Archive for December, 2015

2016 Apocalíptico


2016 Apocalíptico

O Astrólogo previu um ano

Pleno de saúde dinheiro e amor


O que as estrelas dizem é que

Vai ser um ano cheio de dor

Repleto de terror

Onde pagarão

O justo e o pecador

Onde morrerão

O doente e o saudável

Um ano

Em que acontecerá o impensável

Os Estados Unidos vão arder

 A Europa vai rebentar

A China vai sufocar

A Inglaterra vai-se afundar

 A India vai apodrecer

O Medio Oriente vai desaparecer

A Rússia vai-se agigantar

A Africa crestará

A América do Sul guerrear-se-á

A Ásia fundir-se-á

A água será imbebível

O ar irrespirável

O mar invadirá a terra

As religiões entrarão em guerra

Novas pestes vão aparecer

As máquinas vão vencer

Morrerão milhões

E milhões vão continuar

Tudo isto

Não foi o Astrólogo que disse

Foram as estrelas

Bem-vindos ao




Experts warn drinking too much on a regular basis can have serious and irreversible effects on the body

  • Alcohol linked with 5 cancers: liver, mouth and throat, oesophageal, breast and bowel
  • Liquor weakens the immune system, leading to more chest infections
  • It ages people and exacerbates skin problems like rosacea and psoriasis
  • Re-wires the brain so people feel stressed, depressed and lousy 

‘Tis the season to be merry, and many of us take this quite literally.

With Christmas parties and celebrations with friends and family, consumption of alcohol increases by 40 per cent in December, according to addictions charity Addaction.

This not only causes tantrums, tears and office gossip, but also a spike in drink-driving related accidents and suicides.

But many of us are drinking far too much on a regular basis.

More than a quarter of all adults drink over the recommended amount of alcohol, 14 units a week for women and 21 for men, according to the latest figures from the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). 

One unit is the equivalent of one 25ml single measure of whisky, a third of a pint of beer, or half a 175ml glass of wine.

And rather than men, it’s middle-class professional women aged 45 to 64 who are now drinking the most, risking serious and irreversible effects on the body, experts warn.

A glass of wine a night doesn’t seem like much, but a standard 175ml serving contains 2.3 units of alcohol, adding up to 16.1 units over the course of a week – and putting women over the safe drinking limits.

From damaging the heart muscle and re-wiring the brain to causing falls, fractures and infertility, here experts explain the sobering truth about drinking to excess…


Alcohol can affect a man’s performance in the bedroom, as it causes temporary erectile dysfunction.

In the long term, it reduces testosterone levels, leading to a loss of libido and is toxic to the testes, which harms sperm while they’re being produced or stops them reaching the egg.

Excessive alcohol consumption results the testicles shrinking, leading to impotence, growth of breasts and thinning body hair. 

Drinking makes women less fertile too, although it is not fully understood why, according to the British Fertility Society.

It causes imbalances in hormones that control reproduction, and even small amounts can affect a woman’s periods and reduce the chance of conceiving.

One Danish study showed drinking between one and five drinks a week can reduce a women’s chances of conceiving, and 10 drinks or more decreases the likelihood of conception even further.

A 2009 study done at Harvard University of couples undergoing IVF showed that women who drank more than six units per week were 18 per cent less likely to conceive, while men were 14 per cent less likely.

Long-term heavy drinking can cause women to have irregular periods or stop ovulating, or they can stop altogether and she can have an early menopause.

Heavy drinkers who do become pregnant are more likely to have a miscarriage.


There is good evidence drinking alcohol increases the risk of five types of cancer, according to Professor Linda Bauld, of UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies and a cancer prevention champion at Cancer Research UK

Next year, Britain’s Chief Medical Officer, Sally Davies will change the guidelines on the recommended number of units of alcohol men and women can drink a week.

‘The recommendations are confidential and will be unveiled next year. But we suspect they will be lowered.

‘This is because of accumulative evidence that alcohol causes cancer.’


The new figures come as Britain’s top doctor is set to welcome in the new year with a warning not to drink more than three halves of beer at a time and still take two days off drinking a week. 

The recommended safe drinking limits for men are expected to be slashed to match the advice given to women. 

The new guidelines from Chief Medical Officer Dame Sally Davies are expected to recommend the safe drinking limit for men be set at just two to three units – which would suggest routinely drinking just one large glass of wine with dinner or two pints of bitter after work would take men to levels over the limit.

Three units for five days is likely to breach an expected 14 unit ‘safe’ limit for the week. 

NHS advice already states drinkers should abstain for two days if they have a heavy session.

Recommended limits for women are already set at this level and are not expected to change… 

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



What to Do If You Think You Have a Sports-Related ConcussionIllustration by Sam Woolley.

by Beth Skwarecki

Concussions aren’t just for NFL players. They can happen while playing in aweekend sports league or even from an unlucky slip and fall. If you know how to spot a concussion and where to find good treatment, you can avoid the risk of further injury.

While you can get a concussion elsewhere in life—falls, car accidents, and assaults are among the common causes—concussions have a special place in sports. Athletes subject themselves to the possibility for falls and collisions constantly in many sports, and it’s important to pay attention to recovery so that you’re fully healed by the time you return to play.

Many people may not even realize they have a concussion, and they don’t always come from an obvious blow to the head. Slight dizziness or a headache may not seem like a big deal at first, but they can be symptoms of a more serious issue. In several reports, players in college and high school sports admitted they had had possible concussions in the past season, but hadn’t reported them. More than of half the time, it was because they didn’t realize they’d actually had a concussion, or they didn’t think their injury was serious enough to report. In one case, College football offensive linemen had 27 unreported possible concussions for every one they spoke up about.

So first things first: If you have any of the symptoms described in this post, even mild ones, you should step back from any activity where you could injure yourself further. A responsible coach will bench you, even if it’s the middle of a game—and if they don’t, you should remove yourself from play.

To determine if you really do have a concussion, and what you should do about it, you should see a doctor who has expertise in dealing with brain injuries. We spoke with neurologist Dr. Jeffrey Kutcher to bust some myths about concussions and help you understand what to do if you get one.

Spot the Signs and Symptoms

A concussion isn’t a simple injury like a bruise or sprain, where a body part is torn or smashed or broken. Rather, a concussion starts with an injury—often the brain smacking against the inside of the skull—and then the brain cells, attempting to return to normal, alter their function.

Those results can include brain cells firing more or less often than they should, being unable to reach brain cells they normally communicate with, and other subtle changes that don’t show up on MRI or CT scans. Instead, the damage is only noticeable in the way the brain functions. The exact symptoms differ from person to person and injury to injury, and can involve almost any part of the brain. This means symptoms can range from slowed reaction time to difficulty focusing or thinking clearly to nausea and vomiting.

That’s why it’s so important to be on the lookout for the symptoms of a concussion. You could notice them after a hit to the head, or some other fall or collision that whips your brain around without touching your head. A concussion can result from a hit so hard you get knocked out, or it can be a “ding” that you’re tempted to shrug off.

If the hit is one you experienced yourself, watch out for symptoms like:

  • Blurry vision
  • Confusion
  • Dizziness
  • Headache
  • Nausea

It’s also your job if you’re a coach—and a good idea just as a friend or teammate—to be on the lookout for signs of a concussion in others. Even if they don’t admit to any of the symptoms above, you should suspect a concussion if someone has:

  • Changes to balance, coordination, or reaction time
  • Slow movements or slurred speech
  • A blank stare or dazed look
  • Confusion about where they are
  • Loss of consciousness (which only occurs in about 10 percent of concussions)

Those are just a sampling of the features to look for; this concussion “quick check” card from the American Academy of Neurology gives more detail. (It’s also available as an app for iOS and Android.)

Understanding what’s going on is important when you’re standing on the sidelines and wanting to know when you’ll be able to play again. While there are plenty of apps and checklists to help you know what’s going on in case of a suspected concussion, including well-respected tools like the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT3), Dr. Kutcher stresses that these aren’t meant to tell you, as an observer, whether somebody actually has a concussion or not. If somebody “passes” a concussion test, they still shouldn’t go back on the field. Your job as a coach or teammate is to rule out911-level head trauma and then just to help somebody realize that they should sit out. Any further evaluation is a doctor’s job…





Can hypnosis really help de-stress brain cancer patients? malavoda (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)


Undergoing brain surgery while conscious is an understandably terrifying idea. Sometimes, though, it’s necessary, and patients are faced with psychological trauma from the ordeal. Anew study published in Neurosurgery suggests a possible solution in the form of hypnosis.

Dr. Ilyess Zemmoura of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Tours, France, led a team of researchers in the evaluation of a hypnosis technique called hypnosedation as an alternative for patients undergoing surgery awake. The report showed a high rate of successful hypnosisfor patients undergoing surgery for brain cancer (glioma). They believe the technique could be especially valuable for patients with the more advanced forms of brain cancer.

The reason awake craniotomies is that the patient can be sedated but still conscious so as to be able to communicate during their operation. This helps the surgeon safely navigate the brain to the tumor, without damaging the “eloquent cortex,” or critical brain areas involved in movement and language. Zemmoura and colleagues evaluated their hypnosis in 37 patients undergoing this type of surgery, mainly for low-grade gliomas.

They began prepping patients for hypnosis a few weeks before their surgeries. The hybrid anesthesiologist/hypnotist met with the participant for a short hypnosis session and explanation of how to create a “safe space” in their head.

Once in the operating room, patients underwent hypnosis to reach the point of a hypnotic trance, which was progressively enhanced during the first few steps of surgery, including specific instructions and suggested imagery for potentially unpleasant or painful parts of the surgery. When successful, the process was reliable and reproducible, with questionnaire assessments showing little to no negative psychological impacts. Hypnosedation reduced the impact of stressful or unpleasant events during the surgery — pain seemed to decrease as the level of hypnosis deepened.

Hypnosedation is advantageous because it allows the patient to remain awake throughout the entire surgery, avoiding the need to awaken them in the middle of a standard anesthesia. This can be especially challenging in patients with high-grade gliomas — two of whom had successful experiences with hyposedation during the study.

Hypnosis failed in six patients, who underwent the standard asleep-awake-asleep anesthesia instead. Only two patients said they would not choose hypnosedation if they had to undergo a second awake craniotomy. The results of the study overall were encouraging, but the report notes there is no evidence that hypnosedation is superior to standard anesthesia, and that the execution of the technique required “intense involvement and long term training of the whole team, including the patient.”

Source: Zemmoura I, Fournier E, El-Hage W, Jolly V, Destrieux C, Velut S. Hypnosis for Awake Surgery of Low-grade Dliomas: Description of the method and Psychological Assessment. Neurosurgery. 2015.



And pilots are reporting ever more close encounters with them

ANYONE in America who found a radio-controlled model aeroplane or multicopter drone nestled beneath the Christmas tree ought by now to have registered it with the Federal Aviation Administration, following mandatory safety requirements introduced on December 21st. More than 45,000 people registered their personal UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) in the first few days. That is a good start, but still a long way from full compliance.

Registration, which applies only to recreational UAVs, costs $5 (waived for those registering before January 21st) and is good for three years. Existing drone-owners and aeromodellers have until February 19th to comply. If the UAV weighs more than 250 grams (0.55lb) and less than 25kg, owners simply apply for a registration certificate and identification number through the FAA’s website. The UAV has to be marked with the certification number before being flown for the first time. Indoor flights do not count.

The directive makes it an offense for anyone to fly a UAV above 400 feet (122 metres) and within five miles (8km) of an airport, unless special permission is received from the airport tower. Owners must keep their drones or model aircraft within line of sight at all times. Failure to comply can result in civil penalties of up to $27,500.

Unlike amateur UAV owners, organisations wishing to operate drones for commercial purposes still have to apply for special exemption from the FAA’s airworthiness requirements. This is granted on a case-by-case basis for a limited range of activities, including movie making, precision agriculture, and powerline and pipeline inspection. In general, though, commercial operators will have to wait for the FAA to finalise a more comprehensive set of safety rules, possibly in a year or so.

The sudden popularity of drones—and the threat they represent to the public and aviation generally—has spurred the FAA into action. Reports of recreational UAVs interfering with regular air traffic have been running at over 100 a month of late. With some 1.6m recreational drones buzzing the skies (400,000 were expected to be bought in the weeks before Christmas), the FAA has been forced to hurry out safety rules before serious accidents occur.

Though none has to date, the risk of a drone being ingested by a jetliner engine and causing a fatal accident is all too real. Bird strikes are bad enough. One of the most feared birds encountered by aircraft is the common Canada goose, weighing anything up to 6kg. In 2009 a collision with a flock of migratory Canada geese caused a US Airways flight to suffer complete loss of power after takeoff from LaGuardia airport, New York. The bird strike could have easily ended in disaster but for the skill of the pilot, Captain Chesley Sullenberger, who famously brought the stricken Airbus A320 down for a splash landing in the Hudson River without loss of life. The last thing airline pilots need is an additional hazard caused by UAVs weighing as much or more than a Canada goose.

Over the past year, American pilots have reported some 700 close encounters with UAVs of one sort or another. That pales almost into insignificance when compared with the 13,700 bird strikes in America last year, or the 4,000 or so reports of laser pointers being directed at aircraft. But the number of recreational drones is increasing rapidly. If just one percent of those already in circulation were to cause problems, drone threats would exceed bird strikes by a considerable margin…




Dry January might be one New Year’s resolution you want to keep.

Somewhere in the neighorhood of 80 percent of New Year’s resolutions fail. Gyms get more and more empty as the year winds on, the lure of social media grows increasingly harder to resist, and travel plans get delayed day-by-day until it’s suddenly been a year again. But if you can stick to one particular common resolution — to cut out drinking for a bit — it may have dividends that pay off down the line.

That’s the finding of a study out of the University of Sussex in England, where researchers decided to see how giving up drinking for a month — the 31-day period popularly known as “Dry January” — affected participants’ tendencies for imbibing later on. They found that those who successfully abstained for the duration of the month continued to drink less even once drinking resumed. Additionally, at points both one and six months later, those participants reported they were better able to resist the urge to drink in “social settings when others are drinking, for emotion regulation, and opportunistic drinking.” Put simply, there was an impressive reduction in drunkeness in their lives in general after the month was over.

The study involved 857 volunteers. Of those, 64.1 percent made it through the entire month of January without drinking. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a fairly good predictor of the ability to remain dry throughout the period was the regularity with which participants normally drank — more moderate drinkers fared better than their more boozy peers. Having a partner in not drinking — using the “buddy system,” so to speak — seemed to have little impact on success.

Interestingly, in addition to curbing drinking for those who successfully completed Dry January, even those who merely attempted the challenge also saw a drinking drop off. In other words, failing the initial mission still resulted in benefits.

Researchers admit that since the volunteers were a self-selected group, and there was no control group, there are limits to deductions that can be made about the findings. In any case, the results suggest “that successful completion of one month of abstinence may have lasting effects on drinking behavior and beliefs, and that increases in [the ability to refuse drinks] arising from abstinence attempts may be an important influence on subsequent patterns of alcohol use.”



Is it really conspiracy theories that are spreading faster than ever, or just the way that (dis) information is disseminated in general? The Guardian looks at the increasing influence of conspiracy culture:

“I remember reading about Final Fantasy VII, a movie I was really looking forward to. My initial reaction was disappointment that it was two years away – because by then we’d be under military control.” It was 2004, and Matthew Elliott was in deep. Elliott, from San Antonio, Texas, had first been drawn to conspiracy theories when he was 19, in the aftermath of 9/11. “It seemed unfathomable that we could be attacked,” he says today. In his quest to make sense of what had happened he came across the notorious “truther” movement, a current of opinion that lays blame for the atrocities at the door of the US government.

“The way most conspiracy theories are laid out, one thing always leads to another, so from there I became convinced that a ruling group called the New World Order orchestrated everything. This would all lead to martial law and a complete removal of our freedoms,” he says. A decade later, Elliott, now 34, is a “recovering” conspiracy theorist, having turned his back on a worldview that always posits some covert, powerful force acting against the interests of ordinary people. The change came gradually, but he thinks very differently now. “You can’t even get many of the 50 states to agree on things. Good luck convincing Europeans and Asians to get on board.”

Elliott’s reaction to the trauma of 9/11 was far from unusual. The attacks were so unprecedented, so devastating, that many of us struggled to make sense of them. Early reports were confused or contradictory: as a result some treated the official version of events with scepticism. A proportion of those in turn plumped for an explanation that would require fakery and coordination on a massive scale.

This shouldn’t surprise us: it’s a pattern that is repeated after every global shock, and in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, it has reared its head again. Within a day of the terrorist attacks on the French capital, blogs had been published arguing that they were the work of the government – a so-called “false flag” operation. The claims rest on the idea that Isis is the deliberate creation of western governments. More recently, the lawyer for the family of Syed Farook, one of the San Bernardino shooters, fuelled conspiratorial speculation when he said: “There’s a lot of motivation at this time to emphasise or create incidents that will cause gun control or prejudice or hatred towards the Muslim community.”

Round-the-clock coverage of global events means there is a constant supply of crisis and chaos for us to interpret…

[continues at the Guardian]



Autism Kid Behind Glass

by April McCarthy, Prevent Disease, Waking Times

Two new meta-analytic studies involving thousands of children and college students show that anxietyhas increased substantially since the 1950’s. In fact, the studies find that anxiety has increased so much that typical schoolchildren during the 1980’s reported more anxiety than child psychiatric patients did during the 1950’s. The findings appear in the December issue of the American Psychological Association’s (APA)Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

“The results of the study suggest that cases of depression will continue to increase in the coming decades, as anxiety tends to predispose people to depression,” says psychologist and study author Jean M. Twenge, PhD, of Case Western Reserve University.

She adds that other implications of the findings suggest that alcohol and drug abuse will continue to be an increasing problem too, because anxiety usually precedes the onset of substance abuse. There are also implications for physical health. “Research has found that anxious people have a higher mortality rate, most likely because anxiety has been linked to higher occurrences of asthma, irritable bowel syndrome, ulcers, inflammatory bowel disease and coronary heart disease,” said Dr. Twenge. About 8 percent of today’s U.S. teens suffer from some type of diagnosed anxiety disorder, according to the National Institute of Mental Health.

While it may be true that some people are excessive worriers and anxious, it is not by any means a condition that should require medication for the majority of the population. We’re now finding out that anxiety has its role in the human body and may demonstrate some higher levels of thought processing.

The type of anxiety looked at in these studies is known as trait anxiety, the relatively stable individual differences in anxiety-proneness, which is different than state anxiety, a temporary emotion experienced due to a particular situation. In the first study, anxiety scores from 170 samples of American college students (representing 40,192 students) were analyzed from research conducted between 1952 to 1993. The second study looked at anxiety scores during the same years in 99 samples of children (representing 12,056 children, ages 9 – 17). Both studies show a significantly large increase in anxiety levels, providing more evidence for what some authors have called “the age of anxiety.”

Why the increase in anxiety? In both studies, anxiety levels are associated with low social connectedness and high environmental threat. During the study period, social connectedness decreased because of higher divorce rates, more people living alone and a decline in trust in other people. The author says many of these changes involve greater individualism, but she says there can be a down side to this. “Our greater autonomy may lead to increased challenges and excitement, but it also leads to greater isolation from others, more threats to our bodies and minds, and thus higher levels of anxiety,” said Dr. Twenge.

Most threats also increased during the study period, including violent crime, worries about nuclear war and fear of diseases such as AIDS. The study also cites increased media coverage as a source of a greater perception of environmental threat since the 1950’s. Since the study ended in 1993, some of these environmental threats have declined, including crime rates and worries about nuclear war, which are good signs for stopping or reversing increases in anxiety, according to Dr. Twenge.

However, she says, social connectedness has not improved very much since the early 1990’s. “Although divorce rates have decreased somewhat, the percentage of people living alone continues to increase, and levels of trust are still declining,” said Dr. Twenge. “Until people feel both safe and connected to others, anxiety is likely to remain high.”

Children Today Report More Anxiety than Child Psychiatric Patients in the 1950’s



Originally Posted At: Pravda Report

A heroin surge is shocking and awing Americans, 165,000 of who will be killed the next ten years. How does 415,000 kilograms (913,000 pounds) of heroin from US-occupied Afghanistan get to US each year?

Opium Wars I & II

Were British troops forcing farmers in India and Pakistan, colonies of Britain then, to grow opium which Brits pushed on Chinese to try to make China a colony of Britain too. In the 1980’s, CIA grifters flew weapons to Contras in Nicaragua and flew crack cocaine back to the USA . The DEA did nothing to stop CIA felons from dealing crack in the USA.

CIA organized, trained and armed the Mujahideen (later re-named Taliban) to fight a 1979 Soviet invasion into Afghanistan and to push heroin on Russians. CIA contracted NLC trucks to send weapons through Pakistan to Afghanistan and to bring heroin back. After Soviet withdrawal, Taliban took control of Afghanistan’s government.

Afghans (who earn $55 a month on average), given choices between starving, freezing or growing opium they getpennies a pound for, often choose the latter. The Taliban outlawed opium in 2000. Afghan opium farmland decreased from 91,000 hectares (1999) to 7,600 hectares (2001).

Why did US invade Afghanistan in 2001? Iraq was invaded because Bush, Rumsfeld etc. claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Which was a lie. Another reason, Bush gets bored by peace. (Satan also gets bored by peace if I’m recalling my Sunday School classes correctly.)

September 11, 2001, nineteen terrorists (15 Saudi Arabians, 2 from United Arab Emirates, 1 Egyptian and 1 Lebanese) killed 2,977 people by crashing hijacked airplanes in US. The terrorists got their training at Huffman Aviation flight school in Florida. Government officials decided to attack, not Saudi Arabia where most terrorists come from, but Afghanistan. Why? The government narrative has been sketchy.

Afghanistan became the #1 worldwide producer of opium and heroin by 1995. The CIA created Taliban government exported opium and heroin to Iran, Russia and China addicting millions, causing enormous economic damages, heroin-fueled crime waves plus deadly epidemics (AIDS, Hepatitis C).

Have CIA officers recruited agents in Iran, Russia or China? Is it easier to recruit heroin addicts? Would CIA officers dangling taxpayers cash or heroin at addicts help to make them agents? US schools are mandated for 13 years, when we learn things like cause, effect, motives, means, logic, reasoning, deductive reasoning. Of course it’s easier to recruit addicts. Why not recruit sober agents instead, is it because sober people are not interested in working for the US government.

Afghanistan, source of 90% of Earth’s heroin, ended 90% of Earth’s heroin problems when Taliban outlawed opium in 2000. The reason for War in Afghanistan was because Taliban outlawed opium growing which ended economic wars (opium wars) against Iran, Russia and China.

The world’s heroin market collapsed by 2001, producing a heroin drought. War in Afghanistan was “to restore the CIA sponsored drug trade to its historic levels and exert direct control over the drug routes.”. The Afghanistan War was CIA retaliation against Taliban for outlawing opium.

There’s a tactic called ‘flatten tire fix tire.’ Pop someone’s car tire then appear to “help” when the flat’s discovered. Clever huh? A more evil variant of ‘flatten tire fix tire’ is hooking people on drugs, then appearing, cash or drugs in hand, when users need a fix.

More evil, physically torturing innocent people causing severe chronic pain (e.g. forcing innocent people to sit on the floor, legs crossed, hands cuffed behind their backs, banging their heads to the floor, repeatedly, snapping spines), then dangling painkillers until they become addicted, needing painkillers for chronic pain caused by US government-sponsored torture. There’re many layers to the onion which is opium war being waged.

Brits waged old school opium war, US government’s waging opium war now. 90% of Earth’s heroin comes from occupied Afghanistan. US government’s been occupying Afghanistan since 2001.

When investigating serious crimes, like heroin dealing killing 165,000 Americans a decade, means and motives are revealing. US military and CIA had the means to overturn Taliban’s opium ban (which they did) and transport tons of heroin into US each week. Motives point to whodunit, who’s transporting this heroin into US to kill 165,000 Americans.

A Revolutionary War was fought for rights like taxation with representation. Trillions were spent on War in Afghanistan because Taliban outlawed opium. 2,372 US Soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Thousands of Veterans committed suicide. Hundreds of thousands became disabled. Secret police agencies not saying what’s what means we don’t have taxation with representation. Again.


Can Americans have democracy, a nationwide ballot referendum to vote if we want to wage opium war against others and against US? Tens of millions of innocent lives were destroyed because of heroin from US-occupied Afghanistan. The War in Afghanistan began as an opium war against Iran, Russia and China, the tables are turning into an opium war against Americans on track to kill 165,000 Americans (2016-2026).

Americans, 5% of Earth’s population, take 60% of painkillers on Earth. USA #1 for heroin addiction now too. US government and corporate executives are waging opium war. Against US. Americans are the most drugged people on Earth.

US government installed Hamid Karzai, CIA agent, as Afghanistan’s President in 2002 to restore the drug trade.Ahmed Wali Karzai, heroin dealer, was Hamid’s brother. “The Afghan narcotics economy was a carefully designed project of the CIA”. “A convicted heroin trafficker, Izzatullah Wasifi, was appointed by Karzai to head an anti-corruption agency.” US government made Afghanistan into a narco state. By 2006, LA Times reported Afghan heroin flooding in, but wouldn’t investigate how. 1,000,000 people worldwide have been killed by heroin from US-occupied Afghanistan.

189,000 Americans were heroin addicts in 2001. White House reported 1,500,000 US heroin addicts by 2010. That figure shot up (2010-2015) to 2,500,000 heroin addicts.

Afghan opium spread from 7,600 hectares (2001) to 224,000 hectares (2014). US heroin deaths skyrocketed 1,779 (2001) to 10,574 (2014) and are on track to hit 16,500 in 2016.

Year # Afghan opium hectares # US heroin addicts # US heroin deaths

Year # hectares of Afghan opium grown # US heroin addicts # US heroin deaths
2001 7,600 189,000 1,779
2002 74,000 300,000 2,089
2003 80,000 400,000 2,080
2004 131,000 500,000 1,878
2005 104,000 600,000 2,009
2006 165,000 750,000 2,088
2007 193,000 900,000 2,399
2008 157,000 1,000,000 3,041
2009 123,000 1,250,000 3,278
2010 123,000 1,500,000 3,036
2011 131,000 1,750,000 4,397
2012 154,000 2,000,000 5,925
2013 209,000 2,250,000 8,260
2014 224,000 2,500,000 10,574













Click for pictures of US soldiers guarding Afghan opium.

2,500,000 heroin addicts plus 2,000,000 casual heroin users means 1/70 Americans use heroin. Crime waves are surging, ruining families and neighborhoods, shocking and awing victims being robbed and sometimes killed by addicts craving another piece of heroin pie from US-occupied Afghanistan.

Hepatitis C, a deadly virus, is surging; users share needles. Sovaldi, a Gilead Biosciences drug, costing $84,000, cures Hep C. 200,000 users catching Hep C annually means $16,500,000,000 added profit for Gilead Biosciences annually. Donald Rumsfeld was Gilead Biosciences CEO before becoming Secretary of Defense in 2001.

Pure heroin costs $450/gram in the USA. Regular users take 400 mg daily, light users as little as 25 mg, heavy users a few grams. 1,000 Americans try heroin their first time every day.

224,000 hectares of Afghan opium can make 560,000 kilograms of heroin annually. $450/gram x 1,000 x 560,000 equals $252,000,000,000 cold hard cash annually. $252,000,000,000 makes the fattest 6-figure gravy train government salary look like chump change. $252 billion annually dealing heroin could supplement CIA’s Congressional financing (or be Plan B for CIA financing).

52,833 US heroin deaths occurred (2001-2014). US heroin deaths quadrupled (2002-2013), doubling from 2010 to 2013, and are slated to double again (2013-2016). Heroin deaths will kill 165,000 Americans (2016-2026). Plus thousands more from heroin-related diseases and heroin-fueled robberies and home invasions. $252 billion from Afghan heroin is blood money, your hands are covered in blood.

In 2013, an American died every 64 minutes from heroin, now, an American dies every 32 minutes. Americans being killed at a rate of 165,000 per decade by Afghan heroin is triple the 55,000 Americans killed in the Vietnam War (1965-1975).

Government officials, claiming War in Afghanistan was somehow supposed to make us safer against terrorism, which killed 2,977, need to answer how is killing 165,000 Americans saving 2,977Americans?…




President Obama’s active support for terror groups in Syria led to creation of ISIS

Steve Jurvetson/Flickr

By Alex Thomas 

(INTELLIHUB) — In a bombshell expose on the Obama’s Administration’s strategy in Syria, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh has detailed the secret attempt by top Pentagon officials to counter the presidents disastrous ISIS policy by providing intelligence to nations in direct communication with the Assad regime.

The exposé entitled “Military to Military,” has been largely ignored by the mainstream media and is literally one of the most damaging reports to President Obama that has ever been written.

Not only does the report detail the shocking fact that Pentagon officials have literally tried to stop the president and his open support for fundamentalists, it also quotes claims by former Director of Defense Intelligence Michael T. Flynn that Obama is aware of Turkey’s ISIS dealings and is apparently fine with them.

“If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic,” Flynn revealed to Hersh. “We understood ISIS’s long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State inside Syria.”

“The Joint Chiefs believed that Assad should not be replaced by fundamentalists. The administration’s policy was contradictory.”

Flynn followed up on his bombshell accusations in a recent interview where he admitted that President Obama has a policy to directly support terror groups such as al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

As Infowars rightly noted, this fact has also been confirmed in a recently releasedPentagon document.

So there you have it. The former Director of Defense Intelligence has gone on the record to claim that the President of the United States is actively and purposefully supporting radical Islamic fundamentalists in a bid to replace Assad and that the Joint Chiefs purposefully attempted to counter this open support of terrorism.

In other words, as Americans across the country have their daily lives disrupted by the likes of TSA and homeland security in order to keep us “safe” from terrorists, our President has a policy that purposefully supports these SAME terrorists. Sadly, it is no longer a conspiracy theory to claim that Obama created ISIS.

Treason anyone?

While the mainstream media has largely done their job and completely ignored Hersh’s expose, the alternative media has jumped on his claims and continued to further research what could end up being the literal downfall of Barack H. Obama.

In an absolutely shocking interview on the Alex Jones Show, Hersh revealed even more key details, concluding that the Pentagon directly disobeyed orders by President Obama to support ISIS while also alleging that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a complete and total supporter of the terror caliphate.

“After Libya fell we began to funnel stuff… a lot of arms from Libya into Turkey…” Hersh said, referring to his bombshell 2014 “The Red Line and the Rat Line” article which detailed the United States’ covert arming of alleged moderate Syrian rebels.

“The gentleman running Turkey, Erdogan, is a total, complete supporter of ISIS. I don’t think there is any question of that, even though we deny that. Our intelligence shows it.

Hersh also speculated that the Joint Chiefs may have gone against the orders of the president due to the fact that they took an oath to the Constitution and that the actions directed by Obama surely went against it.

“Nobody wants to talk about directly challenging a president…” Hersh told Jones. “But I will tell you, at a certain level, at the Joint Chiefs, at the level of four star general, the oath of office is an oath to the Constitution, not the president.”

Every American should hear the interview in its entirety as it really does lay bare the crimes of President Obama on a level most Americans never thought possible.

Bombshell: Obama’s policy in Syria is to DIRECTLY support the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda



%d bloggers like this: