Why Do Elderly Politicians & Doctors Ignore NATURALLY ACQUIRED IMMUNITY????

August 2, 2021





QUOTE: “It’s a textbook example of how natural immunity is really better than vaccination,” says Charlotte Thålin, a physician and immunology researcher at Danderyd Hospital and the Karolinska Institute who studies the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2. “To my knowledge, it’s the first time [this] has really been shown in the context of COVID-19.”




Looking Out For Us

OR: The Sisyphean chore of
combating Biden’s lies…


As seen in my previous blog post (HERE) natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is long-lasting and effective. NO cases of the naturally immune getting COVID-19 after surviving the illness exist.

Why do the old, old men in charge act like we only just discovered the immune system? Why, when these frail men in their last day even mention naturally acquired immunity is it done in a way that frightens people? That, btw, is how elderly doctors were trained: in order to get patients to follow their advice they were taught to make deliberate use of gratuitous fear. This is the generation of doctors that would actually HIT a patient before giving an injection. They, like the old man who financed Gain of Function Research in Wuhan, often refer to themselves in the Third Person. It’s A POWER TRIP.

Here’s a short talk about this which I recommend – then for details on the GOOD NEWS about immunity scroll down to my post:
NATURE: “Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime”

13x The Immunity!

And no, contrary to Ol’ Blank Joe (Biden’s) anonymous staffer who tweets under the President’s name, DELTA is NOT more deadly. This chart is from the British Government study SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England Technical briefing 16 18 June 2021:


As you can CLEARLY see the original SARS-CoV-2 Variant (ALPHA) is 2% fatal. DELTA IS A MERE THREE TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT FATAL.

Of course in a nation of people who think a QUARTER POUND hamburger is bigger than a THIRD OF A POUND HAMBURGER it is easy to scare the hell out of the sheep with numbers. So here’s something EASY to understand:

Never Trust Liar

Biden Delta Lie


No Requirement


QUOTE: Some people already have ‘natural immunity‘ – that is, immunity from prior COVID infection. During every month of this pandemic, I’ve had debates with other public researchers about the effectiveness and durability of natural immunity. I’ve been told that natural immunity could fall off a cliff, rendering people susceptible to infection. But here we are now, over a year and a half into the clinical experience of observing patients who were infected, and natural immunity is effective and going strong. And that’s because with natural immunity, the body develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus, not just a spike protein constructed from a vaccine. The power of natural immunity was recently affirmed in an Israeli study, which found a 6.7 times greater level of protection among those with natural immunity vs. those with vaccinated immunity

Requiring the vaccine in people who are already immune with natural immunity has no scientific support. While vaccinating those people may be beneficial – and it’s a reasonable hypothesis that vaccination may bolster the longevity of their immunity – to argue dogmatically that they must get vaccinated has zero clinical outcome data to back it. As a matter of fact, we have data to the contrary: A Cleveland Clinic study found that vaccinating people with natural immunity did not add to their level of protection.

So instead of talking about the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, we should be talking about the immune and the non-immune.



New Report

Suit Over Immunity

CLICK the image ☝︎ to get a PDF of this article. CLICK THE LINKS in the article to get important information regarding the SUPERIORITY of natural acquired immunity from respected sources such as THE LANCET.
AGAIN: This is not to say it is preferable to get sick instead of getting vaccinated. I make NO such claims. The point is that for almost 100,000,000 Americans THAT CHOICE WAS MADE FOR US WHEN WE GOT SICK. WE DO NOT NEED ANY VACCINE. THE GOAL IS IMMUNITY NOT THE NUMBER OF SHOTS ADMINISTERED.

UPDATE animated


HE WON!pdf

Washington, DC (August 17, 2021) – The New Civil Liberties Alliance is pleased to announce today that George Mason University (GMU) has granted a medical exemption from its mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policy to NCLA client Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School. NCLA is delighted with Prof. Zywicki’s victory for freedom. His brave determination to fight the university’s misguided and scientifically unsound vaccination mandate has garnered nationwide attention. GMU and other universities must stop ignoring science and cease forcing mandatory vaccines on even those with naturally acquired immunity (especially if only approved under a federal Emergency Use Authorization statute).


Spectator Article

CLICK THE IMAGE ABOVE FOR FURTHER PROOF THAT THOSE OF US WHO WERE INFECTED HAVE SUPERIOR IMMUNITY THAN THAT CREATED BY VACCINE. Again, I am NOT saying you should go out and get sick. Just that for  MILLIONS OF US that choice was made by when we contracted the disease.

“The team, from Maccabi Healthcare Services, looked at three groups — those double-jabbed with Pfizer who have never had Covid, unvaccinated people who have been infected, and single-jabbed people who have had the virus. They then monitored how many developed symptomatic infection, how many were hospitalised and how many died. Their findings were stark: double-jabbed, previously uninfected people are 13 times as likely to get Covid compared with the naturally immune. Natural infection was also found to significantly reduce the risk of catching symptomatic disease and of being hospitalised with Covid — at least with the Indian or Delta variant, as the study was carried out while it was Israel’s dominant strain this summer.”  (STRESS ADDED)

Kentucky Bullshit

Have you heard about the ALARMING new CDC study from Kentucky? It shows vaccines are better than naturally acquired immunity. At least… that’s what our lazy and ignorant news media says. HERE’S WHY THAT STUDY IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED, to say the least, and means NOTHING.

AS we have seen for years now, many people WANT to live in fear. They have become HOPELESS fear addicts.
For these people, I present:

A man walks down the street.
He has a duck under one arm, a pig under the other arm, and a bucket of water balanced on his head.
As he walks along he sees a woman on the road and asks her if she has the correct time.
The woman shrieks, “I’m not talking to you! If I do, you’ll attack me!”
The man says, “Lady, how am I going to attack you? I got a duck under one arm, a pig under the other arm, and a bucket of water on my head.”
The woman looks at him and says, “Well… you can put down the bucket, then put the duck in the bucket, and I can always hold the pig for you.”
Moral: If you WANT to live in fear, you WILL live in fear. No matter what it takes.





Dr. Dan Stock addresses a Mt. Vernon school board meeting, AUGUST 2021.



Click Image And Print On 4×6 Card

Didn't Age Well




Originally published in 1919, this book tells how to SHED THE FEARS that are planted in our lives by people who seek to control us. Newly edited with a fresh introduction that puts the book in its historical context while showing why it is important even today! If you have any desire to live a life FREE of FEAR, then this classic book is the book to read! Get one for yourself and get some for your friends. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOKS EVER PUBLISHED! And now, thanks to MOJO BROS. CLASSIC EDITIONS, it is back again. And considering the state of the world today, it is here just in time.

Unmasking Fear

Click this Image To Read About The Book

News, as it exists now, keeps our mind scattered. It exists only to put us into alternating states of anger and fear. It is designed to get us into an enraged state of mind and keep us there – with an endless of parade scandals and outrages that in the end have nothing whatsoever to do with our daily lives.

There is no reason to live a life of fear! Wake up to the way orthodox religion & Other “Powers That Be” control the population THROUGH FEAR! An invaluable treatise, this book is a must-read for anyone who wants to lead a free, independent life. A life WITHOUT FEAR! While some people will no doubt be offended and shocked by this book’s stance against organized religion seeking to control our lives, while those who use fear themselves will attempt to squelch this book by misrepresenting the contents and belittling it, this book bravely exposes the way the manipulators of fear seek to hold onto power by any means necessary. Beware of those who would mislead you about this! Fear is all they have and they will use fear to stop YOU from reading this liberating book. The new introduction puts the book in its historical context and shows why it is still relevant to us today.

Features ALL-NEW introductions by
me (Rev. Eliot) that places the book in
historical context to show why it is
still needed even today!


NATURE: “Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime”

June 24, 2021

From the single most respected
scientific journal on the planet.

Click For Full Story

QUOTE: “The study provides evidence that immunity triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection will be extraordinarily long-lasting. Adding to the good news, ‘the implications are that vaccines will have the same durable effect’, says Menno van Zelm, an immunologist at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.”
Antibodies — proteins that can recognize and help to inactivate viral particles — are a key immune defence. After a new infection, short-lived cells called plasmablasts are an early source of antibodies.
But these cells recede soon after a virus is cleared from the body, and other, longer-lasting cells make antibodies: memory B cells patrol the blood for reinfection, while bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) hide away in bones, trickling out antibodies for decades.
Did you get that? It seems the vaccine MAY WORK AS WELL AS acquired infection.
Do NOT BUY the BULLSHIT that makes you DOUBT your own body.
There are TWO ways to become immune to a disease:
2) By vaccination
BOTH activate your immune system.
This current gene therapy alerts your body to the novel corona virus’s SPIKE PROTEIN.
Infection alerts your body TO THE WHOLE VIRUS.
One way of getting immunity is easier and, theoretically, less risky.
But if you HAD COVID YOU ARE IMMUNE unless you have an immune system deficiency. And then, how would a vaccine help you?
The term NATURAL IMMUNITY is bullshit because THERE IS NO OTHER KIND.
A vaccine is not a MEDICINE that fights a disease. Whether you are infected or vaccinated, YOU fight the disease. YOUR BODY does it. That is how we evolved.


CDC Immunity

UPDATE animated

This explains the CLEVELAND CLINIC results, which says that if you had COVID-19 vaccination WILL NOT HELP YOU.

Read MORE Here:

Cleveland Clinic

a follow up

This Just InYeah, I know… It’s Tucker Carlson.
 But the guest in this 45 second clip
So best LISTEN when he explains why

Brett Weinstein Immunity

Click Image ☝︎ To See The Clip

I am NOT suggesting you run out and get sick
rather then get the gene therapy.

The point here is that for MILLIONS
We GOT SICK and developed FULL, LASTING immunity.

One In Every Crowd

Of course when dealing with Mass Ignorance, we will always have to endure smug comments like this (From The Weinstein link)
No Immunity

UPDATE animated





How much is it a gallon, Jamison? or, Quotes, unquotes and quotes: The incredible disintegrating English language (It’s a doggie-dog world)

June 11, 2021

The Latest From Scott Ross!

So few critics, so many poets

By Scott Ross

Note: Anyone under 40 who reads this should be given what I gather is the standard injunction now when dealing with the tender and easily bruised psyches of the young. So here it is:

I’m finally old enough to have grown into my fogyhood, which has been choking me at least since I was in junior high school and, to paraphrase Thoreau’s splendid phrase, not keeping pace with my companions. So don’t think I’m going to spare your feelings now.I am going to make a number of sweeping generalizations about you and your generation with regard to the way you misuse and abuse language and grammar. The neologisms “Millennial” and “Gen-Z” will flow freely here, and without a scintilla of shame on my part. I neither dismiss you as human beings nor align myself against you with others of my age on general principal, merely…

View original post 3,972 more words

Shaving: The Biggest Mistake

March 28, 2021


Saving Soap Banner FINAL

Shaving Soaps

  Okay. You got me pegged. I admit to considering myself a traditionalist. What else would you call a guy who shaves with a brush, soap, mug, and special new kind of straight razor? What?!? Yeah, I’ve had people call me that for most of my life but I get along ok… No gimmick shavers packed with 6 (or more) blades for me! ONE blade works just fine, thanks. Only 5% of American men, by the way, shave the old-fashioned way. Well, I take solace in the words of writer Robert Heinlein, who once asked: “Does history record any case in which the majority was right?”

    As I explain in my book A Modern Way To An Old-Fashioned Shave, I shave the traditional way with soap, a brush, a mug, and a straight razor because the shaving system I developed offers a mindful, soothing, relaxing opportunity to set aside time in the day just for me. With a traditional shave I get a chance to go outside the world of stress and decisions and worries by stepping out of the mundane world for a quiet, almost meditative experience. In my book, I compare the experience of a traditional shave to the transcendental joys of the classic Japanese tea ceremony – while the “normal” chore of shaving which most men rush through compares to dunking a stale teabag into hot water and hurriedly scarfing down the results. You can read about what I do, why I do it, and how you too can do it, in my book. But right now I want to discuss just one aspect of the classic “wet” shave… the soap.

il_570xN.591226870_t6nuWhen I began shaving, soon after the Pleistocene Epoch as I recall, shaving soaps by Old Spice, Colgate, and Williams (Regular or Menthol) seemed ubiquitous. In my late teens, I had certainly not yet reached the advanced Old Spice scent age (and I hope I still have not!) so for my shaving needs I bounced between Colgate and Williams. Colgate has long since gone to The Land of The Fizzies®, as I refer to Product Heaven – leaving me with Williams, and just the plain version at that since they long ago discontinued their zesty menthol shaving soap. Recently, during a bout of Spring cleaning, I discovered that I still had some boxed tablets of Colgate and Menthol Williams soap stashed away in a long-neglected drawer. Sentimental old fluff that I am, I immediately sold these vintage items on Ebay at extortionist prices that would have made even Jake “Greasy Thumb” Guzik blanch (Same goes for Jake’s wife Blanche).

The Big “Problem”

Glycerin Soap

Look At That! HYDRATES And SOFTENS, They Boast. And All Those Oils In Addition To Glycerin… And SORBITOL? A… SWEETENER? (Most Likely Used As A Humectant To Add Moisture). And DUAL PURPOSE? No, A Shave Soap Makes A HORRID Face Soap. Oh, Wait. It Comes From L.A. What A Shock…

   While I enjoy using plain old Williams shaving soap, today’s Shaving Hobbyists avidly gravitate to all manner of overpriced soaps; each tablet laden with moisturizers and oils. As these men fill their cabinets with exotically scented soaps, they look down on inexpensive, plebeian old Williams Mug Soap.
    Williams soap dates back to 1840, when its maker, according to company legend, invented “mug” soap. The main gripe the hobbyists have against Williams comes from a difficultly many of them have in whipping up the soap into a hefty lather; a problem I have never experienced. But then, up till a week or so ago I had never used any of the easily whipped glycerin-based soaps. Had I used that kind of soap most of my life, I suppose I’d feel spoiled too. BUT… is it worth it, using these glycerin and oil-filled soaps? Simply put, no – because they will not give a man a proper shave. To explain this, I shall now quote from that venerable 1905 book: Shaving Made Easy.

Shaving Made Easy    A wrong idea prevails regarding the use of the soap. The popular impression is that the soap is used for the purpose of softening the beard, in which condition it is supposed to be most easily cut. This is a mistake. The soap is used, not to soften the beard, but to produce exactly the opposite effect—namely, to make the hair stiff and brittle, so that they will present a firm and resisting surface to the razor. A hair, as is well known, is a tube composed of a hard fibrous substance, growing from a bulb or root, which secretes an oily matter. This oil works its way up through the hair, and by permeating all parts, renders the hair soft and pliable. Now in this natural oily condition, it is very difficult to cut the hair with a razor, and it becomes even more difficult if the beard be made still softer by the application of hot water. Many do this, and it is no wonder they find shaving difficult. When this is done, the hairs become soft and limp, and the razor will either slip over them entirely, or else cut partly into them, bend them back and slice them lengthwise, all the while pulling and straining them at the roots, and making the process of shaving most painful. Now soap has the opposite effect. It contains either alkali, potash or soda, which when applied to the beard in the form of lather, unites with the oil of the hair, neutralizing it and removing it, and renders the hairs hard stiff and brittle—in which condition they may be easily and readily cut. For the sake of cleanliness, the face should, of course, be washed previous to shaving in order to remove any dirt or grit from the beard, which might dull the razor; but before applying the lather, the face should be well dried with a towel.

    So there we have the facts, easily explained over 100 years ago. To get a good clean shave, one must not make the beard softer. Alas, the “wrong idea” explored above not only still exists, but wetting the face before applying lather is nowadays taken as gospel. Even a cursory look though Youtube’s wide array of instructional shaving videos shows almost every self-proclaimed shaving expert making a point of watering his face before applying his soap. Some men even throw away their money on a special misting gadget designed specifically for wetting their whiskers. As explained above, doing this weakens, if not destroys, the soap’s ability to render the whiskers brittle. Many of these shavers also toss around large amounts of money on “premium” soaps, buying many different brands for their bathroom (I’m sorry… I meant for their shaving den). What strikes me as truly odd are the shavers who announce, as they moisten their face, that they do this for the express purpose of softening their whiskers. They believe that softening the hairs before shaving, making the whiskers more pliable, will somehow make cutting them with a razor easier. Go figure.

How Many “Passes” To A Clean Shave?

   Across many shaving websites you will find the complaint that Williams soap gives a poor shave. Yet the very people who get bad results from Williams invariably – proudly! – wet their whiskers prior to applying the lather. And, as if to prove the worthlessness of this fetish, the same people who water their beard (they call it HYDRATING) will tell us that we need three or even four “passes” of the razor to attain a clean shave. I assure you, you won’t need that many shaves if you employ the right soap and use it properly; rendering the whiskers brittle and easy to cut as explained above. It makes perfect sense: When you don’t dilute the power of a real shaving soap by splashing water on the face, one pass of the razor with the grain of the beard, and one pass against the grain, will suffice.

What About Oils?

    To get the closest shave possible, we do not want oils in our soap. We just want an alkali soap. For this reason, I stick with an old-fashioned shaving soap. If you feel the need to have moisturizer and oil as part of your shaving routine, then by all means use a face balm after – not while – you shave. I often use an aftershave balm myself, because I know that the proper use of an alkali shaving soap will dry my skin.

    This shows everything wrong with modern shaving soaps:

Cavendish Soap

   Look at that soap above. Running about $17 a tablet, you pay a premium price for the privilege of getting a soap that does nothing to facilitate a close shave. Shea butter, a fat used as a moisturizer, has no place in a shaving soap. The company even boasts of this soap’s “Brilliant moisturizing abilities”. Behold SHEA BUTTER:

Raw Shea Butter


Scotch in Soap

Oh, The Things They Put In Shaving Soap! Whisky? How The Hell Does THAT Help Your Shave? I’d Need A Stiff Slug Of Booze After Shelling Out $20 For This!

A Good Old-Fashioned Soap…

    While I remain a devoted Williams man – I even use the vintage pewter-alloy William’s Bicentennial 1776 Shaving Mug which I bought, new, back in the mid-1970s – I have to say that the soap seems to have changed over the years. Turns out, the company has indeed updated their original formula. Not that they’ve harmed it – but the lather now has more of a fluffy texture, unlike the texture I recall from back when I began my shave journey. As we can see from this older box of Williams Shaving Soap, the prior formula lacked the glycerine now in Williams shaving soap:

Old Williams copy

The “Luxury Soap” had a rose fragrance but it used the same basic formula as the regular – again, note the absence of glycerine back then. Happily, the makers wisely restrain their use of glycerin in the current soap, putting it way down in the list of ingredients in the formula, so glycerin does not dominate; adding a hint of fluffiness to the lather. 

Williams Ingredients copy

Marvy Shadow  Recently, in my quest for a simple old-style shaving soap I found a truly “old school” product… the quaintly named MARVY DELUXE SHAVING SOAP. The William Marvy company, purveyors of classic barbershop poles and other such items, has produced this soap from one formula since 1936, keeping it devoid of oils and moisturizers. I wondered if, in this soap, I had found that which I had sought. So throwing caution to the wind, I plunked down about $4 for a single tablet. When I first whipped up the almond-scented Marvy soap, the lather lacked that fluffy quality of other soaps, yet its texture immediately summoned up long-lost memories of the way shaving soap once looked in my old mug. The Marvy soap, at the beginning of the process, holds bigger bubbles in the lather than most shaving soaps will, but continued whipping of the lather with the brush takes care of that, blending the foam to yield a nice thick merengue-like lather with fine peaks, and it does so rather swiftly. While Marvy never achieves the lush thickness of modern soaps, that’s jake with me because that very thickness in trendy soaps comes from unnecessary oils and, often, glycerin all of which work against the purpose of a shaving soap. Instead of these unwanted ingredients, Marvy offers just… SHAVING SOAP. How revolutionary is that? And it sure does the job! Using Marvy, I found that I get the closest shave of all the soaps I have used. In fact, I clocked the results and a full 14 hours after my shaves with Marvy, my face still remained free of stubble (my wife can attest to that, and she will also tell you what many women say about men who shave this way: their faces have sensuously soft skin!).Marvy-Deluxe-Shaving-Soap
  I still really like the “new” reformulated Williams, and for many reasons it remains my sentimental favorite so I will never give it up entirely. But for getting the job done in the old-fashioned way, I have to say that Marvy remains the champ because it gives the closest shave. Yes, I definitely need to moisturize my face after using this soap, but that just proves Marvy’s usefulness in making the whiskers dry and brittle. When I need to get more soap I will order a “tube” of a dozen Marvy tablets. By the tube, this costs only about $2.50 per tablet; so much nicer than spending $17, even up to $40 or $50, for a single tablet of a “boutique” soap crammed to the gills with useless ingredients that only serve to make shaving more difficult! Sticking to the basics pays off for the William Marvy Co.



“A Book As Funny As It Is Informative!”

The book that millions of men have waited for! This book tells all about the modern way to get a traditional Straight Razor Shave – with NONE of the hassle of honing, stropping, grinding the blade, oiling a whetstone… none of the rigmarole! All gone! No need for it now! Just give yourself a good old-fashioned shave with NONE of the bother your grandfather put up with. “The way most men shave,” the author notes, “joylessly rushing through a morning chore, shaving hurriedly with an electric shaver, or speedily wielding a safety razor in the shower, compares to an old-style shave as a tea-bag compares to the Japanese Tea Ceremony. Or Andrew Lloyd Weber compares to Mozart.” You get Step By Step instructions in this book, which is as informative as it is humorous. PROFUSELY ILLUSTRATED with period images from the late 19th Century up to today’s James Bond movies. James Bond? Yes! Did you know that after the 007 movie SKYFALL opened, sales of straight razors shot up over 400%? “Well, I like to do some things the old-fashioned way,” said James Bond in SKYFALL, preparing to shave with a straight razor. That increase in razor sales means that men LONG for the old ways.

Super Savings

Yes, Get 15% Off This Book
When you buy direct from

To save, use checkout Code:


Click ☝︎To See Our Shaving Merch!


Free Brochure

My Husband's Shave YOUNG MAN copy


Can You Handle The Secret

This Just InThe good gentleman from “Friendship Shaving” learns through experience that wetting the face prior to applying shaving cream is counterproductive. If only more Youtube shavers who offer advice knew this… 

A Modern Way To An Old-Fashioned Shave!

Mental Radio Ad small

Art For $$$$$ Sake

March 14, 2021

ARS GRATIA ARTIS, that most famous, and most pretentious, of all movie factory slogans, has made it into many on-line dictionaries, wherein the compilers make the unfounded claim that the slogan means ART FOR ART’S SAKE. Even a moment’s thought will make clear what a ludicrous slogan that makes for a completely capitalist venture. Movies, in those pre-video days, offered the perfect retail product – as with prostitution, the movie entrepreneur had a product, sold that product, and when the customer finished with the product… the seller still had the product to sell again and again. Unlike prostitution, however, the movie distributers could sell their product to thousands of people all at the same time and do so without risk of terminal chafing.
As shown above, the film studio owned by Samuel Goldwyn (née Szmuel Gelbfisz) first used the phrase as well as showing the lion. When Metro and Mayer merged then bought the Goldwyn studio in 1924, Sammy G managed to go capitalism one better: the canny mamzer had his lawyers see to it that his name remained on the logo of the world famous new studio… an enterprise that he had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with. Goldwyn took his loot from the sale and remained an independent producer. And, contractually, his lawyers made sure that for decades the MGM logo showed Goldwyn’s name in italics, making it stand out.


The earliest reference I could locate concerning the meaning of the “latin” slogan came from, of all people, an erudite man of letters – who had but a 4th grade education. I refer, of course, to Groucho Marx (as opposed to, say, Groucho O’Shaughnessy?). Marx more accurately translated the saying in light of the niggardly salaries many film companies notoriously doled out unless threatened: Art Is The Reward of the Artist. Mr. Marx preferred cold hard cash.
Back in the 1990s I clipped an item from the NY Times and have kept it ever since, safely tucked into a coffee-table book on MGM. I present the contents here:

To the Editor:

Jill Andresky Fraser’s article “What’s in a Symbol? Not the Statue of Liberty” [ Jan. 17 ] was interesting but not on the mark regarding M-G-M’s logo. The lordly lion was, perhaps, an expression of nostalgia for Columbia. But the words “ars gratia artis” were not, as Ms. Fraser says, “remembered from Latin class.” They could not have been.

It was because Howard Dietz, age 19, remembered nothing from Latin class that he thought “art for art’s sake” could be directly translated. Though Dietz grew up to be a noted lyricist (“That’s Entertainment,” “Dancing in the Dark”) and head of M-G-M’s publicity, in 1917 he had just flunked out of the Columbia University School of Journalism and was working for the Philip Goodman Advertising Agency.

Phil Goodman thought that Sam Goldwyn’s new motion picture company would fail, as many did in 1917, so he assigned the logo work to Dietz, his most junior employee.

In Latin, the word “ars” means art, as in the art of baking bread, a skill or craft. No single word in Latin expressed what we mean by art. In Latin, painting would be “ars picturae,” sculpture would be “ars sculpturae.” The word “gratia,” when used at all, meant doing something for the sake of a goal — just the opposite of how Dietz used it. The concept of art for its own sake was foreign to the Romans. Art for one’s patron’s sake, maybe.

The phrase “art for art’s sake” was an English translation of “l’art pour l’art,” a French concept that first appeared in print in 1818.

In Latin, “ars gratia artis” is gibberish. It seems fitting that the most famous motion picture company logo in the world, a logo representing the art of illusion, is itself illusion.
DIANA ALTMAN Newton, Mass.
The writer is the author of “Hollywood East: Louis B. Mayer and the Origins of the Studio System.”

Pure. Gibberish.
Keep that in mind when you look at some inane on-line dictionary which does little more that abet the abasement of our language.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

So Please Stop Sending It To Me…

Click Image To Enlarge

Click☝︎To See All The Custom Shaving Merch!

Get This Book For 15% Off!
Click ☟To See How!

A Modern Way To An Old-Fashioned Shave!

December 10, 2020


The book that millions of men have waited for! This book tells all about the modern way to get a traditional Straight Razor Shave – with NONE of the hassle of honing, stropping, grinding the blade, oiling a whetstone… none of the rigmarole! All gone! No need for it now! Just give yourself a good old-fashioned shave with NONE of the bother your grandfather put up with. “The way most men shave,” the author notes, “joylessly rushing through a morning chore, shaving hurriedly with an electric shaver, or speedily wielding a safety razor in the shower, compares to an old-style shave as a tea-bag compares to the Japanese Tea Ceremony. Or Andrew Lloyd Weber compares to Mozart.” You get Step By Step instructions in this book, which is as informative as it is humorous. PROFUSELY ILLUSTRATED with period images from the late 19th Century up to today’s James Bond movies. James Bond? Yes! Did you know that after the 007 movie SKYFALL opened, sales of straight razors shot up over 400%? “Well, I like to do some things the old-fashioned way,” said James Bond in SKYFALL, preparing to shave with a straight razor. That increase in razor sales means that men LONG for the old ways.

Now At Amazon

Super Savings

Yes, Get 15% Off This Book
When you buy direct from

To save, use checkout Code:

Click ☝︎To See All The Shaving Merch!

Why Are Vaccine Makers Legally Immune?

December 8, 2020

As we see above, the New York Times has already begun the propaganda campaign AGAINST what they deride as “natural immunity.” They claim that vaccines work BETTER than antibodies. So… What IS a vaccine?

Vaccine Definition

So if the stated purpose of a vaccine is to “stimulate the production of antibodies,” why does the NY Times suddenly deem antibodies not enough?

Antibodies provide the key to health and immunity. The body will form antibodies when attacked. Science has learned to TRICK the body into making antibodies by way of vaccination. Get sick… Get vaccinated… EITHER WAY YOU END UP WITH THE SAME GODDAMN ANTIBODIES IN YOUR SYSTEM.
AFTER the antibodies dissipate, your T-CELLS and MEMORY B-CELLS will continue to make antibodies whenever you are exposed to the virus again, or exposed to A SIMILAR VIRUS. The immune system is a remarkable thing!

How well does this suddenly inadequate “natural immunity” work? Well YOU AND I HAVE OVER 300 TRILLION VIRUSES IN OUR SYSTEM NOW.

That’s how well “natural immunity” works, pal… Have you had 300,000,000,000,000 vaccinations? You’d feel like a pincushion!

Here's The Deal

I will give you the short story. I make no comment on this as GOOD or BAD.
It just IS.
Medical doctors have ALWAYS KNOWN that vaccines kill and/or injure a specific number of people. They know exactly how many deaths to expect from each vaccine application.
It is not a high number but it adds up to a figure larger than most people know because they remain ignorant.
In the goddamn SEVENTIES a doctor told me that the measles vaccine will kill almost as many people annually as a measles epidemic BUT IT DOES SO WITHOUT THE ECONOMIC DISRUPTION OF AN EPIDEMIC. He tried to square that with the medical concept of “First Do No Harm”.
So here we come to the working theory behind vaccinations: Science and government consider it better to endure a specific number of deaths from a vaccine if a benefit accrues from PREVENTING an outbreak that… CAUSES WIDESPREAD ECONOMIC DISRUPTION.
People WILL – without doubt – die from vaccines, but the same number or more would have died anyway in an epidemic and if they die as a result of vaccination they will die WITHOUT CAUSING WIDESPREAD SOCIO-ECONOMIC DISRUPTION.
We see nothing more than a cold-blooded mixture of medical and economic sciences. Again, I don’t comment on this as GOOD or BAD. It just IS…
And because of that KNOWN quantity of death EVERYONE, they say, MUST get vaccinated.
To spread the risk.
People who already have novel coronavirus ANTIBODIES will also have to take the vaccine, even though the ONLY thing a vaccination does is spur the immune system to create the ANTIBODIES which they already have. Why?
It is about spreading the risk.
So the whole ECONOMIC point of vaccination gets LOST if the government itself CREATES economic disruption out of FEAR of an epidemic.
REPEAT: So the whole ECONOMIC point of vaccination gets LOST if the government itself CREATES economic disruption out of FEAR of an epidemic.
In all human history, we NEVER handled disease by locking down THE HEALTHY PEOPLE. But they did it this time. The government has SHUT DOWN THE ECONOMY and we never had an epidemic.
You never HEAR the word “epidemic” around the novel coronavirus infections.
The ONLY benefit from wide-spread vaccination for an infectious disease is an ECONOMIC benefit. And the government has already rendered that benefit moot by crashing the economy.
NOW you know why the government has given vaccine makers FULL IMMUNITY from lawsuits resulting from death and injury caused by their product.
Medical science knows AND EXPECTS a certain number of deaths and injuries from vaccination. No company would WILLINGLY make and sell a product with a GUARANTEED death rate built in… unless, of course, SOMEONE ELSE AGREED TO PICK UP THE TAB:


Compensation Vaccine

Again: the ONLY benefit from VACCINATION to society comes from the prevention of ECONOMIC DISASTER.
And the geniuses in government have created PRECISELY the ECONOMIC disaster vaccines supposedly stop.
Further, nobody can show a special HEALTH benefit in immunizing people from a disease with a survival rate over 99%. Look at the LOW death rates as per the CDC:
And unlike antibodies and the immune system, it appears that the vaccine does not even last:
Remember, when a new vaccine gets hailed as 70% effective it fails 30% of the time.
What harm will it do? No mention of that…
70% efficacy
LOOK: I had COVID-19.
My body fought it off.
I will stick with my own NATURAL IMMUNITY no matter what the Dunning-Kruger staff of the NY Times is paid by advertisers to say. 


A talk about the FACTS about the new HURRIED vaccines…
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler | PA Medical Freedom Press Conference)
(Thanks to Scott Ross for the head-up)

This Just In


Blod Clots



The Death of a Con Artist

December 1, 2020

A look at the late Randall Zwinge, a former ASTROLOGY COLUMNIST who, under the name The Amazing Randi, set up an “educational foundation” through which he conned millions of dollars out of gullible followers…


James Randi’s Problem

The problem with James Randi and his
foundation on the paranormal, pseudoscientific
and supernatural.

by Skylaire Alfvegren

Dogmatists of any stripe are fundamentally wounded, whether they’re Islamic terrorists, Christian abortion-clinic bombers or magicians with an axe to grind.

Picture this: A little boy with an imagination and a sense of wonder begins futzing with a deck of cards, sleight of hand … as that boy delves deeper into magic, it’s revealed to be nothing more than a world of smoke and mirrors, of “cons” and “marks.” Stage magicians, like lawyers and secret agents, make a living from deception, so perhaps they assume everyone else does, as well. From that perspective, the connection between stage magic and skepticism makes sense.

What’s more important, what science knows or what it doesn’t (yet)? What’s more beneficial to scientific inquiry, an open mind or a sense of self-importance? These are questions that beg to be asked of the skeptical movement, which convenes in Las Vegas this weekend for The Amazing Meeting, a benefit for the James Randi Educational Foundation. (The conference takes place at the Stardust and features Murray Gell-Mann, Nadine Strossen, the Mythbusters, Penn & Teller, Mac King, Jamy Ian Swiss, Phil Plait, Julia Sweeney, and Michael Shermer.) After all, while it’s true that opportunists profit from the murky worlds of the paranormal and the unknown, and that some people will believe anything, it’s also true that scientists have falsified data to get grants or overlooked inconvenient phenomenon to maintain the status quo in their field.

Well, as iconoclastic writer Charles Fort once noted, “Witchcraft always has a hard time, until it becomes established and changes its name.”

But let’s not generalize. Let’s examine the contributions made by Randi, the skeptical movement’s leading figure, to science and objective thought.

Randi can be eloquent and is quite the showman; he is also wildly intelligent—he got a MacArthur genius grant in 1986. But according to his detractors, Randi’s main qualities are his malice and hypocrisy. He’s hell-bent on tearing apart anyone he deems a kook, including distinguished scientists and Nobel Prize-winners. This is amusing, as Randi has no scientific credentials whatsoever (although he did once write an astrology column for a Canadian tabloid and host a paranormal-themed radio show).

In 1997, Randi threatened to fly to Sri Lanka to persuade Arthur C. Clarke to stop advocating cold fusion. (Clarke, a genuine scientific visionary, inventor of the communication satellite and award-winning author, received degrees, with honors, in physics and mathematics.) In 2001, on a BBC Radio program, Randi attacked Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize-winner and professor of physics at Cambridge University.

Why? Josephson was interested in the possible connections between quantum physics and consciousness. Randi also has a penchant for lawsuits—he once tried to sue a writer known for covering the UFO beat, simply because he printed some unflattering but verifiable information about the magician. Randi left the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) because of all the litigation against him.

Charismatic psychic Uri Geller, whose abilities have been tested by a number of prestigious laboratories, has probably been Randi’s biggest target. In the process of attempting to discredit the psychic, Randi has also attacked institutions, like Stanford, intrigued by Geller’s alleged abilities. He defamed two eminent scientists, Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ, calling them “incompetent.” At the time, author Robert Anton Wilson wryly observed, “Randi was not there, yet he claims to know what was going on [during the experiment] better than the two scientists who were supervising it. The only way he could know better … is if he had 100 percent accurate telepathy.”

Randi is probably best known for his infamous million-dollar challenge to “any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind” under what Randi refers to as “satisfactory observing conditions.”

Ray Hyman, a leading Fellow of CSICOP, has pointed out that Randi’s challenge is illegitimate from a scientific standpoint. “Scientists don’t settle issues with a single test … Proof in science happens through replication.” If Randi’s challenge was legitimate, he would set up a double-blind experiment which he himself wouldn’t judge. But considering his hostility toward scientists receptive to paranormal phenomena, this doesn’t seem likely. His “challenge” is rigged, yet he can crow that his prize goes unclaimed because paranormal phenomena simply does not exist.

Compare this outlook to the philosophy adopted by followers of Charles Fort. Forteans (a term coined by screenwriter Ben Hecht, who, along with Theodore Dreiser, H.L. Mencken and Oliver Wendell Holmes, was a member of the original Fortean Society, formed upon Fort’s death in 1932) entertain the notion that anything is possible until proven otherwise.

Some are scientists, some are street musicians. They are neither gullible nor pompous, neither “true believers” in — nor coldly dismissive of—anything. And they have a sense of humor largely missing from Randi’s crowd.

“In and of itself,” says a man once denigrated by the skeptical movement, “skepticism has made no actual contribution to science, just as music reviews in the newspaper make no contribution to the art of composition.”

The universe is full of mystery, as well as charlatans. It is up to the individual to weigh evidence objectively. Just don’t use your intuition to do so, or you could be the skeptics’ next target.

This article appeared at Lasvegasweekly.com on January 26, 2006

Scientist Rupert Sheldrake On James Randi

James “The Amazing” Randi
And Dogs Who Know More Than He Does

by Rupert Sheldrake

Excerpted from Appendix 3 of:
Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home
by Rupert Sheldrake, Broadway Books, 2011

James Randi is a showman, conjurer and a former Principal Investigator of CSICOP (Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal ). For years, he frequently appeared in the media as a debunker of the paranormal. He was named “Skeptic of the Century” in the January 2000 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer, and in 2003 received the Richard Dawkins Award from the Atheist Alliance International.

In 1996 he founded the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) and is most famous for offering a $1 million “paranormal challenge” to anyone who can demonstrate evidence of a paranormal event under conditions to which he agrees.

Randi has no scientific credentials, and has disarmingly said of himself, “I’m a trickster, I’m a cheat, I’m a charlatan, that’s what I do for a living.”

In January, 2000, Dog World magazine published an article on the sixth sense of dogs, which discussed my research. The author contacted Randi to ask his opinion. Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, “We at the JREF have tested these claims. They fail.” Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with Jaytee, in which Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home at a randomly-selected time, but did not do so beforehand. In Dog World, Randi stated, “Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by.”

I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information. 

I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They advised Randi to reply.

In an email on February 6, 2000 Randi told me that the tests with dogs he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place “years ago” and were “informal”. He said they involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: “I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained.”

I also asked him for details of tape he claimed to have watched, so I could compare his observations of Jaytee’s behaviour with my own. He was unable to give a single detail, and under pressure from the JREF Advisory Board, he had to admit that he had never seen the tape. His claim was a lie.

For many years the million dollar “prize” has been Randi’s stock-in-trade as a media skeptic, but even other skeptics are skeptical about its value as anything but a publicity stunt. For example, CSICOP founding member Dennis Rawlins pointed out that Randi acts as “policeman, judge and jury” and quoted him as saying “I always have an out.” Ray Hyman, a professor of psychology and Fellow of CSICOP, pointed out, this “prize” cannot be taken seriously from a scientific point of view: “Scientists don’t settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn’t going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments.”

Nevertheless I asked the Smart family if they would be willing to have Jaytee tested by Randi. But they wanted nothing to do with him. Jaytee had already taken part in some tests organized by a skeptic, Richard Wiseman, as discussed below, and the Smart family were disgusted by the way he had misrepresented these tests in the media.

In 2008, Alex Tsakiris, who runs a U.S.-based “Open Source Science Project” and a podcast called Skeptiko, started replicating experiments with dogs that knew when their owners were coming home, posting videos of tests on the internet. Tsakiris asked Dr. Clive Wynne, an expert on dog behaviour at the University of Florida, to participate in this research, and Wynne agreed. Randi challenged Tsakiris to apply for the Million Dollar Challenge, Tsakiris took him up on it, and asked Randi by email if Dr. Wynne’s involvement was acceptable to him. Randi eventually replied, “You appear to think that your needs are uppermost on my schedule. What would give you that impression? Looking into a silly dog claim is among my lowest priority projects. When I’m prepared to give you some time, I’ll let you know. There are some forty plus persons ahead of you.”

For me, the most surprising feature of the Randi phenomenon is that so many journalists and fellow skeptics take him seriously.

Click The Sign ☝︎ To Learn More!

See a FULL ACCOUNTING of the Randi Scam
in my book on MIND POWER!

Click This Image To Get This Book

And Just As A Reminder…

Here, during what was meant as only a lighting test, I manipulate the PSI wheel in accordance to my will. I cropped out the top because I did not intend to keep this lighting test and thus… neglected to shave and organize what’s left of my hair. This way I focus in on the wheel. Anyone wanting to learn how to do this need only look at my book.

For The Record

November 23, 2020


In 2000, Al Gore did not concede till December 13th. Where was all the hysterical media chatter about PUTTING THE NATION AT RISK? DESTROYING DEMOCRACY? MAKING AMERICA LOOK FOOLISH?


Because people who don’t know me very well have started asking…

Which elderly, doddering, out of touch millionaire from a family filled with greedy, grasping, influence-peddling relatives will take the presidency? I seriously could not care less.
With margins of under 1% separating the two candidates in some cases, few people seem to see much of a difference.
I never vote for the idle rich.
As far as I am concerned, working persons who vote for millionaires cede their moral authority to complain that the government doesn’t help the average joe.
You want people like that in charge? Why? What do they know about the daily grind? Few even own an overcoat, going from building to limo, to jet, to limo…
The rich and the working people have very different priorities. Anyone who cannot see that is too shortsighted to be voting.
It isn’t even a choice of the “lesser evil” now. It’s two of a kind. One alte kaker with a lifetime record of conning the feeble-minded into thinking he’s a successful businessmen and the other alte kaker with near 50 fruitless years in government; a man whose only “major” achievement was crushing Prof. Anita Hill and sticking us with Clarence Thomas.

Good luck with that.

As long as we’re on the record…

Here is a book I recommend if you can find it.

As a compendium of misinformation, it rivals the Warren Report. The drinking game? Take a shot every time the author writes something inaccurate or presents utter bullshit… You will end up like this:

Further, the writer calls The Lost Weekend (1945) “one of
Hollywood’s first social problem films.” I guess he missed all
those 1930s
Or this:

Or how about this?


Or the goddamn GRANDFATHER of
“Social Problem Films”…

How many more can you think of?

I will add them!

Films that came up in discussion
with Scott Ross. Thanks for the suggestions!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

And this film among them…

The Biggest Threat To Human Survival NOW – Again

November 11, 2020

What an elderly fear-mongering person recently said:

“Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the most important battles our administration will face, and I will be informed by science and by experts,” said Joe Biden, a man so backwards that he still speaks of record players.

What an informed person recently said:

“In the midst of this pandemic, it seems like it is the biggest historical event ever. But this pandemic will pass, and with hindsight, it will look like just another event in the long history of our species. In 100 years, whoever rules our planet will hardly remember this pandemic (just as we barely remember the Influenza pandemic of 1918). We have already seen much worse things than Covid-19. The Black Death was much worse – it killed between a quarter and a half of all people in Asia and Europe. The World Wars were worse. The Cold War was worse. The virus itself doesn’t really threaten our existence. We have the scientific knowledge to overcome it. What we lack is the political wisdom.” – Prof. Yuval Noah Harari

I decided to re-post the lengthy item below because of all the “WE’RE GONNA DIE” lunacy pervading the “news” media about the Novel Corona Virus. The reporting – and I use the word loosely – now deliberately conflates the virus itself with COVID-19, the disease the virus causes. So we get assaulted DAILY with headlines about “RECORD NUMBER OF CORONA CASES!” referring to people who test positive for the virus BUT NEVER GOT SICK. Instead of HEALTHY, the media calls them ASYMPTOMATIC, a more scientific-sounding but utterly meaningless term. The virus is weakening. That is as clear as a country stream and it was 100% expected. But it makes for DULL NEWS. Look at these numbers – which you never saw on TV:

The CDC’s “Current Best Estimate” for survival rates: 0-19 years old, 99.997 percent; 20-49 years old, 99.98 percent; 50-69 years, 99.5 percent; and 70 years old or older, 94.6 percent.

Yet there really IS a present health threat to human survival, and to the health of the planet itself. This is right in front of our noses (or, rather, our mouths) and media ignores it. They ignore this threat because rather than coming from far away China, this CLEAR AND PRESENT danger comes from American corporations that pour BILLIONS of dollars into media coffers through advertising. And it is a threat way more likely to kill you and those you love than the WuHan Flu…

I have written a long post but I believe it well worth the time and effort – both the time I took to compose it and the time it takes to read it. Although I suspect many visitors will not read this in-depth post, I refuse to give the issue short shrift and I do not wish to break this up into several parts.

“Unbalanced forces perish in the void.” – The Zohar.
“In all things, not too much.” – Socrates


Ask anyone to name the biggest, most alarming, most dangerous threat to the survival of humanity and you will invariably hear two words: “climate change.” (Note: written in July, 2019 – before the novel coronavirus hit).

How could we expect otherwise, with Climate Change the Big Fear relentlessly promoted by corporate media? But data proves that answer wrong. Dead wrong.

While predictions of a dire future have plunged millions of people into a state of anxiety and panic, the greatest current threat to human survival does not come from climate change, a nebulous thing lurking somewhere off in the future. Scientific data shows that the worst threat to human survival comes from something happening right now: the world’s unchecked explosion in obesity and obesity-related diseases (metabolic syndrome, sleep apnea, stroke, gout, cancer, osteoarthritis, hypertension, mitochondrial disease, gall bladder disease, etc.).

In recent years, from China to Mexico…. From India to Brazil… and all across the United States, people have grown fatter and fatter. And sicker and sicker. The medical data on our health should alarm everyone, yet the story barely rates news coverage. Right now, not off in the future but today, obesity-related diabetes ranks as the number one killer in Mexico. In Brazil, 52% of the population is overweight with 20% of the population obese. In India today, a newborn baby has a 1 in 2 chance of developing Type 2 Diabetes. India reports an estimated 15,000,000 of its citizens have diabetes and don’t know it. In Scotland, 29% of the adult population suffers from obesity. The rest of the developed world across the board, has also seen an eruption of obesity. Here in New York City, the Dept. of Health reports that 56% of adults weigh in as overweight or obese. A shocking 20% of kindergarten students, and 25% of Head Start children suffer from obesity. Contrary to myth, diet and exercise simply cannot account for this.


Corporate News Media speaks of the horrors they say climate change will bring to us in the future. As a result, 56% of Americans fear climate change. Here in America, the typical local news show (and make no mistake, it is just a TV show; an entertainment) will lead with tales of murder and shootings. This keeps people afraid of getting murdered. Although murder rates have dropped for many years now, 40% of Americans fear getting murdered. In reality, homicide ranks as America’s #15 cause of death. At #1 comes heart disease with cancer, stroke, respiratory illness, and diabetes hot on its heels. Obesity-related illnesses all. While people live in fear of murder, data confirms that an American has a greater likelihood of dying from Parkinson’s Disease than of murder. Figures from the Centers for Disease Control show homicide accounts for under 1% of all U.S. deaths. The odds of getting murdered in a given year stand at 1 in 18,989. The National Safety Council puts the odds of dying from a fall at 1 in 127. Death in a pedestrian incident? 1 in 647. We have a more than five times greater chance of choking to death on than getting murdered (1 in 3,461). Get the picture?

Nevertheless, as I write these words the nation’s newsrooms enthusiastically grind out reports of a young woman murdered in Utah. In 2017, Utah – a state with a population of only 3,161,105 – had a total of 75 homicides (defined by the FBI as “the willful, non-negligent killing of one human being by another,” excluding negligent manslaughter.) In a day or so, the Utah tragedy will get elbowed off the front-pages by another murder. Then another. You know the drill. As they say in the news business, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

While relatively few Americans die as a result of homicide, obesity has grown common. Obesity exacts a rigorous price in terms of life expectancy. Studies put the risk of premature death from obesity at two to three times that of “normal-weight” people. Yet murder gets the attention in news.

“People who are overweight have a moderately increased risk of premature death, and people who are obese have a greatly increased risk of premature death,” said lead researcher Dr. Michael Leitzmann, an investigator at the National Cancer Institute. The Aug. 24, 2006 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine published Leitzmann’s report. It barely made a dent in the news. Remember the Big Story, the urgent Front Page News, of that same day 13 years ago:Breaking News – Pluto Not A Planet!This story led news reports all over the world. What affect did that knowledge have on your life?



His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge. Of contemporary literature, philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing. Upon my quoting Thomas Carlyle, he inquired in the naivest way who he might be and what he had done. My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to be to me such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.
“You appear to be astonished,” he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. “Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it.”
“To forget it!”
“You see,” he explained, “I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”
“But the Solar System!” I protested.
“What the deuce is it to me?” he interrupted impatiently; “you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.”
– A Study in Scarlet, Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887

And there we have a marvelous précis of the dangers that come from allowing our minds to get jam-packed full of inconsequential, trivial, and frivolous information at the behest of complete strangers. Why allow people to do this just because they happen to own and operate sensationalist newspapers, magazines, or television and radio stations? Millions of Americans know intimate details of the life, loves, and income of a particular movie actor, or someone as inconsequential to our daily existence as members of the British royal family. Yet when polled, many of these same people know nothing of things that have a serious affect on their health.

Murder not only receives unwarranted news coverage but it remains a staple of our entertainment and amusement. Think of all the TV shows and movies that deal in murder. In 2018, murder in America scored its biggest drop in 5 years, yet the murder stories in news and fiction go on and on, contributing to a baseless fear – especially if the murders involve children or a record-setting number of victims. Remember that point about children, by the way, because if we really cared about children well… you will see what I mean when I get to the section on childhood obesity.

Logically, if we had to fear anything lethal today, we should fear obesity. Obesity shows up as a factor in 33% of American cancer deaths. Ten years ago, studies tied obesity to ovarian cancer. Didn’t know that, did you? But you have probably heard about the latest grisly murder case or celebrity divorce or royal wedding. Among these, which news item do you think has more importance in your life?


Medical science defines obesity as a Body Mass Index over 30. We all know obese people. Talking to Obese people often reveals a strange quirk. When discussing their weight, many among the morbidly obese (BMI over 50) will insist that aside from having put on a bit of weight, they remain in perfect health. Look at something that corpulent politician Chris Christie told David Letterman on national television in February 2013 (with a straight face, no less): “I’m like basically the healthiest fat guy you’ve ever seen in your life.” Yet just days later Christie, with a 59 BMI (Obese, Class III – Morbidly Obese), underwent bariatric surgery. If Christie believed what he told Letterman, why would he have that surgery? Would you pay to have someone cut out your guts for the sake of mere vanity? (By the way, over a year after the surgery, Christie had lost about 100 pounds yet he still registered a BMI of Obese, Class III, just below Morbidly Obese)

As Christie’s experience with Letterman shows, people can lie to others, but we cannot long fool ourselves. Morbidly obese persons who claim to have no health problems need only get a liver MRI to find out the truth (more on that below when I discuss sugars). Over the years, I have encountered the most preposterous excuses for obesity. Not just the old stuff like, big bones or a “slow” metabolism, but more than one morbidly obese person has told me that both their parents suffered from obesity, as did all of their siblings. Ergo, the reasoning goes, the condition of obesity must come from their genes. It never occurs to them that their parents had no idea of how to eat properly and they probably passed that toxic ignorance on to their children. For people who pin it all on genetics, obesity becomes a simple matter of post hoc ergo propter hoc which absolves them of all personal responsibility. The people who say that obesity just comes from their particular genes miss a crucial point. We mammals evolved to use excess calories by gaining and then losing, weight. Losing weight works just as naturally as gaining weight; if not, gaining weight would make absolutely no biological or evolutionary sense. BUT: we cannot truthfully call obese people slothful and irresponsible as so many people want to believe. For a complex set of cultural and, yes, even genetic reasons, we do this to ourselves, however unintentionally. We cannot lay Obesity at the feet of any one factor with the possible exception of taking in more calories than we burn. But even that constitutes a gross oversimplification. How and why we take in so many more calories than we burn – or we evencan burn – sits at the crux of the problem. As does the sugar Fructose. I will get to that.

Despite the fictions and rationalizations of many obese people, at some time or other most overweight people come to a point where they yearn to do something about their condition. But hopelessness creeps up on people, and that leads to a spiral of depression and self-loathing. Can you imagine the crushing mental and emotional torture of undergoing radical surgery, losing almost 100 pounds, and still remaining obese, as happened to politician Christie? Such an experience must have a devastating affect, especially in our age of instant gratification. As a result of this passion to lose weight, the number of bariatric surgeries has gone up steadily, from 158,000 in 2011 to 228,000 in 2017 with substantial increases in each year in between. As another indication of the extent of the desire to shed weight, we see stores filled to the brim with books and videos selling us the latest fad diets that come and go: The South Beach Diet… The Mediterranean Diet… The Drinking Man’s Diet…The Zone Diet…The Scarsdale Diet… The Atkins Diet… The Paleo Diet…The Raw Food Diet…The Grapefruit Diet… The Cabbage Soup Diet… The 3-Day Diet…The 3-Hour Diet. Overweight comedian Buddy Hackett once lost weight with The Rice Diet, and when he spoke about it on network television he sparked an immediate upswing in the sale of rice. Viewers desperate to lose weight failed to realize that Hackett meant a diet developed by Rice University.

Sales figures for diet books and videos, not to mention the sales of rice spurred by Mr. Hackett, show how deeply people feel the need to lose weight. The lowest selling diet book on the Self-Help Best Seller List will always outsell the top seller on the Fiction Best Seller list.

Now here’s the rub. These fad diets, if adhered to, will work! They work for one important reason and it has nothing to do with reduced calories. These diets work as a result of getting people off the standard American diet of low-fiber, high-sugar processed foods. During the course of the diet people eat real food. When the weight comes off and the dieter goes back to eating standard American processed foods (often labeled “LITE” or “LOW FAT”) the weight comes right back. This brings me to a revealing point which everyone in the business world knows, but the public does not: The weight-loss industry is the only growth industry in America with a totally dissatisfied customer base.


Our political representatives and media “pundits,” heartily encourage public dread and fear of climate change. Nearly 56% of Americans say that climate change scares them. Elementary Schools teach the coming disaster of climate change to small children in the starkest and bleakest of terms. Rallies and demonstrations to publicize climate change often feature small children who timorously face the crowd to speak of the miserable future that awaits them. We terrify the daylights out of children even as we neglect to teach them how to eat properly or shop for food properly. That ignorance creates a bigger risk to a child’s future than something as remote and vague as climate change. Unbalanced eating hurts children now. With nary a second thought, parents let children as young as 3 years old decide what they want to eat and drink, and children make their choice based solely upon taste and cravings. This means they mostly eat sugars and grease and salt. We allow our children to have their desires formed by television advertising aimed at them. We make things worse when we fail to educate children in something as simple as understanding nutritional information on packaging. If a child does not yet know how to read, we can safely consider that child too young to decide what to eat or drink. Go feed a pet dog a diet of mainly sugar-filled, nutrition-free junk, with sugary soda in place of water. If an animal even eats that stuff, you risk getting cited and fined for animal abuse. Yet I have seen mothers pouring sugared soda into a pre-ambulatory baby’s bottle. In any case, few adults bother to read a product’s nutritional information, so why would we expect them to teach this vital skill to their offspring? As a result of this ignorance, combined with industry propaganda (endless TV commercials for junk food), one-third of American children now rate as overweight. Millions of our children have grown obese. Now. Today. Not in the future, but right now. Despite this genuine, existing threat, we indoctrinate children in the horrors of a possiblefuture in which the world faces destruction if we do not somehow fix climate change within 12 years. Sad to say, statistics show us that 12 years from now many of these children will have long since died. American children have gotten so fat that pediatric healthcare workers report treating eight-year olds with severe, life-threatening medical conditions previously seen only in people of late middle age. All of this while McDonald’s runs ads in which a clown frolics on TV, telling children how we all need to save the planet. They manage to shoe-horn a “responsible” message into ads designed to entice children into eating thousands upon thousands of empty calories laced with deadly sugars. Do you have any idea how much money McDonald’s expends on marketing? They lay out over $2.5 million per day on advertising – with a staggering 40% of that spending dedicated exclusively to children’s ads.


The growth in TV watching among sedentary children aids and abets the ruthless advertising aimed at our children. The advertising community, people highly trained in the methods of creating desires, sees our children as nothing but a market segment to get reeled in and delivered to their clients. Parents support ad agencies in this quest by carelessly handing their kids over to these people. According to the University of Michigan Health System, over 70 % of children ages 8 to 18 have a personal TV in their bedroom. In 2009, the Nielsen Co. found that children’s TV viewing had hit an eight-year high. Children aged 2 to 5 watched TV for more than 32 hours a week. Children aged 6 to 8 devoted less time watching TV – 28 hours per week – but the number only drops because at that age children attend school. Research conducted by The Kaiser Family Foundation showed that children ages 8 to 18 spent 4½ hours each day watching TV in various forms, including the use of mobile phones and computers connected to the internet. Parents supply all the equipment needed to allow predatory advertisers to target their children. If parents stopped buying TV sets, the advertising industry would give sets away free because they use TV as the linchpin in their Child-Targeted economy. Look at it this way: Would responsible parents permit a highly paid, expertly trained sales executive to babysit in a child’s room as the child reads a book? Would they allow that person to interrupt their child’s reading every few minutes to tell the child what to eat? What to wear? What to drink? Phrase it that way, and everyone says, “No way!” but what else happens when parents supply their children with a TV and then plop them in front of it for hours at a time? Responsible parents know enough to warn their children about the dangers of dealing with strangers on the street and on the internet – but most parents think nothing of allowing a cadre of devious, deceitful, highly paid and highly trained mind-control experts to have unfettered access to their children through a TV that they themselves gave to the child. Please remember the precise meaning of the verb TO ENTERTAIN: it means to occupy, to hold on toas in “entertaining an idea.” Commercial television entertainment has only one point: to hold on to viewers, to keep them watching in order to get them to see the commercials. Nothing else matters to TV executives. As someone who has spent the bulk of his working career in the entertainment business, I will let you in on a secret. Television networks do not cancel programs. Programs get cancelled when the marketing agencies that sell commercial time to advertisers refuse to sell time on a given show. When the ad revenue ceases, a show gets the chop. The advertisers control everything. The early days of what TV networks called “Sustained Shows,” programs kept in the line-up without a sponsor, died years ago. TV shows do not exist for our amusement, although “amusement” has become the accepted meaning of the word “entertainment.” TV shows exist to move products off the shelves. So what of Pay-TV shows and web-streaming services? They don’t run commercials, right? Oh, they do but in a more devious manner. As with theatrical movies, these shows generate income through stealth-advertising called “Product Placement.” You know that term. In the mid-1960s, for example, movies and TV shows started showing people using Touch-Tone telephones. In no time flat, demand for this more expensive phone service exploded. Check out movies and TV shows from 1965 into the early 70s. Odds are you will see people driving a Ford Mustang. Ford executive Lee Iacocca “made his bones” in the auto industry by working hard at supplying Mustangs to all manner of filmed productions. Today, because of Iacocca’s efforts, people revere the old Mustangs. In American business, only sales figures count. Not responsible corporate citizenship… just sales figures. If a time-selling agency refuses to sell time on a given show, bye-bye baby.

Today, product placement has grown more sophisticated than most in the audience realize. Say there is a scene in a TV show in which a character enjoys a bowl of breakfast cereal. On the first run, viewers may have seen a box of Corn Flakes. But on subsequent showings, after an advertiser auction, that same scene may show Rice Krispies or Apple Jacks. The next time, Lucky Charms or Honey Nut Cheerios – all thanks to computer technology. The original box on the set, before the camera, was solid blue or green allowing the product to get changed later on at will. When that TV show hits local syndication, regional brands may pop up. These shows only exist to push products to an audience held in trance (entranced) by a show. Advertising professionals count on a parent’s willingness to let them form their child’s opinions, shape their tastes, and create their view of the world. They do it by keeping children entertained through television programs created just for children. The success and wealth of the advertisers and manufacturers depend on filling immature heads with desires that hurt the child. Some babysitter!


For young people, born in 2000 or after, life expectancy has gone down – a first in over 50,000 years of human history. Obesity in children, once a rarity, plays a large part in this tragedy. According to the Centers for Disease Control:

Childhood obesity is a serious problem in the United States putting children and adolescents at risk for poor health. For children and adolescents aged 2-19 years:

  • The prevalence of obesity was 18.5% and affected about 13.7 million children and adolescents.
  • Obesity prevalence was 13.9% among 2- to 5-year-olds, 18.4% among 6- to 11-year-olds, and 20.6% among 12- to 19-year-olds.

Statistics show that 80% of obese children who manage to survive into adulthood will remain obese as adults. Yet caring medical professionals who dare to ring the alarm about this explosion in obesity get accused of “fat-shaming,” as though mentioning the need to lose weight amounted to some sort of a bigoted Civil Rights violation. A recent NY Times article about women so extremely fat that fertility clinics rejected them when they applied for In Vitro Fertilization drew hundreds of such angry comments. Only a few people commenting on the article mentioned that a morbidly obese woman will, as a matter of course, deliver sick, at-risk children. The helpless individual gestating in the womb will, for 9 months, eat everything that the mother eats. And what the mother eats contributes to her own obesity. As a result, according to research from the University of Colorado School of Medicine, a fetus developing inside an obese woman has a high likelihood of growing into an obese child who suffers medical problems from the moment of birth.  A new research report published in Diabetologia (the journal of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes) shows obesity during pregnancy associated with a 3.5-times increased future risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the child.

As the Mayo Clinic notes:

Obesity during pregnancy can cause various health problems for a baby, including:

  • Being significantly larger than average (fetal macrosomia) and having more body fat than normal, which increases the risk of metabolic syndrome and childhood obesity
  • Having birth defects — and obesity makes it harder to detect these conditions with ultrasound

Further, doctors know that throughout pregnancy, right up to the moment of birth, the obese mother herself faces enormous medical risks. Patients with a body too gross to safely deliver a baby via the birth canal require Caesarean Section. This means they need general anesthesia.

“If you or a loved one are overweight or obese and planning to have surgery, you should be aware that excess weight can put you at risk for certain side effects and complications,” notes The American Society of Anesthesiologists. “These can result from the surgery itself, or from the anesthesia you may need during your surgery. One of the biggest concerns is that being overweight makes you more likely to have a condition called sleep apnea, which causes you to temporarily stop breathing while you sleep. This can make anesthesia riskier, especially general anesthesia, which causes you to lose consciousness.” Among the surgical risks cited by anesthesiologists are:

  • Locating veins to deliver anesthesia and life-saving emergency medications intravenously
  • Determining the right dose of medications
  • Ensuring you get enough oxygen and airflow, especially if you have sleep apnea
  • Adding to the time it takes to regain consciousness after surgery and your recovery time
  • Increasing the risk of breathing problems with narcotics and other pain medicines
  • Placing a breathing tube

Further, a C-Section calls for making an incision through a wall of fat tissue often more than one solid foot thick, and that in itself presents dangers. Yet in the NY Times comment section about this situation, physicians and surgeons – professionals in their field – who refused to provide elective fertility treatments to obese women saw themselves denounced as “sexist,” “misogynist,” “paternalistic,” and that new malediction meant to stop all conversation: “Fat Shamer.”


Things have gotten so bizarre that we frequently see dreadfully obese women selling books, videos, and other products that enthusiastically promote obesity as “curvy” and “beautiful.” They peddle morbid obesity as nothing more than a matter of personal choice and aesthetics. One would think, listening to these irresponsible people, that the history of Western art begins and ends with Reubens (the painter, not, presumably, the sandwich). Health, to this way of thinking, takes a back seat to the subjective notion of what these Hucksters of Heft invariably call “Body Positive Image.” The website for the “Big Beautiful Women Pageant International” boasts of promoting what they call “plus size beauty… designed to show the public that full-figured women are beautiful, intelligent, talented, sexy, elegant, and look great in their choice of clothing.”

Plus-Size… Full-Figured… I’m old enough to remember earlier euphemisms of choice such as the nonsensical “big-boned” or the all-purpose “Husky.”

An article about this distressing cultural aberration begins: “At 371 pounds and wearing a size 32 dress, Kristie doesn’t look like a conventional beauty queen. But thanks to the Miss Big Beautiful Woman (BBW) International pageant, the 17-year-old is able to celebrate her shape along other plus-size women.” I cannot imagine anything to celebrate in the shape of a 371-pound child.

Obesity affects more than surface appearances. In point of fact, obesity negatively affects us all. Consider the overwhelming financial burden on the economy arising from the obesity explosion. For one thing, data suggests that obese workers miss 450 million more days of work annually than compared to workers who are not obese. Obese people suffer more health problems, energy issues, and emotional problems than the non-obese, so corporations lose money in the form of reduced work force productivity.

For another example of the negative affect of obesity on all of us, and on the environment, look to the additional fossil fuel that we must burn in transportation because of obesity. This mind-bending situation definitely harms the environment which so many people claim to care about saving. In terms of jet fuel alone, in just one year, the recent increase in passenger weight adds up to $5 billion more in fuel than airlines would have needed to fly people using the standards of 1960s weights. Obese people in cars require the purchase of $4 billion worth of extra gasoline per year. Overall, it adds up to around a billion gallons of extra fuel annually, all because of the burden of transporting extremely overweight people. A billion gallons. Clearly, we will not lower the much-feared American carbon footprint until we end rampant obesity. Knowing this, a question arises: Why doesn’t the usual “Save The Planet” litany include obesity? Presently, I shall delve into that “mystery.”

Can overweight or obese people harm or kill other people around them, as with the whole “second-hand smoke” commotion? No doubt about it. From Washington State comes the news that the Coast Guard recently introduced changes in ferryboat capacity, dropping the maximum number of passengers from 2,000 to 1,783. The older capacity figures for these boats date back to the 1960s when the average ferry rider weighed 140-160 pounds. Today, the average American weighs in at 185 pounds, so the Coast Guard had to recalculate capacity for safety reasons. Around the world, the growth in obesity has caused several ferries to capsize, killing those aboard.

Additionally, people die when obese drivers suffer weight-related heart attack, blackout, or stroke while behind the wheel of a car, bus, or truck. We occasionally hear news of a driver blacking out because of diabetes, with the out of control car slamming into pedestrians or surrounding buildings. These accidents have grown so common that the state of Pennsylvania recently enacted a strong “driving while diabetic” law. Studies suggest that people with diabetes have anywhere from a 12% to 19% increased risk of causing an auto accident as compared to drivers without diabetes. Such accidents happen so frequently that auto makers have begun developing a device that allows a car to alert its driver of a low blood glucose level. Based on Ford’s “Sync System,” the system will connect a car to a glucose monitor. Auto makers anticipate a sizeable demand for this option – meaning big profits – and they have every reason to feel that way. As of 2017, 30.3 million Americans have diabetes, with type 2 diabetes accounting for a whopping 90% to 95% of all cases. 90% of type 2 diabetics are overweight or obese. And the number of obese people increases annually. How much news coverage does this driving danger get? The bulk of the news coverage about the PA law, for instance, centered on public outrage at the law, which people perceived as discriminatory and unfair, while all but ignoring the underlying reasons for the law. And that brings us to media coverage of the obesity explosion.


When TV news condescends to cover obesity, they invariably blow it off with pathetic tales of emergency workers using a construction crane to rescue some housebound person weighing over 1,000 pounds (hardly any such people exist) or they present hackneyed puns about people fighting “The Battle of the Bulge.” Personally, I find it repellent when media personalities crack lame jokes about the second deadliest battle in American history. In order to report accurately and responsibly – meaning truthfully – on this widespread health emergency, Media Executives would have to offend and enrage some of their most profitable sponsors. This puts media executives in the position of biting the hand that feeds them, even as that very hand poisons their own children. Breakfast cereal makers, for instance, annually spend $156 Million to entice kids into eating their addictive sugary products. Manufacturers know that by artfully enhancing their products with a bit of Vitamin D here, a dollop of Vitamin C there, and by adding a trifling percentage of whole-grains, they can market their empty sugar calories to look like a healthy and wholesome food. Because of this dodge we see breakfast cereal boxes festooned with words like WHOLE GRAIN, FORTIFIED, GOOD SOURCE OF FIBER, ESSENTIAL NUTRIENTS, and 0 TRANSFATS to provide the appearance of nutrition in products suffused with carbohydrates and sugar. Processed food manufacturers must love slapping that 0 TRANSFATS banner on a product. That seems to impress people who don’t know that the government has completely banned transfats since June 18, 2018. That raises a question: what now substitutes for the outlawed transfats? Generally, manufacturers have replaced transfats with Palm Oil which not only may possess health risks of its own, but its production has led to an environmental calamity on a giant scale. See: Palm Oil Was Supposed to Help Save the Planet. Instead It Unleashed a Catastrophe– NY Times November 20, 2018. This informative piece begins, “A decade ago, the U.S. mandated the use of vegetable oil in biofuels, leading to industrial-scale deforestation – and a huge spike in carbon emissions.” So much for saving the planet…

Sugary drink advertisers spend more lavishly than cereal makers on their media outlay. “I’ve seen 2-year-olds with fatty liver disease and teenagers with Type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Natalie Muth, a California pediatrician and a lead author of the recommendations [to tax sugary sodas]. “These are diseases we used to see in their grandparents. It’s frustrating because as pediatricians we feel like we’re doing everything we can, but it’s hard to compete with an $800-million-a-year marketing strategy by the soda industry.” – “Two Top Medical Groups Call for Soda Taxes and Advertising Curbs on Sugary Drinks”, NY Times March 25, 2019. An $800-million-a-year marketing strategy… That number alone tells us not to expect TV or radio news to delve too deeply into this situation. As the old saying goes, “Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.”


Obesity hits us all in the wallet. The biggest medical problems we face, the situations that seriously rack up medical expenses for all of us, come from the explosion in obesity – especially childhood obesity, a condition not widely seen until modern times. Pediatric Obesity has emerged as a burgeoning field of medicine. It even has its own literature, “Pediatric Obesity,” a peer-reviewed medical journal covering research into obesity during childhood and adolescence.

Obesity adds about $180 billion annually to America’s medical expenses, much of it paid by Medicare and Medicaid, meaning tax-payers, with another hefty chunk coming from increased insurance premiums. 75% of American healthcare expenditure treats type 2 diabetes, hypertension, lipid problems, cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia; meaning: Metabolic Syndrome.

In fact, obesity and Metabolic Syndrome have strained Medicare almost to the breaking point. Current numbers show Medicare spending projected to almost triple – from 3% of U.S. gross domestic product in 2006 to 8.8% by 2030, a financially untenable situation.

Every year, the American weight numbers grow alarmingly: Quoting from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2013–2014, in America:
More than 1 in 3 adults were overweight.

More than 2 in 3 adults were overweight or obese.
More than 1 in 3 adults were obese.
About 1 in 13 adults were categorized as extreme obese.
About 1 in 6 children and adolescents ages 2 to 19 were obese.

The above stats come from five years ago. Since then, the situation has gotten worse. For instance, data from 2018 lists 41% of California 5th graders as overweight or obese.  A study from University College London, released June 19, 2019, found that people who stayed obese from childhood through to middle age find themselves more than twice as likely as non-obese people to have difficulty with daily tasks such as lifting, climbing stairs and carrying shopping by the time they reach age 50.

Yet elected officials do not discuss this. They deliberately focus our attention way over there on Climate Change – something we, as individuals, can do nothing about. I cannot stress this enough: Of all the problems we face, from climate change, to war, to election financing, to the state of our schools, to government spying on citizens, only the explosion in obesity presents a situation that people can do something about as individuals and get positive results. But politicians need to generate PERPETUAL FEAR in order to control us.


Around the globe, humans die – and die prematurely – because of the way we poison ourselves with what we eat and drink. The biggest danger in this mass suicide, without doubt, comes from sugary soft drinks – including so-called “juices” made with a mere 10% fruit fleshed out with sweetened water. Even 100% fruit juice presents a grave danger, because it gives us all the sugars of a fruit without any of the fruit’s natural fiber. “The sugar in the fruit,” says pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Robert H. Lustig, “is the way fruit gets us to eat its fiber.”

So if you think of drinking fruit juice, even 100% natural fruit juice, as a healthier alternative to sugary soda, think again. “Eating Fruit Significantly Cuts Diabetes Risk – But Drinking Juice Increases It, Says Study” Quoting from the article: “Eating blueberries, grapes, apples and pears cuts the risk of type 2 diabetes but drinking fruit juice can increase it, a large study has found. Experts from the UK, Singapore and a team from Harvard School of Public Health in the US have examined whether certain fruits impact on type 2, which affects more than 3,000,000 people in Britain. The scientists found that blueberries, grapes, raisins, apples and pears were especially protective, while drinking fruit juice could increase the risk of developing the condition by as much as 8 percent. People who ate three standard servings of blueberries a week had a 26 percent lower chance of developing the condition, they found. Those who replaced fruit juices with three helpings of particular whole fruits a week, including apples and pears could expect a 7 percent drop in their risk of developing type 2 diabetes.” The article continues with “The relatively high glycaemic load of fruit juice along with ‘reduced levels of beneficial nutrients through juicing processes’ may explain why juice increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, the [study] authors suggest.” – The Independent, August 30, 2013 (stress added)

Americans, per person, eat and drink more sugar every day than anyone in the world: a bit over a quarter of a pound of sugar per day, 365 days a year. This adds up to over 91 pounds of sugar per person per year or… 140,525 empty calories. At 3,500 calories per pound of body fat, you end up with 40 pounds of weight gain per year.

Processed foods have a high sugar content. In terms of money spent on food: from 1982 to 2012 the money Americans spend on processed foods items went from 11% of their food money to 22.9%; more than double in 30 years. And that mean we now eat more low-fiber, high-sugar meals than ever before. That spending represents the single biggest increase among food items, and it puts our spending on processed food at the top of the list showing where our food dollars go. This carries much of the blame for the obesity explosion.

For a nation that swallows so much sugar, public ignorance concerning this product boggles the mind. More than merely supplying empty calories, sugar in the form of Fructose and High Fructose Corn Syrup poisons the liver. It will, over time, kill the liver. But sugar works as a chronic hepatic poison, not an acute poison, so the FDA allows its use as an ingredient.

Note: We should not confuse HFCS with Corn Syrup, a product people have used since the early 19thCentury. While both products derive from Corn Starch, Corn Syrup contains 100% Glucose. Some Corn Syrup providers have added HFCS to their product, so read the label if you buy Corn Syrup for cooking.

In a nutshell, here’s what happens with fructose in the body: Glucose gets used by every organ in the body. Life runs on glucose, but fructose works quite differently. It gets metabolized only by, and in, the liver where it gets turned right into fat. We cannot do anything about that. Fructose, and High Fructose Corn Syrup poison the body. Fructose acts on the body in the same way ethanol (alcohol) does, inflicting upon the user conditions similar to that of the chronic alcoholic (non-alcoholic liver disease). See this explained in detail in the sugar video below. Click here for a handy rundown about sugars: What Is the Difference Between Sucrose, Glucose & Fructose?

Below I offer pertinent data from The Diabetes Council (I felt it necessary to quote this section in its entirety with links):

Sugar and Connection to Health

1)   A 15-year longitudinal study published in JAMA Internal Medicine found that individuals had more than twice the risk of dying from heart disease if they consumed 25% or more of their total daily calories intake from sugar. (JAMA Internal Medicine)

2)   Fructose is known to increase uric acid buildup in the body. Research studies have shown that men who drink 2 or more servings of soft drinks a day are 69% more likely to develop gouts than men who drink 5 to 6 servings a week. (BMJ “Soft Drinks, Fructose Consumption, and the Risk of Gout in men: Prospective Cohort Study”)

3)   High sugar intake can lead to chromium deficiency. Because chromium is an important mineral that helps regulating blood sugar level, the deficiency increases the chance of individuals to suffer from hyperglycemia and even develop pre-diabetes symptoms. Research studies have shown that high sugar diets can increase urinary Chromium loss by as much as 300%. (PlumX Metrics “Effects of Diets High in Simple Sugars on Urinary Chromium Losses”)

4)   Sugar is known to suppress immune system. Just by consuming 100 grams of sugar (similar amount found in a medium soft drink) can already suppress white blood cells functioning by 40% for at least 5 hours. (Daily Mail)

5)   Sugar accelerates aging process. Science research studies have found that sugar speeds up the cell aging process. By measuring the cell telomere lengths, scientists can find out the aging speed on an individual. In a study of 5,309 individuals, those who drink sugary drinks on a regular basis are shown to have much shorter telomere lengths than individuals who do not drink sugary drinks. (AJPH “Soda and Cell Aging”)

6)   Sugar can increase the risk of cavities as it can drop the oral environment to an acidic pH level of less than 5.5 within 30 minutes of consumption, allowing bacteria to demineralize the teeth surfaces. (Oxford Academic)

7)   Glucose is known to amplify cortisol secretion during a psychological stress event. Research tests were able to measure the cortisol level before and after a stressful exercise. Unlike protein and fat, glucose increased the cortisol level by almost 4 times from 5 nmol/l to 23nmol/l. (Hormones and Behavior)

8)   High fructose consumption is also linked to non-alcoholic liver disease. Longitudinal studies have found that daily fructose consumption is directly related to increased risk of liver inflammation in individuals that are already suffering from fatty liver disease. (Hepatology “Increased Fructose Consumption Is Associated with Fibrosis Severity in Patients with Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease”)

9)   High intake of fructose is linked to significant increased risk of developing certain type of cancer such as brain cancer, pancreatic cancer (up to 53% increased risk), oral cancer (increased 10% to 15%), and prostate cancer (increased 33% risk). (Journal of the National Cancer Institute)(Oral Oncology)(Cancer Research)

For more, click HERE.

As noted above, a simple tax on sugary soft drinks, perhaps 1¢ or 2¢ per gram of sugar, will inhibit purchases and save lives. Ending all advertising of sugary foods to children – including breakfast cereals and juices – will also save lives. Without doubt, these measures will go a long way toward reducing childhood obesity. We have ample precedent for these types of actions. Under enormous public pressure, government did both those things with cigarettes, taxing them and banning advertising, starting with advertising that appealed to children. Now, this very day, local governments repeat this with vaping. As I write these words, San Francisco has banned E-Cigarettes because of the appeal they have for children. San Francisco Bans Sale of Juul and Other E-Cigarettes” – NY Times, 6/25/19

So why not do the same thing with an addictive, poisonous ingredient like sugar? Because doing so little as merely proposing, or discussing, such policies will ignite forceful, hostile, and influential opposition from big-money concerns that donate (as we call bribery) to politicians. Among others, these interests include the giant agricultural corporations, fast “food” purveyors, advertisers who target children, and most dishearteningly of all, the very individuals who, in fact, consume these products; people dying as a result of their excessive sugar and fructose consumption. These sugar addicts will fight, literally to their death, for their right to ingest inexpensive sugar in whatever quantity suits them, while claiming that they hurt nobody but themselves – a fallacy I dealt with above.

So yes, let’s work to clean up pollution. Yes, let’s aim to reduce carbon emissions. I see both as worthwhile goals – goals that ending obesity will help us to achieve. But we need some proportion here. What project has a greater chance of success? Without doubt, fixing ourselves will present a higher chance of attainment. But in an act of manipulation that recalls a stage magician’s sleight-of-hand, corporate media, which makes billions from advertising these sugary products, deliberately shifts our attention away from the immediate consequences of obesity, preferring to send people into a panic over “saving the planet,” a vague and deeply grandiose delusion. The idea that people who can neither feed themselves properly nor raise healthy children can “save the planet” would seem laughable if we did not know the dimensions of the obesity tragedy. Save yourself first. Without taking care of ourselves, we will never have the power to help anything or anyone else. The planet faces no danger. With nature we have a balanced, sensible system that heals itself. Because of extensive obesity across the globe, HUMANITY faces the risk, and at risk right this very moment. But as the murder statistics show, people get irrationally frightened by whatever media tells them to fear. At the moment, as the summer of 2019 gets under way, media’s fixation on fear and death has led people to fear vacationing in The Dominican Republic (“What you need to know about canceling a trip to the Dominican Republic,” Washington Post, June 27, 2019). Corporate media uses irrational fear to shunt our attention away from present dangers and off into “the future.” Thus, most of us willingly refuse to see the very real, immediate, and current threat that exists right under our shirts.

Humanity faces death because of the way we now eat and drink. Our children fall into serious illness because of the garbage they ingest. Unlike fixing climate change, people can remedy this with minimal effort – but only if we first acknowledge the situation. As I noted above, losing weight works just as naturally as gaining weight; otherwise gaining weight would make no sense at all. And again, I cannot stress this enough: Of all the problems we face, from climate change, to war, to election financing, to the state of our schools, to government spying on citizens, only the explosion in obesity presents a situation that people can do something about as individuals and get positive results.


Ending obesity will save lives, relieve a massive strain on the economy, help the environment by curbing the additional need for fossil fuels, ease medical costs, and save a generation of children who now age before their time.

Taxing sugary drinks can work. But the one thing that can all but guarantee success in the fight against obesity will not happen: banning the poison called High Fructose Corn Syrup. It took a hard enough struggle to win the fight against deadly transfats. That legislation only came about as more and more people decided not to buy items containing transfats. The food culture had changed just a bit and that made the removal of transfats possible. Remember, only money and sales matter. Only when something lethal stops selling, will businesses stop making it – and then they will congratulate themselves for being so responsive to health needs.

The metabolism of fructose leads directly to de novo lipogenesisa fancy way of saying: the creation of fat. A calorie of fructose differs from a calorie of almost anything else. Now here comes the clincher: A recent study shows the good that happens when we restrict dietary fructose. From Effects of Dietary Fructose Restriction on Liver Fat, De Novo Lipogenesis and Insulin Kinetics in Children with Obesity:

Doctors Jean-Marc Schwarz and Robert Lustig analyzed data from a trial exploring the effects of adolescent fructose restriction (published in Gastroenterology, February 2017): 43 obese adolescent children were fed a diet similar to their habitual diets (51% carbohydrate, 16% protein, and 33% fat, at a level of calories anticipated to lead to weight maintenance) but with most of the dietary sugar replaced with starch (the share of calories from sugar dropped from a baseline of 27.7% to 10.2%). All food was provided for the duration of the study and purchased from local supermarkets to best mimic foods available to subjects in the real world.
Subjects followed this diet for nine days. By day 10, the following metabolic changes had occurred:

  • Median liver fat content decreased from 7.1% to 3.8%, and 37 out of 38 tested subjects showed a decrease in liver fat.
  • Visceral adipose tissue volume decreased from 123 cm³ to 110 cm³.
  • De novo lipogenesis (DNL) decreased significantly overall and in 37 out of 40 subjects.
  • Measures of insulin sensitivity significantly improved.

Ten days without fructose, folks. Just TEN days. That’s all it took. And this was not a “reducing” diet. It was, rather, a life-saving diet.

Charts show that the explosion in obesity corresponds directly to the widespread use of HFCS, especially in soft drinks. In 1980, the companies that make Coca-Cola and Pepsi began the domestic transition from sugar to HFCS, completing the changeover in 1984. Because this move drastically lowered the cost of sugared sodas, the standard 10-ounce serving gave way to one-liter and two-liter bottles. Between 1970 and 1990, according to Consumer Reports, American eating habits led to a 1,000% percent increase in the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup. Again: A calorie of HFCS does not work the same as a calorie of sugar. Unlike sugar, more of HFCS turns into fat that gets stored in the liver. Could this explain why so many people now try to, but cannot, lose weight?


Remember what I wrote at the start? “people have grown fatter and fatter. And sicker and sicker.” Clearly, fructose consumption has made us sicker and fatter. Many studies back this up. Despite this ever-growing body of knowledge, politicians will never vote to ban HFCS. To do that amounts to the same as casting a vote to triple (at least) processed food prices, and, as noted above, we spend most of our food dollars on processed foods. Government subsidizing of HFCS has made it near ubiquitous in the food system and raised the price of table sugar (sucrose) while lowering the price of HFCS, making it the most inexpensive sugared sweetener. “Very simply,” writes Michael Pollan, “we subsidize high-fructose corn syrup in this country, but not carrots. While the surgeon general is raising alarms over the epidemic of obesity, the president is signing farm bills designed to keep the river of cheap corn flowing, guaranteeing that the cheapest calories in the supermarket will continue to be the unhealthiest.” (The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, 2006) You may think of a bottle of soda as cheap, but we all pay for it through tax-payer subsidies.

HFCS only exists to keep food prices artificially low. Manufacturers have made Sweetening an essential ingredient in the packaged, low-fat, processed foods that people now gobble up in place of wholesome foods. They need to add large doses of sugar to keep low-fat processed foods from tasting like cardboard. To keep these sweetened foods affordable, the government subsidizes corn growers, making HFCS inexpensive. Large agricultural corporations lobby heavily for those government corn subsidies, so don’t expect HFCS to go away. As long as consumers make the conscious decision to rely on processed foods instead of cooking real food, as long as we crave inexpensive sweetened snacks and sugary beverages, HFCS will remain legal and in wide use, no matter how much it poisons us. It will remain legal and unregulated, but that does not mean we have to eat this stuff.

As individuals, we have the ability to stop eating High Fructose Corn Syrup. As you saw above, go just ten days without fructose and the body improves. The government can subsidize this deleterious product all they want, but they cannot compel us to eat it. We have the power to decide not to eat anything containing HFCS and we damn well need to exercise that power.

The peddling of HFCS reaches its zenith (or nadir) with the popular “Arizona Iced Tea” line of soft drinks. NY Times describes Arizona products as “made from high-fructose corn syrup diluted with water or tea” (This Menu Is Brought to You by Arizona Iced Tea, May 7, 2019). So rather than using HFCS as a flavoring ingredient, it constitutes the main part of the drink. Tea, not HFCS, gets used as the flavoring. How then can they legally call this stuff “Arizona iced tea” and not “Arizona High Fructose Corn Syrup”?  The Times article notes, “Every eight ounces of Arizona’s Mucho Mango or Grapeade contains 110 calories, 10 more than in the same amount of Coca-Cola.” The Times then goes on to boast that for more than 25 years Arizona has kept the price of its 23-ounce cans of liquid to just 99¢. They don’t mention that this happened because of government subsidies. The word SUBSIDY doesn’t even appear in the story, a PR puff-piece piece disguised as news. In their own tangy vernacular, journalists call this kind of story… “a blow-job.”

In our copiously stocked food marts, bulging with items, Americans have access to more than 600,000 items. 80% of these items contain added sucrose and/or the baleful High Fructose Corn Syrup. We need not buy these items. We have a choice. As a nation, Americans make a fetish of “choice”. When it comes to toilet paper, we can decide from among almost 20 popular brands (Charmin Ultra Soft, Quilted Northern Ultra Plush, Quilted Northern Ultra Soft & Strong, Angel Soft Toilet Paper, Great Value Ultra Strong, Scott 1000, etc.) and innumerable “off-brands”. Despite this need to choose, we have become remarkably consistent in our eating choices, leaning heavily on processed, sweetened, low-fiber items. Processed meals shot through with HFCS get washed down with inexpensive sugary drinks consumed by the quart at each sitting. The CDC reports that on a given day in America, 63% of youths and 49% of adults drink a sugared beverage. Per day that adds up to 143 calories from sugary sweetened beverages for the young, and 145 calories for adults. For decades now, the typical American lunch has consisted of a fast-food cheeseburger, fries, and a quart of sugary soda. Do people who regularly eat at fast-food places know exactly what ingredients they eat? Do they bother to find out? In 2016, McDonald’s announced that it would transition away from HFCS in their hamburger buns. Did you even know they put HFCS in the buns in the first place? Take a look at some Burger King products that contain HFCS: Breakfast Syrup, Buffalo Sauce, Chocolate Shake Syrup, Coca Cola Classic, Corn Dusted Buns, Croissant (Croissan’wich), Dr Pepper, Dutch Apple Pie, Hershey’s Sundae Pie, Honey Mustard Dipping Sauce, Honey Mustard Spread, Icee – Coca Cola Classic, Icee – Minute Maid Cherry, Ketchup, Milk Shake, Milk, 1% Lowfat Chocolate, Mott’s Strawberry Flavored Applesauce, Sesame Seed Buns, Specialty Buns, Sprite, Steak Sauce, Strawberry Shake Syrup, Tartar Sauce.

When it comes to sweeteners, what happened to that beloved freedom of choice we so deeply cherish? Please don’t tell me that we can decide among scores of toilet paper brands, but we can’t show a sense of discrimination when it comes to our food. As a nation, we can start to return to health by refusing to eat so many empty calories, especially calories which our bodies have not biologically evolved to handle. We simply do not have to eat HFCS. We need not fill our pantries with items containing HFCS. It may seem a bit costlier, but we have to decide what we would most prefer to save: our money or our life.

Must humanity end this way? Not with a bang but with a soda pop? As the imaginary Martian invaders of H.G. Wells fell victim to the power of the lowly bacteria, it now appears that unless we decide to stop eating HFCS, and low-fiber, high sugar processed food, humanity will fall before the power of the lowly fructose molecule.

We can do something about this. As you shop for food remember: Eat real food, not processed food-ish garbage. Real food = high fiber, low sugar. Processed food = low fiber, high sugar. We need dietary fiber to properly digest food. Also, throw out all sugary sodas and stop drinking fruit juice. You may drink “natural” fruit juice but that does not make it something salubrious. Instead of drinking the fruit, eatthe fruit. Fruit’s natural fiber gives us exactly what we need with sweet fruit because the fiber reduces the rate of sugar absorption from gut into bloodstream, thereby keeping insulin down. Before I learned about this, I thought I did good for myself by starting the day with fresh-squeezed orange juice or grapefruit juice. I may as well have knocked back a pint of Bourbon considering what fruit juice does to the body. As fructose in foods acts on the liver we become insulin resistant. That makes us crave more sugar. We get trapped in a cycle, making us buy more food containing sugar.

Dietary fiber plus carbohydrates will work wonders for health and digestion. And forget about dumping Metamucil® into a glass of fruit juice. Fiber doesn’t work that way. No fiber additive yet concocted can replace natural fiber.

Do not think of the situation as not hopeless. Endocrinologist Robert Lustig offers a list of four simple “musts” when treating obese children. His data shows this list will succeed every time, provided we do them all:

1) get rid of all sugar drinks in the house.
2) eat carbs with fiber because fiber acts as the antidote to carbohydrate.
3) wait 20 minutes for any 2nd portions for satiety signals to work.
4) buy screen time with an equal amount of activity. An hour of activity for an hour of TV or internet time.


IMPORTANT POINT: Sugar itself, not merely the empty calories from sugar, causes the problems. We cannot consider sugar as a food. Nothing we eat on a regular basis that contains excessive sugar (HFCS) can replace real food. In the 1970s, prior to HFCS, Americans, per capita, consumed about 38 lbs. of sugar a year. At the peak of our sugar consumption, in 2004, that number shot up to a horrific 110 lbs. per person, per year. Now the amount comes to under 100 because sugared soda consumption has dropped, but still that represents a shocking amount of empty calories. And let’s be clear, despite the Old Wives’ Tale a calorie is NOT a calorie. As I have related above, empty calories from fructose present far more danger than empty calories from table sugar. The calories in fructose act more like calories in booze.

Fructose leads to the worst health problem now facing the world: metabolic syndrome. Metabolic syndrome can lead to obesity, a condition that we may easily see with a cursory glance. Metabolic syndrome, however, does not always make itself visible.

Medical research has supplied thoroughly reliable Causal Medical Inference that sugar causes diabetes. We have solid research. Consumption of vast amounts of sugars in soda holds the biggest responsibility for the growth of diabetes. An econometric analysis of diet and diabetes in developed nations shows that every extra 150 calories consumed per person increases diabetes prevalence by 0.1%. But if those same 150 calories come from soda, then diabetes prevalence increases eleven times (1.1%). This kills people. Medical science has come to see obesity as the sign of a much deeper problem.

Sugars create addiction and sugars create medical damage, as do alcohol and tobacco – both of which we regulate stringently. Yet sugars remain unregulated. It seems to me that since Fructose gets metabolized the same as Ethanol, using it now and then like a responsible, adult drinker uses alcohol may not present a drastic danger. But now imagine Ethanol added to 80% of foods… or in the glue we lick on envelopes… Or consuming Ethanol from age 2 in all meals and snacks… Therein lies the problem. We have made Fructose damn near ubiquitous and most people don’t care about it, so long as a meal or a drink costs 99¢. People who think nothing of starting their day with orange juice would never consider starting that same day with a can of Pabst Blue Ribbon.  But they may as well do that for all the good fructose-laden, fiber-free fruit juice does us.

The US Constitution lists the reasons for the government to exist. Right at the top, in the preamble we see an important reason: to “promote the general welfare.” We can achieve that by regulating sugar (a pipe-dream, I know). By not regulating sugars, and by financially subsidizing HFCS – making it so inexpensive that we find added sugars in over three quarters of the food sold to the public – the government in fact promotes and encourages a general degeneration and corruption of the general welfare. This goes contrary to our very Constitution.

In the absence of government action, that leaves it up to us, as individuals, to do something. We can start with dropping fruit juices and sugared sodas immediately and by purchasing and consuming only real food. We can improve the situation by ridding our shelves entirely of processed food-like stuff. If we stop buying it, the producers of this chazereiwill stop stocking store shelves with it. Think money as the pressure point that gets results. Here in New York City, the Upper Westside once had a lovely independent bookstore called Shakespeare & Co. In time, a Barnes & Noble megastore opened right across the street. And little Shakespeare’s died. The people in the neighborhood had abandoned the small store to do their book/magazine shopping at B&N. When the store closed, many neighborhood people appeared on TV news and gave newspaper interviews to mourn the loss of this charming store. But who killed the store by by abandoning it? Those very people.  Contrast that with this: I knew someone who lived in the small town of Hallowell, Maine. He told me that over the years many corporate chain stores opened up in the area only to go out of business almost immediately because nobody shopped there. One after another, chain stores would open up thinking this was virgin territory ripe for the picking. They soon found out why chain stores didn’t fill the landscape: The people who lived in the area preferred to patronize their local businesses. And there we see the power of the consumer dollar.

The late Flo Kennedy, a political activist, agitator, artist, and actor, used to tell a story. A frail, elderly woman went to her dentist for some needed dental work. As the dentist leaned over her, examining her teeth, he became aware of an uncomfortable feeling of pressure in his groin. He looked down and saw the woman’s hand in his groin where, through the dentist’s trousers, she gently clasped his scrotum. He looked at her, astonished, and she softly said, “Now doctor. I know we’re not going to hurt each other, are we?” Kennedy summed up the moral of that story as: “The only way to get anything done in this society is by applying testicular pressure.” For the companies that produce low fiber, high sugar processed foods, and stores that sell them, we need to use our money to apply Flo Kennedy’s testicular pressure. These businesses understand only money. They do not exist to nourish people. They exist to sell things and they will not try to sell what nobody buys. We used that strategy to get transfats off of store shelves. In other words: The fault, dear friends, is not in our stars but… on our shelves.


In an engaging, easy to follow manner, Dr. Robert Lustig tells us more than we may want to know about sugar, but stick with it because he explains things we truly need to know. Pay particular attention to the last part, after the biochemistry lessons – although the speaker makes that medical science stuff damn near painless.
Learn the differences between glucose (good for you!) and Fructose (kills the liver).
Why does Coca-Cola contain caffeine and salt? See how a can of sugary soda gets metabolized by the body in precisely the same way as… a can of beer. Would you give a can of beer to a small child? Would you?
Find out the story behind Gatorade® and learn the simple things you can do to stop obesity in its tracks (HINT: NO, NO, NO sugary drinks EVER.)
Of special interest and importance, Dr. Lustig details how the body handles identical calorie counts from white bread, bourbon, and orange juice. He explores this question: Does obesity really cause Metabolic Syndrome or… does Metabolic Syndrome cause obesity?

This short Australian report called GLOBESITY will show you precisely how prevalent the obesity problem has become.