Saturday, December 16, 2017

Outrage! Americans Pay $1 Billion A Year for Shady Schools Ran by Radical Cleric Gulen

NewsBud | Dec 16, 2017

Watch Sibel Edmonds, Newsbud crew and award-winning filmmaker Mark S. Hall take on the largest charter school network in the country, funded with your tax dollars, and ran by an internationally wanted criminal organization headed by radical Cleric Gulen.

NewsBud links..

---

ExtraSensory.News doesn't have ads. Why? Because Google won't allow it. Other alternative sites are plastered with them. We do not accept funding from big corporations or Government controlled entities. In order to survive, we need your help. You can support this website by subscribing.

Well-known big pharma drugs cause brain damage and increase dementia risk

Natural Health 365 | Dec 16, 2017 | Dena Schmidt

© eyeopening.info
No doubt, conventional medicine is a big believer in ‘a pill for every ill’ and much of the general public gets affected by this mentality – on a daily basis. Of course, big pharma is the driving force behind this concept. Unfortunately, the increasing demand for more and more drugs is being linked to serious side effects – especially as it relates to brain health.

The reality is: evidence is mounting that these drug ‘therapies’ have side effects that can, in many cases, be worse than the original problem itself. For example, a recent study by the Indiana University School of Medicine found that anticholinergic drugs can cause cognitive impairment and a higher risk of dementia.

The researchers found reduced brain size, memory issues and lowered cognitive performance in study participants who were taking one or more anticholinergic drugs. (you think patients are being adequately informed about the risk?)

Anticholinergic drugs include over-the-counter allergy medicines, sleep aids and drugs for cardiovascular disease, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), hypertension (high blood pressure) and other chronic diseases. And, just for the record, these anticholinergic drug brand names include: Benadryl, Dramamine, Dimetapp, Paxil, Unisom, VESIcare and Demerol.

How big pharma drugs damage your short-term memory and ability to problem-solve


Most Americans, influenced by Western medicine, are all too attracted to “drive-thru” quick-fix band-aids like these drugs – instead of lifestyle changes and more holistic solutions. Because of this, many often overlook long lists of side effects and risks that are associated with big pharma drugs. (being uninformed is also part of the problem.)

The Indiana University School of Medicine study aimed to look at the physical changes involved in accelerating cognitive decline. The study examined 451 people who were an average age of 73. Of the 451, 60 were taking at least one anticholinergic drug. The researchers used memory and cognitive tests to identify physiological changes associated with cognitive issues. They also utilized MRI scans to assess brain structure and PET scans to measure brain metabolism.

Patients that took the anticholinergic drugs were found to perform worse on cognitive tests, particularly short-term memory tests. Verbal reasoning, executive function, problem-solving and planning were also adversely affected.

Anticholinergic drugs are linked to a higher risk of dementia


The users of anticholinergic drugs also showed lower glucose metabolism levels in the hippocampus and overall brain. Glucose is a biomarker for brain activity, and the hippocampus is associated with memory and is an area that is affected in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease.

Anticholinergic drug users also showed larger ventricles and reduced overall brain volume.

These findings clearly shine a light on what happens biologically as cognitive issues develop when anticholinergic drugs are being used. The findings are corroborated by a 2013 study out of the Indiana University Center for Aging Research – which showed that taking anticholinergics for just 60 days could cause cognitive issues.

Hopefully, these research results will serve as a warning to anyone who has ever taken anticholinergic drugs or is considering taking them. Older individuals and those with a family history of Alzheimer’s disease should think carefully before deciding to use these drugs.

Ultimately, when it comes to eliminating dis-ease symptoms, we all have to make big decisions. Should we quickly reach for a pharmaceutical drug? Or, is there a more natural (safer) way to enhance immune function and regain our health?

Sources for this article include:

CDN.Turner.com
Alzheimersanddementia.com
Harvard.edu
OrganicAllergyRelief.com
Fox13Now.com

---

ExtraSensory.News doesn't have ads. Why? Because Google won't allow it. Other alternative sites are plastered with them. We do not accept funding from big corporations or Government controlled entities. In order to survive, we need your help. You can support this website by subscribing.


French Constitutional Court stands up for free speech in striking down “anti-terrorist” law

The Duran | Dec 16, 2017 | Adam Garrie

French judges have made it clear that watching disagreeable content does not constitute a conspiracy to commit a violent act 

The French Constitutional Court has struck down a piece of legislation that would criminalise the viewing of what the French government deems to be “terrorist” websites.

The court ruled that the legislation was an extreme and disproportionate infringement on the freedom of expression and that the provisions of the legislation were neither necessary nor adequate, given provisions of existing laws used to fight genuine terrorism.

The now annulled law, proposed to imprison those found guilty for two years, in addition to forcing them to pay a fine of €30,000.

The Court’s ruling could have implications throughout Europe and the wider world, as governments salivate at the prospect of punishing people for viewing online content.

There are several fatal flaws in the French legislation, beyond the very valid legal opinion derived by the Constitution Court of France.

First of all, there has never been any legitimate scientific study that has been able to prove a link between viewing violent content and committing violent acts.

During the 1980s, the wives of prominent US Senators attempted to pass legislation restricting the sale of heavy-metal and contemporary R & B music records and tapes, under the guise that violent or erotic lyrics have a negative effect on listeners. At the time, no scientific study was able to confirm any such linkage.

This theory was put to the test in US courts in two separate lawsuits. In 1986, the singer Ozzy Osbourne was sued by the parents of a teenager who killed himself. The complaint alleged that Osbourne’s 1980 song “Suicide Solution” was responsible for their son’s act of self-inflicted violence.


The court found that there was no link between listening to the song and the boy’s suicide.

A similar case was filed in a California court in 1990 against the heavy-metal band Judas Priest. Here it was once again alleged that the band’s recording of a song originally recorded by the band Spooky Tooth, “Better by You, Better than Me”, was reponsible for the attempted suicide of two teenage boys.

The court in this case found that there was no link between listening to certain kinds of music and committing acts of self-harm.

While few today would argue that heavy-metal music is actually harmful, just a few short decades ago they did. Today, individuals of the same kidney are arguing that watching videos and reading the literature of terrorist groups is harmful, but there is still on scientific evidence suggesting that their fears are true.

If everyone who has ever watched a terrorist beheading video was literally insane enough to act it out, the view counter on such videos would indicate that there would be far more international terrorism than there presently is, or ever has been.

Furthermore, there are two other problems with the kind of legislation struck down in France.

First of all, it allows exceptions for journalists and researchers who view terrorist content online. What though constitutes a journalist in 2017?

Today, there are many people who are not specifically employed or accredited as journalists who de-facto produce journalism whether on their own websites, websites operated by others or on social media.

Do you really trust various deep states to determine who is and who is not a “journalist”, in an age where those same governments are trying to censor an unambiguously legitimate journalistic outlet like RT? I for one certainly do not trust such people in this capacity.

Then one gets into the even murkier issue of what constitutes terrorist content. In Ukraine, the Donbass freedom fighters are considered terrorists, but in most of the rest of the world they are not. In the United States, Saudi Arabia and some of Europe, the Lebanese political party Hezbollah, which has ministers in the governing coalition, is considered a terrorist organisation, but in the vast majority of the world including in Russia and China, they are not.

The Turkish President recently called Israel a “terrorist state”.  Does this mean that a Zionist from the Netherlands should be arrested in Turkey for logging on to his favourite websites while at a professional conference in Istanbul?

While groups like ISIS/Daesh and al-Qaeda are almost universally condemned, beyond this, there is an incredibly dangerous slippery slope.

Donald Trump’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley recently called Iran a sponsor of terrorism, even though there is no evidence to prove Iran does anything but fight terrorism. Should Iranian media viewers in the US all be imprisoned for disagreeing with Nikki Haley’s baseless assumption? The answer, for any fair minded individual is an unambiguous: NO!

With other European countries including Germany and the UK considering similar legislation as the one struck down in France, people ought to think twice before rushing to criminalise viewing any online content, no matter how disagreeable.

For those who actually are conspiring to commit an atrocity, there are age old statutes on the books in almost all nations, that simply ought to be enforced adequately in order to combat the genuine threat of terrorism.

Perhaps the inadequacy of certain countries to enforce such legislation, is the real reason for taking the cowards way out and seeking to imprison people for the crime of having eyes and viewing something they disagree with. After all such a method is easier than actually going after legitimately violent people.

For those who actually want to see terrorism destroyed, there is actually a strong case to be made in favour of watching terrorist videos in order to understand what anti-terrorist forces like the Syrian Arab Army are up against.

Below is an English translation of the full opinion of the French Constitutional Court:
“The Constitutional Council was seized on October 9, 2017 by the Council of State of a priority question of constitutionality concerning article 421-2-5-2 of the penal code, in its drafting resulting from the law n ° 2017- 258 of February 28, 2017 relating to public security.

These provisions reinstated, under a new wording, the offense of habitual consultation of terrorist websites whose Constitutional Council had censored an initial drafting by its decision n ° 2016-611 QPC of February 10, 2017. Article 421-2-5 -2 of the Penal Code, in this new wording, sanctions a penalty of two years imprisonment and 30 000 euros fine the fact of consulting in a usual way, without legitimate reason, a service of communication to the public on line advocating or provoking the commission of acts of terrorism and involving images or representations of willful attacks on life. The purpose of this offense is to prevent the indoctrination of

It was argued, in particular, that the freedom of communication was disregarded by those provisions since the infringement of the contested provision was neither necessary, given the legal provisions already in force, nor adequate and proportionate.

By its decision of today, the Constitutional Council recalls its consistent jurisprudence inferring from Article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789 that in the present state of the means of communication and with regard to the development of public services and the importance of these services for participation in democratic life and the expression of ideas and opinions, the freedom of communication implies the freedom to access such services. services. On the basis of Article 34 of the Constitution, it is open to the legislator to enact rules of a kind to reconcile with the exercise of the right of free communication and freedom to speak, write and print the pursuit of the objective of combating incitement and provocation to terrorism on online public communication services, which contributes to the objective of constitutional value of safeguarding public order and preventing crime. However, freedom of expression and communication is all the more valuable as its exercise is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. Infringements of the exercise of this freedom must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objective pursued. write and print the pursuit of the objective of combating incitement and provocation of terrorism on online public communication services, which is part of the constitutional value objective of safeguarding public order and preventing offenses. However, freedom of expression and communication is all the more valuable as its exercise is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. Infringements of the exercise of this freedom must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objective pursued. write and print the pursuit of the objective of combating incitement and provocation of terrorism on online public communication services, which is part of the constitutional value objective of safeguarding public order and preventing offenses. However, freedom of expression and communication is all the more valuable as its exercise is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. Infringements of the exercise of this freedom must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objective pursued. incitement and provocation to terrorism on online public communication services, which is part of the constitutional value objective of safeguarding public order and preventing crime. However, freedom of expression and communication is all the more valuable as its exercise is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. Infringements of the exercise of this freedom must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objective pursued. incitement and provocation to terrorism on online public communication services, which is part of the constitutional value objective of safeguarding public order and preventing crime. However, freedom of expression and communication is all the more valuable as its exercise is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. Infringements of the exercise of this freedom must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objective pursued. public order and the prevention of infringements. However, freedom of expression and communication is all the more valuable as its exercise is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. Infringements of the exercise of this freedom must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objective pursued. public order and the prevention of infringements. However, freedom of expression and communication is all the more valuable as its exercise is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. Infringements of the exercise of this freedom must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objective pursued.

The Constitutional Council adds that, since the enactment of the impugned provisions, the legislature has supplemented the enactment of the legislative provisions previously in force in its decision of February and reproduced in paragraphs 7 to 11 of today’s decision. by adopting, by Law No. 2017-1510 of 30 October 2017 strengthening internal security and the fight against terrorism, new individual measures of administrative control and surveillance to prevent the commission of acts of terrorism. He infers from this that in view of the necessity requirement of the infringement of the freedom of communication,

As regards the adaptation and proportionality requirements for the infringement of the freedom of communication, the Constitutional Council notes that, if the impugned provisions provide that, in order to fall within the scope of the offense which they establish, consultation must be accompanied by the manifestation of adherence to the ideology expressed on the sites consulted, this consultation and this event are not likely to establish by themselves the existence of a will to commit terrorist acts. These provisions thus punish with a sentence of two years imprisonment the mere fact of consulting several times an online public communication service, without the constituting element of the offense constituting the terrorist intent of the author of the consultation. In addition, if the legislator has excluded the penalization of the consultation when it answers a “legitimate motive”, the scope of this exemption can not be determined in this case, notably because a person adhering to the ideology conveyed such sites may appear to be one of the legitimate reasons given by the legislator. This results in uncertainty about the legality of the consultation of certain online public communication services and, consequently, the use of the Internet to search for information. terrorist intent of the author of the consultation. In addition, if the legislator has excluded the penalization of the consultation when it answers a “legitimate motive”, the scope of this exemption can not be determined in this case, notably because a person adhering to the ideology conveyed such sites may appear to be one of the legitimate reasons given by the legislator. This results in uncertainty about the legality of the consultation of certain online public communication services and, consequently, the use of the Internet to search for information. terrorist intent of the author of the consultation. In addition, if the legislator has excluded the penalization of the consultation when it answers a “legitimate motive”, the scope of this exemption can not be determined in this case, notably because a person adhering to the ideology conveyed such sites may appear to be one of the legitimate reasons given by the legislator. This results in uncertainty about the legality of the consultation of certain online public communication services and, consequently, the use of the Internet to search for information. if the legislator has excluded the penalization of the consultation when it answers a “legitimate motive”, the scope of this exemption can not be determined in this case, notably because a person adhering to the ideology conveyed by these sites seems likely to be one of the legitimate examples of reasons given by the legislator. This results in uncertainty about the legality of the consultation of certain online public communication services and, consequently, the use of the Internet to search for information. if the legislator has excluded the penalization of the consultation when it answers a “legitimate motive”, the scope of this exemption can not be determined in this case, notably because a person adhering to the ideology conveyed by these sites seems likely to be one of the legitimate examples of reasons given by the legislator. This results in uncertainty about the legality of the consultation of certain online public communication services and, consequently, the use of the Internet to search for information. in particular because a person who adheres to the ideology conveyed by these sites seems likely to come across one of the legitimate reasons given by the legislator. This results in uncertainty about the legality of the consultation of certain online public communication services and, consequently, the use of the Internet to search for information. in particular because a person who adheres to the ideology conveyed by these sites seems likely to come across one of the legitimate reasons given by the legislator. This results in uncertainty about the legality of the consultation of certain online public communication services and, consequently, the use of the Internet to search for information.

The Constitutional Council deduces from all the foregoing that the impugned provisions undermine the exercise of the freedom of communication which is not necessary, adapted and proportionate. He declares them therefore unconstitutional by giving immediate effect to this declaration”.

---
ExtraSensory.News doesn't have ads. Why? Because Google won't allow it. Other alternative sites are plastered with them. We do not accept funding from big corporations or Government controlled entities. In order to survive, we need your help. You can support this website by subscribing.

Military Continuously Deny Causing Loud Booming Noises Heard and Felt by Thousands Worldwide

Jason A | Dec 8, 2017



---

ExtraSensory.News doesn't have ads. Why? Because Google won't allow it. Other alternative sites are plastered with them. We do not accept funding from big corporations or Government controlled entities. In order to survive, we need your help. You can support this website by subscribing.


Keep Cell Phones Away from Your Body: US health officials warn of cancer & infertility risk

RT | Dec 16, 2017

© Patrick Seeger / Global Look Press
The California Department of Public Health has issued guidelines on cell phone exposure, warning residents to keep their cell phone away from their body to reduce potential cancer and infertility risks.

The release follows a legal battle initiated by UC Berkeley researcher Joel Moskowitz last year after he discovered draft documents on the issue had existed since 2010 without being made available to the public.

The precautionary document, ‘How to reduce exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phones’ states that while the science is still evolving some studies have suggested a link between long-term mobile phone use and cancer.

Qualifying that these studies have not established a definitive relationship between the two, and that potential health risks from cell phones are still contentious among scientists, the health department states its advisory is for those concerned about the possible risks.

The main piece of advice issued by the authority is to keep the phone away from your body. “Keeping your phone just a few feet away from you can make a big difference,” it says.

This means using the speakerphone option or a headset instead of holding the phone up to your ear and keeping your mobile device in a backpack or handbag and not in a pocket.

The guidelines also warn against a common habit for those who also use their device as an alarm clock – sleeping next to your cell phone. Unless the phone is off or in airplane mode, keep it at least a few feet away from your bed, the guidelines recommend.


The report highlights that children could be at greater risk as their body is still developing and over their lifetime they will have a lot more exposure.

The release of the CDPH guidelines follows a ruling by the Sacramento Superior Court handed down in March. The state argued in court that the unofficial document would cause unnecessary panic, reported KAZU.

A draft document was initially released but these new guidelines offer a more detailed picture.

In July, the California Brain Tumor Association held a demonstration in Sacramento outside the CDPH building to call for the public release of the cell phone warning document.

CDPH director Dr Karen Smith said they released the guidelines because of a continued public interest in cell phone-related health risks and the decision had little to do with the court battle.

The latest safety recommendations are similar to those issued by the Connecticut Department of Public Health in May, 2015.

A number of expert agencies including the US Food and Drug Administration, the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said sufficient evidence has not been presented to show an association between exposure to radio frequencies from a cell phone and health problems.

The agencies suggest more research is needed. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified radio waves as “possible carcinogens” but note there is limited evidence. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), meanwhile, have not formally classified cell phones as to their cancer-causing potential.

A study published earlier this year by University College Cork in the Republic of Ireland on myths about cell phones and cancer risk, found huge disparities between fact and fear.

“The results of our research show that a significant proportion of Irish males incorrectly believe certain cancer myths, for example between 45% to 52% believed that wearing tight underwear, carrying mobile phones in pockets or extended use of laptop on the lap increased their risk of testicular cancer,” the team concluded.


---
ExtraSensory.News doesn't have ads. Why? Because Google won't allow it. Other alternative sites are plastered with them. We do not accept funding from big corporations or Government controlled entities. In order to survive, we need your help. You can support this website by subscribing.

EPA Allowing Widespread Use of Unapproved Pesticides, Study Finds

EcoWatch | Dec 12, 2017

-The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has routinely been allowing use of unapproved pesticides under the pretext of an "emergency" when no actual emergency exists, according to an analysis released Monday by the Center for Biological Diversity.

The abuse of the emergency provision has created a loophole allowing the widespread use of unapproved pesticides, year after year, across millions of acres in ways that are either known to be harmful to wildlife or haven't been tested to be safe.

In one case the EPA has granted 78 "emergency" exceptions over the past six years for a well-known, bee-killing pesticide called sulfoxaflor, allowing its use on more than 17.5 million acres of U.S. farmland.

"It's disgusting to see the EPA's broken pesticide program bending over backward to appease the pesticide industry," said Stephanie Parent, a senior attorney in the Center for Biological Diversity's environmental health program. "These exemptions put people and wildlife at tremendous risk because they allow poisons to be applied in ways that would otherwise be illegal."

The EPA has the authority to OK temporary emergency use of unapproved pesticides if the agency determines the pesticide is needed to prevent the spread of an unexpected outbreak of crop-damaging insects, for example.

But the Center for Biological Diversity's analysis shows the EPA's routine use of the emergency provision has allowed pesticide manufacturers to bypass the typical pesticide approval process, resulting in poisons with either known or undetermined risks being applied across millions of acres of crops.

The 78 emergency exceptions for sulfoxaflor are notable because previous approval for its use on cotton was cancelled by a federal judge in 2015 due to sulfoxaflor's potential harm to pollinators, and it has never been approved for use on sorghum, which is attractive to bees. Yet the EPA granted every single requested emergency exemption for the pesticide's use on sorghum and cotton. The EPA has not released any information regarding bee die-offs or pollinator impacts as a result of these widespread exemptions.

The Center for Biological Diversity's analysis found that:
  • The 78 emergency approvals for sulfoxaflor allowed its use across more than 17.5 million acres of U.S. farmland.
  • The great majority of the approvals were done behind closed doors, with only eight of the 78 approvals going through a public review and comment process, leaving the EPA to rely almost exclusively on the applicant as a source of information.
  • Rarely was any actual emergency identified by the EPA. For example, the emergency uses of sulfoxaflor on cotton were in response to an insect that has been a problem for at least a decade and has already developed resistance to four different classes of pesticides.
  • The emergency uses approved for sorghum were issued in at least 18 states in response to an insect that has been a known problem for the past five years.
  • Fourteen states were given emergency exemptions for sulfoxaflor for at least three consecutive years for the same "emergency."
"The chronic abuse of the emergency approval process has created a shortcut for pesticide companies looking to gain backdoor approval for use of harmful pesticides," said Parent. "This dangerous, secretive practice puts people and wildlife at ongoing risk, and it needs to stop."

---
ExtraSensory.News doesn't have ads. Why? Because Google won't allow it. Other alternative sites are plastered with them. We do not accept funding from big corporations or Government controlled entities. In order to survive, we need your help. You can support this website by subscribing.