Cholesterol Wisdom

Conversations around falsely demonized cholesterol


I include responses - but the pattern of the blocking of the flow of any real communication that seemed to occur is like to the idea of shutting down the heart arteries.

Be the heart anyway - or be rused into conflict.


Is conventional wisdom on cholesterol about to be turned upside down?


The headline could have read as: "Is the medical fraud based on false cholesterol science about to be corrected?"

However the investment in false models can be so pervasive and institutionally powerful as to make it 'take' as if legitimate 'currency' by frequent and multiple assertions of gullibility and disinformation.

The idea of 'controlling the narrative' requires that genuine journalism (along with transparency and accountability) are heavily disincentivised.

Welcome to Corporate Technocracy - with or without the EU? You are to have no voice unless it conforms and aligns with what the official dictate decrees - in which case you can get a hit of power and privilege by pretending it is your voice. There is a kind of psychopathic thinking that sees everything in terms of power struggle - and science and medicine are no less useful as masks than was religion. Discernment is the key to everything - for without it are you a leaf in the wind to conditioning of which you are unaware.

The nature of power-addiction is rooted in a hatred of Life and seeks the invalidation and replacement of alignment with Life by a mentality of 'control' - however the more control is imposed - the more out of control everything becomes - which to the power-elitist means the more control must be brought to bear. They simply refuse to look within and so cannot really learn anything other than subsuming more life to serve power interests.

The model of the world we co-create as currency of experience and exchange tends to demonize and invalidate Life on Earth so as to gain power thereby and 'lord over it' - even at cost of planetary ruin. Ignorance and arrogance worshipped in self-righteous hate that would make a 'new world order' through destructive deceits.

Discerning deceit is something that cannot be systematized as any kind of method or dogmatic set of beliefs - for at best there are guidelines and pointers. You have to be honest within yourself to notice and see the fault in your own mind - else you attempt to pluck it from others - who of course counter or oppose - or manipulate your displaced needs. Its a mess!

No one owns, controls or judges THE truth to which others must then conform or be invalidated. This is not power but desperation masking as a need to be validated OR ELSE! Because 'too big to fail means' ON MY TERMS or really bad things will happen to you as a result of disengaging from my 'protection'.

It is simply true in general that the attempt to persist in denial of our true feeling and being seeks ways to cast responsibility elsewhere and then righteously hate in the name of science or health and safety - so as to draw power for the few who position themselves where the 'power, influence or money' has been redirected as a result of packaging fear in new forms that promise answer or protection.

I appreciate Stephanie Seneff's research - as one facet of a larger understanding. Nothing is so denying of truth as the belief one already knows - so don't forget to genuinely check in all the time instead of setting identity on auto pilot that is then hacked and run by fear Inc.


    SpinResistant - to the main article:

    Almost anything is a "potential" gamechanger.

    Most of the author's appear to be career-antistatinists and the studies reviewed seem to have ben cherry-picked within an inch of their lives.

    Why didn't they do a meta-analysis its easy enough, once you've got the datasets



    My reply to SpinResistant:

    Stephanie Seneff has done very interesting research - and is very much in touch with and able to make sense of a huge range of data.

    I don't know what a career antistatinist is? Someone who risks their career to warn of gullible trust in institutional corruption?

    Without Chloresterol your life-experience is degraded and diminished. Perhaps this is preferable to awakening responsibility for your life-experience instead of the protection racket in which you can not have to arrive at your own discernments - because you are fitted to a dictate that manages your life for you - or should I rename that as managing your sickness for you. There is a choice here that is not a way to be smug - but a way to grow a more integrated and embracing perspective. And yes - on the way it meets fears and other negative feelings - but finds a way to integrate and more truly align through the experience of discomfort or dissonance.

    Spin resistance if you want - but to truly be wise to the deceits of spin you have to be able to watch your own mind - while reactions are triggered and genuinely desire a better way than guilt, blame and hate.

    Blaming Cholesterol is just another scapegoat for a mis-taken perception in which a sense of guilt and fear re-enact primary defences that cause more damage than the supposed 'enemy'.

    SpinResistant:
    A career anti-statinist is a person who has has written at least one book or paper claiming that cholesterol is not harmful. People who have very strong views on the issue are not the best choice for carrying out a review involving the cherry picking of studies, and subjective summaries of findings, as this one does. Even given the cherry-picking, a metanalysis would yield a summary of the data that is not subject to reviewer biases and it is deeply suspicious that such techniques were not employed. I've been taking statins for 20 years after having a couple of TIAs - symptoms disappeared, blood pressure reduced and no side-effects at all.
    Apart from a very small number of people who get muscle pains, statins are almost free from side-effects for the general population. They are statistically associated with reduced mortality in patients at risk from high blood pressure and this study does nothing to put this frequently replicated finding in doubt.
    Without question - the low risk course is to take statins if a doctor prescribes them, and not to be alarmed by careerists trying to stir up controversy where there is no basis for it. And I'm a statistician (which the authors of this irresponsibly selective review are clearly not - and I do not work for or have any connection whatever with drug companies). The claims made by some commentators on this thtread that cholesterol is not harmful fly in the face of a huge amount of evidence and in my view are irresponsible in the extreme.

My reply:


    I believe you are misinformed. But if you are able to interpret data, then perhaps look at Seneff's work. She has studied symptom report data as well as biology and is well qualified - and without vested commercial interest in interpreting the data.
    A book is not a career - but your argument does apply to those whose careers are enhanced or maintained by extremely powerful commercial lobbies.
    Strong feelings for an honesty of communication allow pioneering scientists to challenge the false assumptions in which science gets stuck in defending due to investments of reputation, money and power in the model.
    I want science unshackled and so I am heartened by those willing to risk careers in challenging dogma.



    According to Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and former longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ): "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine."


    Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet recently published a statement declaring that a shocking amount of published research is unreliable at best, if not completely false, as in, fraudulent. Horton declared, "Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."



    SpinResistant:
    I have no objection to anyone challenging dogma and I hold no particular bbrief for the New England Journal of Medicine, which like the BMJ and the Lancet in the UK exist to publish research by medics which would almost never get published in the prestige journals in which professional/career researchers publish.
    However the mere fact that a dogna is challenged is not a sufficient basis for concluding that the challenger is is correct - that decision must be based upon whether the evidence supporting the challenger's case outweighs the evidence supporting the orthodox position.
    In the present case, the challenger's case is partial and selective, the design of the study is inadequate and the body of evidence to the contrary is formidable.
    There is no evidence in the study discussed above that statins are harmful, and the very week case made to support the hypothesis that cholesterol is not is hugely outweighed by studies showing reduced mortality when "bad cholesterol" is reduced. You are free to believe and act upon the current study if you wish, but persuading other people to do so, given the present imbalance of evidence is unethical and irresponsible.
    Despite your rants about the quality of medical evidence, it is as well to bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of people with serious conditions who follow medical advice will do an awful lot better than those who follow the advice of persons such as yourself.
    By all means feel free to act believe and stupidly, but don't I beg you, try to make converts.



    My reply:


    I have no expectation of communication with those unwilling to listen - and no desire to persuade anyone of anything they are not already recognizing as their own insight or understanding. You have a multibillion dollar market from statins alone - forecast to reach 1,000,000,000,000 dollars in 2020 (Trillion dollars - http://www.pagetutor.com/trill... )
    I have honesty and peace of heart and mind. There are countless studies showing the reverse of the 'conventional wisdom' arising from false associations made by an economist - backed by corporate cartels (Keys).
    I would not wish to convert anyone from their capacity to question and discover for themselves - but the fear that prevents such questioning is leveraged by deceit.
    The death (and disease) arising from legitimately prescribed drugs is one of the major pathologies of our time. How much is quackery hiding in the trojan horse of corporately driven "science"? While doctors become puppets of and pushers for the pharmaceutical companies - the trust in the integrity of the science fades or is replaced by a psuedo religion.
    I don't base anything I write here on the study in this article - it is one among countless - along with direct testimony of reported experience that is not 'clinical' evidence and is therefore ignored. The arrogance of elitist power playing with the lives of others is matched only by a corresponding ignorance of self reinforcing justifications.
    Don't take anyone's advice without discerning or listening to your own inmost honesty.
    If cleverdicks sow complexities in which fear, guilt and self-invalidation reactively send you along the outcome they want - then you can learn something about what happens when you don't stand in your own integrity - and change your mind for a better one. Supporting a decision is making sure the full information for making choice is available. Technocracies of control dictate the narrative and frame the choices so as to deny or invalidate any other. This is all about power and not about anything scientific whatsoever. Nor should we be surprised that such agendas corrupt our institutions, leaders and researchers because it has been the history of humankind since before we even kept it.

- - -


    Yousif posted:
    Whose advice to follow? a lot of us are disoriented.



    My reply to Yousif:
    Better to be unsure and thus willing and curious to learn, than give power away to supposed authorities who are perhaps not holding your interests at heart, nor transparent in their actions or accountable for their consequences?


    The whole 'natural things are bad for you' is a cover for the actuality that unnatural 'food' is making you sick and stupid - not you personally - but as a general degrading of consciousness in which we can no longer 'think for ourselves' if we wanted to. I actually use feeling to discern the nature of thought - because spin-doctors always use fear and guilt to leverage outcomes. But the catch 22 is that if you are blind to your own spin, you wont be able to feel anything - because the emotionality of being deceived is not a freedom to feel.


    Calming and aligning your being by whatever means works for you will allow the pause of false thinking and the rise of a truly felt perspective. This is living a step at a time and listening as you go rather than finally getting control of your life. It is actually safer than the illusion of safety - because you are in touch with what is going on rather than relying on old and often wrong thinking that does not stop to ask because it believes it already knows.


    SpinResistant chimes in with:
    You are entitled to your views, but I'm afraid they sound like incoherent bunkum to me. The trouble with studies like the one reported here is that loony-fringe individuals such as yourself latch onto them and cause unjustified concern in usually sensible people. If I thought you would be able to understand it, I would suggest you go away and look at the medical literature on statins and cholesterol reduction. But you have said enough already to make me completely onfident that you wouldn't be able to make head or tail of it and you don't know what you are talking about.


    My reply to SpinResistant


    But of course I must appear so to you - given your presumptions.
    There is a directed history to uncover regarding saturated fats, cholesterol and bad science - unless you are unwilling and unable to challenge embedded or accepted beliefs.
    The body makes cholesterol because it NEEDS it. The brain accounts for about 25% of your body's cholesterol and starving it will and does have consequences.
    Calling me a looney fringe individual is a very poor attempt to assume superiority. If you can respond with civility that honours communication then I am confident you can expand your perspective on this subject.
    I don't argue with your experience. If statins have helped you - then I am glad for you.


SpinResistant binra
You are talking nonsense. I'm sure you believe what you say but it makes no sense at all and you should stick to commenting on websites for cranks and loonies. On serious website you may cause unnecessary alarm even though your posts never rise above ignorant foolishness.


    My reply to SpinResistant
    From out of your own mouth! However, I know your true potential is infinitely greater than such a ruse. Who fools who?
    If you don't understand - why judge in hate?
    This is not a competition - but an opportunity for communication. But when communication is replaced with coercion and deceit - using the FORMS of communication, then I see a wolf in sheep's clothing. How much do you notice of the underlying intent that communicates through your sense of standing in judgement over another so as to invalidate them and try to pass off as 'better'?
    I don't turn true willingness on and off according to the website I am on - in fact it doesn't come into it. I am meeting you - and others - in shared consideration. I don't make you or anyone believe or do anything that isn't your own will - nor seek to trick you into anything. In a world of spin, truth is not believed possible - only competing spin. There is no ground beneath your feet - though you gather statistical 'proofs' to the contrary. I don't say what you should do. I trust you can feel and find what you need, as you need it and extend you the benefit of any doubt - for if you could perceive differently, you would.

The nature of personal responsibility

To a poster who brought in personal responsibility as the key to any real healthcare:




I appreciate your joining in with this theme. The nature of personal responsibility is a key in all of the conflict and woe of humanity. Personal guilt and blame adulterates, corrupts and replaces awakened responsibility and bring coercion and deceit in as the hiding of a guilt and blame agenda.


So a genuine disclaimer needs to honour and address the potential or actual awakened responsibility in its readership rather than merely give unto Caesar as Caesar demands as its due.


Whatever we say - we have no control over what anyone else interprets it as, uses it for or does as a result of reading it. But we do have responsibility to our health and wholeness - our integrity of being - and this does not communicate carelessly or callously - but on purpose and in unified purpose.


Conflicted purpose or 'hidden agenda' communicates mixed messages. We may learn to align, integrate and balance by actions that reveal more about ourselves and our world as a result of living. Or... we fix ourselves into static assertions of identity and fight our corner by whatever means are deemed necessary according to the fix we are painted into.

In the market place is the phrase 'buyer beware' as a warning to be vigilant when trading, to check that all is as it is said or sold to be. This is no less true in accepting any ideas or perceptions - for deceit is pervasive when personal investment in outcomes overrides the way in which they are arrived at.

I see the corporate mask of technocracy that is currently running as determined to eradicate awakened responsibility or free willingness, so as to enforce conformity to a pseudo scientific 'system' of penalty and disincentive. That is - a fear-driven dictate - no matter how it is disguised or presented.

If people are determined and insistent of evading and escaping their innate responsibility, then they will give power to anything and everything that enables them to buy more time in which to persist in the identity they have grown thereby.

Accepting a sense of true worth is the first responsibility - because if a sense of self-unworthiness underlies all presentations of seeking, then well being cannot be had - or recognized if it leaked through.

The words cant really say what one's own being recognizes - but they can get in the way of recognition if they are read without also feeling within.

If you meant that a system of penalty should keeps everyone conformed to not being a drain on society then I say such a society is itself sick because it has no sense of doing what you love and bringing that into your relationships, and society as a whole. And if you cite instances of deprivation I can only say one has to start somewhere and grow the spark that a sense of self-denied would starve of light and life.
No one else can be your life - but if you don't hold true to your place - everything else will come in and rob you of it.

DNA Matrix

Scientists confirm DNA holds a second layer of information

My Commenting to the theme:

The complexity of manifest existence hides the consciousness as it from the experiencing of consciousness 'within' its matrix.
The intent to define, map and control is itself a 'program' running of a coercive force acting upon - otherness.
However, I came here to input that the DNA - and function of our 'gut' micro biota is far more radical than is perhaps widely known and an unfolding frontier of revelation. Identical twins each have unique microbiogenomes and thus different responses to the same environmental exposures or relations.
The ignorance/arrogance of prevailing over and enslaving nature or indeed Life is an anti-biotic that operates beneath the appearances of self-protection and empowerment.
This operates as a binary polarity for the limited local expression of Life to define against.
The desire to express and experience Life calls forth or is synchronous with the patterning that creates such unfolding experience - spontaneously. But such desire is not in any true sense separate from its fulfilment. The experience of time-process in spatially defined location is in a sense a Gift  and the recognition of true desire as distinct from programmed or conditioned reaction aligns the life within Life so as to reintegrate from conflicted and driven reaction. Uncovering reaction seems to reveal a mechanistic 'life' - but that which is aware of mechanism is Awareness of desire - and at this 'level' choice operates as the current focus of attention and intention or 'desire'. To know or be conscious of one's purpose is to be whole or unconflicted in desire.
The archetypes of consciousness revealing through math-geometry operate as the depth and richness of the experience of embodiment of Idea.
What Idea is made of is seemingly asked by a position of being outside or apart from in order to exist as the questioner. A trick of the mind by which to seem to be something else - and thus trigger equal and opposite reaction in a split-minded 'relationship'. The fear of Other - and sense of intrusion, violation and limitation, never left the mind that set off the division in taking or mistaking the form of a question as if a real question - when the form masks a statement or assertion by which to identify in 'as if'.
I'm not here to spoil the party - but to undo the driven and hidden hate that fuels a lack of wonderment for the sake of power, wealth and of course validation of identity in question.
In relationship of self revealing honesty - a like reflection rises naturally in the other -  but not as a ploy to rape them or control and collect them. Extending a true willingness of communication opens an embracing Identity that can only be lived or shared - not weaponized or marketised or conceptualized. In modern terms I might call it a Non Local Awareness that re-wakens through its local extension of expression. Plunderment or wonderment - it is a choice already in play - but because the exclusive sense of self is not conformed or cooperated with - but meets opposition and adversity - it operates in the dark as a coercive deceit - so as to make the true seem false and the false, true. Then your motivation can be correct while your definitions are corrupted - but this is always experienced as power struggle and the need to validate and justify lack of presence in forms of problem that persist the original take or mis-take of 'as if'. One such is to assert impenetrable complexity and set the mind-trap of belief that The Answer is in the puzzle. However, living your life is already the 'answer' to the desire to open and share in experience - and so enjoying whatever are the passions of your interest and enlivenment will honour the true desire that - underneath all the apparent complexity - moves you.

The Snowden Test

The Snowden Test


An article questioning the accepted narrative in the sense of being deceived by apparent revelations of a whistle blower.

- - -


The personality level perspective is inherently a 'game' whose fundamental tenet plays out in fragmented or segregated conflicts of apparent power struggles - while the 'power' operates from the shadow.
Where you 'read' your reality-experience from is the measure of what you receive as your sense of existence. If an exclusive ego-centricity of private and authoritative control is your presumed starting place - so will you 'read' and experience your private control-defined reality.
The lure of the dynamic of conflict is the certainty of guilt - and this is the root of 'power in the world' - for victim of a believed unfair attack claims hate justified as power of protection and retribution.
The attempt to manipulate or coerce Life can only reflect the same measure, and promise of total control is the imminence of utter defeat - for the denial DEPENDS upon that which it denies and has no presence in the movement of Life apart from giving power to denial of It.
In asserting an identity of masking and controlling Life - to redefine Life in our own image and as our self justification, we give power of presence away for promise of conditional outcomes that soon reveal their hollow transience without a truly shared presence.
If the one reading me here would understand the reversal by which they live apart, then the urge or drive to operate power or control must be recognized loveless - by the love that you are beneath the mask.
Reaching to or perhaps I should say synchronizing with the one beneath the mask is not a plea or persuasion, nor any kind of leverage or coercion based on moral guilting or judgement - but is the very act of extending a quality of presence that really comes through us and not from and by us - as we have conditioned ourselves to believe ourself to be. Perhaps considering this reveals how much we 'love' to hate - for who would extend worth to those judged love's enemy and undeserving?
But beneath all that we hate in the world are resonances of what we hate in ourselves - as we have judged and believed ourself to be.
The blame game is a sort of negative pass the parcel - no one wants to be the sacrificial victim to another's specialness - yet few recognize that addiction to self-specialness (I WANT IT THUS!) necessitates, dissonance, conflict, loss of awareness to a mind-set seeking power to validate itself.
The script of the world is very fragmented and very complex - but its core stories are our archetypes of human experience. The truth is not found in stories set to prove themselves true - yet the release of the insistence of judging and controlling the narrative opens a relational communication in which a Gift of shared being - true presence - recognizes itself in the giving.
Look into and receive through the eyes of those you meet or encounter through the extension of your appreciation and gratitude for being - and you will not be coming from a masking of fear, hatred, concealed rage or unworthiness. For these 'communicate' hidden strings of demand or denial that are felt as lack of acceptance and unsafe - meriting distrust and defence.
As for what to believe - never believe from the outside in - but go within by releasing the insistence of reaction and truly allow truth to rise as presence - without demanding what form the 'answer' should be - or the filters of our fears lead to mis-interpretations given power of true.
You can say everything in a world of apparently conflicting choices is a test to see if you want to persist in choosing conflict. Releasing the identity in conflict allows the underlying feelings to rise to be accepted rather than denied. This may seem more challenging than dealing with a world under threat of evil forces - yet it is an entirely different foundation from which to live - and grows a way of being that is truly felt presence - for presence is the point of true relationship and communication - regardless the 'world' believes this to be the 'sacrifice' or total loss of power or indeed of one's life.

But the thinking of mask of power in the world operates the sacrifice or denial of awareness of love's presence. When you demonstrate integrity and willingness to yourself by living it - you have a basis for greater trust. The mask would have you rehearse in thinking so as to justify staying in the mask. But what you step or stand forth in willingness is your accepted true of you and grows the capacity to see the tricks of the mask.

'Let the dead bury the dead' means bring your whole attention to the Living - for where you choose to give or focus your attention is your living will... or your willingness to let old and conflicted conditionings run in place of your Life.

Synchronicity

Periods don’t sync, period

My comment to the above article:


Synchronicity is The Non Local Event - and yet in time is everything relative to its 'past' or future'. As you define yourself in past and future terms - so will you set up an interference pattern in which to posit a focus of awareness that grows to operate as 'consciousness of' this or that, then and so anticipate when. Because you focus Existence (see) the 'randomness' will never be - although the idea of order must create it as its supporting polarity.

I haven't performed or written up a peer reviewed study on synchronicity of menstruation cycles in women working or living together - though I have often met its occurrence - so I wont engage on whether this is or isn't so for you, for women or for glimpses of an implicate vibrational resonance into manifest existence.

The belief in randomness is a mythic displacement to the belief in a sense of imposed or imprisoning meaning. Again see the polarities that give each other apparent autonomous 'existence' - but not outside and apart from the mind that embraces them.

Meaning that is added on or imposed is a false god or self concept reflected back. So if you accept yourself separate from Life - you will perceive a separate world of separate things. If you accept yourself as conflicted purposes vying for order or unity amidst adversity or chaos then you perceive a world of conflict amidst conflicting forces and competing interests.

Like attracts Like - and yet in terms of feeling recognition - there is a repulsion that guarantees the persistence of the separating principle - so as to lead us to fight our own unrecognised shadow or shout at our own unrecognised echo and hate our own unrecognised hate.

Life Works - because nothing else is - but definitions allow the freedom to experience it working against itself - and identify in this or that 'side' as righteous or gain fuel for hate in hatred of powerlessness or a sense of illegitimate limitation.

Myths are not the same as falsehoods - though science has largely been corrupted by hatred of the Mythic and equates myth with lie or imaginative delusion. Myths are archetypal symbols of meanings that embody our primary conditioned consciousness - and so are rich in meanings that can be used to persist such conditioned identity in conflict OR awaken and reintegrate to a wholeness of being that cannot be translated into terms of conflicted and separated verbal mental constructs. But synchronicity proves itself relative to whatever you choose to accept true for you - most of which is 'unconsciously' active as the mythic sense of conditioned self. So of course such a self 'sees' a mechanistic universe - without even a creative impulse from which patterns of harmonics and dissonances arise. It 'sees' that which is resonating or synchronous to the vibrational quality of its own thought - and thought devoid of creative impulse is as close to dead as to deny the true Mater in material embodiment - and so operate against Life within the fantasy of power. All such power is conditional upon denying it to others - then it is not power but limitation in support of fantasy - an archetype of censorship to shut down Communication.

The patternings that we grow and embody through the purposes we accept are the Ideas through which Culture flowers or withers. Love operates human synchronicity - but the fear and denial of love operates a falsely imposed 'meaning' upon the chaotic and conflicted negative synchronicity.

The 'elitist' power class think to use contrived myth or controlled narrative to leverage or trigger outcomes in their favour. The truth of it is not in the story - but in where you are truly coming from - the active purpose.

You cannot communicate 'data' to any meaningful end without interpretation and translation into story definitions at some level. If you choose to be out of sync with the movement of your being - you can get a hit of power for a while before it fragments into a paralysis of complex frustration or meaninglessness in which the game is no longer worth the candle. But it's your light - and your choice as to where to focus and receive reflection.

I feel you have an axe to grind - and seeking the ammunition to wage vendetta. Perhaps the meaning of Life escapes you - and you feel cheated or denied something precious? Whoever 'started it' I see the dynamic of conflict as the cause of the oppositional reflection - and so I feel for ways of expanding perspective rather than reinforcing rejection and denial.

I just 'happened' to read your article and to then write whatever 'happened' to arise as to the desire to share communication - and yet the synchronicity extends according to the quality of a like attention and curiosity - finding its 'timing' within the free willingness of acceptance - which is always a recognition of presence and not a mental construct to apply in some other moment than this.

The device of demonizing operates hidden hate

Advice against eating fat was wrong. It is time the experts admitted it


My comment to the article above:

- - -

You might recognize that the demonizing principle jumps ship - such that we grow to become the thing we hate - unless of course we recognize hate as the driver of the demonizing device and choose not to use it.

I'm glad you are focusing on real food as opposed to the adulterated or heavily processed  'food' that suits the logistical and distribution and market capture 'needs' of corporate cartels.

The kind of carbs makes a big difference, as with fats. But also the effects of many pesticides and herbicides on our gut bioflora affects the ability of the body to metabolize particularly refined carbs. Pharma-harm also arises from anti-biotic, and most likely anti-anything. Quite apart from substituting for awakened responsibility.

There are positive synergies of benign influence as there are negative, and isolating co factors to assign magical healing or demonic powers is part of the attempt to validate and reinforce identity based in conflict - or it would not be driven so.

Our gut bio-genome is unique - regardless being an identical twin - and the effects of diet are also unique. Therefore we can only arrive at general guidelines with accommodation for diversity within them - for some thrive on what others cannot survive - and they do not need demonizing or invalidating for being 'different' to a church of technocracy in which the one true diet or any other freedom of discovery and association - is used to conform or negate all else to its model.

The corruption of science is the same patterning as any other corruption - involving institutional ego as an investment in fear of loss - that adulterates and undermines its true function. A diet of persistent fear makes hollow of Life - reducing consciousness such that only the impending breakdown of the model can catalyse awakening from a false investment.

A good teacher makes themselves obsolete - and healthcare is not about generating and ever larger capture of addiction to sickness management - so as to prove and justify investment in the model. But addiction to power operates beneath the masks of social or even personally accepted 'reality'.

Our environment includes our thought - and the tacitly agreed definitions or model of reality that we operate - largely unknowingly - generates the feelings and perceptions from which we tend to grow our personality strategies for surviving WITHIN such conditioned parameters. Science developed as a way of challenging cultural blinkers or belief-filters - but has become another church-state corruption.

The influence of cartels of wealth and power in key moments can and does direct or distort perception of reality. The lobbies that promoted the mistaken or fraudulent vilification of cholesterol and saturated fat found a key moment in Ancel Keys - who was a relatively unknown economist making associations that are like blaming fire appliances for causing fires because they are found at the scene.

But note the investment in demonizing anything is inversely proportional to the power that is then assumed and identified in self righteousness. Power in this sense is corruption from the outset. Science does not need engage in fighting un-truth so much as sharing in true communication - that is in honesty and transparency. This is a tall order for human beings - because we are human beings and not dis-embodied minds untainted by power struggle of conflicted identity seeking reinforcement in validation.

But honesty is our bedrock - for without it insanity runs unchecked. War is the condition in which truth is the first casualty. And so honesty is uncovering the truth of what seems irreconcilably conflicted or un-resolvable.

Joy of appreciation and gratitude for being is a primal contextual diet. Anxiety is toxic if not immediately brought to light and transformed. Fear feeds fear to grow monstrous in the dark. Reason is also Light.

Sun Block?

What you eat and drink can protect your skin from the sun
by Ian Marber

This article considers that diet is a part of the effect of Sun on skin. There is more to skin than surface seems - and more to sunlight too.

I started writing commentary into the issue and this unfolded as my morning meditation:


I write here to look beneath the surface appearance of the issue as it is generally accepted and engaged. No one need give attention to what doesn't resonate with their own interest and so please allow your own desire to  journey in this consideration or not as your willingness and not as struggle. Language does not have to be a war of meanings - but that means receptivity rather than blocking and control - does it not?

I feel their are negative synergies of effect as there are positive - and that denial and demonizing of our nature to promote man-made interferences of manual controls is deeply imprinted in our way of thinking as an expression of what and who we think we are.
The 'modern' myth of more power over nature, more supremacy via 'scientific' extensions of perception, analysis and control is a narrative in which we are blind to anything that reflects and reintegrates to wholeness of being as a balanced expression within Life rather than an attempt to 'lord it' over Life as if apart from and in judgement upon it.

This operates as a very complex masking narrative of mutually agreed definitions that are similar to modern finance in being more and more disconnected from actual wealth lived and shared - and more about managing perceptions amidst the redistribution of guilt as blame - played out as power struggle that masks and filters the feeling and knowing of Life by identifying in mask and model - and conforming or even sacrificing Life to fit the model.

The loss of felt relationship is the condition in which the 'control-mentality' is invoked and accepted as protector - and by the dictate of such a 'guide' is one's nature assigned all the attributes of the 'control-mentality' and Life thus seen as hostile, threatening, treacherous, deceitful, and untrustworthy - and so its 'usurpation' or substitution and replacement with self-limitation in which we can seem to be powerful - and which must be engaged in or the underlying fears and conflicts will surface.

It is not helpful for me to recommend sun exposure as a primary 'Medicine' Way, because context is everything - and there are so many variables - including diets that deplete or deny the synergetic co-factors by which beneficence is felt and known as health. The divide and rule of analytical 'defence' mind is essentially the fight or flight response of denial and evasion relative to a deeper relational conflict that is pushed down or away - and denied awareness by the engagement in diversion of conflict that 'must' be resolved - yet the energetic for this is from the deeper inner conflict and resolving the 'externalized' issues never fully resolves - but seeds and reinforces the problem mentality - as a conditioned sense of seemingly autonomous self.

What I write here may seem to be unrelated to your health relative to Sunlight - but I find any attempt to reveal the negative effects of man-made substitutes as part of re-wakening a presence of unified heart and mind is lost to the conditioned defence which merely flips to gain a sense of identity reinforcement from demonising sun-screen or transfat and low fat high carb processed diet - or much of the pharmaceutical interventions that operate political power in secret - because controlling the narrative is a kind of mind-control. A dictate of conformity and coercive demand that usurps, denies and substitutes for free willingness.

Life without free willing relationship learns nothing but a conditioned obedience and grows or evolves nothing but an illusion of power that hollows and lays waste to our lives and our world - in the guise of progress. One doesn't need to demonize the demonic or 'anti-Life' that such denial operates as - one merely needs recognize what does not belong in you as you truly feel and know yourself to be - and then leave it behind while engaging in what does resonate true. This is living from a different sense of foundation than the 'guide and protector' of the disconnected sense of self.

We are never disconnected from the Life that 'Moves' and communicates Itself through us - but we are now expert at experiencing it so  - and misinterpreting everything through a lens of fear that we are generally unmindful of as it is socially invisible - as long as everyone joins in denying it so as to keep a surface mind split off from such discomfort. Discernment of truth is not definition and control but felt relationship. Without discernment is one's integrity lost to the image and symbol and concept of Life - and all such forms are easily masked by loveless intent that works in reversal - as if to escape relationship for a mental ideal of a static sense of freedom from disturbance.

I predict that sun-screen will be recognized in time to have significant and synergistic negative or toxic consequence as does lack of sunlight. But then the reduction of health, wealth and consciousness of the population at large is allowing a very few to live out fantasies of extraordinary wealth, power and privilege - and so the information will not be 'official' until 40 years after the knowledge is first leaked or discovered.

The body is an extraordinarily complex vehicle - but until the mechanism is understood, 'scientists' wont allow it or will push it in the long grass wile focussing on what reinforces their primary model of a patented or possessed 'understanding or discovery'. This is not Science - but a corruption thereof. However, this is what is being traded as accepted currency - and all the institutions are complicit in their investment in it. Too big to fail? Then it takes down everything and everyone with it. There is no failure in true science - because something is learned or discovered from which to gain a fresh perspective. The application of methods to human 'problems' will fail - because the problems have original cause in false conditioned imprinting - and so the methods need to be guided and used within a relational context.

The 'materialism' that posits cause to be external and the external to be a separate realm of separate things to be exploited and manipulated by a separative consciousness is not what it has presented itself to seem self-evidently to be. You are of and in and as a vibrational energetic expression of Life - or you would not be consciousness of
anything. This is already true regardless the use to which you put your focus of intention and attention. Limitation of consciousness can serve to focus in very specific ways - but at expense of whole field awareness. Pausing from actively focusing and identifying in the dynamic of conflict  which is the principle device for the 'split off attention' we might take as our mind - allows awareness to rise to its own recognition - as a field of being and indeed as a feeling of being. far from being a 'void' - the feeling of being is infinitely rich in information - but to the receptivity of an alignment in relationship. This is going on beneath surface consciousness that may deny it to seem a self in its own power - and if that is the active choice or desire - then it is unwilling for any other experience and will interpret accordingly.

Relationship is often something we fake , mask or pass off as - such that relationships become replaced with forms of ritual behaviours without the felt quality of an intimacy in Life. It is unwise to fake an intimacy or seek to get it by guile - because it will then reflect the lovelessness that such a falsity really presents in place of true presence. But if it burns you - are you now proven justified in your fears and hates? Or have you set a lovelessness in place of an honest capacity to feel your right timing and relational positioning relative to all that is arising to your experience?

And when is such a fragility become worshipful at expense of the power of renewal? So that power can operate in secret to explore and experience fantasies that would be unacceptable in the light of a shared awareness. We find our place relative to our current sense of our needs  - and our need is never at odds or apart from the movement of our being - but mind has made it seem so - and so it is the mind that is to be observed and recognized true or false - from a perspective prior to its framing of conception and perception. Or else all things are rendered  unrecognisable - and given all sorts of kaleidoscope meanings - real and imagined - but equally accepted true.

"Science and newspapers don't mix"

Ignore the low-carb cult: eating lots of fat won’t really make you slim

"Science and newspapers don't mix".

Quite right - the lay media are not qualified to operate journalism regarding science - so they are replaced by lackeys who insert the press release as provided by a cartel of elitists that protects the lay public from the 'complexities' of science.

Trolling disinfo has a dirty feel as it blatantly lies to undermine the designated 'threat' to the control of the narrative. What this then reveals is just how much 'control of the narrative' goes on - and the institutions that are used as a cover for such dis-info.

The 'model' is deemed "Too Big To Fail" and therefore everything and everyone is sacrificial or collateral damage in the crusade to protect the model. And so peddling dis-info is really protecting us from truths that are too dangerous to know - or at least to the belief that control of society is the task of elitists working deceits.

But lest I seem smugly self righteous - I see how this pattern operates within our individual consciousness and is thus inevitably reflected in our thoughts, relationships and communication.

An integrative and cooperative relationship within Life is not one that invalidates others in order to seem better or more true. And the undoing of such false science is not an attack on science - but a correction in which communication is OPENED. Controlling the narrative is not science - but political deceit.

False science on cholesterol corrected?

Is conventional wisdom on cholesterol about to be turned upside down?

The headline could have read as: "Is the medical fraud based on false cholesterol science, about to be corrected?"

However the investment in false models can be so pervasive and institutionally powerful as to make it 'take' as if legitimate 'currency' by frequent and multiple assertions of gullibility and disinformation.

The idea of 'controlling the narrative' requires that genuine journalism (along with transparency and accountability) are heavily disincentivised.

Welcome to Corporate Technocracy - with or without the EU? You are to have no voice unless it conforms and aligns with what the official dictate decrees - in which case you can get a hit of power and privilege by pretending it is your voice. There is a kind of psychopathic thinking that sees everything in terms of power struggle - and science and medicine are no less useful as masks than was religion. Discernment is the key to everything - for without it are you a leaf in the wind to conditioning of which you are unaware.

The nature of power-addiction is rooted in a hatred of Life and seeks the invalidation and replacement of alignment with Life by a mentality of 'control' - however the more control is imposed - the more out of control everything becomes - which to the power-elitist means the more control must be brought to bear. They simply refuse to look within and so cannot really learn anything other than subsuming more life to serve power interests.

The model of the world we co-create as currency of experience and exchange tends to demonize and invalidate Life on Earth so as to gain power thereby and 'lord over it' - even at cost of planetary ruin. Ignorance and arrogance worshipped in self-righteous hate that would make a 'new world order' through destructive deceits.

Discerning deceit is something that cannot be systematized as any kind of method or dogmatic set of beliefs - for at best there are guidelines and pointers. You have to be honest within yourself to notice and see the fault in your own mind - else you attempt to pluck it from others - who of course counter or oppose - or manipulate your displaced needs. Its a mess!

No one owns, controls or judges THE truth to which others must then conform or be invalidated. This is not power but desperation masking as a need to be validated OR ELSE! Because 'too big to fail means' ON MY TERMS or really bad things will happen to you as a result of disengaging from my 'protection'.

It is simply true in general that the attempt to persist in denial of our true feeling and being seeks ways to cast responsibility elsewhere and then righteously hate in the name of science or health and safety - so as to draw power for the few who position themselves where the 'power, influence or money' has been redirected as a result of packaging fear in new forms that promise answer or protection.

I appreciate Stephanie Seneff's research - as one facet of a larger understanding. Nothing is so denying of truth as the belief one already knows - so don't forget to genuinely check in all the time instead of setting identity on auto pilot that is then hacked and run by fear Inc.

SpinResistant - to the main article:

Almost anything is a "potential" gamechanger.
Most of the author's appear to be career-antistatinists and the studies reviewed seem to have ben cherry-picked within an inch of their lives.
Why didn't they do a meta-analysis its easy enough, once you've got the datasets

    My reply to SpinResistant:

    Stephanie Seneff has done very interesting research - and is very much in touch with and able to make sense of a huge range of data.

    I don't know what a career antistatinist is? Someone who risks their career to warn of gullible trust in institutional corruption?

    Without Chloresterol your life-experience is degraded and diminished. Perhaps this is preferable to awakening responsibility for your life-experience instead of the protection racket in which you can not have to arrive at your own discernments - because you are fitted to a dictate that manages your life for you - or should I rename that as managing your sickness for you. There is a choice here that is not a way to be smug - but a way to grow a more integrated and embracing perspective. And yes - on the way it meets fears and other negative feelings - but finds a way to integrate and more truly align through the experience of discomfort or dissonance.

    Spin resistance if you want - but to truly be wise to the deceits of spin you have to be able to watch your own mind - while reactions are triggered and genuinely desire a better way than guilt, blame and hate.

    Blaming Cholesterol is just another scapegoat for a mis-taken perception in which a sense of guilt and fear re-enact primary defences that cause more damage than the supposed 'enemy'.

SpinResistant:
A career anti-statinist is a person who has has written at least one book or paper claiming that cholesterol is not harmful. People who have very strong views on the issue are not the best choice for carrying out a review involving the cherry picking of studies, and subjective summaries of findings, as this one does. Even given the cherry-picking, a metanalysis would yield a summary of the data that is not subject to reviewer biases and it is deeply suspicious that such techniques were not employed. I've been taking statins for 20 years after having a couple of TIAs - symptoms disappeared, blood pressure reduced and no side-effects at all.
Apart from a very small number of people who get muscle pains, statins are almost free from side-effects for the general population. They are statistically associated with reduced mortality in patients at risk from high blood pressure and this study does nothing to put this frequently replicated finding in doubt.
Without question - the low risk course is to take statins if a doctor prescribes them, and not to be alarmed by careerists trying to stir up controversy where there is no basis for it. And I'm a statistician (which the authors of this irresponsibly selective review are clearly not - and I do not work for or have any connection whatever with drug companies). The claims made by some commentators on this thtread that cholesterol is not harmful fly in the face of a huge amount of evidence and in my view are irresponsible in the extreme.

    I believe you are misinformed. But if you are able to interpret data, then perhaps look at Seneff's work. She has studied symptom report data as well as biology and is well qualified - and without vested commercial interest in interpreting the data.
    A book is not a career - but your argument does apply to those whose careers are enhanced or maintained by extremely powerful commercial lobbies.
    Strong feelings for an honesty of communication allow pioneering scientists to challenge the false assumptions in which science gets stuck in defending due to investments of reputation, money and power in the model.
    I want science unshackled and so I am heartened by those willing to risk careers in challenging dogma.


    According to Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and former longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ): "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine."

    Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet recently published a statement declaring that a shocking amount of published research is unreliable at best, if not completely false, as in, fraudulent. Horton declared, "Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."

SpinResistant:
I have no objection to anyone challenging dogma and I hold no particular brief for the New England Journal of Medicine, which like the BMJ and the Lancet in the UK exist to publish research by medics which would almost never get published in the prestige journals in which professional/career researchers publish.
However the mere fact that a dogna is challenged is not a sufficient basis for concluding that the challenger is is correct - that decision must be based upon whether the evidence supporting the challenger's case outweighs the evidence supporting the orthodox position.
In the present case, the challenger's case is partial and selective, the design of the study is inadequate and the body of evidence to the contrary is formidable.
There is no evidence in the study discussed above that statins are harmful, and the very week case made to support the hypothesis that cholesterol is not is hugely outweighed by studies showing reduced mortality when "bad cholesterol" is reduced. You are free to believe and act upon the current study if you wish, but persuading other people to do so, given the present imbalance of evidence is unethical and irresponsible.
Despite your rants about the quality of medical evidence, it is as well to bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of people with serious conditions who follow medical advice will do an awful lot better than those who follow the advice of persons such as yourself.
By all means feel free to act believe and stupidly, but don't I beg you, try to make converts.

    I have no expectation of communication with those unwilling to listen - and no desire to persuade anyone of anything they are not already recognizing as their own insight or understanding. You have a multibillion dollar market from statins alone - forecast to reach 1,000,000,000,000 dollars in 2020 (Trillion dollars - http://www.pagetutor.com/trill... )
    I have honesty and peace of heart and mind. There are countless studies showing the reverse of the 'conventional wisdom' arising from false associations made by an economist - backed by corporate cartels (Keys).
    I would not wish to convert anyone from their capacity to question and discover for themselves - but the fear that prevents such questioning is leveraged by deceit.
    The death (and disease) arising from legitimately prescribed drugs is one of the major pathologies of our time. How much is quackery hiding in the trojan horse of corporately driven "science"? While doctors become puppets of and pushers for the pharmaceutical companies - the trust in the integrity of the science fades or is replaced by a psuedo religion.
    I don't base anything I write here on the study in this article - it is one among countless - along with direct testimony of reported experience that is not 'clinical' evidence and is therefore ignored. The arrogance of elitist power playing with the lives of others is matched only by a corresponding ignorance of self reinforcing justifications.
    Don't take anyone's advice without discerning or listening to your own inmost honesty.
    If cleverdicks sow complexities in which fear, guilt and self-invalidation reactively send you along the outcome they want - then you can learn something about what happens when you don't stand in your own integrity - and change your mind for a better one. Supporting a decision is making sure the full information for making choice is available. Technocracies of control dictate the narrative and frame the choices so as to deny or invalidate any other. This is all about power and not about anything scientific whatsoever. Nor should we be surprised that such agendas corrupt our institutions, leaders and researchers because it has been the history of humankind since before we even kept it.

- - -

Yousif posted:
Whose advice to follow? a lot of us are disoriented.

    My reply to Yousif:
    Better to be unsure and thus willing and curious to learn, than give power away to supposed authorities who are perhaps not holding your interests at heart, nor transparent in their actions or accountable for their consequences?

    The whole 'natural things are bad for you' is a cover for the actuality that unnatural 'food' is making you sick and stupid - not you personally - but as a general degrading of consciousness in which we can no longer 'think for ourselves' if we wanted to. I actually use feeling to discern the nature of thought - because spin-doctors always use fear and guilt to leverage outcomes. But the catch 22 is that if you are blind to your own spin, you wont be able to feel anything - because the emotionality of being deceived is not a freedom to feel.

    Calming and aligning your being by whatever means works for you will allow the pause of false thinking and the rise of a truly felt perspective. This is living a step at a time and listening as you go rather than finally getting control of your life. It is actually safer than the illusion of safety - because you are in touch with what is going on rather than relying on old and often wrong thinking that does not stop to ask because it believes it already knows.

SpinResistant chimes in with:
You are entitled to your views, but I'm afraid they sound like incoherent bunkum to me. The trouble with studies like the one reported here is that loony-fringe individuals such as yourself latch onto them and cause unjustified concern in usually sensible people. If I thought you would be able to understand it, I would suggest you go away and look at the medical literature on statins and cholesterol reduction. But you have said enough already to make me completely onfident that you wouldn't be able to make head or tail of it and you don't know what you are talking about.

    My reply to SpinResistant

    But of course I must appear so to you - given your presumptions.
    There is a directed history to uncover regarding saturated fats, cholesterol and bad science - unless you are unwilling and unable to challenge embedded or accepted beliefs.
    The body makes cholesterol because it NEEDS it. The brain accounts for about 25% of your body's cholesterol and starving it will and does have consequences.
    Calling me a looney fringe individual is a very poor attempt to assume superiority. If you can respond with civility that honours communication then I am confident you can expand your perspective on this subject.
    I don't argue with your experience. If statins have helped you - then I am glad for you.

SpinResistant to me
You are talking nonsense. I'm sure you believe what you say but it makes no sense at all and you should stick to commenting on websites for cranks and loonies. On serious website you may cause unnecessary alarm even though your posts never rise above ignorant foolishness.

From out of your own mouth! However, I know your true potential is infinitely greater than such a ruse. Who fools who?
If you don't understand - why judge in hate?
This is not a competition - but an opportunity for communication. But when communication is replaced with coercion and deceit - using the FORMS of communication, then I see a wolf in sheep's clothing. How much do you notice of the underlying intent that communicates through your sense of standing in judgement over another so as to invalidate them and try to pass off as 'better'?

I don't turn true willingness on and off according to the website I am on - in fact it doesn't come into it. I am meeting you - and others - in shared consideration. I don't make you or anyone believe or do anything that isn't your own will - nor seek to trick you into anything. In a world of spin, truth is not believed possible - only competing spin. There is no ground beneath your feet - though you gather statistical 'proofs' to the contrary. I don't say what you should do. I trust you can feel and find what you need, as you need it and extend you the benefit of any doubt - for if you could perceive differently, you would.