ללא מחבר No Author

The Establishment Is Terrified of Home Remedies

Shocking Proof How Google Censors Health News

By 

Mercola.com

November 9, 2019

June 3, 2019, Google implemented a broad “core update”1 that in one fell swoop eliminated most Mercola.com pages from its search results. Virtually overnight, Google traffic to my site dropped by approximately 99.9%.

Considering Mercola.com has been the most visited natural health site for the last 16 years, it’s no great surprise that we were listed as one of the biggest losers in Google’s June algorithm update.2

I wrote about the ramifications of Google’s core update in two articles at the end of June 2019. In Part 1, I discussed the effects that the new search algorithm and updated quality rater guidelines is having on traffic to this site.

As mentioned in that article, Google’s “quality raters” are manually lowering the ranking of what they arbitrarily decide is undesirable content and burying even expert views if they think they’re “harmful” to the public.

In Part 2, I revealed how Wikipedia censors information and crafts narratives to benefit certain groups, and how Google raters use Wikipedia’s skewed and biased articles to ascertain the expertise and trustworthiness of any given author or website.

Today’s videos and article will show you just how clearly and deliberately Google has eliminated my articles from its search results.

After more than 15 years of being considered a highly relevant source of content, Google has removed all those high-ranked results, and replaced them with health information from advertising companies that promote junk food and drugs instead. Below, I’ll provide clear examples of how this works.

For many years now, I’ve been warning about how Google’s monopoly presents a clear danger to the free-flow of information, and health information in particular, seeing how holistic health is a direct threat to the drug industry. The fact that Google would eventually grow big enough to dictate what people see and don’t see was predictable, and we’ve now entered the era of blatant internet censorship.

How Google Censors High-Ranked Health Content

A major reason for my success as a physician running my own practice was the ability to resolve extremely challenging cases of arthritis. One of my articles describing my arthritis treatment protocol generated over 1 million views, and was consistently a top search result when doing a Google search for arthritis.

Today, even if you use my name in a search for arthritis, you will not find that highest-ranked article. What you find instead is an article copied from my website — without permission — by a Croatian website operated by Zdravko Mauko, followed by a few articles about arthritis from my pet site, followed by a short piece about arthritis that I contributed to Creations Magazine.

The top search result for “Mercola arthritis” is a tiny, insignificant site that in no way, shape or form could possibly compete with Mercola.com. When you compare the ranking of our sites on Alexa, you find my site (as of October 8, 2019) ranks 9,002 in global internet engagement over the past 90 days.3

And that’s despite having been buried by Google since early June, as two years ago our overall Alexa ranking was 3,708. Compare this to our-arthritis.com, which has a ranking of 9,401,920.4 The first screen shot below is Alexa’s ranking for Mercola.com on October 8, 2019. The second screen shot is Alexa’s ranking for our-arthritis.com on that same day.

Another signal of trust and popularity is based on the number of sites linking in, or the number of sites that reference your own site. There are more than 11,000 sites linking to Mercola.com, and only 2 linking to our-arthritis.com. This is another example of Google’s purposeful censorship.

Despite the fact that our-arthritis.com plagiarized my entire article without permission, and have no credibility in terms of website engagement or ranking, it “owns” the search terms “Mercola arthritis” — above my own site!

Censorship Strategy No. 2 — Content Mix-Up

Giving precedence to a site with a relevance ranking that is 1,000 times lower than my own would be bad enough, but it doesn’t end there. Even if you try to use a restricted search, which allows you to search for results within a specific website, Google has you barking up the wrong tree.

When doing a restricted search for “Mercola.com arthritis,” or “site: Mercola.com arthritis,” which theoretically should provide you with links to the most popular articles about arthritis within my site only, Google provides the top search results for arthritis on our veterinary website!

The entire first page of search results; 10 of 12 of the search results on Page 2; and 6 of 10 results on Page 3 direct you to our Healthy Pets website. How is that for relevance? Google has really outdone itself in “helping” users find relevant information, hasn’t it?

Google-Owned YouTube Uses Similar Obfuscation Tactics

The same misdirection and obfuscation is happening on YouTube, which is owned by Google. If you do a YouTube search for “Mercola arthritis,” links to my many arthritis videos are blatantly pushed aside by irrelevant search results as evidenced in the screen shot below.

In short, it’s not a suspicion but a blatantly obvious fact that Google is doing everything it can to erase my online presence and hide the many tens of thousands of free articles and videos I’ve generated over the last 22 years.

Who Now Dominates Online Health Searches?

Who are the Google-trusted health websites that now dominate health searches? WebMD and Healthline. But are they really the most trustworthy sources on the web? Their track records certainly suggest otherwise.

WebMD is owned by the global investment firm KKR & Co.,5 which also owned RJR Nabisco at a time when it sold junk food and tobacco products. As described in my 2018 article, “Google and WebMD Partner To Be Your Virtual Doctor,” KKR also owns Medscape and MedincineNet.com and, according to Fast Company,6 “is trying to corner the market on internet-based health information dissemination …”

WebMD, as you may recall, was in 2010 caught providing users with a fake depression screening test. The test — in which 100% of quiz-takers ended up having a “high likelihood of major depression” and were directed to talk to their doctor about treatment7,8 — was sponsored by drug giant Eli Lilly, the maker of Cymbalta.

The quiz was in fact direct-to-consumer advertising masquerading as a valid health screen, and this is perhaps the most hazardous kind of drug advertising there is.

Then, in 2017, Google partnered with the National Alliance on Mental Illness, launching a depression self-assessment quiz which, like WebMD before it, funneled querents toward antidepressant drugs.9,10 There simply is no doubt that Google is a proponent for and promoter of pharmaceuticals.

Likewise, WebMD — which pockets millions to promote drugs — is far from an independent source of health information. A quick search of WebMD articles on antidepressants and depression, for example, reveals a clear pattern: They contain ads for antidepressant drugs furnished by Google ad services and doubleclick — both of which are owned by Google.

Continue reading…

From LRC, here.

On the Socialist Pseudoscience of ‘Happiness Research’

The Trojan Horse of “Happiness Research”

06/09/2011 Thomas J. DiLorenzo

A very large literature has built up over the past several decades in the area of so-called “happiness research.” Such research is based on several very dubious assumptions: namely, that utility is cardinal and measurable after all; that interpersonal utility comparisons can therefore be made; and that the great unicorn of economic theory — the “social welfare function” — has finally been spotted. Armed with these assertions, socialists around the world believe they have finally discovered their holy grail. Now that governments supposedly know with “scientific certainty” what constitutes “happiness,” there can be no argument (or so they think) against virtually unlimited government intervention in the name of creating happiness.

Affluence is actually a disease that generates massive unhappiness, says the Australian author of a popular book in this field, entitled Affluenza. The government of Brazil is in the process of enshrining this notion into its constitution, and similar movements exist in Great Britain and other countries.

These assumptions rest on the proclamation that public-opinion surveys are sufficient measures of cardinal utility. The economists who make such assumptions studiously ignore all of the reasons why economists have disavowed such practices — especially the notion of demonstrated preference — for generations. As Murray Rothbard explained in his essay, “Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics,”

The concept of demonstrated preference is simply this: that actual choice reveals, or demonstrates, a man’s preferences; that is, that his preferences are deducible from what he has chosen in action. Thus, if a man chooses to spend an hour at a concert rather than a movie, we deduce that the former was preferred, or ranked higher on his value scale. … This concept of preference, rooted in real choices, forms the keystone of the logical structure of economic analysis, and particularly of utility and welfare analysis.

Rothbard continued to explain the folly of relying on public opinion surveys, as opposed to the actual demonstrated preferences of economic decision makers:

One of the most absurd procedures based on a constancy assumption [i.e., the false assumption that people never alter their preferences] has been the attempt to arrive at a consumer’s preference scale not through observed real action, but through quizzing him by questionnaires. In vacuo, a few consumers are questioned at length on which abstract bundle of commodities they would prefer to another abstract bundle, and so on. Not only does this suffer from the constancy error, no assurance can be attached to the mere questioning of people when they are not confronted with the choices in actual practice. Not only will a person’s valuation differ when talking about them from when he is actually choosing, but there is also no guarantee that he is telling the truth.

The one economist who is arguably the leader in the field of “happiness research” (at least among economists) is Bruno Frey of the University of Zurich. When I asked him at a conference in Prague several years ago about the age-old criticisms of replacing actual demonstrated preferences with questionnaires, his response was that his “data” were no worse than GDP data. As bad and as unreliable as GDP data are, “happiness research” questionnaire data are at least no worse, he said.

But in fact, much of the happiness-research data are much, much worse.

“Happiness research has indeed been a gold mine for resume-building academic economists whose econometric game playing is no longer limited by the requirement of digging up actual economic data.”

European socialists in fields outside of economics have gone even further with their research of “happiness.” A bestseller in Europe is The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. The book is an excellent example of the misuse and abuse of statistics by these two British epidemiologists. It is an abuse of statistics because the entire book is a fishing expedition for simple correlations between the degree of material “inequality” in a country and myriad other variables. Wilkinson and Pickett don’t even attempt the use of multiple-regression analysis, as is typical in their own field, in economics, and elsewhere. Consequently, they arrive at contrived statistical conclusions that greater material equality in a country supposedly leads to improvements in community life, mental health, drug use, physical health, obesity rates, intelligence, teenage births, recycling, violence, imprisonment, social mobility, dysfunctionality, anxiety, and self esteem. (One critic of this research mocked its abuse of statistical methods by presenting a scatter diagram that purportedly showed a positive correlation between recycling and suicide, suggesting that the more one recycles, the more likely that one will commit suicide!)

According to these scientific-sounding conclusions (which have been lavishly praised by politicians, of course), the people of the former Soviet Union must have been the happiest people on earth, since the pursuit of equality was always the pronounced objective of socialism. As F.A. Hayek wrote in the 1976 edition of The Road to Serfdom, socialism was originally defined as government ownership of the means of production, and then changed to mean the redistribution of income and wealth through the auspices of the welfare state and progressive income taxation. In each case, “equality” was the ultimate end; only the means changed over time.

Happiness researchers make no mention at all of the long-recognized deleterious effects of welfare statism, including destruction of the work ethic, family breakup, the growth of dysfunctional citizens who are paid by the state to remove themselves from the work force, etc.

Bruno Frey is no socialist, but the area of research that he champions is being very enthusiastically embraced by interventionists, socialists, and would-be central planners within the economics profession. Frey himself explained this in his June 2002 survey article in the Journal of Economic Literature entitled “What Can Economists Learn from Happiness Research?” (with Alois Stutzer). Among the things economists can learn from this strange branch of psychology, Frey and Stutzer approvingly report, are the following:

  • “Happiness functions have sometimes been looked at as the best existing approximation to a social-welfare function. It seems that, at long last, the so far empirically empty social welfare maximization … is given a new lease on life.”

  • Income has increased dramatically since World War II, but “happiness” supposedly has not. The counterintuitive implication is that work, investment, and entrepreneurship — the ingredients of economic success — do not produce happiness, but human beings nevertheless keep doing more and more of it year in and year out.

  • Interpersonal utility comparisons have also been resurrected, supposedly proving that “social happiness” can be created by the state’s theft of one person’s income and the redistribution of it to another (while keeping a tidy sum for “administrative expenses”).

Continue reading…

From Mises.org, here.

שיר – ופרצת ימה וקדמה צפונה ונגבה

הבט נא – אהרן רזאל | Count the Stars – Aaron Razel

Jan 11, 2015

מילים: בראשית ט”ו ה’; כ”ב י”ז; כ”ח י”ג
לחן: אהרן רזאל
מתוך האלבום “להיות מחובר”

הבט נא השמימה וספור הכוכבים
אם תוכל לספור אותם
כה יהיה זרעך

כחול אשר על שפת הים
כי ברך אברכך והרבה ארבה את זרעך

אם תוכל לספור אותם

הארץ אשר אתה עליה
לך אתננה ולזרעך
ופרצת ימה וקדמה צפונה ונגבה

אם תוכל לספור אותם
כה יהיה זרעך

מאתר יוטיוב, כאן.

The Hypocrisy and Idiocy of Advocating Administrative Detention for Arabs but Not Jews

Rabbi Eliyahu on administrative order: ‘Protest loudly’

Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu in video against use of administrative arrest and distancing orders, calls public to exert pressure to prevent spread.

 

Ido Ben Porat, 04/11/19 20:42

Safed Chief Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu released a video today in which he calls to raise public pressure against the issuance of administrative detention orders and distancing Jews.

This call follows the administrative order given two months ago to a resident of Yitzhar in Samaria, who is distanced from his home for three months for no apparent reason.

Rabbi Eliyahu also says in the video that he was told that Arabs are not given administrative orders due to public pressure on the matter, and therefore the rabbi calls for similar pressure to be applied against such orders to Jews.

Neria Zarug, married and father of two children, is a resident of Yitzhar who is currently distanced from his home and the area of Samaria and Binyamin, and is prohibited from contacting sixteen of his friends by administrative order. Zarug is not the only one and right now there are a number of Jews who are distanced for unpublished reasons, with no court order but with the signature of IDF Central Commander Nadav Padan. Zarug decided not to obey the dictates of the order and continues to stay in the village of Yitzhar in Samaria.

In the video, Rabbi Eliyahu addresses the issue and says, “At the time, we approached ministers and public figures to apply administrative detention to terrorist families. They said, ‘No, it’s not so legal, it won’t work, it won’t pass the Supreme Court.’ We asked, “How do you apply administrative detention to Jews?” – “Oh, because there’s no public pressure.”

Rabbi Eliyahu later addresses the general public about “the fact that we are sitting quietly – it allows administrative detention of young men for nothing, no guilt on their part, because if they were guilty of something they’d file a complaint against them. We must protest firmly against administrative detention on Jews; is it sheer racism, done only to Jews and not to Arabs? Terrorist’s families, combatants, not even their homes are destroyed – those who support terrorists.”

In conclusion, the rabbi calls for a stir and public pressure against orders given to the Jews only: “Something here is distorted and should be protested against, and not in a thin, weak voice, but with loud noise” the rabbi ends his remarks.

Rabbi Eliyahu joins Rabbi Dov Lior and Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg who expressed support for Zarug on the administrative order he received and even Minister Smotrich who addressed the Central Commander before he signed the order in order to prevent its issuance.

Zarug refused to accept the order, and posted that he would openly violate it, even posting a picture of himself building a sukkah and buying the four species for the Sukkah holiday that recently took place. Zarug enjoys support from public figures and various supporters for his struggle against the administrative orders, and now Rabbi Eliyahu has also been added.

The Honeinu legal aid organization that assists Zarug joined Rabbi Eliyahu in his call and said, “The order given to Neria Zarug and many like him is a legal and moral disgrace. The GSS and IDF utilize British Mandatory tools to harass Jews who love their land who are guilty of nothing. With no judge and no judgment. We join Rabbi Eliyahu in his call to the public and hope that the decision makers put an end to this ongoing scandal.”

Continue reading…

From Arutz Sheva, here.

אם מרדכי קידר משקר בנוגע לרצח רבין למה לא תובעים אותו?! – הרב אליהו קאופמן

לחשוף את האמת על רצח יצחק רבין / הרב אליהו קאופמן

בס”ד

  פרשת ה”קונספירציה” על רצח יצחק רבין עדיין רודפת אותנו גם 24 שנה לאחר הרצח. דבריו של דר’ מרדכי קידר הם בבחינת “ההיגיון של השיגעון”. העובדות די מדאיגות ביחס לאשמה האבסולוטית ברצח אך ורק על יגאל עמיר, ורק הסגידה לשופטים מונעת תחקירים ומשפט חוזר. אם תעלומת רצח דה האן נפתרה הרי שגם תעלומה זו יכולה למצוא מענה. מישהו הפך את הויכוח לפוליטי – בין ימין ושמאל, כדי להרחיק עדות משפטית ורפואית.

24 שנים עברו מאז רצח רבין ועדיין ו”תאוריית ה”קונספירציה” לא משה מעל הדסק הפוליטי. כששלמה המלך נזרק ממלכותו ע”י אשמדאי הוא ניסה לחזור – בלבוש של עני ואביון, ולטעון בפני חכמי ישראל שהוא המלך האמיתי ושנושל ע”י אשמדאי ממלכותו, ואילו האחרון נכנס לדמותו. בתחילה חכמי ישראל התייחסו להלך העני הזה כאל משוגע מעורר חמלה אבל משהתמיד המלך שלמה בטענותיו ולא זז מטענתו ומנימוקיו הרי שחכמי ישראל חככו שוב בטענתם והחליטו לחקור את הנושא ולהאזין להלך העני, מה נמצא בפיו. החכמים טענו כי כאשר מי שמוחזק למשוגע חוזר על סיפורו השתי והערב – ובסגנון אחיד, ולא בגרסאות שונות, הרי שכנראה ש”יש היגיון בשיגעון”. וכך כנראה גם בפרשת רצח רבין. לא אפרוש כאן את כול הטענות בעניין הרוצח האמיתי אבל מיום ליום עולות עדויות חדשות ההופכות את החלטת בית המשפט, בעניין יגאל עמיר, לסימן שאלה אחד גדול.

דר’ מרדכי קידר לא חידש דבר אלא פשוט אמר בקול רם את מה שאחרים אומרים בחדרי חדרים. מה שכן צריך דר’ קידר לעשות הוא לומר עובדות ברורות ולנקוב ממש בשמות, אם הוא כבר העז להגיע בטענותיו עד הלום, ולטעון בהפגנה לטובת ראש הממשלה, שיגאל עמיר איננו הרוצח האמיתי של יצחק רבין. לגבי אותו י.ר. – שעליו טוען דר’ קידר כי הוא הרוצח האמיתי, הרי שכבר נכתבו תילי כתבות.

הראשון שפרסם זאת מיד לאחר הרצח, היה אדם בשם צוקרמן – שהיה בשנות התשעים עורכו של השבועון החרדי “השבוע” (שלימים שינה את שמו ל”בשעה טובה” ולא מכבר הספיק להיסגר), ושם הוא סיפר כי הרוצח היה סוכן ממסדי שחוסל ונקבר באישון לילה אחר הרצח, כשגם הוריו לא הורשו להשתתף בהלווייתו, בבית העלמין שמעבר לנחל הירקון. לא זכור לי שמישהו תבע את צוקרמן לדין – ובוודאי שלא המדינה. העיתון היה בסכנת סגירה אך אחרי רעש מיידי מצד עורכו הוקפאה הסגירה.

גם בן כספית – רחוק מלהיות איש ימין, ערך תחקיר על רצח רבין שהותיר סימני שאלה רבים, ובראשם היה זה נהגו של רבין – שרעבי שמו, שבאותו שידור העלה תהיות נוספות כולל החלפת הנהגים בליל הרצח, השארתו של שרעבי בביתו והפיכת נהגו של פרס, דמתי שמו, לנהגו של רבין בליל הרצח. סיפור ה”סרק, סרק” איננו דמיון חולני משום שגם לאה רבין ודליה פילוסוף טענו טענות דומות, על הרחקתן מרכבו של רבין ע”י השב”כ, אבל הן הושתקו בתקשורת ע” איתן הבר, שהפך את הויכוח לימין מול שמאל במקום להותירו סביב חקירה פלילית ומשפטית טהורה, לגבי הרוצח.

האימון במערכת המשפטית – שקבעה את מה שקבעה, אסור לקבלו כאוטומטי כשהעובדות פונות לכיוון נגדי. כיום אנו רואים בדיוק מי זו המערכת המשפטית וגם פרשיות זבורוב, דני כץ, ובמיוחד ברנס, מוכיחות כי אסור לסמוך על בית המשפט באופן עיוור משום ששם לא יושבים מלאכים ונביאים. אם מרדכי קידר אמר משהו לא נכון יש לתובעו אבל אם הוא העלה דברים שיש עימהם דעת ונמצאו להם גם סימוכין, גם מאנשי רפואה בכירים, הרי שאסור להשתיקו. האמת חייבת לצאת.

המשך לקרוא…

מאתר יורה דעה, כאן.