- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 59 Hour
- Reading permission
Definitely Snake Oil|
- Big Agri & Big Pharma
The Anglo/zionist gangsters are so pathetic that they started two World wars to impose their parasite currency on the World at Genoe in 1922 and then at Bretton Woods in 1944.
They have to force trade by parking a gangster boat in Edo Bay in 1853 and illegally infesting Tibet.
But today, they're EVEN MORE pathetic and have to do the exact opposite, putting up barriers to trade with war criminal, The Donald, and the rigged Brexit referendum.
As China's emperor wrote, "We have not the slightest need of your manufactures."
It’s official: antidepressants are not snake oil or a conspiracy
- The drugs do work: antidepressants are effective, study shows
That's like an argument where someone phones you up seven years later and offers a rebuttal.
“Depression is the single largest contributor to global disability that we have – a massive challenge for humankind,” said John Geddes, professor of epidemiological psychiatry at Oxford University. It affects around 350 million people worldwide and instances rose almost 20% from 2005-2015.
“Antidepressants are an effective tool for depression. Untreated depression is a huge problem because of the burden to society,” said Andrea Cipriani of the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre, who led the study.
And that should trigger your BS-alarm. Why are they peddling the need for anti-depressants and not the effectiveness?
Here's another clue: The study published in the Lancet took six years, Cipriani said, and included all the published and unpublished data that the scientists could find.
Yep! It's YET ANOTHER meta-study; a statistical analysis of other studies, meaning the results are only suggestive at best because a proper empirical study has not been performed.
Here's another clue: They looked at results after eight weeks of more than 500 trials involving either a drug versus placebo or comparing two different medicines.
And did they choose eight weeks because it aligned with the desired result, in the same way that Ancel Keys cherry-picked results before declaring fat and not carbohydrates are bad for you. Using all the data, Keys would have found the exact opposite result. We also know Harvard accepted bribes to support Keys's lies.
The most famous antidepressant of them all, Prozac – now out of patent and known by its generic name, fluoxetine . . .
So named because it's mostly just fluoride, the by-product from nukilar reactors which would cost money to dispose of otherwise. So desperate are they to peddle this snake-oil that convicted war criminal, Tony Blair, was found to have used taxsucker cash to buy up HUGE amounts of it but then had to dump it somewhere, so chose to dump it into the drinking water. When caught, the war criminal claimed it must have come from those who were urinating it out. But that would mean they've been using sewage, and badly treated sewage, to supply the drinking water!
Here's more evidence which should make you wary: “We don’t have any very precise treatments for depression at this point in time,” said Geddes.
As for the lies from Ancel Keys, which have now been proven to be lies here's more propaganda denying it: Increasingly trendy low-carbohydrate diets are no more effective than traditional low-fat diets, scientists have said.
. . .
But last night experts said the research showed the key to losing weight was simply eating less.
. . .
He said the study showed the fundamental strategy for getting in shape with either a low fat, or carbohydrate, approach should be similar.
Namely, eating less sugar and refined flour and as many vegetables as possible, while prioritising whole foods - those which have been processed or refined as little as possible.
- Low-carb diets 'no better' than traditional focus on fat
Like the above propaganda for snake-oil, you should be asking why the study was done. If they're no worse than a low-fat diet, then why attack them?
As for "sugar and refined flour", they're both carbohydrates NOT fats.
And it's not clear that the low-fat and low-carb diets were comparable. Did the low-fat diet consist of 500 calories a day and the low-carb 4,000 calories for instance?