Page 211 of 212 « First 111161201209210211 212 (
-   Non Pool Related (
-   -   Why Is The Food Industry Trying To Kill Us? - Top 10 Food Additives to Avoid (

Kimmo 11-28-2019 02:48 AM

oh cool...I have OnePlus6T....waiting for my radiation-generated superpowers to manifest

jimmyg 11-29-2019 07:03 AM

Walmart Pork Found To Have "Superbug" Bacteria Resistant To Antibiotics

"The fact that pork from one of the nation's largest retailers contains bacteria resistant to antibiotics critically important to human health is particularly alarming and should raise concerns."​

Nov 28, 2019 4:30 PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rise Of The Superbugs: Bacteria Are Outsmarting Humans. Will They Eventually Kill Us All?


"Our centralized, industrialized food system is at the heart of the increase in food contamination and recalls. Modern farming and modern food manufacturing methods are breeding grounds for bacteria."

Nov 28, 2019 9:00 PM

jimmyg 12-01-2019 10:43 AM

Polio Outbreaks in Africa Caused by Mutation of Strain in Vaccine

November 28th, 2019

Via: Guardian:

New cases of polio linked to the oral vaccine have been reported in four African countries and more children are now being paralysed by vaccine-derived viruses than those infected by viruses in the wild, according to global health numbers.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and partners identified nine new cases caused by the vaccine in Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic and Angola last week. Along with seven other African countries with outbreaks, cases have also been reported in Asia. In Afghanistan and Pakistan polio remains endemic, and in Pakistan officials have been accused of covering up vaccine-related cases.

jimmyg 12-02-2019 06:59 AM

Top Foods to Avoid: High Fructose Corn Syrup

By tlb777- Posted Friday, July 26, 2019 at 05:00pm EST

High fructose corn syrup is a man-made product that is produced by using enzymes to extract sugar from stocks of corn.
This sweetener should be avoided as it has been linked to a variety of maladies including obesity, cardiovascular disease, blood sugar imbalances, diabetes, fatty liver, liver failure, leaky gut syndrome, decaying teeth, hypertension, elevated LDL / bad cholesterol levels, immune suppression, dementia and cancer. Not to mention it can actually damage DNA.

Big Food loves high fructose corn syrup because it is both cheaper and sweeter than cane sugar.
Highly refined cane sugar is bad enough but high fructose corn syrup delivers a fix that rapidly enters the blood stream causing blood sugar spikes and the quick release of insulin. This in turn causes an increase in appetite and a trend toward weight gain and obesity over time.

The common sugar that sits in the pantry at home is sucrose. Sucrose is 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose – the molecules are held together by a chemical bond. This bond creates resistance and makes it harder for the human body to metabolize.

High fructose corn syrup is 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose. This may seem like a small difference but the there is no chemical bond holding the molecule together making it much easier for the body to metabolize – hence the aforementioned blood sugar spikes.

Recall that 93 percent of corn produced in the United States in genetically modified, so if high fructose corn syrup is consumed it most likely comes from a GMO product. One study found mercury in over half of high fructose corn syrup samples taken.

The easiest way to avoid high fructose corn syrup is to avoid sodas and sugary drinks. (No, this does not mean drinking diet / sugar free sodas as they contain aspartame or other toxic artificial sweeteners.) Normally it is best not ‘drink your calories’ but as an occasional treat there are drinks out there that don’t contain high fructose corn syrup or artificial sweeteners – Pepsi, Mountain Dew and Sierra Mist all offer beverages ‘made with real sugar’. The international section of your local grocery store may also have Mexican Coke. Snapple does not contain high fructose corn syrup and from The Huffington Post with even more ideas including Hansen’s, Blue Sky and Izze. (Again we’re talking about an occasional splurge, not a regular indulgence.)

As consumers have become more educated to the dangers of high fructose corn syrup some in the food industry have resorted to changing the name that appears on the food label. If you see Fructose or HFCS-90 move on to the next product as these both indicate high fructose corn syrup. The fact that they are in effect hiding this ingredient tells you everything you need to know.

Other foods that contain high fructose corn syrup include candies, frozen deserts, candied fruits, breads, crackers, granola bars, yogurt, cereal, ice cream, and condiments and sauces (i.e. ketchup and barbecue sauce). Other surprising foods that may contain this sweetener are peanut butter, deli meat, oatmeal, applesauce, miracle whip, canned soups, canned tomatoes and even cottage cheese.

This underscores the importance of reading food labels – know what goes in your body!

jimmyg 12-04-2019 07:26 AM

An entire financial & political system based on fraud, corruption, & deceit...Amazing
FDA Bowed to Industry for Decades as Alarms Were Sounded Over Talc

December 3rd, 2019

Link: Via: Reuters:

Over the past 50 years, the FDA has relied upon–and often deferred to–industry even as outside experts and consumers repeatedly raised serious health concerns about talc powders and cosmetics, a Reuters investigation found.

Again and again since at least the 1970s, the agency has downplayed the risk of asbestos contamination and declined to issue warnings or impose safety standards, according to documents produced in court proceedings and in response to public records requests.

jimmyg 12-05-2019 07:35 PM

Subway Loses Lawsuit Against Journalists Who Discovered Chicken Strips Only 43% Actual Chicken

by Tyler Durden Thu, 12/05/2019 - 19:25

Four years after learning their longtime spokesman was a giant pedophile, Subway has suffered yet another embarrassment after a Canadian court threw out a $210 million lawsuit against journalists who tested the company's meat, only to discoer that Subway chicken contains as little as 42.8% actual chicken.

In February 2017, the Canadian Broadcasting Company's Marketplace DNA tested six different pieces of chicken from five fast food restaurants - finding that poultry from A&W, McDonald's, Tim Hortons, and Wendy's contained between 88.5% and 89.4% chicken DNA.


53.6% for their oven roasted chicken contained actual chicken, and 42.8% of their chicken strips. According to the CBC, the rest of it was soy protein, according to VICE.

Needless to say, Subway was a little upset - filing a $210 lawsuit against the CBC, claiming the study was "recklessly and maliciously" published and that the DNA test "lacked scientific rigor."

The company claims lost customers, lost reputation, and that they had lost a "significant" amount of sales according to the report.

"The accusations made by CBC Marketplace about the content of our chicken are absolutely false and misleading," the company said after the report was published.

Nearly three years later, the suit has been tossed.

But at the end of November, the The Ontario Superior Court threw Subway's lawsuit out, ruling that the CBC's program was an example of investigative journalism, and was protected under an anti-SLAPP ("Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation") statute that "encourages individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest," without the fear that they'll be sued if they speak out. (John Oliver covered SLAPP lawsuits and how they're used to stifle public expression on a recent episode of Last Week Tonight.) -VICE

"The Marketplace report dealt with the ingredients of sandwiches sold by popular fast food chains. It relayed the results of DNA tests performed by the Trent laboratory, which indicated that two types of Subway chicken products contained significantly less chicken DNA than other products tested," wrote Justice E.M. Morgan in his ruling.

"Furthermore, the Marketplace report raised a quintessential consumer protection issue. There are few things in society of more acute interest to the public than what they eat. To the extent that Subway's products are consumed by a sizable portion of the public, the public interest in their composition is not difficult to discern and is established on the evidence."

VICE notes, however, that Justice Morgan did note that Subway's claims had substantial merit because their own testing revealed just 1% soy filler, not the 40% claimed by the CBC.

The CBC stands by their results, and hired their own expert to vouch for the lab's testing.

Subway told VICE in a comment after publication:

Statement from Subway Restaurants:
“The case has not been dismissed in its entirety, and this decision does not validate the tests performed by Trent University. In fact, the judge’s opinion states: ‘The record submitted by Subway contains a substantial amount of evidence indicating that the Trent laboratory tests were of limited or no value in determining the chicken content of Subway’s products,’ and ‘…there is considerable evidence that suggests the false and harmful nature of the information conveyed to the public in the Marketplace report.’

The CBC Marketplace story at issue is wholly inaccurate and built on flawed research, which caused significant harm to our network of Franchise Owners. In 2017, two independent laboratories in Canada and the U.S. found our chicken to be 100 percent chicken breast with added seasoning, verified that the soy content was only in the range of 1 percent, and contested the testing methodology.

The quality and integrity of our food is the foundation of our business, and we will continue to vigorously defend Subway ® Franchise Owners against false allegations such as those made by CBC’s Marketplace program. We are reviewing the recent decision by the Ontario court and are confident in the ability to continue our claims against Trent University while an appeal against the CBC is under review.”

jimmyg 12-14-2019 08:41 AM

Ultrasound Destroys 80 Percent of Prostate Cancers in One-Year Study

December 11th, 2019

Via: New Atlas:

Treating prostate cancer through traditional means such as surgery or radiotherapy carries certain risks, with some patients experiencing impotence, urinary problems and bowel trouble, among other unwanted side effects. Safer and less invasive treatment options could soon be on the table, however, including a novel MRI-guided ultrasound technique that eliminated significant cancers in 80 percent of subjects in a year-long study.

The new technique is called MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) and has been under development for a number of years. The minimally invasive technology involves a rod that enters the prostate gland via the urethra and emits highly controlled sound waves in order to heat and destroy diseased tissue, while leaving healthy tissue unharmed.

These waves come from 10 heating elements built into the length of the rod to treat the entire prostate gland. An algorithm controls which of these elements emit the sound waves at any one time, along with their shape, direction and strength. All of this takes place within an MRI scanner, allowing doctors to keep a close eye on which tissues are being heated and by how much.

jimmyg 12-22-2019 07:38 AM

Why it can be hard to stop eating even when you’re full: Some foods may be designed that way

December 6, 2019 8.09am EST Authors: Tera Fazzino Kaitlyn Rohde

All foods are not created equal. Most are palatable, or tasty to eat, which is helpful because we need to eat to survive. For example, a fresh apple is palatable to most people and provides vital nutrients and calories.

But certain foods, such as pizza, potato chips and chocolate chip cookies, are almost irresistible. They’re always in demand at parties, and they’re easy to keep eating, even when we are full.

In these foods, a synergy between key ingredients can create an artificially enhanced palatability experience that is greater than any key ingredient would produce alone. Researchers call this hyperpalatability. Eaters call it delicious.

Initial studies suggest that foods with two or more key ingredients linked to palatability – specifically, sugar, salt, fat or carbohydrates – can activate brain-reward neurocircuits similarly to drugs like cocaine or opioids. They may also be able to bypass mechanisms in our bodies that make us feel full and tell us to stop eating.

Our research focuses on rewarding foods, addictive behaviors and obesity. We recently published a study with nutritional scientist Debra Sullivan that identifies three clusters of key ingredients that can make foods hyperpalatable. Using those definitions, we estimated that nearly two-thirds of foods widely consumed in the U.S. fall into at least one of those three groups.

Documentaries like “Fed Up’ (2014) have linked obesity to food industry practices and American eating habits.

Cracking the codes

Foods that are highly rewarding, easily accessible and cheap are everywhere in our society. Unsurprisingly, eating them has been associated with obesity.

Documentaries in the last 15-20 years have reported that food companies have developed formulas to make palatable foods so enticing. However, manufacturers typically guard their recipes as trade secrets, so academic scientists can’t study them.

Instead, researchers have used descriptive definitions to capture what makes some foods hyperpalatable. For example, in his 2012 book ”Your Food Is Fooling You: How Your Brain Is Hijacked by Sugar, Fat, and Salt,“ David Kessler, former Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), wrote:

"What are these foods? …. Some are sweetened drinks, chips, cookies, candy, and other snack foods. Then, of course, there are fast food meals – fried chicken, pizza, burgers, and fries.”

But these definitions are not standardized, so it is hard to compare results across studies. And they fail to identify the relevant ingredients. Our study sought to establish a quantitative definition of hyperpalatable foods and then use it to determine how prevalent these foods are in the U.S.

Three key clusters

We conducted our work in two parts. First we carried out a literature search to identify scientific articles that used descriptive definitions of the full range of palatable foods. We entered these foods into standardized nutrition software to obtain detailed data on the nutrients they contained.

Next we used a graphing procedure to determine whether certain foods appeared to cluster together. We then used the clusters to inform our numeric definition. We found that hyperpalatable foods fell into three distinct clusters:

Fat and sodium, with more than 25% of total calories (abbreviated as kcal) from fat and at least 0.30% sodium per gram per serving. Bacon and pizza are examples.

Fat and simple sugars, with more than 20% kcal from fat and more than 20% kcal from simple sugars. Cake is an example.

Carbohydrates and sodium, with over 40% kcal from carbohydrates and at least 0.20% sodium per gram per serving. Buttered popcorn is an example.

Then we applied our definition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies, or FNDDS, which catalogs foods that Americans report eating in a biennial federal survey on nutrition and health. The database contained 7,757 food items that we used in our analysis.

Over 60% of these foods met our criteria for hyperpalatability. Among them, 70% were in the fat/sodium cluster, including many meats, meat-based dishes, omelets and cheese dips. Another 25% fell into the fat/simple sugars cluster, which included sweets and desserts, but also foods such as glazed carrots and other vegetables cooked with fat and sugar.

Finally, 16% were in the carbohydrate/sodium cluster, which consisted of carbohydrate-dense meal items like pizza, plus breads, cereals and snack foods. Fewer than 10% of foods fell into multiple clusters.

We also looked at which of the USDA’s food categories contained the most hyperpalatable foods. Over 70% of meats, eggs and grain-based foods in the FNDDS met our criteria for hyperpalatability. We were surprised to find that 49% of foods labeled as containing “reduced,” “low”, or zero levels of sugar, fat, salt and/or calories qualified as hyperpalatable.

Finally, we considered whether our definition captured what we hypothesized it would capture. It identified more than 85% of foods labeled as fast or fried, as well as sweets and desserts. Conversely, it did not capture foods that we hypothesized were not hyperpalatable, such as raw fruits, meats or fish, or 97% of raw vegetables.

Tackling obesity

If scientific evidence supporting our proposed definition of hyperpalatable foods accumulates, and it shows that our definition is associated with overeating and obesity-related outcomes, our findings could be used in several ways.

First, the FDA could require hyperpalatable foods to be labeled – an approach that would alert consumers to what they may be eating while preserving consumer choice. The agency also could regulate or limit specific combinations of ingredients, as a way to reduce the chance of people finding foods that contain them difficult to stop eating.

Consumers also could consider the role of hyperpalatable foods in their own lives. Our team needs to do further work validating our definition before we translate it for the public, but as a first step, individuals can examine whether the foods they eat contain multiple ingredients such as fat and sodium, particularly at high levels. Recent surveys show increased interest among U.S. consumers in making informed food choices, although they often aren’t sure which sources to trust.

One starting point for people concerned about healthy eating is to consume foods that are unlikely to be hyperpalatable – items that occur naturally and have few or no additional ingredients, such as fresh fruit. As food writer Michael Pollan recommends, “Don’t eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food.”

Slide Rule 12-22-2019 11:27 AM

Self reported obesity?

I doubt people are self reporting.

How about an example of one report signed by a person.

Now their doctor, or some government agency may very
well send in your classifications. They know better don't
you know.

Some may call me obese, but I dare them to say it to
my face unless they wish a kick to the groin.


jimmyg 12-28-2019 11:50 AM

Study: Those with Higher LDL Cholesterol Levels Live the Longest

Another new study

by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick /


Question: If a tree falls in the forest, and there’s nobody around to hear, does it make a sound?

This is a philosophical question that has been around for some time. I shall change it slightly to the following: “If a journal publishes a study, and it doesn’t make a noise, can it make a difference?”

A couple of weeks ago the Lancet published a ridiculous study with the snappy title:

‘Application of non-HDL cholesterol for population-based cardiovascular risk stratification: results from the Multinational Cardiovascular Risk Consortium.’

Which created headlines around the world – most of which failed to understand the difference between LDL (‘bad’ cholesterol) and non-HDL cholesterol. Which may, or may not, have been deliberately done.

This study was reported as saying that twenty-five-year olds should get their cholesterol checked, because raised cholesterol is far more damaging, at a young age, than previously thought. All based on, pretty much nothing at all. I critiqued it in my last blog. It was, to use a word I rather like … bilge!

Then another study came out last week to which I was pointed by a reader of this blog… thanks. It had the even snappier title:

‘Association between hyperlipidaemia and mortality after incident acute myocardial infarction or acute decompensated heart failure: a propensity score matched cohort study and a meta-analysis.’ 1

You know that title really does not scream ‘READ ME!’ What is it about medical journals, and medical writing, which demands all enthusiasm and interest is sucked out, leaving only the driest, of dry, husks. I call it mummified prose.

What I first noticed was that it did not appear to make any headlines, anywhere, at all. Of course, making enough noise to be heard, in today’s jittery, overloaded information world, takes a lot of money and effort. Which is why the Lancet study got blanket coverage. Someone, somewhere, will have been paid a lot of money to ensure that it happened.

The money was paid because there are people who stand to make billions and billions from increased cholesterol testing, including younger people, and suggesting that “raised” cholesterol must be ‘treated’ from an ever-younger age. Perhaps you would like to guess who those people may be.

On the other hand, the study ‘Association between hyperlipidaemia and mortality after incident acute myocardial infarction or acute decompensated heart failure: a propensity score matched cohort study and a meta-analysis.’ could result in the loss of billions and billions.

Because what they found, was that, after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and in people with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) – normally caused by a previous MI – the higher the LDL level, the lower the overall mortality. They called a higher LDL level hyperlipidaemia (HLP), but it was a high LDL a.k.a. ‘bad’ cholesterol.

The ‘association’ of which they spoke, is in the exact opposite direction to that in the Lancet study. Just to repeat their main finding. Those with higher LDL levels lived the longest. Full stop, exclamation mark.

Of course, the comment is couched in such diplomatic language that I am not absolutely sure what is meant by it, although I am pretty sure.

On that basis, I shall wind up the emotion of the language somewhat. ‘These poor people, who are dreadfully ill, who have suffered the agony of a heart attack, or severe heart failure, fare so much better when they have a high LDL level. So, for pity’s sake, I beseech thee in the name of God, do not try to lower their LDL level you mad fools. Aaaaaarrrrrrrrggggghhhhh! Gasp, bonk.’

Maybe a touch too emotive? Oh well – after reading too many clinical papers, the temptation to shout become irresistible. Creeping around in the grey and lifeless world of the passive voice is not really my style. Science should not be a place of hushed diplomacy. Science should be lively and stimulating, nay argumentative. If you’ve got something to say, shout it out. Fight for it and debate it properly.

Anyway, my original question was the following. ‘If a journal publishes a study, and it doesn’t make a noise, can it make a difference?’ The answer is, almost certainly, no. Hopefully, however, I have now made a bit of noise, and maybe this study can make a bit of difference.


jimmyg 12-30-2019 07:38 AM

Big Pharma Money Really Does Influence What Doctors Prescribe, Report Finds


Ed Cara - 12/20/19 5:30PM

A new ProPublica report out Friday confirms what many people already suspect about Big Pharma’s influence on health care: Doctors who get money from a pharmaceutical company related to a specific brand name drug are more likely to prescribe that same, often expensive drug to their patients.

It’s no secret that pharmaceutical companies spend plenty of money on doctors and scientists—upwards of over a billion dollars annually in the U.S. This money can range from offering doctors free pens and dinners to paying them to give talks at sponsored conferences and events. And there’s been steady evidence these payments can subtly influence how doctors behave, both in their interactions with patients and in the research they carry out.

“What we can say is that this is a component of the larger injustice that is American healthcare.”

A 2016 report by ProPublica, for instance, found that the more doctors were paid by the industry, the more they prescribed brand name drugs in general. Other research has found that this increased brand name prescribing happens even when doctors are given a free meal worth less than $20. But according to the author of this latest report, Hannah Fresques, what’s been missing is a comprehensive analysis of the practice on an individual drug level.

“We specifically drilled down to see which drugs were promoted in each interaction that our records provided evidence of,” Fresques told Gizmodo by phone.

Fresques and others used data from the Open Payments program, a project started in 2014 to track industry payments made to doctors and teaching hospitals by companies that sell drugs and medical products covered by federally provided insurance plans like Medicare. They then cross-referenced this information with prescription data from doctors who had billed Medicare’s Part D prescription drug program in 2016.

Across 50 of the most commonly prescribed brand name drugs that year, they found the same pattern. For instance, when doctors got payments related to a drug used to treat irritable bowel syndrome called Linzess from the drug’s makers, Allergan and Ironwood, they were 45 percent more likely to prescribe the drug on average than non-funded doctors. The same relationship was true for 46 out of 50 drugs, with prescription rates on average 58 percent higher for industry-funded doctors. And 38 of the 50 drugs cost more than $1,000 a year per patient.

Other popular drugs included the opioid pain medication Oxycontin, the high cholesterol drug Crestor, and the anti-blood clotting drug Xarelto.

The companies, lobbyists, and funded doctors interviewed by Fresques were defensive about the findings.

“I’m more educated towards the drug, because I have to be trained to speak on it, so I’m more comfortable prescribing it,” Huey Nguyen, a gastroenterologist in southern Indiana who had received over $7,000 between 2013 to 2018 as a promotional speaker for Linzess, told ProPublica. And while denying that the financial relationship he had with Allergan and other companies had influenced his care for patients, he added that it was “perfectly reasonable for people to question my motives.”

“Even if doctors themselves would say that this isn’t affecting their judgment, there’s research showing that it’s possible it does. The other worry is that it erodes trust between patients and doctors.” Fresques said. “I think a lot of patients don’t know that these kind of activities take place, and it’s valuable information to have.”

The report wasn’t intended to find out whether these payments have had any particular negative effect on patients’ health. Fresques does note, though, that Medicare Part D could have saved nearly $3 billion in 2016 if it had only paid for the available generic versions of brand name drugs. And according to Nicholas Evans, a bioethicist at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, it’s clear that the practice has a pernicious effect on medicine as a whole.

“We don’t know, for sure, in all cases, if this is connected to worse healthcare and health outcomes. What we can say is that this is a component of the larger injustice that is American healthcare,” Evans told Gizmodo in an email. “If it is true that this is how doctors receive information about new drugs and guidance on prescribing, that’s horrible, because what we’re saying is that the marketplace for new medical knowledge is just that: one in which knowledge about drugs is governed by who can pay to promote their product. That’s no way to run a health system. It’s a way to make money, and not much else.”

Moreover, he said, the report should serve as a reminder that swaying doctors through free dinners is just one example of how the pharmaceutical industry squeezes profit at the expense of patients. And they’ll stop at nothing to keep it that way.

“The kinds of reform we’re talking about right now—the various plans lumped into ‘Medicare For All’—would take away some of the power pharmaceutical companies have to dictate prescriptions via promotional materials,” he said. “That, in my mind, is a good thing, because medicine should be governed by evidence, not marketing. But pharmaceutical companies and their industry lobbying groups will oppose this because it goes against their bottom line by limiting the ways they can affect prescriber behavior.”

jimmyg 12-31-2019 10:12 AM

Visualising the Amount of Microplastic We Eat

December 31st, 2019

Great graphics: Via: Reuters:

Microscopic pieces of plastic have been discovered in the most remote locations, from the depths of the ocean to Arctic ice. Another place that plastic is appearing is inside our bodies. We’re breathing microplastic, eating it and drinking plastic-infused water every day.

Plastic does not biodegrade.
Instead, it breaks down into smaller pieces, and ultimately ends up everywhere, including in the food chain. Pieces that are less than five millimeters in length, around the size of a sesame seed, are called “microplastics.”

Dozens of reports have been published on microplastics but the scientific community is still only scratching the surface of understanding just how much plastic we consume and how harmful it could be.

People could be ingesting the equivalent of a credit card of plastic a week
, a recent study by WWF International concluded, mainly in drinking water but also via sources like shellfish, which tend to be eaten whole so the plastic in their digestive systems is also consumed.

jimmyg 01-04-2020 09:14 AM

jimmyg 01-05-2020 08:54 AM

“Shit-Life Syndrome,” Trump Voters, and Clueless Dems

January 5th, 2020

Via: Counterpunch:

For most of these low-wage workers, Hutton notes: “Finding meaning in life is close to impossible; the struggle to survive commands all intellectual and emotional resources. Yet turn on the TV or visit a middle-class shopping mall and a very different and unattainable world presents itself. Knowing that you are valueless, you resort to drugs, antidepressants and booze. You eat junk food and watch your ill-treated body balloon. It is not just poverty, but growing relative poverty in an era of rising inequality, with all its psychological side-effects, that is the killer.”

Shit-life syndrome is not another fictitious illness conjured up by the psychiatric-pharmaceutical industrial complex to sell psychotropic drugs. It is a reality created by corporatist rulers and their lackey politicians—pretending to care about their minimum-wage-slave constituents, who are trying to survive on 99¢ boxed macaroni and cheese prepared in carcinogenic water, courtesy of DuPont or some other such low-life leviathan.

strmanglr scott 01-05-2020 09:31 AM


Originally Posted by jimmyg (Post 6551784)
“Shit-Life Syndrome,” Trump Voters, and Clueless Dems

January 5th, 2020

Via: Counterpunch:

For most of these low-wage workers, Hutton notes: “Finding meaning in life is close to impossible; the struggle to survive commands all intellectual and emotional resources. Yet turn on the TV or visit a middle-class shopping mall and a very different and unattainable world presents itself. Knowing that you are valueless, you resort to drugs, antidepressants and booze. You eat junk food and watch your ill-treated body balloon. It is not just poverty, but growing relative poverty in an era of rising inequality, with all its psychological side-effects, that is the killer.”

Shit-life syndrome is not another fictitious illness conjured up by the psychiatric-pharmaceutical industrial complex to sell psychotropic drugs. It is a reality created by corporatist rulers and their lackey politicians—pretending to care about their minimum-wage-slave constituents, who are trying to survive on 99¢ boxed macaroni and cheese prepared in carcinogenic water, courtesy of DuPont or some other such low-life leviathan.

That's a load of horsesh!t. Surprised you posted such garbage.

Income gap has actually been closing the last couple years. There will always be a "poor" America, no matter how well the economy does. There will always be people who choose drugs over life. Drugs cost money. Drop the drugs, now that person has some money to spend elsewhere, like the mall.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:31 AM.
Page 211 of 212 « First 111161201209210211 212

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.