The Falsification of History: Our Distorted Reality (135 page)

CFLs also take around 2-3 minutes to fully ‘warm up’ and therefore should light be required purely for a short period, for example quickly entering a room to retrieve an item, far more energy will be used than with conventional bulbs.
 
The U.S. Energy Star program suggests that ‘fluorescent lamps be left on when leaving a room for less than 15 minutes to mitigate this problem’.
 
Is life not already complicated enough without all this to consider?!

A CFL 26 watt bulb is the equivalent of a 100 watt incandescent bulb and costs around £2.50 with a life span of an average of 7000 hours without factoring in the 5 minute on/off cycle.
 
Comparatively speaking, an incandescent bulb costs just around 60p with an average life-span of 800 hours, so according to these figures we would spend around £4.00 more per life-cycle using incandescent eco-friendly, clean bulbs.
 
In effect this then means that we would save a whole £4 over a period of one year.

But, what cannot be excluded from any considerations of the ‘value’ of this abomination are the severe, potential health risks and the enormous power surges required by CFLs when switching them and also the cost of the quick on/off cycle.
 
These figures are typically always absent from any study on costs and efficiency, creating as usual, a totally false conclusion for widespread consumption by the masses.

In addition, the current price of CFLs reflects their almost exclusive manufacture in China, where labour costs are dramatically less and that will surely change, as the Chinese economy grows and achieves world domination as is widely expected by most commentators.
 
Governments cannot be trusted to control the cost either, as they certainly wish to maximise the import duty on any item.
 
The more expensive the bulb, the more duty they collect is simple mathematics.
 
A good example of this tactic is how we were strongly encouraged to buy diesel cars as the fuel was much cheaper, but now that sufficient numbers of motorists have been ‘converted’ to the benefits of diesel, we find that the tax on diesel has been miraculously increased and thus we now pay considerably more for diesel than petrol!
 
The game is rigged and the table has most definitely ‘tilted’.

How is it possible to ‘invent’ a disease - or a syndrome to be more accurate?
 
The answer is quite simple.
 
When you have the financial muscle and the powerful propaganda machine that this kind of extreme wealth can buy, it is fairly straightforward to convince millions that several hitherto unrelated symptoms, when ‘grouped’ together comprise a new illness, disease or syndrome.
 
Indeed this is exactly the case with AIDS / HIV but as that issue has been covered in another section we will concentrate on other examples.

Psychiatry itself admits “it has not proven the 'disease theory' or the cause or source of a single mental illness it has classified and the theory of a chemical imbalance in the brain causes mental illness has been thoroughly discredited by the psychiatric industry itself” mainly because critics pointed out that there isn't even a test for a chemical imbalance, it is complete nonsense.
 
They say psychiatry is the 'original pseudoscience, medical fraud and completely made up'.

When one delves beneath the surface at the specialty of psychiatry, what is uncovered is so ludicrous it is difficult to believe that it is really true.
 
Prominent psychiatrists from all over the world gather annually for a meeting at which new diseases are invented.
 
There are no objective findings that establish the diagnosis of these diseases.
 
These new diseases are included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Diseases.
 
Potential new diseases are discussed at these meetings and new diseases are voted in or out by a show of hands, believe it or not.

Among the new diseases are social anxiety disorder (everyone who is uncomfortable in a social setting has this disease) and mathematics disease (anyone who has struggled over a math problem has this disease). Gender identity disorder, passive-aggressive disorder, disorder of written expression and sexual disorder are other examples of invented diseases that will follow the individuals tagged with these ridiculous diagnoses the remainder of their lives.
 
Naturally, all these completely fake diseases have a psychoactive drug, which supposedly ameliorates this disease, complete with a usually impressive price tag of course.

This may be laughable but unfortunately it has serious consequences.
 
When a child is diagnosed with depression (!) the child is often placed on a potent anti-depressant drug.
 
The manufacturer of one of these leading drugs knew for many years that the drug caused loss of the ability to control violent behaviour, thus increasing violence towards self (suicide) and others (mass murders).
 
This information was covered up because it would have negatively impacted upon sales of the drug.
 
Nearly every teenager involved in the many recent school shooting rampages was taking an anti-depressant drug.
 
There is a major fundamental flaw in a system more concerned about sales of drugs than the welfare of its children, but this we know already.

Another subtle ploy is to artificially set a limit on the incidence of certain parameters within the human body and then declare that anything above (or below) that limit is a cause for concern and/or a danger to our wellbeing.
 
By that method it then becomes a simple task to produce a drug that ‘cures’ that imbalance and make millions for Big Pharma.

High cholesterol is just such a similar scam.

“Somewhere along the way however, cholesterol became a household word - something that you must keep as low as possible, or suffer the consequences.
 
You are probably aware that there are many myths that portray fat and cholesterol as one of the worst foods you can consume.
 
Please understand that these myths are actually harming your health.
 
Not only is cholesterol most likely not going to destroy your health (as you have been led to believe), but it is also not the cause of heart disease.”
 
Dr. Joseph Mercola, 10th August 2010

One certainly needs cholesterol.
 
It is present not only in the bloodstream, but also in every cell in the body, where it helps to produce cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D and bile acids that assist in the digestion of fat.
 
Cholesterol also helps in the formation of memories and is vital for neurological function.

The liver makes about 75 percent of a body's cholesterol and according to conventional medicine, there are two types:

High-density lipoprotein or HDL: This is the ‘good’ cholesterol that helps to keep cholesterol away from the arteries and remove any excess from arterial plaque, which may help to prevent heart disease.

Low-density lipoprotein or LDL: This ‘bad’ cholesterol circulates in your blood and accumulates in arteries, forming a plaque that narrows arteries and renders them less flexible (a condition called arteriosclerosis).
 
If a clot forms in one of these narrowed arteries leading to your heart or brain, a heart attack or stroke may result.

Please understand that the total cholesterol level is not an indicator of one’s heart disease or stroke risk.
 
Health officials in the United States urge everyone over the age of 20 to have their cholesterol tested once every five years.
 
Part of this test is your total cholesterol or the sum of your blood's cholesterol content, including HDL, LDLs, and VLDLs.

The American Heart Association recommends that total cholesterol should be less than 200 mg/dL, but what they do not tell you is that total cholesterol level is just about worthless in determining your risk for heart disease, unless it is above 330.
 
In addition, the AHA updated their guidelines in 2004, lowering the recommended level of LDL cholesterol from 130 to LDL to less than 100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk.

In order to achieve these outrageous and dangerously low targets, you typically need to take multiple cholesterol-lowering drugs.
 
So the guidelines instantly increased the market for these dangerous drugs.
 
Now, with testing children's cholesterol levels, they are increasing their potential market even more.
 
So another digit on Big Pharma’s bottom line profits there then.

Actually, you may be surprised to hear that cholesterol is neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’.
 
Now that good and bad cholesterol has been defined, it has to be said that there is actually only one type of cholesterol!

"Notice please that LDL and HDL are lipoproteins - fats combined with proteins.
 
There is only one cholesterol.
 
There is no such thing as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ cholesterol.
 
Cholesterol is just cholesterol.

It combines with other fats and proteins to be carried through the bloodstream, since fat and our watery blood do not mix very well.
 
Fatty substances therefore must be shuttled to and from our tissues and cells using proteins.
 
LDL and HDL are forms of proteins and are far from being just cholesterol.
 
In fact we now know there are many types of these fat and protein particles.
 

LDL particles come in many sizes and large LDL particles are not a problem.
 
Only the so-called small dense LDL particles can potentially be a problem, because they can squeeze through the lining of the arteries and if they oxidize, otherwise known as turning rancid, they can cause damage and inflammation.
 
Thus, you might say that there is 'good LDL' and 'bad LDL.'
 
Also, some HDL particles are better than others. Knowing just your total cholesterol tells you very little.
 
Even knowing your LDL and HDL levels will not tell you very much."
  
Ron Rosedale MD, a leading anti-aging doctor in the USA

The idea that cholesterol is ‘evil’ has been very much ingrained in most people's minds; due to the propaganda expounded by the pharmaceutical cartel, but this is a very harmful myth that needs to be eliminated
 
as soon as possible.

Dr. Rosedale further points out, "First and foremost, cholesterol is a vital component of every cell membrane on Earth.
 
In other words, there is no life on Earth that can live without cholesterol.
 
That will automatically tell you that, in and of itself, it cannot be evil.
 
In fact, it is one of our best friends.
 
We would not be here without it.
 
No wonder lowering cholesterol too much increases one's risk of dying.”

Vitamin D is a much neglected source of wellness and general health and what most people do not realise is that the best way to obtain vitamin D is from safe exposure to sun on one’s skin.
 
The UVB rays in sunlight interact with the cholesterol on the skin and convert it to vitamin D.
 

So therefore, if cholesterol levels are too low it will be impossible to use the sun to generate sufficient levels of health-giving vitamin D.
 
As vitamin D is a major influence in the prevention of many diseases, particularly cancer, this obviously contributes to higher incidences of these diseases, which I am sure is no coincidence.

Essentially, HDL takes cholesterol from the body's tissues and arteries and brings it back to the liver, where most cholesterol is produced.
 
If the purpose of this was to eliminate cholesterol from the body, it would make sense that the cholesterol would be dispatched back to the kidneys or intestines so it could be removed.
 
But, instead it goes back to the liver.
 
Why should this be?
 
The reason is because the liver can reuse it.

"It is taking it back to your liver so that your liver can recycle it; put it back into other particles to be taken to tissues and cells that need it," Dr. Rosedale explains. "Your body is trying to make and conserve the cholesterol for the precise reason that it is so important, indeed vital, for health."

If cholesterol levels drop too low this can have a devastating effect on the body in so many ways.
 
Remember, every single cell needs cholesterol to thrive including those in the brain.
 
Perhaps this is why low cholesterol wreaks havoc on the psyche.
 
One large study conducted by Dutch researchers found that men with chronically low cholesterol levels showed a consistently higher risk of having depressive symptoms.
 
(Anyone feel a long intensive course of suicide-enhancing anti-depressants coming on?)
 
Seriously though, this could well be because cholesterol affects the metabolism of serotonin, a substance involved in the regulation of moods.
 

On a similar note, some Canadian researchers found that those in the lowest quarter of total cholesterol concentration had more than six times the risk of committing suicide as did those in the highest quarter.
 
Dozens of studies also support a connection between low or lowered cholesterol levels and violent behaviour.
 
Lowered cholesterol levels may lead to lowered brain serotonin activity, which may, in turn, lead to increased violence and aggression.
 
And one analysis of over 41,000 patient records found that people who take statin drugs to lower their cholesterol as much as possible may have a higher risk of cancer,
while other studies have linked low cholesterol to Parkinson's disease.
 

Probably any cholesterol level reading under 150 is too low - an optimum would be around 200.
 
How strange then that doctors tell us that cholesterol needs to be under 200 to be healthy.
 
Or not?

In 2004, the U.S. government's National Cholesterol Education Program panel advised those at risk for heart disease to attempt to reduce their LDL cholesterol to specific, very low, levels.
 
Before 2004, a 130 milligram LDL cholesterol level was considered healthy but the updated guidelines however, recommended levels of less than 100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk.
 
It is worth noting that these extremely low targets often require multiple cholesterol-lowering drugs to achieve.
 

Fortunately, in 2006 a review in the ‘Annals of Internal Medicine
’
found that there is insufficient evidence to support the target numbers outlined by the panel.
 
The authors of the review were unable to find research providing evidence that achieving a specific LDL target level was important in itself and found that studies attempting to do so suffered from major flaws.
 
Several of the scientists who helped develop the guidelines even admitted that the scientific evidence supporting the less-than-70 recommendation was not very strong.
 
So how did these excessively low cholesterol guidelines come about?
 
As if we cannot guess!