>Taxes, taxes and even more to come


>

If I were to begin listing all the taxes a human pays to his/her government – in all forms, the file size would just be too big to imagine – let alone comprehend. So in this brief conversation, let me just point you towards a few new ones (pending) which you may not be aware of.

As with all forms of taxation – they really will not benefit YOU the taxpayer.

You will no doubt be familiar with a pending Carbon Tax which Greenies and Governments around the world, want to impose on consumers, ostensibly so that we will reduce the amount of carbon we use – in everyday life – such as in gas emissions, electricity usage, heating and cooling around our homes and offices etc etc etc. All the aforementioned will of course, save us and planet Earth from the inevitable destruction, which they tell us, carbon causes.

Are you aware that a small isolated community, 1000km off the coast of Australia is to be trialing a Personal Carbon Credit Scheme?

Norfolk Island has a permanent resident population of approximately 1900 people, so it won’t be too difficult to monitor their compliance will it? But why on earth would this be taking place and what does it actually involve?

Norfolk Island residents will be allocated the same number of carbon units on a credit card, which they will spend whenever they buy petrol and power. If they are frugal with non-renewable energy consumption, and walk, cycle or drive an electric car, they will be able to trade in leftover carbon credits at the carbon bank for cash at the end of a set period. Each year the quota of carbon units will be reduced, and the price of a high carbon emission lifestyle will rise.


In the second year, the researchers hope to add food to the scheme, ranking products on their health cost as well as their carbon cost. Fatty foods imported from the mainland, for example, would require more carbon units to purchase than local fresh produce.


”Over the three years we will be looking to see if there is a reduction in diabetes and obesity,” said Professor Egger, who developed the GutBusters weight loss program for men. He said the island provided a unique testing ground because it is small, people live a similar lifestyle to most Australians, and the goods that come in and out by plane and ship can be monitored.

In case you were wondering why on earth people would acquiesce and take part in something as inane as this…. Follow the mighty dollar!

Although it will be a voluntary scheme, the incentive to participate was obvious, Professor Egger said: ”People can make money out of it.”

Professor Egger said The Norfolk Island trial will determine whether the approach is acceptable to people or not. If so, it could eventually be scaled up to a country level, and then world level, he said.

The part that really sticks out in all of this (for me) is the part about food – the wretched food police are at it again! Who gave them the right and the responsibility to decide what we can and cannot eat…. Or as in this case ‘afford to eat’ as in using up credits on fatty foods etc?

Seems they just cannot get it right…. Or better yet, admit they were wrong in the first place. But before we go down that path, let’s look at the second TAX which is being hinted at.

The British are seriously suggesting a FAT TAX to aid in reducing obesity rates, thereby reducing health care costs. A reading of the Christian Science Monitor tells us: The Daily Mail has written that the best way to tackle the British obesity problem is to impose a ‘fat tax’, following a report by the World Health Organisation. Not content to vilify the smokers, it seems yet another organisation is calling on the government to bully us out of our sweet treats and force us to eat more healthily.

I think it important that you note I am a former smoker, and would dearly like to see smoking banned in all public places. The government makes an awful lot of money off the tobacco companies, so it is highly unlikely they will outlaw smoking all together – unless of course another source of income (read taxation) can be found to fill up their coffers!

There are a lot of reports floating around and being promoted, telling us that fat is bad, causes obesity and eventually will be the cause of your demise, and also the demise of the health care system. If you are fat – obese – overweight, then you are suffering from – or will soon suffer from any one of a myriad of diseases/ disorders/ illnesses.

(They Say) Your illness, which could be avoided by simply seriously reducing the fat you consume (read unhealthy diet choices), is crippling the health care system of your country. You are BAD BAD BAD and need to have your food choices determined and restricted by Big Brother Government – who, at the same time, will make heaps of money out of this scheme!

Ancel Keys has a lot to answer for folks!

The first scientific indictment of saturated fat came in 1953. That’s the year a physiologist named Ancel Keys, Ph.D., published a highly influential paper titled “Atherosclerosis, a Problem in Newer Public Health.” Keys wrote that while the total death rate in the United States was declining, the number of deaths due to heart disease was steadily climbing. And to explain why, he presented a comparison of fat intake and heart disease mortality in six countries: the United States, Canada, Australia, England, Italy, and Japan.

The Americans ate the most fat and had the greatest number of deaths from heart disease; the Japanese ate the least fat and had the fewest deaths from heart disease. The other countries fell neatly in between. The higher the fat intake, according to national diet surveys, the higher the rate of heart disease. And vice versa. Keys called this correlation a “remarkable relationship” and began to publicly hypothesize that consumption of fat causes heart disease. This became known as the diet-heart hypothesis.


At the time, plenty of scientists were skeptical of Keys’s assertions. One such critic was Jacob Yerushalmy, Ph.D., founder of the biostatistics graduate program at the University of California at Berkeley. In a 1957 paper, Yerushalmy pointed out that while data from the six countries Keys examined seemed to support the diet-heart hypothesis, statistics were actually available for 22 countries. And when all 22 were analyzed, the apparent link between fat consumption and heart disease disappeared. For example, the death rate from heart disease in Finland was 24 times that of Mexico, even though fat-consumption rates in the two nations were similar.


The other salient criticism of Keys’s study was that he had observed only a correlation between two phenomena, not a clear causative link. So this left open the possibility that something else — unmeasured or unimagined — was leading to heart disease. After all, Americans did eat more fat than the Japanese, but perhaps they also consumed more sugar and white bread, and watched more television.


Despite the apparent flaws in Keys’s argument, the diet-heart hypothesis was compelling, and it was soon heavily promoted by the American Heart Association (AHA) and the media. It offered the worried public a highly educated guess as to why the country was in the midst of a heart-disease epidemic. “People should know the facts,” Keys said in a 1961 interview with Time magazine, for which he appeared on the cover. “Then if they want to eat themselves to death, let them.”

According to the Cholesterol is Good blog spot: A brief analysis of the Six and Seven Country Studies makes it very obvious that Mr. Keys cherry-picked the data. He was then paid $200,000 a year by the federal government to convince people that there is a relationship between consumption of saturated fat, blood cholesterol levels and risk of coronary heart disease.

Over the years I have been reading and studying various scientific papers, it has become a ‘must do’ for me to discover who actually is funding the research. It seems fairly obvious that the person – organization funding the research has an ultimate purpose – goal in mind. They are the ones who construct the experiments to prove their point, get them approved by federal agencies / government bodies and then sell their products to the unsuspecting public.

If Saturated Fats are NOT THE EVIL BADDIES, what are the causes of obesity in modern society?
Mike Geary tells us:

If all of these researchers have tried so hard over the years to point the finger at saturated fat, but have continued to fail to show a correlation between saturated fat and heart disease risk, what are the REAL culprits for heart disease?

Well, here are the REAL causes of heart disease risk:


• Trans fats (artificially hydrogenated oils)… see my previous Trans Fats article here for a full explanation


• Heavily refined vegetable oils such as soy, cottonseed, corn oil, etc. (inflammatory inside the body, and typically throw the omega-6/omega-3 balance out of whack…remember, inflammation is the REAL cause of heart disease, NOT dietary saturated fat or cholesterol). Read more about healthy cooking oils vs unhealthy cooking oil


• Too much refined sugar in the diet (including high fructose corn syrup)


• Too much refined carbohydrates such as white bread, low fiber cereals, etc


• Smoking


• Stressful lifestyle


• Lack of exercise


• Other lifestyle factors


So why does it seem that so many attempts over the years have tried to lay the blame on saturated fat… do you think it might have anything to do with the muli-billion dollar vegetable oil industry, which has taken over for cooking oils for what used to be mostly animal fats and tropical oils in decades past…


hmm… do multi-billion dollar industries really have an influence on the way data is portrayed to the public? Of course they do!


I hope this article has opened your eyes about the truth about saturated fat and how you’ve been misled over the years.

OK I will sign off now, but ask that you do some serious reading on the Diet Heart Hypothesis. It is most important that we do not allow our government agencies to keep perpetuating this myth – and in so doing, applying new taxation methods, which will restrict our heath freedoms. They know the ‘fat is bad for you’ slogan is an unproven hypothesis, and more importantly still, they know that sugars and highly refined grains are damaging to your health, yet they give full support to the (sick) food pyramid. Of course the grain growers have plenty of ‘pull’ as in financial backing and incentives don’t they? Follow the mighty dollar yet again.

Further Reading:

The Shocking Truth about Dietary Fats and Saturated Fats

The Retreat of the Diet-Heart Hypothesis

Advertisements

About JustMEinT Musings

I like writing, reading and expressing my opinions. I prefer natural health and healing to pharmaceutical drugs. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour.
This entry was posted in Anthropological Global Warming, GENERAL MUSINGS. Bookmark the permalink.