Connect with us

Underworld

The Story of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia

The Story of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia 94
  • The Facts:The Facts:This article was written by Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo.com where this article was originally published. Posted here with permission.
  • Reflect On:Modern day definitions of Osteopenia & Osteoporosis were conceived by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the early 90’s and then projected upon millions of women’s bodies in order to convince them they had a drug-treatable disease.

Osteopenia (1992)[i] and Osteoporosis (1994)[ii] were formally identified as skeletal diseases by the World Health Organization (HTO) as bone mineral densities (BMD) 1 and 2.5 standard deviations, respectively, below the peak bone mass of an average young adult Caucasian female, as measured by an x-ray device known as Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA, or DEXA). This technical definition, now used widely around the world as the gold standard, is disturbingly inept, and as we shall see, likely conceals an agenda that has nothing to do with the promotion of health.

Deviant Standards: Aging Transformed Into a Disease

A ‘standard deviation’ is simply a quantity calculated to indicate the extent of deviation for a group as a whole, i.e. within any natural population there will be folks with higher and lower biological values, e.g. height, weight, bone mineral density, cholesterol levels. The choice of an average young adult female (approximately 30-year old) at peak bone mass in the human lifecycle as the new standard of normality for all women 30 or older, was, of course, not only completely arbitrary but also highly illogical. After all, why should a 80-year old’s bones be defined as “abnormal” if they are less dense than a 30-year old’s?

Within the WHO’s new BMD definitions the aging process is redefined as a disease, and these definitions targeted women, much in the same way that menopause was once redefined as a “disease” that needed to be treated with synthetic hormone replacement (HRT) therapies; that is, before the whole house of cards collapsed with the realization that by “treating” menopause as a disease the medical establishment was causing far more harm than good, e.g. heart disease, stroke and cancer.

As if to fill the void left by the HRT debacle and the disillusionment of millions of women, the WHO’s new definitions resulted in the diagnosis, and subsequent labeling, of millions of healthy middle-aged and older women with what they were now being made to believe was another “health condition,” serious enough to justify the use of expensive and extremely dangerous bone drugs (and equally dangerous mega-doses of elemental calcium) in the pursuit of increasing bone density by any means necessary. 

One thing that cannot be debated, as it is now a matter of history, is that this sudden transformation of healthy women, who suffered no symptoms of “low bone mineral density,” into an at-risk, treatment-appropriate group, served to generate billions of dollars of revenue for DXA device manufacturers, doctor visits, and drug prescriptions around the world.

WHO Are They Kidding?

Osteopenia is, in fact, a medical and diagnostic non-entity.  The term itself describes nothing more than a statistical deviation from an arbitrarily determined numerical value or norm.   According to the osteoporosis epidemiologist Dr. L. Joseph Melton at the Mayo Clinic who participated in setting the original WHO criteria in 1992, “[osteopenia] was just meant to indicate the emergence of a problem,” and noted that “It didn’t have any particular diagnostic or therapeutic significance. It was just meant to show a huge group who looked like they might be at risk.”[iii] Another expert, Michael McClung, director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, criticized the newly adopted disease category osteopenia by saying ”We have medicalized a nonproblem.”[iv]

In reality, the WHO definitions violate both commonsense and fundamental facts of biological science (sadly, an increasingly prevalent phenomenon within drug company-funded science).  After all, anyone over 30 years of age should have lower bone density than a 30 year old, as this is consistent with the normal and natural healthy aging process.  And yet, according to the WHO definition of osteopenia, the eons-old programming of our bodies to gradually shed bone density as we age, is to be considered a faulty design and/or pathology in need of medical intervention.

How the WHO, or any other organization which purports to be a science-based “medical authority,” can make an ostensibly educated public believe that the natural thinning of the bones is not normal, or more absurdly: a disease, is astounding. In defense of the public, the cryptic manner in which these definitions and diagnoses have been cloaked in obscure mathematical and clinical language makes it rather difficult for the layperson to discern just how outright insane the logic they are employing really is.

So, let’s look closer at the definitions now, which are brilliantly elucidated by Washington.edu’s published online course on Bone Densitometry, which can viewed in its entirety here.

The Manufacture of a Disease through Categorical Sleight-of-Hand

The Story of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia 95

The image above shows the natural decrease in hip bone density occurring with age, with variations in race and gender depicted.  Observe that loss of bone mineral density with age is a normal process.

The Story of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia 96

Next, is the classical bell-shaped curve, from which T- and Z-scores are based.  T-sores are based on the young adult standard (30-year old) bone density as being normal for everyone, regardless of age, whereas the much more logical Z-score compares your bone mineral density to that of your age group, as well as sex and ethnic background.  Now here’s where it gets disturbingly clear how ridiculous the T-score really system is….

The Story of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia 97

Above is an image showing how within the population of women used to determine “normal” bone mineral density, e.g. 30-year olds, 16% of them already “have” osteopenia” according to the WHO definitions, and 3% already “have” osteoporosis! According to Washington.edu’s online course “One standard deviation is at the 16th percentile, so by definition 16% of young women have osteopenia! As shown below, by the time women reach age 80, very few are considered normal.”

The Story of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia 98

Above you will see what happens when the WHO definitions of “normal bone density” are applied to aging populations. Whereas at age 25, 15% of the population will “have” osteopenia, by age 50 the number grows to 33%. And by age 65, 60% will be told they have either osteopenia (40%) or osteoporosis (20%).

On the other hand, if one uses the Z-score, which compares your bones to that of your age group, something remarkable happens: a huge burden of “disease” disappears!  In a review on the topic published in 2009 in the Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 30-39% of the subjects who had been diagnosed with osteoporosis with two different DXA machine models were reclassified as either normal or “osteopenic” when the Z- score was used instead of the T-score. The table therefore can be turned on the magician-like sleight-of-hand used to convert healthy people into diseased ones, as long as an age-appropriate standard of measurement is applied, which presently it is not.

Bone Mineral Density is NOT Equivalent to Bone Strength

As you can see there are a number of insurmountable problems with the WHO’s definitions, but perhaps the most fatal flaw is the fact that the Dual energy X-ray absorpitometry device (DXA) is only capable of revealing the mineral density of the bone, and this is not the same thing as bone quality/strength.

While there is a correlation between bone mineral density and bone quality/strength – that is to say, they overlap in places — they are not equivalent.  In other words, density, while an excellent indicator of compressive strength (resisting breaking when being crushed by a static weight), is not an accurate indicator of tensile strength (resisting breaking when being pulled or stretched).

Indeed, in some cases having higher bone density indicates that the bone is actually weaker. Glass, for instance, has high density and compressive strength, but it is extremely brittle and lacks the tensile strength required to withstand easily shattering in a fall. Wood, on the other hand, which is closer in nature to human bone than glass or stone is less dense relative to these materials, but also extremely strong relative to them, capable of bending and stretching to withstand the very same forces which the bone is faced with during a fall.  Or, take spider web. It is has infinitely greater strength and virtually no density. Given these facts, having “high” bone density (and thereby not having osteoporosis) may actually increase the risk of fracture in a real-life scenario like a fall.

Essentially, the WHO definitions distract from key issues surrounding bone quality and real world bone fracture risks, such as gait and vision disorders.[v] In other words, if you are able to see and move correctly in our body, you are less likely to fall, which means you are less prone to fracture. Keep in mind also that the quality of human bone depends entirely on dietary and lifestyle patterns and choices, and unlike x-ray-based measurements, bone quality is not decomposable to strictly numerical values, e.g. mineral density scores.  Vitamin K2 and soy isoflavones, for instance, significantly reduce bone fracture rates without increasing bone density.  Scoring high on bone density tests may save a woman from being intimidated into taking dangerous drugs or swallowing massive doses of elemetal calcium, but it may not translate into preventing “osteoporosis,” which to the layperson means the risk of breaking a bone.  But high bone mineral density may result in far worse problems…

High Bone Mineral Density & Breast Cancer

One of the most important facts about bone mineral density, conspicuously absent from discussion, is that having higher-than-normal bone density in middle-aged and older women actually INCREASES their risk of breast cancer by 200-300%, and this is according to research published in some of the world’s most well-respected and authoritative journals, e.g. Lancet, JAMA, NCI. (see citations below).

While it has been known for at least fifteen years that high bone density profoundly increases the risk of breast cancer — and particularly malignant breast cancer — the issue has been given little to no attention, likely because it contradicts the propaganda expounded by mainstream woman’s health advocacy organizations. Breast cancer awareness programs focus on x-ray based breast screenings as a form of “early detection,” and the National Osteoporosis Foundation’s entire platform is based on expounding the belief that increasing bone mineral density for osteoporosis prevention translates into improved quality and length of life for women.

The research, however, is not going away, and eventually these organizations will have to acknowledge it, or risk losing credibility.

Journal of the American Medical Association (1996): Women with bone mineral density above the 25th percentile have 2.0 to 2.5 times increased risk of breast cancer compared with women below the 25th percentile.

Journal of Nutrition Reviews (1997): Postmenopausal women in the highest quartile for metacarpal bone mass were found to have an increased risk of developing breast cancer, after adjusting for age and other variables known to influence breast cancer risk.

American Journal of Epidemiology (1998): Women with a positive family history of breast cancer and who are in the highest tertile bone mineral density are at a 3.41-fold increased risk compared with women in the lowest tertile.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2001): Elderly women with high bone mineral density (BMD) have up to 2.7 times greater risk of breast cancer, especially advanced cancer, compared with women with low BMD.

Journal Breast (2001): Women in the lowest quartile of bone mass appear to be protected against breast cancer.

Journal Bone (2003): Higher bone density (upper 33%) is associated with a 2-fold increased risk of breast cancer.

European Journal of Epidemiology (2004): Women with highest tertile bone mineral density (BMD) measured at the Ward’s triangle and at the femoral neck are respectively at 2.2-and 3.3-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared with women at the lowest tertile of BMD.

View additional citations on the breast cancer-bone density link.

High Bone Density: More Harm Than Good

The present-day fixation within the global medical community on “osteoporosis prevention” as a top women’s health concern, is simply not supported by the facts. The #1 cause of death in women today is heart disease, and the #2 cause of death is cancer, particularly breast cancer, and not death from complications associated with a bone fracture or break.  In fact, in the grand scheme of things osteoporosis or low bone mineral density does not even make the CDC’s top ten list of causes of female mortality. So, why is it given such a high place within the hierarchy of women’s health concerns? Is it a business decision or a medical one?

Regardless of the reason or motive, the obsessive fixation on bone mineral density is severely undermining the overall health of women. For example, the mega-dose calcium supplements being taken by millions of women to “increase bone mineral density” are known to increase the risk of heart attack by between 24-27%, according to two 2011 meta-analyses published in Lancet, and 86% according to a more recent meta-analysis published in the journal Heart. Given the overwhelming evidence, the 1200+ mgs of elemental calcium the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) recommends women 50 and older take to “protect their bones,” may very well be inducing coronary artery spasms, heart attacks and calcified arterial plaque in millions of women. Considering that the NOF name calcium supplement manufacturers Citrical and Oscal as corporate sponsors, it is unlikely their message will change anytime soon.

Now, when we consider the case of increased breast cancer risk linked to high bone mineral density, being diagnosed with osteopenia or osteoporosis would actually indicate a significantly reduced risk of developing the disease. What is more concerning to women: breaking a bone (from which one can heal), or developing breast cancer? If it is the latter, a low BMD reading could be considered cause for celebration and not depression, fear and the continued ingestion of inappropriate medications or supplements, which is usually the case following a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis.

We hope this article will put to rest any doubts that the WHO’s fixation on high bone density was designed not to protect or improve the health of women, but rather to convert the natural aging process into a blockbuster disease, capable of generating billions of dollars of revenue.

Learn more on the GreenMedInfo database:

References

(i) WHO Scientific Group on the Prevention and Management of Osteoporosis (2000 : Geneva, Switzerland) (2003). “Prevention and management of osteoporosis : report of a WHO scientific group” (PDF). Retrieved 2007-05-31.

(ii) WHO (1994). “Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group”. World Health Organization technical report series 843: 1-129. PMID 7941614.

(iii) Kolata, Gina (September 28, 2003). “Bone Diagnosis Gives New Data But No Answers”. New York Times.

 (v )P Dargent-Molina, F Favier, H Grandjean, C Baudoin, A M Schott, E Hausherr, P J Meunier, G Bréart Fall-related factors and risk of hip fracture: the EPIDOS prospective study. Lancet. 1996 Jul 20;348(9021):145-9. PMID: 8684153

Originally published: 2017-11-18

Articule updated: 2019-08-23

Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here.

Link to the original article.

Source link

Comments

Underworld

Raised by Wolves: Microsoft has been tasked with developing a global digital passport

Raised by Wolves: Microsoft has been tasked with developing a global digital passport 99
Photo: Raised by Wolves, directed by Ridley Scott and Aaron Guzikowski

According to the Hill, a coalition of medical and technology organizations is working to develop a digital COVID-19 vaccination passport that will allow businesses, airlines and countries to check whether people have received the vaccine. 

The vaccination initiative, announced Thursday, is developing technology to confirm vaccinations, with the likelihood that some governments will require people to provide proof of their vaccinations to enter the country.

The organization hopes the technology will enable people to “demonstrate their health to safely return to travel, work, school and life, while protecting the privacy of their data.”

The initiative, which includes members such as Microsoft, Oracle and the American non-profit Mayo Clinic, is using the results of the Commons Project’s international digital document confirming a negative COVID-19 test, according to the Financial Times.

The Commons Project technology, created in partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation , is already being used by three major airline alliances.

The coalition is reportedly in talks with several governments to create a program requiring either negative tests or proof of vaccination, Paul Meyer, executive director of The Commons Project, told the Times.

“The goal of the Vaccine Initiative is to give people digital access to their vaccination records so they can use tools like CommonPass to safely return to travel, work, school and life while protecting the privacy of their data ,” Meier said in a statement. …

People who have been vaccinated are currently receiving a sheet of paper confirming their vaccination, he said, but the coalition could develop a digital certificate using electronic health records.

The technology should allow patients to keep their data safe by being available in a digital wallet or physical QR code so that they can regulate who sees the information.

The Vaccine Initiative assumes that certain businesses, such as event organizers and universities, will require their consumers, students and employees to provide proof of vaccination , the Times reported.

Mike Sicily, executive vice president of Oracle Global Business Units, says in a statement that a passport “should be as simple as online banking.”

“We are committed to working together with the technology and medical communities, as well as with global governments, to ensure that people have safe access to this information, no matter where and when they may need it,” he added.

The project is also evolving as new strains of COVID-19 emerge around the world, including the spread of a more contagious variant that has been found in the United Kingdom.

It should be understood that only those travelers who received the RIGHT vaccine will receive permission to fly and cross borders.

Are people really vaccinated? Are we being raised by wolves?

The material is taken from the public website of this biotech giant, founded in 2010 to develop drugs and vaccines based on messenger RNA (mRNA) technologies. The company became known to our readers due to the launch of the eponymous vaccine against the Covid-19 virus on the market.

Quotes:

“Recognizing the wide potential of mRNA science, we decided to create a technological platform for mRNA that is very similar to the operating system on a computer. It is designed so that it can be connected and interchangeable with various programs. In our case, the “program” or “application” is our mRNA preparation – a unique mRNA sequence that encodes a protein.

“May 1, 2020 Moderna, Inc. and Lonza Ltd. today announced a 10-year strategic collaboration agreement to enable large-scale production of Moderna mRNA vaccine (mRNA-1273) against the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) .

The primary conclusion is that the so-called Moderna vaccine is not at all like traditional vaccines, which use live or dead, natural or engineered parts of the RNA of the virus, designed to induce an immune response and form antibodies in the body.

The drug “mRNA-1273” is not a vaccine against a virus, but, in fact, is an artificial bioprogrammed virus.

Based on the author’s definition of the mRNA platform as an analogue of a computer operating system, if you adhere to the declared letter, it should be recognized: the drug is intended for (re) programming the human body by (re) coding its protein. In other words, the masks are off, the mRNA platform is the place where Big Pharma teams up with Big Tech, justifying the darkest predictions yesterday by science fiction writers, and today by realists.

If you take a good walk around the Moderna website, you will find very interesting things.

For example, the company clearly recognizes that a healthy immune system poses a threat to mRNA, since an intense immune response can destroy the platform before it even starts to act and which can lead to negative results, which can include molecular deficiency and hormonal defects, and cause seizures, allergic reactions, infertility and other side effects, but at the same time it does not form a targeted immune response to coronavirus proteins at all. 

In addition, the self (re) programming of cells is necessary in order for them to be open for the reception and delivery of various drugs, the effectiveness of which is often significantly reduced due to rejection by the body.

What this means: a healthy immune system after the introduction of the drug “mRNA-1273” is (re) programmed either unpredictably or predictably, but for the further purposes of the Moderna company, which is vitally interested in the fact that the human body is further open for access to pharmaceutical companies … The immune system actually breaks open, opening the door for any biotechnological experiments on the human body.

Due to the fact that such biotechnologies are at the beginning of the path, which is always associated with a great risk to life, the Moderna company at the legislative level is exempted by the US Congress from liability for the consequences of the use of its drugs. Also, by the way, like the Pfizer company.

Is this an explanation of the reason for the planned mass vaccination of all people in 2021, as well as the “sharp aggravation of the pandemic” in the world media?

Continue Reading

Underworld

Freemasonry calendar for 2021 and the next 25 years: Earthlink & BrainTrust

Freemasonry calendar for 2021 and the next 25 years: Earthlink & BrainTrust 100

With the onset of the covid pandemic, vaccinations, immunization passports and other such miracles, conspiracy theorists were surprised to find that all this was written in plain text on the Internet many years ago. The people who determine the strategic course of the world have communicated their plans quite openly. Until a certain moment, no one paid attention to these plans.

However, now that everything that is happening has become more or less clear, many enthusiasts began to re-read the texts with great interest and revise the videos of 2010 and earlier years, trying to find in them both indications of the events taking place around the current events and the events that will follow. The next discovery of this kind was a video from 2008 from Casaleggio Associati – a small Masonic organization somehow connected with Gianroberto Casaleggio.

From the first visit, the conspiracy theorists did not manage to dig very deeply, but, according to the first impression, we are talking about regional masonry of a not very high level of management, so there is clearly not all the information there, especially information for showing the general public.

Nevertheless, some crumbs of knowledge are still better than its complete absence, so we will retell the video in general terms. The first five minutes there is an introductory one, which tells about the great thinkers of the Renaissance who opposed Genghis Khan and wanted to arrange the world correctly and justly. This desire lasted for centuries, until the baton passed to the US Democratic Party and the Bilderberg Club. Then, from the middle of the fifth minute of the video, the most interesting part begins.

In 2018, according to the forecast from 2008, the world will be divided into two blocks – the block of good guys who live in Europe, and the block of bad guys who live in China and its satellites: The war between the blocks begins in 2020 with the use of bacteriological weapons. The war will last 20 years. During the war, such cultural monuments as Reims Cathedral, St. Peter’s Square and the Sagrada Familia will be destroyed, which suggests that there will be no stone unturned from Italy, France and Spain.

Also, in addition to biological weapons, at the first stage of the war, climate weapons will be used, which will cause a rise in ocean level by 12 meters with all the ensuing consequences. There will also be a world famine and a rejection of fossil fuels – tanks by the end of the war will be some kind of electric. As a result of this, the West will win by 2040, but there will be no more than a billion people on the planet who will be offered a single electric passport and a networked democracy, which will be controlled by the World Government and Earthlink Artificial Intelligence.

Earthlink will start operating in 2043, a single passport will be issued in 2047, and in 2050 there will be the so-called BrainTrust – collective social intelligence: When BrainTrust starts working, people will connect their brains into a network and collectively choose the World Government, which will lead them, proclaiming the coming of the Era of the New World Order. It will appear in 2054. Here is such an interesting Masonic tale of the 2008 model. Oddly enough, but so far the chronology is being observed and the prophecy is coming true.

Continue Reading

Underworld

Covid-19: The Great Reset -Pandemic targets declared

Covid-19: The Great Reset -Pandemic targets declared 101

The working class of the United States is in despair. This was stated by Senator Bernie Sanders on his Twitter page. He also wrote that the US Congress should listen to the people and provide a one-time payment of $ 1,200 to each member of the working class.

“Maybe – just maybe – it’s time for Congress to listen to the American people and send out survival checks for $ 1,200 to working-class Americans who are now in such despair,” Sanders said.

On March 25, the U.S. Congress approved a one-time payment of $ 1,200 to every adult U.S. citizen. The purpose of the payment was to mitigate the social impact of quarantine measures and the coronavirus pandemic.

Sanders is in favor of re-payment, as the crisis caused by the quarantine and pandemics is not only not overcome, but is developing.

However, it is quite possible that not only American workers will receive benefits soon. 

The FGC website spoke about the book “Covid-19: The Great Reset”, published in the summer of 2020 in Europe. The authors of the book are Klaus Schwab, founder and permanent leader of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and Thierry Mallre, who is presented as a futurist.

By the end of 2020, the book should be published in German, French, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese and Korean.

The main ideas of the book about “great reset” are already diverging.

First , the COVID-19 pandemic is a “unique window of opportunity.” It is through this window that humanity must be introduced into the future. No return to the past! “Many people ask: when will we return to normal life? The short answer is never. Our story will be divided into two parts: before the coronavirus and after. “

Secondly , the “bright future” is a world where the distinctions between rich and poor countries will be erased, and over time state borders will be destroyed. A single planetary state with a single government will emerge: “The question of the World Government is at the center of all issues.” Further, Schwab writes: “With the introduction of lockdown, our attachment to loved ones increases, we value more those whom we love – family members and friends. But the downside here is that it causes a rise in patriotic and national feelings, along with dark religious beliefs and ethnic preferences. And this toxic mixture brings out the worst in us … “Schwab makes it clear that” dark religious beliefs and ethnic preferences “will be declared war.

Third , the economy of the Brave New World must be centrally run by giant monopolies. Private property will wither away, its place will be taken by the “economy of use”, “the economy of participation”. There will be no cash, digital currencies will be introduced everywhere.

Fourthly , there will be a transition to “green” energy, it will replace hydrocarbon energy. Limits will be imposed on the consumption of water, electricity, some “environmentally hazardous” types of products (eg meat) or industrial products (eg cars). And the most radical means of reducing the burden on the natural environment will be to reduce demographic growth or even to reduce the population: “The greater the demographic growth … the higher the risk of new pandemics.”

Fifth , robotization will be completed in all spheres of the economy and public life. The book “The Great Reset” says many times about the sharp job cuts: “Until 2035, up to 86% of jobs in restaurants, 75% of jobs in trade and 59% in the entertainment industries can be automated.” “Up to 75% of restaurants can go broke due to lockdowns and subsequent social distancing measures.” “Not a single industry, not a single enterprise will remain unaffected.” It is proposed to introduce an unconditional basic income (UBI) for people who will be replaced by robots, but only if the person confirms that he is vaccinated.

Sixth , digitalization of all spheres of the economy and society will continue. An effective system will be created to monitor the behavior and movement of people, including using face recognition technologies. Quote: “To end the pandemic, a worldwide digital surveillance network must be created.”

Seventh , the new health care model will provide for regular testing, compulsory vaccination, issuance of a sanitary passport, and the establishment of restrictions and punishments for persons who evade the rules of medical discipline.

Eighth , in the spirit of transhumanism, a person will be “improved”.

The goals of the “pandemic” have been declared. With the support that the “great reset” receives from the camp of globalism, there is no doubt that the notorious “pandemic” is the beginning of the operation of the transition to the “brave new world.” Will there be forces capable of resisting the reset-globalists? .. This is an open question.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

DO NOT MISS

Trending