By John P. Thomas – Health Impact News

With the push of a button, tech companies can make a billion people have the same thought. The tool they use is the smartphone. The thought could be a bit of truth or it could be a lie.

Regardless of the content of the message, they have the power to capture our attention and to insert a thought in our minds, even if the thought only lingers there for a few seconds before we move on to something else.

This kind of mind control is not accidental but is part of an intentional plan of technology companies to get us addicted to their technology, to steal our time, and to build profitability at our expense.

Supercomputers have now beaten the best chess masters in the world, and it is these same supercomputers that are used by tech companies to manage smartphone addiction. The process involves collecting information about our interests and using psychological and behavioral methods to get us hooked on their technology.

Unless we understand the techniques being used to get us addicted and take steps to control how we use smartphones and tablets, these devices have a high potential for taking over our lives.

Do You have a Smartphone Addiction?

Research shows that it is common for many people to check their phones 150 times a day and to touch the phone 2,617 times every day. The top 10% of users touch their phones more than 5,400 times daily. These are signs of technology addiction.

How many times an hour do you check your phone?

Do you spend more time on social media or playing games than you do interacting with real people?

Do you find that you can’t stop yourself from repeatedly checking texts, emails, or apps—even when it has negative consequences in your life?

Have you tried to cut back on smartphone use, only to experience restlessness, anger, irritability, difficulty concentrating, sleep problems, and craving access to your smartphone?

If you are concerned about how your smartphone is controlling your life or the life of your children, then keep on reading at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2018/how-big-technology-companies-control-the-minds-of-the-masses-through-smart-phone-addiction/

By Rhonda Johansson

“People just don’t do it,” Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong told Brietbart.com after making the shocking claim that less that one percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method. “I used to think that maybe 10 percent of papers in my field…were maybe useful. Now it looks like maybe, one tenth of one percent follow the scientific method.” In particular, Armstrong talked about the proactive “alarmism” some scientists encourage regarding man-made climate change. He argued that scientists are more politically motivated or perhaps too focused on their own career advancement to want to publish accurate data.

Armstrong built on criteria he initially set in his 1982 paper called, “Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors.” According to him, there are eight criteria that qualify a good scientific paper:

1. Objective
2. Useful findings
3. Full disclosure of methods
4. Comprehensive review of prior knowledge
5. Valid and reliable data
6. Valid and simple methods
7. Experimental evidence provided
8. Conclusions that are consistent with evidence

According to Armstrong, “the goal of objectivity is one that is sought but seldom achieved because the bias of the researcher is always present. [One researcher, Mitroff] concluded that scientists [become] famous not by being objective, but by being advocates. This appears to be true. Advocacy is a good strategy for career advancement. However, I believe that it is bad advice for making scientific contributions.” Armstrong stated that the forecasts from the world-recognized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violated all eight criteria.

“What’s happening now is, government research, universities — they’re asking for what I call advocacy research. They have something, they want you to prove it, make sure you prove it, [and when] you do, you keep getting paid,” he said in a separate article on Breitbart.com. “Advocacy research is the bulk of these 99 percent of non-scientific studies and they’re not done for scientific development, they’re done to support a political idea. If you want to make money in universities these days, you publish papers that support global warming and you live handsomely.”

On why no one has called out the IPCC on their alleged blatant disregard for scientific research, Armstrong replied with: “Why is this all happening? Nobody asks them! You send something to a journal and they don’t tell you what you have to do. They don’t say ‘here’s what science is, here’s how to do it.’”

“Truth” has a price tag

This is such a fascinating idea to consider; particularly as the base motivation for these “scientists” appear to be more focused on capitalism rather than accuracy. Armstrong argued that being politically convenient is more rewarding both financially and in terms of one’s career.

“[Scientists] cheat. If you don’t get statistically significant results, then you throw out variables, add variables, [and] eventually you get what you want,” he concluded.

Learn more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-08-09-99-of-modern-scientific-papers-are-nothing-more-than-politically-motivated-pseudoscience-warns-science-pioneer.html

By: Sayer Ji, Founder This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2018

” Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.” ~ Albert Einstein

Whereas the quote above could easily be dismissed as the ‘progress-denying’ sentiment of a disgruntled anti-GMO activist, the fact is that it came from a scientist representing the very epitome of Western rationality and accomplishment.

Perhaps Einstein was reflecting on the inevitable existential consequences of the so-called “technological imperative”–whatever can be done, will be done.  Fundamentally amoral and irrational economic and political forces drive technology’s feverish pace, infusing a certain arbitrary cruelty and disequilibrium into everything it touches.

In our continual drive to ‘improve upon Nature’ in the name of much-hyped, ‘life-saving’ biotechnological innovations, the line between humane and inhumane eventually is crossed, and there seems no going back.  Biopollution from defective or dangerous GMO genes, for example, is virtually impossible to undo once unreleased into the biosphere; you can’t “recall” a defective gene like you can an automobile. Nor can we remove from our bodies the surreptitious viruses (e.g. simian virus #40 (SV40)) that contaminated millions of first-generation polio vaccines. In many ways our moral fiber suffers from the same susceptibilities. Once we have crossed a certain line – be it theft, lying, or worse, etc., – it is difficult, if not impossible to ‘go back’ and regain our innocence. Such is the human condition. And this is why we must carefully consider the medico-ethical implications of new technologies, whose developments we must first be aware of in order to guide, regulate and sometimes terminate.

The Scientific Community Moves To Embrace Embryo Cloning for Medical Purposes

For example, few are aware that the cloning of human embryos for ‘therapeutic purposes’ was made legal in the UK in January, 2001 through an amendment to the Human Embryology Act.[i]  Not long after, in August 2004, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) approved the first license for cloning human embryos in the UK.  Media reports at the time alleged the legal changes would result in the use of cloned human embryos to create “spare body parts.”

In an article published in 2000 titled, “Biotech Cannabalism,”[ii] C. Ben Mitchell, PhD reflects on the pro-cloning movement by quoting a proponent’s justification: “If you could use tissue from human embryos to save hundreds of lives, there must be a moral imperative to do it.” Mitchell disagrees, countering: “Creating a human being for the purposes of killing that person for another human being’s health, sounds an awfully lot like cannibalism, only worse.”  

Please read the entire article here: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/biotechs-dark-promise-involuntary-cannabilism-all-1

By Jonathan Landsman

(NaturalHealth365) Does your medical doctor have a child’s best interests at heart – when they’re being paid to practice medicine a certain way? Common sense tells us that there’s a conflict of interest here, but (today) we’ll expose a driving force behind this issue.

An alarming news item has revealed that the Blue Cross Blue Shield company is offering medical doctor incentives to promote (and administer) vaccines to young children. The fact is: medical professionals can receive $400 bonuses per child for those who are administered a full course of vaccines by the age of two.

Some medical doctor policies include ‘refusal of service’ to parents who opt out of child vaccinations

Because of this, some medical professionals are being influenced to put pressure on families to accelerate their children’s vaccine schedule.  There are some doctors (pediatricians, in particular) who are even refusing service to families who choose to opt out of receiving vaccines.

So, despite the lack of adequate vaccine safety or testing, these doctors are being trained to ‘follow orders’ from the moment they enter medical school and throughout their medical career.

A conventionally-trained medical doctor rarely (if ever!) questions the administration of vaccines – even though (believe it or not) they are not even taught about ingredients prior to the administration of these toxic substances.

Make no mistake about it, this kind of financial payout is a living testament to how much the insurance companies (with support of the pharmaceutical industry) control how your child will be treated at every doctor visit.

Learn more: https://www.naturalhealth365.com/medical-doctor-vaccine-dangers-2578.html

By Lori Alton

(Naturalhealth365) According to The Vision Council, almost 90 percent of American adults use digital devices – including notebooks, laptops and smartphones – for two or more hours a day. And the resultant barrage of blue light (coming off these devices) is raising lots of red flags.

Recent studies have sparked concern among natural health experts that blue light from the screens of digital devices could cause optical problems, ranging from eye strain to increased risk of macular degeneration.

Learn more: https://www.naturalhealth365.com/blue-light-vision-loss-2615.html

This is a MUST WATCH video by Melissa Dykes – TruthstreamMedia.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ysYujG0U9I&t=514s

This brain control technique and many others were actually developed by the deep state years ago and this ability is active right not through the “Cell” towers in almost all western countries.                                                                                          Are you having trouble getting to sleep or regularly waking up at 3am?        Welcome to the misuse of advanced technology.

By Edsel Cook

As we move from sharp awareness to restful sleep, we undergo hypnagogia, a state where we experience small but surreal dreams that escape our recollection when we wake up. In a Motherboard article, an MIT team reported how they developed a device that can access this dreamland.

MIT Media Lab researcher Adam Horowitz led the efforts to create Dormio, which helps the user enter hypnagogia and prolong their stay in that state. This lets them study the intense associative thinking that drives the microdreams during this period.

Trials showed that Dormio can prolong the time a user spends in hypnagogia. It is also able to alter the content of the microdreams.

This will help neuroscientists overcome their bafflement over hypnagogia. For one thing, experts are still debating what constitutes sleep. They do agree that hypnagogia is a natural part of the body’s rhythm.

Researchers have wondered if creativity rises during this stage. They are also puzzled as to why it sometimes leads to true dreams while bringing about dreamless sleep at other times.

MIT Dormio device detects hypnagogia and keeps users in that state

Hypnagogia takes place during stage 1 sleep. Yet some people who wake up afterwards believe they are awake or have responded to other people. Others experience powerful hallucinations and microdreams.

Some of the greatest minds in human history have desired hypnagogic consciousness. Thomas Edison claimed entering this phase boosted his creativity and mental clarity.

Learn more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-06-27-mit-researchers-develop-a-machine-that-manipulates-hypnagogia-the-state-between.html

The deep state is tricking the local councils in communities worldwide to install blue light street lights on the pretext that they are cheaper because they draw less power. But this is another depopulation thrust because it causes sleep deprivation that we cannot afford and the disruption to the body’s natural rhythms.

By Rita Winters

Recent studies on the mammalian eye shed light on why some people have excessive light sensitivity. These new discoveries may contribute to developing effective therapies for individuals who experience migraine headaches and concussions with light sensitivity.

Melanopsin is a protein in the eye that is sensitive to blue light, and establishes our circadian rhythms (day-night cycle). It is found in the retina, a layer of cells that are photosensitive, or reactive to light. These photopigments change shape depending on the type of light they are exposed to, which then triggers chemical reactions and signals the visual cortex of the brain. This process is how we create a picture of the world. When melanopsin cells detect light, less melatonin (the hormone that makes you feel sleepy) is produced, making you feel awake. When melanopsin cells do not detect light (signalling nighttime), more melatonin is produced, hence why we feel sleepy or tired.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine and School of Arts and Science created a special type of light that affects only the melanopsin cells. During the study, they measured pupil reactions and brain activity, as well as recorded the subjects’ verbal responses to what they saw. When researchers asked the participants what they saw, people described the melanopsin stimulus as bright and blurry, and also highly uncomfortable. It can be correlated to the fact that looking directly at a bright source of light makes us squint and feel uncomfortable. Some individuals even have physical reactions to bright lights, resulting in severe migraine headaches and in others, epilepsy. The study was conducted in order to better understand the effects of light sensitivity.

Learn more:  https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-11-21-research-into-light-sensitivity-shows-how-the-human-eye-responds-to-invisible-light-impacting-several-important-biological-functions.html

Monsanto Invests Over $100 Million To Change The DNA Of Every Food Plant

By Lori Alton from Naturalhealth365

Monsanto, ‘the most hated corporation in America,’ plans to take the science of genetic manipulation to a whole new level. According to a March 27 article in Business Insider, the agrichemical giant has joined forces with Pairwise Plants – a California start-up company helmed by a pair of Harvard scientists – and plans to invest a whopping $100 million in a form of gene-editing technology.

While the new technology, known as CRISPR, is being hailed by some as a way to correct genetic diseases, many natural health advocates question its safety – and whether our food is an appropriate target for gene-editing.

Three days after the collaboration was announced, a published study showing that CRISPR induced unexpected mutations in mice was retracted. The timing is highly suspicious, to say the least – especially in light of Monsanto’s long and disgraceful history of suppressing damaging research.

Unbelievably, there is no law mandating that Monsanto account for potential long-term effects.

Dr. Robert Lustig, pediatric endocrinologist and the president of the Institute for Responsible Nutrition, scoffed at the idea of a more ecologically responsible Monsanto. “The only result they (Monsanto) care about is profit,” Dr. Lustig remarked.

(Remember, this is the same Monsanto that has sued farmers for regrowing licensed seeds, created a bumper crop of Roundup-resistant superweeds, and – lest we forget – developed Agent Orange. All while maintaining a tradition of blatant lies, deceit and scientific fraud).

“Gene editing” may sound less sinister than “genetic modification.” But, for many, it still adds up to “Frankenfood.”

Read the entire article here: https://www.naturalhealth365.com/monsanto-food-news-2571.html