The ‘force multiplier’ quality of the articles is mounting.
The data at the top of this “decreasing soda consumption” article has no peer that I know of, and I’d know, because I look.
SODA CONSUMPTION IS DROPPING BECAUSE THE POPULACE HAS RECOGNIZED THAT SOFT DRINKS HAVE BEEN WEAPONIZED AGAINST IT.
Great positive changes are underway at every level of our reality. They began in earnest in 2012, and have been increasing in speed and magnitude. I began writing this series of articles, entitled “Positive Changes That Are Occurring”, in July of 2013.
These historically-unprecedented positive changes are being driven by many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of simple, inexpensive Orgonite devices based on Wilhelm Reich’s work. Since Don Croft first fabricated tactical Orgonite in 2000, its widespread, ongoing and ever-increasing distribution has been unknitting and transforming the ancient Death energy matrix built and expanded by our dark masters, well, all the way back to Babylon, and before. And, as a result, the Ether is returning to its natural state of health and vitality.
One of those changes is that the populace has recognized that soft drinks have been weaponized against it.
It is well known and well documented that soda, particularly diet soda, is extremely deadly, a plague upon humanity far more destructive than beer, wine or liquor.
The ends of their chromosomes, known as telomeres, are shorter among people who drink more sugar-sweetened beverages. The shorter the telomere, the less a cell can regenerate thus aging the body, and raising the risk of disease and early death.
People who drank two or more soft drinks a week have an 87% increased risk – or nearly twice the risk – of pancreatic cancer compared to individuals consuming no soft drinks.
So you can see how sugar-sweetened beverages are terrible for you. But not compared to diet soda! Did you know that drinking just one artificially sweetened beverage a day increases your risk of stroke and dementia by three-fold compared to drinking less than one a week? And that while sugar-sweetened beverages are not associated with stroke or dementia. Thus, Aspartame triples the risk of stroke and dementia.
Diet soda drinkers are 26% more likely to die prematurely than non diet soda drinkers.
Among men, drinking one diet soda a day is associated with a 202% increase multiple myeloma, compared with non diet soda drinkers.
Intake of regular sugar-sweetened sodas is associated with a 66% increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in men, but no association was found for multiple myeloma or leukemia. While, among men, drinking one diet soda per day is associated with a 31% higher risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
This proves that both regular soda and diet soda both drive non-Hodgkin lymphoma in men, however that the effect is twice as great in the regular soda, because of the higher content of high fructose corn syrup in the former vs. the latter.
Whereas the Aspartame in diet soda drove a tripling of multiple myeloma, when there was no increase in multiple myeloma among regular soda drinkers.
Consumption of diet soda at least daily is associated with a 67% increased risk of type 2 diabetes compared with not consuming any.
While consumption of a single sugar-sweetened drink daily is associated with a 14% increased risk of type 2 diabetes compared to those who drink water, coffee or tea.
Thus soda drinkers have a diabetes risk 14% higher than those drinking water, coffee or tea, and diet soda drinkers have a 378% higher risk of diabetes than regular soda drinkers. Clearly showing Asparatame as a major driver of diabetes.
High diet soda intake has a 42% higher risk of leukemia than low diet soda intake. So you can see how Aspartame’s poisonous effect is cumulative, and dose dependent.
Consumption of seven servings or less of sugar sweetened beverages reduces fertility by 19% in females and by 22% in males.
Among those who drank more than seven servings a week of sugar sweetened beverages, fertility was reduced by 25% in females and by 33% in males.
So, you can see how the more sugar sweetened beverages you consume, the lower your fertility, whether you be male or female.
During In Vitro Fertilization, the formation of morphologies known as blastocysts increased by 53% among diet soda drinkers and by 39% among regular soda drinkers.
This clearly shows that high fructose corn syrup lowers fertility, and that Aspartame increases infertility to an even greater degree.
Women Drinking Two Diet Sodas Per Day Are 50% More Likely to Die from Heart-Related Disease.
Women who drank two or more artificially sweetened beverages every day were 29% more likely to develop heart disease and 23% more likely to have a stroke.
Depression is 55% higher among diet soda drinkers, 30% higher among soda drinkers, and 10% lower among coffee drinkers.
This clearly shows that high fructose corn syrup drives depression, and that Aspartame does also, to an even greater extent.
Consumption of diet soda at least daily is associated with a 36% increased risk of metabolic syndrome compared with not consuming any. That’s because three of the leading artificial sweeteners produce an increase in blood-sugar levels in both mice and humans, by disrupting the balance of helpful gut bacteria. High blood-sugar levels, in turn, are the telltale sign of glucose intolerance, a condition which can evolve into diabetes and metabolic disease.
If you go out seven years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, the cohorts of individuals who are consuming diet sodas have much worse health outcomes. Diet soda drinkers are 31% more likely to have a clot-based stroke, have a tripled risk of deadly stroke, are 29% more likely to have heart disease, and are 16% to 26% more likely to die from any cause.
Diet Soda builds desire and decreases satisfaction. Splenda flies ate 30% more calories than the control, and when they took away the artificially sweetened food, the effect vanished.
There’s no reason to think that so-called “natural” sugar substitutes, such as stevia and monk fruit, would have a different effect. plant-based products might impair glucose tolerance just as much as the chemicals they tested.
Per-capita consumption for carbonated soft drinks peaked in the United States in 1998 at nearly 53 gallons to 41 gallons in 2015, a 23% drop in just under twenty years.
Soda consumption in the U.S. has dropped for 13 straight years.
Americans trying to avoid soda increased from 41% in 2002 to 63% in 2014. Said another way the number of Americans trying to avoid soda increased 35% from 2002 to 2014.
In April 2012, the moronically named popsop.com pretended that the were not, in fact an advertising agency and said “Diet Coke Unveils Jean Paul Gaultier Tattoo Bottle and ‘Night and Day’ Cans”.
The article continues:
“The provocative bottle is perfect for after dark – the lace and fishnet design highlights the female-like silhouette of the iconic bottle shape and adds a never-before-seen edginess to the Diet Coke limited edition collection. The ‘Day’ bottle is inspired by Jean Paul Gaultier’s signature Breton stripes and …”
In October 2012, NPR fought the brave but ultimately hopeless rearguard action with “Study Results Linking Diet Soda To Cancer Fall Into The 'Gray Zone’”
The author tacked “study results” on the front end to give the subconscious of the reader the green light to say “oh, but that was just one study!”
The article continues: “The study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital found some correlation between aspartame, the most widely used artificial sweetener in diet soda, and an increased risk of leukemia and Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and other rare blood-related cancers. And early in the week, the public relations department at Brigham and Women’s Hospital sent a press release to reporters exaggerating that correlation.”
Where the author has used the general “some” correlation to cover up what we know is 31% increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in men among diet soda drinkers. The scientific study proved that Aspartame increased NHL by a third, and the people putting out the fire at Brigham Young said it had been “exaggerated”. That’s because the first rule of politics is “deny, deny, deny”.
Coca-Cola’s North American soda sales dropped 4% in July of 2013.
In March 2013, the Christian Science Monitor said “For more than two decades, soda was the No. 1 drink in the U.S. with per capita consumption peaking in 1998 at 54 gallons a year.”
In March 2017, Cooking Light said “per-capita consumption for carbonated soft drinks peaked in the United States in 1998 at nearly 53 gallons, dropping to 41 gallons in 2015.”
And in June 2017, Reuters said “In 2016, each person in the United States drank 38.5 gallons of carbonated soft drinks. That’s a dramatic drop for soda consumption from its heights in the late 1990s and early 2000s of over 50 gallons per person.”
You can see how the Ministry of Truth took the peak 1998 soda consumption number from “54 gallons a year” in 2013 to “nearly 53 gallons” in March of 2017 to “over “50 gallons” in June of 2017.
We’ve caught them in the act of what in propaganda terms is called “walking it back”, from the earliest, specific example (“54 gallons”) through “nearly 53 gallons” to “Over 50 gallons”. The latter two are both general, which, as you may recall, is a hallmark of propaganda. And they’ve made the number smaller each time, to try via subterfuge to minimize the magnitude of both the horrible problem that consumers have realized the manufacturers deliberately created, and also that of the epochal positive change underway.
And while they all gave you the numbers – sort of – the also deliberately hedged by omitting the percentage of the decreases, as providing it would be much more impactful. Going from 54 gallons in 1998 to 39.3 in 2016, is a 27% decrease in per capita soda consumption in just under two decades (and that’s 18 years, to be exact).
Overall soda volumes fell an estimated 3% in 2013, the ninth straight yearly contraction and more than double the 1.2% decrease in 2012.
Diet soda sales dropped 6% in 2013.
In January 2013, the Smithsonian widened its eyes to simulate honesty and asked “Could Diet Soda Cause Clinical Depression***?***”
The article states “In a preliminary release of a study to be published by Honglei Chen and colleagues from the National Institutes of Health, a survey of 263,925 adults nationwide indicated that consumption of sweetened drinks—especially diet sodas—was associated with an increased chance of a depression diagnosis.”
Not an increase in depression, but rather only in the chance of a depression diagnosis . Two careful hedges.
The subconscious of the reader has also already been given the green light to say “oh, but that’s just one study!”, and “oh, that’s just a preliminary release of a study!”
The propagandist knows that many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.
The author continues: “They found that those who drank four or more cans of sweetened drinks (whether soda, diet soda or fruit punch) had a 30% greater chance of depression, but diet soda carried a further 22% increase as compared to regular ones.”
The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants is “interesting”.
That’s why the author goes on to say “Interestingly, regular coffee consumption was associated with a 10% lower chance of depression.”
In a masterful bit of defensive editing, the author has bent over backward to avoid saying “depression increased 55% among diet soda drinkers, increased 30% among soda drinkers, and decreased 10% among coffee drinkers.”
We also see that an article documenting depression rates increasing by more than half among diet soda drinkers being entitled “Could Diet Soda Cause Clinical Depression***?***”, as if they did not that that was, in fact, the case.
The Smithsonian is a Trusted Authority Figure, using conscious deception with the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.
Coca-Cola’s annual revenue dropped 38% from 2014 to 2018.
Diet soda sales in the U.S. dropped 7.3% from mid-February to mid-march 2014.
In April 2014, ABC News bitterly said “Soda Losing Its Grip on America”.
And by “grip”, they mean “Death grip”. It’s a completely general statement. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics in headlines that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.
Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.
The article continues: “A possible reason for the decline in consumption of diet sodas is that consumers don’t seem to be convinced that Aspartame and other artificial sweeteners are safe, even though there is no scientific evidence that they cause any harm.”
For ABC, a Trusted Authority Figure, to claim “there is no scientific evidence that they cause any harm” is outrageous, and ribald. They’re using conscious deception with the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. I must beg the reader to recall that a single diet soda per day triples the risk of stroke and dementia, and increases metabolic syndrome by a third. Focus with me, people.
I’m cheered t report that the people are, indeed, focusing with me, in that per-capita soda consumption in the U.S. dropped from 41 gallons in 2015 to 38.5 gallons in 2016, a 6% drop. That despite the best efforts of State propaganda organs such as ABC News to convince them otherwise.
In March 2015, mysanantonio.com said “San Antonio-based study links diet soda consumption to increased abdominal fat in seniors”.
Where the author threw “study links” on the front end to give the subconscious of the reader the green light to say “oh, but that was just one study!” The author knows that many or most readers will grasp any straw, no matter how fat, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.
Can you see how “INCREASED fat” is general? The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics in headlines that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.
Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.
The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants is “striking”. That’s why the article goes on to say: “The study, which is now being published in the March edition of the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, concluded that “in a striking dose-response relationship, increasing diet soda intake was associated with escalating abdominal obesity, a potential pathway for cardiometabolic risk in this aging population.”
The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants is “tremendous”.
That’s why the article goes on to say: “Sharon Fowler, an author of the study and adjunct assistant professor at UTHSC at San Antonio, pointed out that the study is observational and therefore cannot prove causation but did say there was a “tremendous increase in waist circumferences.”
Did you notice that Sharon mentioned “waist circumferences”, but carefully omitted any mention of weight? Did you notice that she used the hedging generality “tremendous” in place of a specific statistic? It’s all very careful. She and her fellow conspirators refer to it as “tradecraft”.
The article continues:
“Fowler delved deeper into the findings and shared that the abdominal girth of participants who never drank diet sodas increased by 0.8 inches throughout the span of the study. Occasional diet soda drinkers also saw a 1.8 increase in their waistline circumference. Lastly, participants who drank diet sodas daily saw an increase of over 3 inches on their waist.”
Sharon “delved deeper” and “shared”, hot! Then she used more hedging generalities, namely listing increases without a note of what the baseline was, so that you can’t calculate a percentage increase. In two cases, the author says “saw” an increase, which, in propaganda terms, walks it back a step from actually experiencing it.
“I think acidity (of the drinks) is a big problem,” Fowler added. “Each of us has our own private rainforests within our bodies, what we eat and drink affects the organisms in the rainforest.”
Wait, what? We learned previously in a HuffPost article from 2014 that Diet Soda builds desire and decreases satisfaction, and that Splenda flies ate 30% more calories than the control, and when they took away the artificially sweetened food, the effect vanished.
What’s with adjunct assistant professor Sharon Fowler’s middle-ages, Punch and Judy “Rainforest” and “acidity” explanation? Orange juice is very acidic, and so is coffee, but neither of them makes you fat.
She’s blowing smoke. She’s a generational Satanist shill, being quoted in a mainstream news article. Here’s her picture:
(Sharon Fowler, adjunct assistant professor at UTHSC at San Antonio)
I’ve included it so you could get a better idea of what a generational Satanist in a position of marginal influence looks like. You can’t identify them by the way they look, but rather only by the way they write, and speak.
In April 2015, the Los Angeles Times said “Diabetes rises with daily soda – including diet soda – consumption”.
Where they used “rises” because it’s softer than “increases”, and also as a thinly-veiled reference to the Atonist Black-Sun cult that’s ruled things in all the nations, well, all the way back to Babylon, and before. But the most important reason it was used is because it is general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics in headlines that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.
Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.
The article continues: “A comprehensive study of European adults has found that compared with people who drink a single sugar-sweetened drink daily, those who drink water, coffee or tea instead are at 14% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes.”
Can you see how they Satanically inverted it? They bent over backwards to avoid saying “those who drank soda had a 14% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.”
The study they’re referring to is from the journal “Fertility and Sterility”, and it is entitled “Artificial Sweeteners - do they bear an infertility risk?”
The article continues: “But when the authors took body mass index and waist circumference into account, they found that consumption of diet beverages was not linked to higher rates of diabetes. This suggests that diet soda drinkers are already more likely to be overweight or obese, and that this - rather than their diet soda consumption - might account for their elevated diabetes risk.”
The diabolical switch has been made. Aspartame makes you consume 30% more calories, and increases metabolic syndrome by 38%. Yet here, the simply said “oh, they were fat, and got diabetes because they were fat”, while ignoring the fact that Aspartame makes you fat, to claim “Aspartame does not cause diabetes.”The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything.
The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants is “surprised”.
That’s why the article goes on to say “The new research, published in Diabetologia, the journal of the European Assn. for the Study of Diabetes, offered another surprise as well: consumption of fruit juice and sweetened tea or coffee was not associated with diabetes.”
They’re feigning innocence because this proves concretely that high-fructose corn syrup drives diabetes, directly refuting the “sugar is sugar” propaganda that was all the rage a few years ago, but has now disappeared in the face of rapidly increasing awareness.
Consumption of diet soda at least daily is associated with a 67% increased risk of type 2 diabetes compared with not consuming any. Consumption of a single sugar-sweetened drink daily is associated with a 14% increased risk of type 2 diabetes compared to those who drink water, coffee or tea.
Thus soda drinkers have a diabetes risk 14% higher than those drinking water, coffee or tea, and diet soda drinkers have a 378% higher risk of diabetes than regular soda drinkers.
Here, the pathologically-lying authors of the study, and the author from the Los Angeles times have wildly downplayed the main driver of type 2 diabetes, namely the Aspartame.
And, so, we’ve learned that the authors of a study showing a drastically increased risk among diet soda drinkers chose a title that questions if that is, in fact, the case.
Here’s Daniela Braga, 2nd Author on the study. I used her because her picture was the only one there:
(Daniela Braga, 2nd Author, “Artificial Sweeteners - do they bear an infertility risk?”, Fertility and Sterility, September 2016)
I’ve included it so you could get a better idea of what a generational Satanist in a position of marginal influence looks like.
In June 2015, in what at first glance appears to be a rare example of truth in journalism, inc.com said “8 Studies That Prove Diet Soda Is Actually Making You Fat, Not Helping You Lose Weight”.
Actually, they did what little they could to hedge by pinning “helping you lose weight” on the end of the headline. It gives the subconscious of the reader the ability to grab that thought form and go. The propagandist knows that many or most readers will grab any straw, no matter how, er, un-thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.
And they threw “studies prove” on the front end so that you could say “oh, those studies don’t prove anything!” And turn the page without reading further.
Soda consumption fell to an all time low in the U.S. in 2016.
Prices increase when supply increases, demand decreases, or both. That’s why a money.com article from October 2016 is headlined “Coke Raised Prices to Make Up for Lower Soda Consumption”.
Where “lower” consumption is general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics in headlines that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.
Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.
In March 2016, in the face of exponentially-decreasing diet soda sales, MIC.com hopefully said “Diet Soda, the Timeless Health Scam That People Will Seemingly Always Fall For”.
In March 2016, Fortune said “Soda Consumption Falls to 30-Year Low In The U.S.”
The word “falls” was used because it’s it’s softer than “drops”, and also as a thinly-veiled reference to the fallen Lord Lucifer. But the main reason it was used is because it’s general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics in headlines that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.
Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.
In July 2016, “The Cut” said “Here’s the proof that diet soda makes you hungrier”.
Where the author did what they could to hedge by switching out “fatter” for “hungrier”.
“Did you hear that? That was the collective shriek of diet-soda drinkers after reading about the latest study linking artificial sweeteners to hunger. … The Splenda flies ate 30 percent more calories than the control, and when they took away the artificially sweetened food, the effect vanished.”
Vanished, poof! As if by magic. I’m so amazed and ensheepled. Let’s head over to the Punch and Judy show, it’s starting in a minute. The plot is so gripping…
In October 2016, Food and Wine said “Research Finds Drinking Diet Soda Decreases Fertility”.
Where “decreases fertility” is general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics in headlines that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.
Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.
The author put “Research finds” on the front end to give your subconscious the green light to say “oh, but that must have been faulty research!” The propagandist knows that many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.”
Aspiring mothers, it might be time to put down that can of your favorite diet drink. Recent research on women undergoing fertility treatments found that frequent consumption of the artificial sweeteners commonly found in these beverages significantly decreased their chances of conceiving a child.
“This is a very interesting study that suggests the false promise of artificial sweeteners,” Adam Balen, Chairman of the British Fertility Society tells The Telegraph.
I had to look up the study to learn that consumption of seven servings or less of sugar sweetened beverages reduced fertility by 19% in females and by 22% in males. Among those who drank more than seven servings a week of sugar sweetened beverages, fertility was reduced by 25% in females and by 33% in males.
And, lo, I’ve just learned that the story about diet soda decreasing fertility links to a study that was on sugar sweetened beverages. I had to look up a completely separate study, from October 2016, entitled “Artificial sweeteners - do they bear an infertility risk***?***” to learn that the formation of morphologies known as blastocysts increased 39% among regular soda consumers and by 53% among diet soda consumers.
Can you see how the people who wrote the study which proved that diet soda drinkers have 53% more damaged oocytes than those who did not consume diet soda asked if diet soda presented a risk?
In November 2016, the U.K.’s Telegraphed dragged its heels and allowed “Diet drinks may be preventing you from losing weight”.
They’re a Trusted Authority Figure, using conscious deception with the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. Where “preventing you from losing weight” is Mil-speak for “are in fact making you fatter”.
The article continues: “Many people ditch sugary fizzy drinks in favour of low-calorie alternatives when they are trying to lose weight, but a study has found that diet drinks could … have found that mice who were given aspartame in their drinking water gained more weight than those on a similar diet, but without the sweetener.”
Can you see how they buried “gained more weight” in the body, and described it as “preventing you from losing weight” in the headline?
Can you see how they used the general “MORE weight”, to keep you from discerning just how fatter you’d get?
They used the pin-headed, infantile meme “sugary fizzy drinks” in place of the more-searchable “soda”.
In November 2016, medicalxpress.com said “Sugary drink sales drop nearly 20 percent after multi-faceted campaign”.
Where the Mouthpiece of the State has put forward a false plausible-deniability excuse and postured as if the wider, ongoing trend I’m documenting here didn’t exist.
In February 2017, Marketing week pretended it wasn’t running a paid ad by saying “Coca-Cola preps Diet Coke push with advertising shift”, about a product where consuming just one 11 oz. can week triples your risk of stroke and dementia, and doubles your risk of pancreatic cancer. PUSH, SHIFT, so sexy!
In March 2017, the abusively named “Motley Fool” pretended they were not in fact an advertising agency by saying “Coca-Cola Has a Plan to Improve Soft-Drink Sales.”
In April 2017, Fortune said “Pepsi vs Coca-Cola: U.S. Soda Sales Decline For 12th Consecutive Year”.
They used “decline” because it’s softer than “drop”, and because it’s general, and because it echoes the word “recline”. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics in headlines that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.
Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.
In April, 2017 jjvirgin.com said “Deadly News Confirmed: Diet Soda Linked to Strokes and Dementia”.
It’s not deadly SODA, you see, but only rather deadly NEWS. That’s an example of a propaganda technique called “hedging”. The author has used the general, neutral “LINKED to” as a description of a tripling of stroke and dementia.
The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants is “shocked”.
That’s why the author goes on to say “The results were shocking: those who drank diet soda were nearly three times as likely to experience strokes and dementia as people who skipped the diet soft drinks.”
In April 2017, WebMD widened its eyes to simulate honesty and asked “Do Diet Sodas Pose Health Risks***?”***
This about a product where drinking one a week triples your risk of stroke and dementia. There are Russian soldiers out there who can attest that anti-freeze is less toxic.
In April 2017, Bloomberg said “Drinking Too Much Soda May Be Linked to Alzheimer’s”.
The author used “TOO MUCH diet soda” to describe drinking one can per day. And then they used “linked to” as a description for a three hundred percent increase. Say what you will about them, there’s no quit in these people.
The article continues: “People drinking diet soda daily were almost three times as likely to develop stroke and dementia,” said study author Matthew Pase, PhD, fellow in the department of neurology at BUSM.”
You can see how the author from the Trust Authority Figure Bloomberg.com “compartmentalized” the knowledge of the tripling of stroke and dementia by “burying it” in the body copy.In July 2017, Fox News said “Diet drinks may cause weight gain, new research suggests”.
Diet Soda builds desire and decreases satisfaction. Splenda flies ate 30 percent more calories than the control, and when they took away the artificially sweetened food, the effect vanished.
The author put “new research suggests” on the end to give your subconscious the green light to say “oh, but that research must have been faulty!” The propagandist knows that the subconscious of many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.
In August 2017, popsugar Middle East furrowed its brow and explained “Why Diet Coke Is Hard to Pour on Planes”.
They do not, however, go on to explain how diet soda triples stroke and dementia, and increases metabolic syndrome by a third.
In August 2017, Livestrong.com sowed the seed of doubt by asking “Does Soda Increase the Risk of Pancreatic Cancer***?***”
It’s pretty brazen, when you learn that people who drank two or more soft drinks a week had an 87% increased risk – or nearly twice the risk – of pancreatic cancer compared to individuals consuming no soft drinks. The general “increase” was used to cover a near-doubling of pancreatic cancer.
Just about as brazen as Lance unrepentantly continuing on with his “Livestrong” website and brand after being busted as a doper and a ‘roider, and then using it to play the plausible-deniability card for the soda industry.
Here’s Lance showing his support of the Texas Longhorns football team, or saying that he wants to “rock on”, or “I Love you, God!” In American Sign Language
The picture has been scrubbed from the web - I couldn’t easily find it, as I used to be able to. Glad I grabbed a copy!
Here’s his ex-girlfriend, Sheryl Crow, showing her support for the Texas Longhorns football team, or saying “I love you” in American Sign Language, or honoring Lord Satan, depending upon your perspective:
In October 2017, the Trusted Authority Figure “The Washington Post” crowed about “How Coca-Cola got Americans to drink diet soda again”. They’re saying that during a year in which Diet Cokes sales dropped 3.7%.
They’re a State propaganda outlet, using conscious deception with the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
In October 2017, Marketplace.org said “Diet soda sales fizzle as health-conscious consumers turn to other drinks”.
Where “fizzle”, while cloying, is general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics in headlines that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.
Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.
The author continues: “Demand for diet drinks surged for decades, peaking in 2006. But since then, diet soda sales have dropped more than 30 percent.”
Where “more than 30%” is general. I’d note as a side bar that 2006 was the high-water mark of the storm steering and augmentation program, with hurricane Katrina being driven around like a bumper car straight into New Orleans. The death energy level in the Ether having since come back down to a place where the technology is now inoperable at best, and ineffectual at worst.
The article continues: “That’s because there’s been some negative evidence about diet sodas messing up your metabolism, and that’s been something people have noticed in the news,” said Tufts University food economist William Masters. Today’s consumers are looking for naturalness and simplicity. “Clean food,” he said. “Food that has only ingredients you can pronounce.”
Bill took care not to say “there’s evidence OF diet sodas messing up your metabolism”. Instead, he went with “evidence ABOUT your metabolism”.
And there hasn’t been evidence, there’s only been SOME evidence. And there wasn’t evidence, there was NEGATIVE evidence. Which clearly places diet soda as the protagonist, and the, er, evidence as the antagonist. The talking head’s point of view is pro-diet-soda, which is underscored by his hilarious title of “Food Economist”. Who will, with a straight face, tell you that you should consume diet soda to prop up our sagging economy.
He went with the general “messing up your metabolism” to avoid saying, specifically, “There is evidence of diet soda tripling stroke and dementia, and increasing metabolic syndrome by over a third”.
He’s a picked Illuminist shill, fighting a desperate rearguard action in what propagandists refer to as a “hit piece”.
Here’s Bill’s picture:
(Bill Masters, Food Economist, Tufts University)
I’ve included it so you could get a better idea of what a generational Satanist in a position of marginal influence looks like.
I’m unsure if Bill wrote the careful, devious copy himself, or whether it was handed to him by his up-line in the Organization.In October 2017, FoodNavigator-USA put its fist in the air and cried “Coca-Cola blasts ‘meritless’ diet soda lawsuit”.
The cola beverage whose packaging is in the colors of the Nazi flag was hilarious being sued “because they knew Diet Soda makes you fat, and called it “diet”, anyway”.
Diet Soda builds desire and decreases satisfaction. Splenda flies ate 30 percent more calories than the control, and when they took away the artificially sweetened food, the effect vanished.
In a U.S. News story from January 2020, you can see how another similar case had to be pushed all the way up to a Federal appeals court to get its just verdict overturned:
January 1, 2020 - ’Diet’ soda doesn’t have to lead to weight loss, court rules - A federal appeals court sided with the makers of Diet Dr Pepper against allegations of false advertising, saying "no reasonable consumer" expects to lose weight from drinking diet soda”.
As you can see, there are bloodline-related generational Satanists up at the top of all the control pyramids, including the legal system.
In December 2017, Grub Street pretended not to be an advertising agency and said “President Trump Reportedly Drinks 12 Diet Cokes Per Day”.
Hey, that’s the same 12 diet cokes a day that Parkinson’s-afflicted Michael J. Fox used to drink! Or perhaps he still does.
Aspartame is made up of two amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, and methyl alcohol. It’s a dry-drunk thing - Trump is a recovering alcoholic.
“Reportedly” is thrown in there to give the subconscious of the reader the green light to say “oh, someone must have reported that incorrectly!” The propagandist knows that many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.
And it’s not even the good ethyl alcohol. It’s the make-you-go-blind wood stump water Methyl alcohol. Because that’s how generational Satanists roll.
In January 2018, popsugar.com apologized with “Sorry, but Here Are 5 Important Reasons You Should Stop Drinking Diet Soda”.
In January 2018, cheatsheet.com said “2 of the 3 Richest People in the World Drink This First Thing in the Morning”.
That click-bait headline from the Fascist lapdog “cheatsheet” is referring to Diet Coke:
“Worth $90.3 billion, Buffett just barely falls short of Gates’ fortune (if there is a way for a billionaire to “fall short,” that is). The 87-year-old … He used his Diet Coke consumption as an example of why increasing efficiency allows us to consume more (soda, in this instance) rather than less.”
You might have noticed that the outgoing Teleprompter-reader known as “our President” is also addicted to it.
In January 2018, an article I can no longer locate said “The Real Reason You Should Be Worried About The New Diet Coke”.
“The Diet Coke you’re used to is going to be the exact stuff you’re drinking now, with one exception: the new can. The new Diet Coke can is going to be taller and slimmer. I actually like the idea because that should make it a little grippier, but there’s one problem; how will it fit in your drink holders?
Since a programmed sociopath will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how, er, slim, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility, the author doesn’t trouble them with statistics like “drinking one artificially sweetened beverage a day increases your risk of stroke and dementia by three-fold compared to drinking less than one a week, while sugar-sweetened beverages are not associated with stroke or dementia.”
In the future, grade school children will marvel that a beverage that tripled stroke and dementia was even legal for sale, let alone happily consumed by the general populace despite that knowledge. Yet such are the times in which we live.
In January 2018, the U.K.’s Daily Mail said “Lord Falconer: my diet left me addicted to diet coke”.
That click-bait headline covers this ruse:
“Lord Falconer (pictured after his diet in 2016) has been left with a much trimmer figure after his crash diet - but he revealed that it has also left him ‘completely addicted’ to Diet Coke and drinking vast quantities of the caffeinated drink.”
They’re telling a Big Lie with the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty, pretending that drinking diet soda does not, in fact, make you fatter - which it does.
In January 2018, Fortune said “Diet Coke Is In Decline. And the Latest Revamp Might Not Help”.
Where they used “decline” because it’s softer than “drop”, and because it’s general, and because it echoes the word “recline”. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics in headlines that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.
Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.
The article continues: “More than a decade after soda consumption’s peak, Diet Coke demand is declining especially sharply.”
Where “especially” sharply makes the dim, childlike subconscious think “special!” They repeated the use of “decline” because it’s softer than “drop”, and because it’s general, and because it echoes the word “recline”.
The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.
“Sharply” is also general, despite the deceptive and childish “especially” taped onto its front end.
In January 2018, the moronically named delish.com pretended they weren’t advertising copywriters with “Lime-A-Rita Shades Diet Coke on Twitter Over Their New Flavors”.
“Lime-A-Rita tweeted Diet Coke Thursday complimenting the popular soda company over their new beverage, but also implied the brand was copying them.”
“Delish.com” is, with a straight face, calling a company whose sales are dropping at free-fall speeds “popular”. There’s no quit in these people.
In January 2018, Patch.com, bravely pretending they’re not advertising copywriters, said “Diet Coke, Facing Sales Drop, Tries Out New Flavors, Sleek Can.”
Where “facing” sales drop is a lie, in that the catastrophic sales drop began long previously. Sales “drop” is general. The international news blackout that is in place on this subject forbids the use of any statistics in headlines that would provide insight into the magnitude of the trend I’m documenting here.
Since sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, it goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” the phenomenon.
“Sleek can” is another treacly lie, in that your ass will become fatter, not sleeker, if you consume diet soda.
trea·cle - noun
1.BRITISH
a thick, sticky dark syrup made from partly refined sugar; molasses.
- cloying sentimentality or flattery.
The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants is “befuddled”.
That’s why a HuffPost article from January 2018 is headlined “Diet Coke’s Millennial-Inspired Makeover Leaves People Befuddled”.
HuffPost is bravely pretending they have no idea that consuming just one diet soda per day triples your risk of stroke and dementia, and that the public has awakened to that fact.
In January 2018, bevindustry.com said “Although the fizzy drink still dominates the zero-calorie soda drinks category, Diet Coke’s dollar sales fell by 3.7% in 2017”.
Where the author hedged “sells fell by 3.7%” back to “DOLLAR sales fell by 3.7%”. It’s the sort of detail most people don’t notice.
The author said “FELL by 3.7%” because “fell” is softer than “dropped”, and also as a thinly-veiled reference to the fallen Lord Lucifer.
In January 2018, the Satanically named “hellogiggles.com” pretended they were not in fact an advertising agency by writing “Diet Coke’s new flavors and makeover have a total La Croix vibe”.
“Hellogiggles” contains the word “hell”, and three Masonic g’s, with two in succession. They’re pretending they have no idea that consuming one diet soda per day triples rise of stroke and dementia.
In January 2018, The Herald Review pretended they were not in fact an advertising agency by saying “104-year old woman owes it all to Diet Coke”.
They’re pretending that they don’t know that consumption of diet soda at least daily is associated with a 36 percent increased risk of metabolic syndrome compared with not consuming any.
In January 2018, the U.K.’s Independent ran the same commercial, with a slightly different headline, to keep the wholly-credulous, mouth-breathing rubes over I the U.K. from catching on: “Key to long life is drinking lots of Diet Coke, says 104-year-old woman”.
They’re a generational Satanist propaganda organ, using conscious deception with the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To the top of its organization, the Independent has no idea about the tripling of stroke and dementia, or the 36% increased risk of metabolic syndrome, a product far, far deadlier than government-controlled beer, wine and liquor.
In March 2018, “tasteofhome” ran the same commercial, with a slightly different headline, to keep the wholly-credulous, mouth-breathing rubes back over in the U.S. from catching on: “104-Year-Old Woman Says Diet Coke Is Key to Longevity”.
Jeff Miller, Brooklyn, New York, December 1, 2020
If you’d like to be added to this free mailing list, please send me a note at [email protected].
You can access these articles online at https://forum.orgones.co.uk/c/positive-changes-that-are-occurring/
