-surge meter.

For more tips on reducing your dirty electricity exposures – learn how to use a GS filter.

What is the correlation between electricity and disease?
Dr. Milham studied U.S. vital statistics and census records for 1920–1960. He found that urban death rates were much higher than rural rates for a number of diseases including cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and suicide.

He believes that many of these diseases could be prevented today if appropriate steps were taken to reduce the harmful effects of ground current, dirty electricity and radiation from cell phones, cell towers and the like.

Governmental agencies, utility companies and corporations who create electrical products continue to underestimate and often downplay the potential harm of electromagnetic fields.

Get smart before it’s too late. Act now to take steps to protect your health from dirty electricity and other EMF exposures.

About the author: Lloyd Burrell is the founder of ElectricSense.com. His website offers solutions to the growing number of people whose health is being compromised by exposure to wireless and similar technologies. Download his free EMF Health Report today!

Who Ya Gonna Call Before August 16 to Complain about 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers Being Installed in Front of Homes, etc.? The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee


Who Ya Gonna Call Before August 16 to Complain about 4G and 5G Small Cell Towers Being Installed in Front of Homes, etc.? The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee (Contact Info Provided).

https://www.activistpost.com/2018/08/call-before-august-16-complain-4g-5g-towers-contact-list.html

August 8, 2018

By B.N. Frank

Big Thanks to all EMF activists for providing so much information to Activist Post so we can pass it on to readers who also want to stop the widespread “Roll Out” of risky 5G technology and other Telecom Industry, FCC, and other elected officials’ nonsense.

Since 2004, The International Association of Firefighters has opposed the use of their stations as base stations for cell towers and antennas until it can be proven that this is NOT hazardous to their health. So why would any of the rest of us be okay with allowing small cell towers to be installed in front of our homes, in public rights-of-ways, and everywhere else? This violates “The Precautionary Principle.”

In addition to contacting your local, state, and federal elected officials ASAP, a list of senate committee members and their contact information is posted at the end of this article. Please contact them before August 16.

With a little luck, we can help it out. We can make this whole damn thing work out.

Here’s the deal as relayed via excerpts from an article posted by Radio + TV Business Report:

On Aug, 16 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has an oversight hearing which will be conducted by Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

According to Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.)

The hearing, the Committee notes, will examine policy issues before the Commission and review the FCC’s ongoing duties and activities. This includes efforts to better utilize spectrum powering our wireless economy to expanding rural broadband access, combatting robocalls, and reviewing the media landscape.

(A little more background):

For several hours on July 25, the four voting members of the FCC answered questions and, in a handful of instances, sparred with House of Representatives members who wanted assurances that the White House would not sway the Commission on its decision to send Sinclair Broadcast Group‘s intended merger with Tribune Media to an Administrative Law Judge.

Because of this, the FCC Four went to the Senate side of Capitol Hill for an oversight hearing that was conducted by Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee one day later than originally planned.

On July 30, the committee announced that it would convene its hearing on August 15 at 10:15am. However, now it’s been pushed back again and will be held on August 16 at 10am at Russell Senate Office Building, Room 253.

Witness testimony, opening statements, and a live video of the hearing will be available on http://www.commerce.senate.gov.

The following list of committee members and their contact information was provided by EMF activists. Websites are not working for some officials and this has been noted next to their names. Please contact some or all of them before August 16 and let them know how you feel about all of this:

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/committeemembers

Contact Information for the Committee Full Committee Office
Majority: 202-224-1251
Majority Address: 512 Dirksen Senate Building; Washington DC, 20510
Minority: 202-224-0411

MAJORITY MEMBERS:

1. CHAIRMAN: Senator John Thune, South Dakota
Washington D.C. Office
United States Senate SD-511
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2321
Fax: (202) 228-5429
Toll-Free: 1-866-850-3855
EMAIL FORM: https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

2. Senator Roger Wicker Mississippi
Washington, D.C.
555 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: (202) 224-6253
Fax: (202) 228-0378
EMAIL FORM https://www.wicker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

3. Senator Roy Blunt Missouri
Washington, D.C.
260 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5721
EMAIL CONTACT FORM: https://www.blunt.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-roy

4. Senator Ted Cruz Texas
WASHINGTON, D.C.
(202) 224-5922
404 Russell
Washington, DC 20510
EMAIL: https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=form&id=16

5. Senator Deb Fischer Nebraska
Washington D.C.
454 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-6551
Fax: (202) 228-1325
EMAIL: https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/?p=email-deb

6. Senator Jerry Moran Kansas
Washington, D.C.
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Room 521
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-6521
Fax: (202) 228-6966
https://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-jerry

7. Senator Dan Sullivan Alaska
WASHINGTON, D.C.
702 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202)-224-3004
Fax: (202)-224-6501
https://www.sullivan.senate.gov/contact/email

8. Senator Dean Heller Nevada
Washington, DC
324 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-6244
Fax: 202-228-6753
https://www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form

9. Senator Jim Inhofe Oklahoma (site down)

10. Senator Mike Lee Utah (site down)

11. Senator Ron Johnson Wisconsin
328 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5323
Fax: (202) 228-6965
https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-the-senator

12. Senator Shelley Moore Capito West Virginia

13. Senator Cory Gardner Colorado
Washington, D.C.
354 Russell
Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
P: (202) 224-5941
F: (202) 224-6524
https://www.gardner.senate.gov/contact-cory/email-cory

14. Senator Todd Young Indiana (site down)

MINORITY MEMBERS:

1. Ranking Member Bill Nelson Florida
WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE
United States Senate
716 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-5274
Fax: 202-228-2183
https://www.billnelson.senate.gov/contact-bill

2. Senator Maria Cantwell Washington
Washington, DC
511 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3441
Fax: (202) 228-0514
https://www.cantwell.senate.gov/contact/email

3. Senator Amy Klobuchar Minnesota
Washington, DC
302 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
phone: 202-224-3244
fax: 202-228-2186
https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-amy

4. Senator Richard Blumenthal Connecticut
https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/contact
Washington D.C.
706 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC, 20510
tel (202) 224-2823
fax (202) 224-9673

5. Senator Brian Schatz Hawaii
722 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
PHONE: (202) 224-3934
FAX: (202) 228-1153
https://www.schatz.senate.gov/contact

6. Senator Ed Markey Massachusetts
Washington, D.C.
255 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
202-224-2742
https://www.markey.senate.gov/contact

7. Senator Tom Udall New Mexico
Washington/Capitol Hill
531 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510
(202) 224-6621
https://www.tomudall.senate.gov/contact/email-tom

8. Senator Gary Peters Michigan
Hart Senate Office Building
Suite 724
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-6221
https://www.peters.senate.gov/contact/email-gary

9. Senator Tammy Baldwin Wisconsin (site down)

10. Senator Tammy Duckworth Illinois (site down)

11. Senator Maggie Hassan New Hampshire (site down)

12. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto Nevada (site down)

13. Senator Jon Tester Montana (site down)

There is no end to what we can do together. There is no end.

Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse
Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s G

Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly. In fact, “high LDL-C may be protective is in accordance with the finding that LDL-C is lower than normal in patients with acute myocardial infarction”.


Cardiovascular medicine
Research
Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401.full?sid=cfb00014-f0a8-407d-ae71-a3278160ca49

Uffe Ravnskov1, David M Diamond2, Rokura Hama3, Tomohito Hamazaki4, Björn Hammarskjöld5, Niamh Hynes6, Malcolm Kendrick7, Peter H Langsjoen8, Aseem Malhotra9, Luca Mascitelli10, Kilmer S McCully11, Yoichi Ogushi12, Harumi Okuyama13, Paul J Rosch14, Tore Schersten15, Sherif Sultan6, Ralf Sundberg16
Author affiliations
Abstract

Objective It is well known that total cholesterol becomes less of a risk factor or not at all for all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality with increasing age, but as little is known as to whether low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), one component of total cholesterol, is associated with mortality in the elderly, we decided to investigate this issue.

Setting, participants and outcome measures We sought PubMed for cohort studies, where LDL-C had been investigated as a risk factor for all-cause and/or CV mortality in individuals ≥60 years from the general population.

Results We identified 19 cohort studies including 30 cohorts with a total of 68 094 elderly people, where all-cause mortality was recorded in 28 cohorts and CV mortality in 9 cohorts. Inverse association between all-cause mortality and LDL-C was seen in 16 cohorts (in 14 with statistical significance) representing 92% of the number of participants, where this association was recorded. In the rest, no association was found. In two cohorts, CV mortality was highest in the lowest LDL-C quartile and with statistical significance; in seven cohorts, no association was found.

Conclusions High LDL-C is inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years. This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (ie, that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic). Since elderly people with high LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low LDL-C, our analysis provides reason to question the validity of the cholesterol hypothesis. Moreover, our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010401
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Article has an altmetric score of 1664

Strengths and limitations of this study

This is the first systematic review of cohort studies where low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) has been analysed as a risk factor for all-cause and/or cardiovascular mortality in elderly people.

Lack of an association or an inverse association between LDL-C and mortality was present in all studies.

We may not have included studies where an evaluation of LDL-C as a risk factor for mortality was performed but where it was not mentioned in the title or in the abstract.

We may have overlooked relevant studies because we have only searched PubMed.

Minor errors may be present because some of the authors may not have adjusted LDL-C by appropriate risk factors.

Some of the participants with high LDL-C may have started statin treatment during the observation period and, in this way, may have added a longer life to the group with high LDL-C and some of them may have started with a diet able to influence the risk of mortality.

We may have overlooked a small number of relevant studies because we only searched papers in English.

Introduction
Rationale

For decades, the mainstream view has been that an elevated level of total cholesterol (TC) is a primary cause of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD). There are several contradictions to this view, however. No study of unselected people has found an association between TC and degree of atherosclerosis.1 Moreover, in most of the Japanese epidemiological studies, high TC is not a risk factor for stroke, and further, there is an inverse association between TC and all-cause mortality, irrespective of age and sex.2

In a recent meta-analysis performed by the Prospective Studies Collaboration, there was an association between TC and CV mortality in all ages and in both sexes.3 However, even in this analysis, the risk decreased with increasing age and became minimal after the age of 80 years. Since atherosclerosis and CVD are mainly diseases of the elderly, the cholesterol hypothesis predicts that the association between CV mortality and TC should be at least as strong in the elderly as in young people. There may be a confounding influence in these studies, however, because TC includes high-density lipoprotein cholestrol (HDL-C), and multiple studies have shown that a high level of HDL-C is associated with a lower risk of CVD.
Objectives

We examined the literature assessing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as a risk factor for mortality in elderly people. Since the definition of CVD varies considerably in the scientific literature, we have chosen to focus on the association between LDL-C and all-cause and CVD mortality, because mortality has the least risk of bias among all outcome measures. If Goldstein and Brown’s recent statement that LDL-C is ‘the essential causative agent’ of CVD4 is correct, then we should find that LDL-C is a strong risk factor for mortality in elderly people.


Methods
Search strategy

UR and RS searched PubMed independently from initial to 17 December 2015. The following keywords were used: ‘lipoprotein AND (old OR elderly) AND mortality NOT animal NOT trial’. We also retrieved the references in the publications so as not to miss any relevant studies. The search was limited to studies in English.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria

All included studies should meet the following criteria: the study should be a cohort study of people aged 60 years or older selected randomly from the general population, or a study where the authors had found no significant differences between the participants and the source population’s demographic characteristics. The studies should include an initial assessment of LDL-C levels, the length of the observation time and information about all-cause and/or cardiovascular mortality at the end of follow-up. The studies should also include information about the association between LDL-C and all-cause and/or CVD mortality. We excluded studies that did not represent the general population (eg, case–control studies; case reports; studies that included patients only); studies where data about elderly people were not given separately, and studies without multivariate correction for the association between LDL-C and all-cause and/or CV mortality. We accepted studies where the authors had excluded patients with serious diseases or individuals who had died during the first year.
Study selection, data items and extraction

Studies where the title or abstract indicated that they might include LDL-C data of elderly people, were read in full, and the relevant data were extracted by at least three of the authors, for example, year of publication, total number of participants, sex, length of observation time, exclusion criteria, LDL-C measured at the start and the association between initial LDL-C and risk of all-cause and/or at follow-up. When more than one adjusted HR was reported, the HR with the most fully adjusted model was selected.

Quality assessment

The design of the study satisfies almost all points of reliability and validity according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale as regards selection, comparability and exposure.5 Thus, all studies represented elderly people only; ascertainness of exposure (eg, measurement of LDL-C) was present in all studies, and outcome was unknown at the start. It can be questioned if all of the studies represented the general population because, as shown below, in some of them various types of disease groups were excluded.

Results
Study selection

Our search gave 2894 hits. We excluded 160 studies, which were not in English, and 2452 studies because, judged from the abstract, it was obvious that they were irrelevant.

The rest of the papers were read in full; 263 of these studies were excluded for the following reasons: (1) the participants did not represent the general population; (2) LDL-C was not measured at the start; (3) follow-up information was not given for the elderly separately; or (4) no information was present about mortality during the observation period (figure 1). One of the studies6 was excluded because it included the same individuals as in a previous study.7
Figure 1

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint

Figure 1

Flow Chart. CV, cardiovascular; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
Study characteristics

The remaining 19 studies including 30 cohorts with a total of 68 094 participants met the inclusion criteria (figure 1). All-cause mortality was recorded in 28 cohorts. In 16 of these cohorts (representing 92% of the individuals), the association was inverse and with statistical significance in 14; in 1 of the cohorts, the association was mirror-J-formed with the lowest risk in the highest quartile; in the rest of the papers, no association was found. CV mortality was recorded in nine cohorts; in one of them, the association was almost U-shaped with the lowest risk in the highest quartile (curvilinear fit: p=0.001); in one of them, the association was mirror-J-formed and also with the lowest risk in the highest quartile (curvilinear fit: p=0.03); in the other seven cohorts, no association was found (table 1).

View inline View popup

Table 1

Association between LDL-C and all-cause mortality and CVD mortality, respectively, in 19 studies including 30 cohorts with 68 094 individuals from the general population above the age of 60 years
Risk of bias across studies

One explanation for the increased risk of mortality among people with low cholesterol is that serious diseases may lower cholesterol soon before death occurs. Evidence to support this hypothesis may be obtained from 10 of the studies in which no exclusions were made for individuals with terminal illnesses. However, in four of the studies, participants with a terminal illness or who had died during the first observation year were excluded. In one of those studies,8 LDL-C was not associated with all-cause mortality; in the three others,16 ,20 ,24 which included more than 70% of the total number of participants in our review, LDL-C was inversely associated with all-cause mortality and with statistical significance. Thus, there is little support for the hypothesis that our analysis is biased by end of life changes in LDL-C levels.

It is also potentially relevant that all studies did not correct for the same risk factors, and some of them did not inform the reader about which risk factors they corrected for. However, taking all studies together, 50 different risk factors were corrected for in the Cox analyses (table 2).

View inline View popup

Table 2

Factors corrected for in the multifactorial analyses of each study

It is worth considering that some of the participants with high LDL-C may have started statin treatment during the observation period. Such treatment may have increased the lifespan for the group with high LDL-C. However, any beneficial effects of statins on mortality would have been minimal because most statin trials have had little effect on CVD and all-cause mortality, with a maximum reduction of mortality of two percentage points. It is therefore relevant that the 4-year mortality among those with the highest LDL-C in the included cohorts was up to 36% lower than among those with the lowest LDL-C. Furthermore, in the largest study20 that included about two-thirds of the total number of participants in our study, the risk was lower among those with the highest LDL-C than among those on statin treatment.

It is also possible that those with the highest LDL-C were put on a different diet than those with low LDL-C. However, this potential bias in mortality outcomes could have gone in both directions. Some of the individuals with high LDL-C may have followed the official dietary guidelines and exchanged saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid. In a recent study, the authors reported that among participants who were older than 65 at baseline, a 30 mg/dL decrease in serum cholesterol was associated with a higher risk of death (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.54).26 If applied to the general population, this finding suggests that the conventional dietary treatment for high cholesterol with vegetable oil replacing saturated fat may actually increase mortality in those individuals with high LDL-C. Thus, the lack of an association between LDL-C and mortality may have been even stronger than reported since the dietary intervention may have been counterproductive.

Finally, it is potentially relevant that we limited our literature search to PubMed. In preliminary searches with PubMed, OVID and EMBASE, we identified 17 relevant studies in PubMed, but only 2 in OVID and EMBASE, and these 2 studies were found in PubMed as well. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that there are studies with findings with divergent results from those we have reported here, as all of them reported either no association or an inverse association between LDL-C and mortality.
Discussion

Assessments of the association between serum cholesterol and mortality have been studied for decades, and extensive research has shown a weak association between total cholesterol and mortality in the elderly; several studies have even shown an inverse association. It is therefore surprising that there is an absence of a review of the literature on mortality and levels of LDL-C, which is routinely referred to as a causal agent in producing CVD4 and is a target of pharmacological treatment of CVD.

Our literature review has revealed either a lack of an association or an inverse association between LDL-C and mortality among people older than 60 years. In almost 80% of the total number of individuals, LDL-C was inversely associated with all-cause mortality and with statistical significance.

These findings provide a paradoxical contradiction to the cholesterol hypothesis. As atherosclerosis starts mainly in middle-aged people and becomes more pronounced with increasing age, the cholesterol hypothesis would predict that there should be a cumulative atherosclerotic burden, which would be expressed as greater CVD and all-cause mortality, in elderly people with high LDL-C levels.

Our results raise several relevant questions for future research. Why is high TC a risk factor for CVD in the young and middle-aged, but not in elderly people? Why does a subset of elderly people with high LDL-C live longer than people with low LDL-C? If high LDL-C is potentially beneficial for the elderly, then why does cholesterol-lowering treatment lower the risk of cardiovascular mortality? In the following we have tried to address some of these questions.
Inverse causation

A common argument to explain why low lipid values are associated with an increased mortality is inverse causation, meaning that serious diseases cause low cholesterol. However, this is not a likely explanation, because in five of the studies in table 1 terminal disease and mortality during the first years of observation were excluded. In spite of that, three of them showed that the highest mortality was seen among those with the lowest initial LDL-C with statistical significance.18 ,20 ,24
Is high LDL-C beneficial?

One hypothesis to address the inverse association between LDL-C and mortality is that low LDL-C increases susceptibility to fatal diseases. Support for this hypothesis is provided by animal and laboratory experiments from more than a dozen research groups which have shown that LDL binds to and inactivates a broad range of microorganisms and their toxic products.27 Diseases caused or aggravated by microorganisms may therefore occur more often in people with low cholesterol, as observed in many studies.28 In a meta-analysis of 19 cohort studies, for instance, performed by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and including 68 406 deaths, TC was inversely associated with mortality from respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases, most of which are of an infectious origin.29 It is unlikely that these diseases caused the low TC, because the associations remained after the exclusion of deaths occurring during the first 5 years. In a study by Iribarren et al, more than 100 000 healthy individuals were followed for 15 years. At follow-up, those whose initial cholesterol level was lowest at the start had been hospitalised significantly more often because of an infectious disease that occurred later during the 15-year follow-up period.30 This study provides strong evidence that low cholesterol, recorded at a time when these people were healthy, could not have been caused by a disease they had not yet encountered.

Another explanation for an inverse association between LDL-C and mortality is that high cholesterol, and therefore high LDL-C, may protect against cancer. The reason may be that many cancer types are caused by viruses.31 Nine cohort studies including more than 140 000 individuals followed for 10–30 years have found an inverse association between cancer and TC measured at the start of the study, even after excluding deaths that occurred during the first 4 years.32 Furthermore, cholesterol-lowering experiments on rodents have resulted in cancer,33 and in several case–control studies of patients with cancer and controls matched for age and sex, significantly more patients with cancer have been on cholesterol-lowering treatment.32 In agreement with these findings, cancer mortality is significantly lower in individuals with familial hypercholesterolaemia.34

That high LDL-C may be protective is in accordance with the finding that LDL-C is lower than normal in patients with acute myocardial infarction. This has been documented repeatedly without a reasonable explanation.35–37 In one of the studies,37 the authors concluded that LDL-C evidently should be lowered even more, but at a follow-up 3 years later mortality was twice as high among those whose LDL-C had been lowered the most compared with those whose cholesterol was unchanged or lowered only a little. If high LDL-C were the cause, the effect should have been the opposite.
Conclusions

Our review provides the first comprehensive analysis of the literature about the association between LDL-C and mortality in the elderly. Since the main goal of prevention of disease is prolongation of life, all-cause mortality is the most important outcome, and is also the most easily defined outcome and least subject to bias. The cholesterol hypothesis predicts that LDL-C will be associated with increased all-cause and CV mortality. Our review has shown either a lack of an association or an inverse association between LDL-C and both all-cause and CV mortality. The cholesterol hypothesis seems to be in conflict with most of Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation, because of its lack of consistency, biological gradient and coherence. Our review provides the basis for more research about the cause of atherosclerosis and CVD and also for a re-evaluation of the guidelines for cardiovascular prevention, in particular because the benefits from statin treatment have been exaggerated.38–40
Acknowledgments

The study has been supported by a grant from Western Vascular Institute.
References


Ravnskov U. Is atherosclerosis caused by high cholesterol? QJM 2002;95:397–403. doi:10.1093/qjmed/95.6.397
FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar

Hamazaki T, Okuyama H, Ogushi Y, et al. Towards a paradigm shift in cholesterol treatment—a re-examination of the cholesterol issue in Japan. Ann Nutr Metab 2015;66(Suppl 4):1–116. doi:10.1159/000381654
Google Scholar

Lewington S, Whitlock G, Clarke R, et alProspective Studies CollaborationLewington S, Whitlock G, Clarke R, et al. Blood cholesterol and vascular mortality by age, sex, and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of individual data from 61 prospective studies with 55,000 vascular deaths. Lancet 2007;370:1829–39. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61778-4
CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

Goldstein JL, Brown MS. A century of cholesterol and coronaries: from plaques to genes to statins. Cell 2015;161:161–72. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.01.036
CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010;25:603–5. doi:10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z
CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

Psaty BM, Anderson M, Kronmal RA, et al. The association between lipid levels and the risks of incident myocardial infarction, stroke, and total mortality: the Cardiovascular Health Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52:1639–47. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52455.x
CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

Fried LP, Kronmal RA, Newman AB, et al. Risk factors for 5-year mortality in older adults: the Cardiovascular Health Study. JAMA 1998;279:585–92. doi:10.1001/jama.279.8.585
CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

Zimetbaum P, Frishman WH, Ooi WL, et al. Plasma lipids and lipoproteins and the incidence of cardiovascular disease in the very elderly: the Bronx Aging Study. Arterioscler Thromb 1992;12:416–23. doi:10.1161/01.ATV.12.4.416
Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
Kronmal RA, Cain KC, Ye Z, et al. Total serum cholesterol levels and mortality risk as a function of age. A report based on the Framingham data. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:1065–73. doi:10.1001/archinte.1993.00410090025004
CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Räihä I, Marniemi J, Puukka P, et al. Effect of serum lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins on vascular and nonvascular mortality in the elderly. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1997;17:1224–32. doi:10.1161/01.ATV.17.7.1224
Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
Chyou PH, Eaker ED. Serum cholesterol concentrations and all-cause mortality in older people. Age Ageing 2000;29:69–74. doi:10.1093/ageing/29.1.69
Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
Weverling-Rijnsburger AW, Jonkers IJ, van Exel E, et al. High-density vs low-density lipoprotein cholesterol as the risk factor for coronary artery disease and stroke in old age. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:1549–54. doi:10.1001/archinte.163.13.1549
CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Schupf N, Costa R, Luchsinger J, et al. Relationship between plasma lipids and all-cause mortality in nondemented elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005;53:219–26. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53106.x
CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Tikhonoff V, Casiglia E, Mazza A, et al. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in older people. J Amer Geriatr Soc 2005;53:2159–64. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.00492.x
CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Störk S, Feelders RA, van den Beld AW, et al. Prediction of mortality risk in the elderly. Am J Med 2006;119:519–25. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.062
CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

Akerblom JL, Costa R, Luchsinger JA, et al. Relation of plasma lipids to all-cause mortality in Caucasian, African-American and Hispanic elders. Age Ageing 2008;37:207–13. doi:10.1093/ageing/afn017
Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
Upmeier E, Lavonius S, Lehtonen A, et al. Serum lipids and their association with mortality in the elderly: a prospective cohort study. Aging Clin Exp Res 2009;21:424–30. doi:10.1007/BF03327441
CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

Nilsson G, Ohrvik J, Lönnberg I, et al. Ten-year survival in 75-year-old men and women: predictive ability of total cholesterol, HDL-C, and LDL-C. Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res 2009:158425. doi:10.1155/2009/158425doi:10.1155/2009/158425
Google Scholar
Werle MH, Moriguchi E, Fuchs SC, et al. Risk factors for cardiovascular disease in the very elderly: results of a cohort study in a city in southern Brazil. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2011;18:369–77. doi:10.1177/1741826710389405
CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

Bathum L, Depont Christensen R, Engers Pedersen L, et al. Association of lipoprotein levels with mortality in subjects aged 50+without previous diabetes or cardiovascular disease: a population-based register study. Scand J Prim Health Care 2013;31:172–80. doi:10.3109/02813432.2013.824157
Google Scholar
Linna M, Ahotupa M, Löppönen MK, et al. Circulating oxidised LDL lipids, when proportioned to HDL-C emerged as a risk factor of all-cause mortality in a population-based survival study. Age Ageing 2013;42:110–13. doi:10.1093/ageing/afs074
Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
Jacobs JM, Cohen A, Ein-Mor E, et al. Cholesterol, statins, and longevity from age 70 to 90 years. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013;14:883–8. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2013.08.012
CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Takata Y, Ansai T, Soh I, et al. Serum total cholesterol concentration and 10-year mortality in an 85-year-old population. Clin Interv Aging 2014;9:293–300. doi:10.2147/CIA.S53754
Google Scholar

Lv YB, Yin ZX, Chei CL, et al. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was inversely associated with 3-year all-cause mortality among Chinese oldest old: data from the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey. Atherosclerosis 2015;239: 137–42. doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2015.01.002
Google Scholar
Blekkenhorst LC, Prince RL, Hodgson JM, et al. Dietary saturated fat intake and atherosclerotic vascular disease mortality in elderly women: a prospective cohort study. Am J Clin Nutr 2015;101:1263–8. doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.102392
Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar

Ramsden CE, Zamora D, Majchrzak-Hong S, et al. Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968–73). BMJ 2016;353:i1246. doi:10.1136/bmj.i1246
Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar

Ravnskov U, McCully KS. Vulnerable plaque formation from obstruction of vasa vasorum by homocysteinylated and oxidized lipoprotein aggregates complexed with microbial remnants and LDL autoantibodies. Ann Clin Lab Sci 2009;39:3–16.
Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar

Ravnskov U. High cholesterol may protect against infections and atherosclerosis. QJM 2003;96:927–34. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcg150
FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar

Jacobs D, Blackburn H, Higgins M, et al. Report of the conference on low blood cholesterol: mortality associations. Circulation 1992;86:1046–60. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.86.3.1046
Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar

Iribarren C, Jacobs DR Jr., Sidney S, et al. Cohort study of serum total cholesterol and in-hospital incidence of infectious diseases. Epidemiol Infect 1998;121:335–47. doi:10.1017/S0950268898001435
CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Read SA, Douglas MW. Virus induced inflammation and cancer development. Cancer Lett 2014;345:174–81. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2013.07.030
CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Ravnskov U, McCully KS, Rosch PJ. The statin-low cholesterol-cancer conundrum. QJM 2012;105:383–8. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcr243
FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar

Newman TB, Hulley SB. Carcinogenicity of lipid-lowering drugs. JAMA 1996;275:55–60. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530250059028
CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

Neil HA, Hawkins MM, Durrington PN, et al. Non-coronary heart disease mortality and risk of fatal cancer in patients with treated heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: a prospective registry study. Atherosclerosis 2005;179:293–7. doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2004.10.011
CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

Reddy VS, Bui QT, Jacobs JR, et al. Relationship between serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and In-hospital mortality following acute myocardial infarction (The lipid paradox). Am J Cardiol 2015;115:557–62. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.12.006
CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Sachdeva A, Cannon CP, Deedwania PC, et al. Lipid levels in patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease: an analysis of 136,905 hospitalizations in get with the guidelines. Am Heart J 2009;157:111–17. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2008.08.010
CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

Al-Mallah MH, Hatahet H, Cavalcante JL, et al. Low admission LDL-cholesterol is associated with increased 3-year all-cause mortality in patients with non ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Cardiol J 2009;16:227–33.
PubMedGoogle Scholar

Diamond DM, Ravnskov U. How statistical deception created the appearance that statins are safe and effective in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2015;8:201–10. doi:10.1586/17512433.2015.1012494
Google Scholar

Kristensen ML, Christensen PM, Hallas J. The effect of statins on average survival in randomised trials, an analysis of end point postponement. BMJ Open 2015;5:e007118. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007118
Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar

de Lorgeril M, Rabaeus M. Beyond confusion and controversy, Can we evaluate the real efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering with statins? J Controversies Biomed Res 2015;1:67–92. doi:10.15586/jcbmr.2015.11
Google Scholar

ALERT: Emergency at US nuclear plant after “massive” fire and multiple explosions — “All of a sudden we heard this loud boom and the whole ground started shaking” — “Intense Flames… Heavy Black Smoke… Chaos” — 100s of fire personnel called in — “We ask that the public stay away from the area” (VIDEOS)

http://enenews.com/alert-emergency-nuclear-plant-after-massive-fire-multiple-explosions-all-sudden-heard-loud-boom-ground-started-shaking-videos?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ENENews+%28Energy+News%29

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mar 7, 2016 (emphasis added): [Oconee Nuclear Station, SC] EMERGENCY DECLARATION DUE TO FIRE/EXPLOSION IN THE MAIN TRANSFORMER… At 1520 EST, the licensee declared a Notification of Unusual Event… personnel were applying additional foam to prevent a re-flash… Offsite assistance was requested with three local fire departments… At 1658 EST, the licensee declared an Alert [when] the fire damaged an overhead power line that supplies emergency power to all three units at Oconee.

WHNS transcript, Mar 7, 2016: People fishing on the lake… reported hearing a loud boom and seeing black smoke, and then steam… Witnesses say there were two explosions… This afternoon [was] chaos… Fire crews [were] all on scene at the Oconee nuclear plant after a massive electrical fire… Fire Official: “It’s also in very close proximity to the buildings… I know they worked on… preventing the transformer from impinging on any of the other structures”… People in the area were very concerned when they saw heavy black smokeWitness: “All of a sudden we heard this loud boom and the whole ground started shaking.”… It’s a scary situation… [An official] said it was a very rare problem.

Loudspeaker at Oconee Nuclear Station: “Attention all site personnel… This is an emergency message… An unusual event has been declared for Unit 1… TSC – OSC [Technical Support Center – Onsite Operational Support Center] activation is necessary and the TSC – OSC has not yet been activated. Activate the TSC – OSC — I repeat, activate the TSC – OSC.”

WYFF, Mar 7, 2016: Scott Batson, site vice president [said] the intense flames and smoke came from oil burning… Batson said because a cable burned in the fire fell and caused other equipment to be affected, which led to the “unusual event” to be upgraded to an alert.

FOX Carolina, Mar 7, 2016: Hundreds of fire personnel sprang into action after a fire started at the Oconee Nuclear Plant.

WSPA transcript, Mar 7, 2016: Nearby Resident:I freaked out – you see a fire, smoke at a a power plant”… Fire Chief: “When you’re responding to a call, and you can see it when you leave the station like that, it really kind of gets your adrenaline going.”

Oconee County Emergency Management, Mar 7, 2016: “We ask that the public stay away from the area as emergency personnel and Duke Energy staff work.”

Greenville News, Mar 6, 2016: The alert was necessary because the problem could have affected operations of the plant itself… The transformer is 25 to 30 feet from the turbine building that serves Unit 1 and about 100 yards from the reactor building

WLOS, Mar 6, 2016: A transformer burst into flames at an Upstate nuclear power station…. Officials did ask the public to stay away from the area… The fire chief also said crews are continuing to work with on-site personnel to ensure… there is no further extension.

From last month: ALERT: Fire/explosion at North Carolina nuclear plant (VIDEO)

 

I check the news every day for radiation news, nuke problems, etc.  How the hell can anyone protect themselves, when it takes a week to show up in the news?