A research reveals your body knows when death is near, and it all starts in the nose PSSNEWS
A research reveals your body knows when death is near, and it all starts in the nose
Despite years of research and the advance of techology, there are some things about human’s body that still remain a mystery for doctors and researchers. Knowing how complex our bodies are, this doesn’t really come as a surprise.
As some of us have what we call a sixth sense and can predict things in advance, a recent research revealed that we can also sense when death is approaching. Scientists say that when someone dies, the body immediately begins to break down. During these moments, putrescine, a foul and toxic scent that is the result of decomposition, is released. Apparently, humans subconsciously recognize this putrefying odor. Not only that, the scent, when released, causes an immediate response.
Two researchers, Arnaud Wisman from the University of Kent’s School of Psychology in Canterbury, UK and Ilan Shira from the Department of Behavioral Sciences in Arkansas’ Tech University in Russellville, AK, say that just like animals, humans can sense scents and then act accordingly. At the end of the day, that’s part of survival across the species.
When humans are exposed to the odor of putrescine, they express a conscious and subconscious reaction to it.
Some of the experiments conducted by these two researchers revealed that when people are exposed to the scent of putrescine, they move away, just like the animals which either run away or fight when they sense danger.
“We do not know why we like (or dislike) someone’s smell, and we’re usually not aware of how scent influences our emotions, preferences, and attitudes,” Wisman and Shira explain.
“It is hard to think of a scent as frightening,” other researchers claim. However, scents do make people more vigilant of their surroundings.
Sex pheromones, which are defined as odors produced by either males or females, that stimulate one or more behavioral reactions in the opposite sex, bringing the males and females together for the purpose of mating are just another example of the effect of scent at humans.
“Putrescine signals a different type of message than pheromones, but people’s responses to putrescine (avoidance and hostility) do seem indeed to be the opposite of responses to many sexual pheromones,” researchers explain. At the same time, the researchers explain that humans are not aware o the odor and don’t consciously associate it with death or fear.
Please SHARE this article with your family and friends on Facebook!
Your nose knows death is imminent
This article is more than 11 years oldLosing the sense of smell predicts death within five years, according to new research
Until as recently as 1987, British coal pits employed caged canaries as sentinels that alerted miners to the presence of poisonous gases. Being more sensitive to them than we are, the birds would get distressed before the gases reached levels that are dangerous to humans, giving the miners time to evacuate and avoid suffocation.
According to new research, the sense of smell is the canary in the coalmine of human health. A study published today in the open access journal PLOS ONE, shows that losing one’s sense of smell strongly predicts death within five years, suggesting that the nose knows when death is imminent, and that smell may serve as a bellwether for the overall state of the body, or as a marker for exposure to environmental toxins.
The study involved more than 3,000 participants, all of them between 57 and 85 years old, from the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP), a longitudinal study of factors affecting the well-being of older people living in America.
In 2005-6, Jayant Pinto of the University of Chicago and his colleagues asked all the participants to perform a simple test that involved identifying five common odours (rose, leather, fish, orange, and peppermint), using the number of incorrectly identified odours as a score of the severity of smell loss.
Five years later, the researchers tracked down as many of the same participants as they could, and asked them to perform this smell test a second time. During the five-year gap between the two tests, 430 of the original participants (or 12.5% of the total number) had died. Of these, 39% who had failed the first smell test died before the second test, compared to 19% of those who had moderate smell loss on the first test, and just 10% of those with a healthy sense of smell.
In other words, those participants who failed the first smell test completely were four times as likely to die within five years than those who correctly identified all five odours. This held true when other factors known to impact smell - such as race, sex, mental illness, and socioeconomic status - were taken into account, and even milder smell loss was associated with slightly increased odds of impending death.
Loss of the sense of smell predicted death more accurately than did a diagnosis of cancer, heart failure or lung disease, the only other common cause of predicting it more accurately being severe liver damage. But the researchers stress that it is unlikely to be a cause of death itself, arguing only that it is a harbinger for what is to come, and suggesting two possible reasons why this might be so.
The tip of the olfactory nerve, which contains the smell receptors, is the only part of the human nervous system that is continuously regenerated by stem cells. The production of new smell cells declines with age, and this is associated with a gradual reduction in our ability to detect and discriminate odours. Loss of smell may indicate that the body is entering a state of disrepair, and is no longer capable of repairing itself.
The olfactory nerve is also the only part of the nervous system that is exposed to the open air. As such, it offers poisons and pathogens a quick route into the brain, and so losing smell could be an early warning of something that will ultimately cause death.
Pinto and his colleagues did not examine the actual causes of the 430 participants’ deaths, but say that this information would be valuable for exploring the link further. They believe the 3-minute smell test they used is less reliable than a longer clinical assessment and, therefore, that the link may be even stronger than their results would suggest. They don’t know if the results also apply to younger people, but if they stand up to further scrutiny, they could provide a quick way of identifying older ones who are at risk.
John Kennedy’s Latest Comments Have Reopened the Epstein Debate in a Big Way
John Kennedy’s Latest Comments Have Reopened the Epstein Debate in a Big Way
Sen. Kennedy Raises New Concerns About Epstein Case Amid Ongoing Tensions
“Ornaments, Drywall, and Epstein”: Senator Kennedy Slams “Shady” Investigation as FBI Director Faces Heated Grill over Trump and Sex Trafficking Files
The halls of Congress became the staging ground for a high-stakes battle over truth, accountability, and the ghost of Jeffrey Epstein this week. In a series of explosive testimonies that have sent shockwaves through social media, the Director of the FBI and officials from the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) were subjected to a blistering interrogation by lawmakers who reflect the deep-seated skepticism of the American public. The central theme was clear: the official narrative surrounding the death of Jeffrey Epstein is failing the test of public trust, and the demand for transparency regarding his co-conspirators has reached a fever pitch.
Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, known for his sharp wit and folksy but lethal metaphors, set the tone for the proceedings with a remark that immediately went viral. “Christmas ornaments, drywall, and Jerry Epstein—name three things that don’t hang themselves,” Kennedy quipped, succinctly capturing the prevailing sentiment of millions of Americans. His opening salvo wasn’t just a clever line; it was a direct challenge to the Bureau of Prisons’ finding that Epstein’s death in August 2019 was a simple suicide. Kennedy emphasized that the American people “deserve some answers” and urged officials not to rush the investigation, but to treat it with the “top priority” it warrants.
The testimony of Dr. Sawyer, representing the BOP, revealed the systemic failures that allowed such a high-profile prisoner to perish while under federal watch. When questioned about the specifics of Epstein’s confinement, Sawyer admitted that the death of such a high-profile individual indicates either a “major malfunction of the system or criminal enterprise.” He described the tiers of suicide watch, explaining that while Epstein had been on a strict watch initially—stripped of everything but a mattress and a coarse gown—the system failed when he was moved to “psychological observation.” Despite claims that inmates on such observation are “watched and scrutinized every moment,” Epstein was reportedly alone and unmonitored at the time of his death.
The emotional core of the hearing focused on the victims—the women and girls who were raped and trafficked by Epstein and his associates. Lawmakers argued that Epstein’s death wasn’t just a prison failure; it was a theft of justice. By allowing Epstein to die before he could testify against his co-conspirators, the “bastard” was able to protect his circle from beyond the grave, leaving his victims with their “hearts ripped out.” The Director was criticized for the “management matter” of treating Epstein like any other inmate, with senators arguing that someone with his level of information should have been the highest priority for protection to ensure the integrity of future criminal investigations.
As the focus shifted to the FBI’s role, the tension escalated into a near-total breakdown of decorum. The Director was grilled on the “Epstein files” and the specific mention of high-profile names, including Donald Trump. In a series of evasive maneuvers, the Director claimed he had not reviewed the entirety of the files personally, despite it being the “largest sex trafficking case the FBI has ever been a part of.” When pushed to provide a number of times Trump’s name appeared in the documents, the Director refused to give a specific count, stating only that “it’s not a thousand” and “it’s not a hundred,” while accusing lawmakers of engaging in “political innuendo.”
The exchange turned personal and vitriolic as the Director defended his record, citing his work in reducing crime and child trafficking, while lawmakers accused him of “hiding pedophiles” and playing a “cute shell game” with the law. Reference was made to Judge Richard Berman, who previously noted that the information released to the public “pales in comparison” to the materials held by the Department of Justice. The hearing concluded with a dramatic refusal by the Director to recuse himself from investigations involving individuals he had previously labeled “government gangsters” in his own book, leading to a final, bitter standoff over the “disgrace” of the proceedings.
This hearing has made one thing undeniably certain: the Epstein saga is far from over. As technology like drone drops and advanced surveillance cameras become the new frontline for prison security, the focus remains on the old-fashioned failures of human oversight and the potential for deep-seated corruption. For the victims, the wait for the “entire truth” continues, as the wall of government secrecy remains stubbornly intact.
Panic Behind the Scenes? New Claims Put Pete Hegseth Under Heavy Scrutiny
Hegseth in Panic Mode as Troops Revolt and Leak Damaging Photos He Tried to Keep Hidden
Troops in Revolt: Leaked ‘Nightmare’ Photos Reveal Starvation and Chaos Under Pete Hegseth’s Leadership
In the high-stakes theater of American defense, the image of the stoic, well-supplied soldier is a cornerstone of national pride. However, a series of explosive leaks from within the ranks of the U.S. Navy and the Pentagon has shattered that facade, painting a devastating picture of a military in crisis. At the center of this storm is Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, whose tenure is now being defined not by strategic brilliance, but by a “nightmare” scenario of logistical collapse, plummeting morale, and an unprecedented revolt from the very troops he is tasked with leading.
The crisis reached a fever pitch this week as service members aboard major aircraft carriers, including the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Gerald R. Ford, began leaking photos of the meals they are being served. These images, which have quickly gone viral, show “grim meals” consisting of dry patties, plastic-looking carrots, and a single tortilla on otherwise empty plastic trays. One sailor on the USS Abraham Lincoln described the situation in stark terms: “The food is tasteless and there’s not nearly enough and they’re hungry all the time.” For a military that prides itself on being the best-fed and best-equipped force in the world, these revelations are a staggering indictment of current leadership.
The logistical failure extends beyond the galley. Families of service members are reporting a total breakdown in the military postal system, with the U.S. Postal Service temporarily suspending mail delivery to 27 military zip codes. Parents have spent thousands of dollars on care packages that sit in transit with no clear delivery timeline, leaving their children to ration what little food they have. One mother from Texas, whose son is aboard the USS Tripoli, shared that her family has spent over $2,000 on supplies that have never reached him, forcing sailors to “ration and share food” just to get by.
In the face of these failures, Secretary Hegseth has reportedly spiraled into a state of panic. Rather than addressing the systemic issues within his department, Hegseth has taken to the public stage to attack the media, labeling journalists as “Pharisees” and accusing them of having “hardened hearts” calibrated only to impugn his leadership. Critics argue that this aggressive rhetoric is a desperate attempt to deflect attention from his own unpopularity and the growing dissatisfaction within the MAGA wing of the Pentagon. Recent data suggests that Hegseth is uniquely unpopular, sitting 30 points underwater in net popularity—a sharp contrast to historical figures like Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney during similar conflicts.
The tension is further amplified by reports that Hegseth fears he is on Donald Trump’s “chopping block.” His public outbursts and constant “ass-kissing” of the President are seen by many as a survival tactic to avoid being fired in the middle of the escalating conflict with Iran.Meanwhile, the contrast between the treatment of troops and high-profile criminals has become a flashpoint for public anger. Social media users have pointed out that sex criminal Ghislaine Maxwell is reportedly “eating better” in her “five-star resort” prison than our men and women in uniform, who are being sent to risk their lives in a war many feel serves the interests of the elite “Epstein class” rather than American citizens.
As Donald Trump gears up for a $1.5 trillion defense budget, the question of where that money is going has become central to the debate. While billions are earmarked for tech giants and AI development, the basic needs of the frontline defenders—food, mail, and morale—are being ignored. The leaked photos from the ships are more than just a complaint about “slop”; they are a cry for help from a military that feels abandoned by its civilian leaders.
The situation under Pete Hegseth is no longer just a matter of political disagreement; it is a full-scale revolt fueled by the most basic of human needs. As morale reaches an all-time low and the “holy war” narrative fails to satisfy hungry stomachs, the pressure on the Pentagon to change course is reaching a breaking point. For the families of those serving, the message is clear: our service members deserve so much better than this.
