Loren Cordain - Origins and Evolution of the Western Diet: Health Implications for the 21st Century.
There is growing awareness that the profound changes in the environment (e.g. in diet and other lifestyle conditions) that began with the introduction of agriculture and animal husbandry approximately 10,000 years ago occurred too recently on an evolutionary timescale for the human genome to adjust. In conjunction with this discordance between our ancient, genetically-determined biology and the nutritional, cultural and activity patterns of contemporary western populations, many of the so-called diseases of civilization have emerged. In the U.S. and most western countries, diet-related chronic diseases represent the single largest cause of morbidity and mortality. These diseases are epidemic in contemporary, westernized populations and typically afflict 50-65 % of the adult population, yet are rare or non-existent in hunter-gatherers and other less westernized people. Evidence gleaned over the past three decades now indicates that virtually all so-called diseases of civilization have multifactorial dietary elements that underlie their etiology, along with other environmental agents and genetic susceptibility. This talk will trace the origins of the Western diet and discuss the health implications.
Dr. Cordain is a Professor in the Department of Health and Exercise Science at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado. His research emphasis over the past 15 years has focused upon the evolutionary and anthropological basis for diet, health and well being in modern humans.
Dr. Cordain's scientific publications have examined the nutritional characteristics of worldwide hunter-gatherer diets as well as the nutrient composition of wild plant and animal foods consumed by foraging humans. Over the past five years his work has focused upon the adverse health effects of the high dietary glycemic load that is ubiquitous in the typical western diet. A number of his recent papers have proposed an endocrine link between dietary induced hyperinsulinemia and acne. Currently, Dr. Cordain's research team is exploring the connection between dietary elements that increase intestinal permeability (primarily saponins and lectins) and autoimmune disease, particularly multiple sclerosis.
Dr. Cordain is the author of more than 100 peer review publications, many of which were funded by both private and governmental agencies. He is the recent recipient of the Scholarly Excellence award at Colorado State University for his contributions into understanding optimal human nutrition. He has lectured extensively world wide, and has written three popular books (The Paleo Diet, John Wiley & Sons; The Paleo Diet for Athletes, Rodale Press; The Dietary Cure for Acne) summarizing his research findings.
Source for this post: Dr. Mercola: Eating This Can "Tear Holes" in Your Gut
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Fukushima Update: Why We Should (Still) Be Worried
 |
| © n/a |
After the catastrophic trifecta of the triple meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex in Japan last March - what the Japanese are referring to as their 3/11 - you would think the Japanese government would be doing everything in its power to contain the disaster. You would be wrong - dead wrong.
Instead of collecting, isolating, and guarding the millions of tons of radioactive rubble that resulted from the chain reaction of the 9.0 earthquake, the subsequent 45- to 50-foot wall of water that swamped the plant and disabled the cooling systems for the reactors, and the ensuing meltdowns, Japanese Environment Minister Goshi Hosono says that the entire country must share Fukushima's plight by accepting debris from the disaster.
The tsunami left an estimated 20 million tons of wreckage on the land, much of which - now ten months after the start of the disaster - is festering in stinking piles throughout the stricken region. (Up to 20 million more tons of rubble from the disaster - estimated to cover an area approximately the size of California - is also circulating in the Pacific.) The enormous volume of waste is much more than the disaster areas can handle. So, in an apparent attempt to return this region to some semblance of normal life, the plan is to spread out the waste to as many communities across the country as will take it.
At the end of September, Tokyo signed an agreement to accept 500,000 metric tons of rubble from Iwate Prefecture, one of eight prefectures designated for cleanup under a new nuclear decontamination law passed on January 1. The law allows for much of the radioactively contaminated rubble to be incinerated, a practice that has been underway at least since the end of June.
But the sheer amount of radioactive rubble is proving difficult to process. The municipal government of Kashiwa, in Chiba Prefecture to the west and south of Tokyo, recently shut down one of its main incinerators, because it can't store any more than the 200 metric tons of radioactive ash it already has that is too contaminated to bury in a landfill.
According to the California-based Fukushima Fallout Awareness Network (FFAN), burning Fukushima's radioactive rubble is the worst possible way to deal with the problem. That's because incinerating it releases much more radioactivity into the air, not only magnifying the contamination all over Japan but also sending it up into the jet stream. Once in the jet stream, the radioactive particles travel across the Northern Hemisphere, coming back down to earth with rain, snow, or other precipitation. Five days after the Fukushima meltdowns began, radioactive fallout from the disaster reached the West Coast of the United States. Approximately a week later, Fukushima fallout was measured as far away as France.
In October, the journal Nature reported that the Japanese government's initial estimates of radiation from Fukushima were substantially less than what Scandinavian researchers calculated from a global network of radiation monitoring stations that the Vienna-based Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization uses to detect nuclear weapons tests.
Radiation used to be a word that evoked serious concern in a lot of people. However, the nuclear industry and its supporters have done a masterful job in allaying public fears about it. They do this in significant part by relying on outdated and highly questionable data collected on Japanese atom bomb survivors, while at the same time ignoring and dismissing inconvenient but much more relevant evidence that shows the actual harmful effects of radiation exposure from nuclear accidents. Author Gayle Greene explains this well in a recent article here. In their attempt to win the public over to their viewpoint, nuclear proponents even trot out the dubious theory of radiation hormesis, which says that low doses of radiation are actually good for you, because they stimulate an immune response. Well, so does something that causes an allergic reaction. But I digress...
What Radiation Is
A great help to nuclear proponents is the fact that nuclear physics is complicated, and most people don't understand even its most basic concepts. The blanket term "radiation" is used to describe all manner of radioactive contamination - as if it's just one thing - when, in fact, there are different kinds, some much more damaging than others. It also matters exactly what is being exposed to radiation - i.e., exposure outside the body or inside it - and how long the exposure goes on.
In a nutshell, radioactive elements, also known as radioisotopes or radionuclides, are unstable atoms. They seek stability by giving off particles and energy - ionizing radiation - until the radioisotope becomes stable. This process occurs within the nucleus of the radioisotope, and the shedding of these particles and energy is commonly referred to as ''nuclear disintegration.'' Nuclear radiation expert Rosalie Bertell describes the release of energy in each disintegration as ''an explosion on the microscopic level."
This process is known as the "decay chain," and during their decay, most radioactive elements morph into yet other radioactive elements on their journey to becoming lighter, stable atoms at the end of the chain. Some of the morphed-into elements are much more dangerous than the original radioisotope, and the decay chain can take a very long time. This is the reason that radioactive contamination can last so long.
To further complicate the issue, different radioisotopes give off different kinds of radiation - alpha, beta, gamma, X ray, or neutron emissions - all of which behave differently. Alpha emitters, such as plutonium and radon, are intensely ionizing but don't penetrate very far and generally can't get through the dead layers of cells covering skin. But when they are inhaled from the air or ingested from radiation-contaminated food or water, they emit high-energy particles that can do serious damage to the cells of sensitive internal soft tissues and organs. The lighter, faster-moving beta particles can penetrate far more deeply than alpha particles, though sheets of metal and heavy clothing can block them.
Beta particles are also very dangerous when inhaled or ingested. Strontium-90 and tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, are both beta emitters. Gamma radiation is a form of electromagnetic energy like X rays, and it passes through clothing and skin straight into the body. A one-inch shield of either lead or iron, or eight inches of concrete are needed to stop gamma rays, examples of which include cobalt-60 and cesium-137 - one of the radionuclides of most concern in the Fukushima fallout. Aside from use in medical diagnostics, X rays are also produced in nuclear fission, and their effects are similar to gamma radiation. Neutron emissions are the most penetrating of all types of radiation and require a shield of several feet of water or concrete to contain them.
The behavior of radioisotopes out in the environment also varies depending on what they encounter. They can combine with one another or with stable chemicals to form molecules that may or may not dissolve in water. They can combine with solids, liquids, or gases at ordinary temperature and pressure. They may be able to enter into biochemical reactions, or they may be biologically inert.
In her book No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth, Bertell notes that if they enter the body either through air, food, water, or an open wound, "They may remain near the place of entry into the body or travel in the bloodstream or lymph fluid. They can be incorporated into the tissue or bone. They may remain in the body for minutes or hours or a lifetime." To illustrate how different radioisotopes behave, she points out that: "Plutonium is biologically and chemically attracted to bone as is the naturally occurring radioactive chemical radium. However, plutonium clumps on the surface of bone, delivering a concentrated dose of alpha radiation to surrounding cells, whereas radium diffuses homogeneously in bone and thus has a lesser localized cell damage effect. This makes plutonium, because of the concentration, much more biologically toxic than a comparable amount of radium."
Specific health effects from internal radiation exposure correlate with where radioisotopes land in the body. Bertell explains: "For example, radionuclides lodged in the bones can damage bone marrow and cause bone cancers or leukemia, while radionuclides lodged in the lungs can cause respiratory diseases. Generalized whole body exposure to radiation can be expressed as a stress related to a person's hereditary medical weakness. Individual breakdown usually occurs at our weakest point." In other words, the impact of radiation exposure also depends very much on each individual's level of health and genetic make-up.
Fukushima's Unending Fallout
Fetuses in utero, infants, and young children - all of whom have quickly dividing cells - as well as the elderly and people with compromised immune systems are most vulnerable to radiation exposure. "Official" sources like the Environmental Protection Agency and the UC Berkeley Nuclear Engineering Air Monitoring Station consistently downplay the health effects of the fallout. In fact, the EPA was so confident that Fukushima fallout would not be a problem for U.S. citizens that it stopped its specific monitoring of fallout from Fukushima less than two months after the meltdowns began.
But neglecting to monitor the fallout will not make it go away. In fact, another enormous problem with radioactive contamination is that it bioaccumulates in the environment, which means it concentrates as it moves up the food chain. (Think of mercury in fish.) Because many radionuclides are so long-lived, this can be a problem for a very long time. For example, the U.K. is only now considering lifting restrictions on the remaining 334 sheep farms in Wales that are still prohibited from selling any meat because of contamination from the Chernobyl disaster in April 1986.
In this video, FFAN member Kimberly Roberson points out that the first disaster at Fukushima Daiichi following the earthquake and tsunami was accidental: "However, by burning the millions of tons of radioactive rubble, it's going to provide a brand new humanitarian crisis." She observes that this crisis - "transgenerational DNA damage that's passed well into the future" - is additional and intentional, and that everything possible must be done to stop it.
Roberson's point is well taken. However, the desperate yearning among the Japanese to get past this disaster combined with the uncharted territory of dealing with a triple-whammy catastrophe of this magnitude - earthquake, tsunami, and three nuclear meltdowns - seems to be clouding their vision. The truth is, a nuclear disaster offers no easy or good choices. But some, like vaporizing the radionuclides throughout the atmosphere, will unnecessarily prolong the danger to the people and environment of Japan and spread the pain far and wide.
FDA Threat: Vitamins, Supplements, & Alternative Health Therapies
 |
| © healthfreedoms.org |
The FDA generously lends its approval to drugs that cause ghastly symptoms and untold damage. Many contain toxic contaminants from China. Vioxx is said to have claimed 70,000 lives. "Yet not one of them was taken off the market until the desired profits of the product manufacturer were realized and not once were criminal charges ever levied at a pharmaceutical company that decided profits were far more important than human lives."~ Health Freedoms
Consumer reports seek to demonize natural remedies with ambiguous statements like "thought to be linked" and "could be linked" because natural products are not patentable and there are barely any substantial reports of negative consequences. But this is not enough for the FDA to turn public interest against natural health products and close small supplement companies. So the next step involves twisting vitamins, supplements, and alternative health therapies into something "medicinal" to crack down on companies full force. But they never crack down on the real culprits of death and damage.
In the matter of independent testing for new drugs and vaccines, the FDA throws its hands up, "We don't have the power!" When it comes to natural remedies it will be "Respect our power!"
Even as the FDA has for decades routinely given a seal of approval to toxic and deadly medications and vaccines, claiming they are safe, and as hundreds and thousands of people, if not millions, have died or have been permanently injured as a result of their incompetence and gross dereliction of duty, this agency continues its assault on natural remedies and aids claiming they need to be regulated by FDA.
While one toxic and deadly medication, such as Vioxx can claim 70,000 lives, the manufacturer is never shut down by the FDA. Merck Pharmaceuticals never pays any fines or penalties. While they may be sued in court for wrongful death, this is only AFTER they have sold enough of their toxin to exceed any long term risk assessment costs.
In other words: Merck knows its product is lethal. It weighs the long term risk. The questions are never those of public safety, possible harm or death from using their product, but rather:
- Can we sell enough of Vioxx fast enough and at levels
- high enough to offset what we estimate will be the costs of lawsuits for the people we killed or permanently injured and still make a hefty profit?
 |
| © healthfreedoms.org |
Never in the history of natural and alternative therapies and health practices has any vitamin, mineral, supplement, herb or alternative therapy caused the death of 70,000 people. Not once. In fact, the reports of adverse reactions to natural remedies and health aids is so minimal, there virtually is no report of any consequence.
Because there is no evidence of large scale harm from the use of natural remedies and therapies, a skewed and fabricated report which was promoted by Consumer Reports, using terms such as "May be linked, Could be linked, might be, "is thought to be linked" and other evasive and non-conclusive statements to lead the reader to believe that there is a known and provable link to various diseases and health issues when no such evidence exists. Because these natural products are natural and not patentable and most have been used for centuries without harm, it is imperative to fictionalize some form of threat to justify handing them over to big pharma.
Consumer Reports also stated:
"The Food and Drug Administration has not made full use of even the meager authority granted it by the industry-friendly 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA)."The FDA has actually stepped outside of its legal (not lawful) authority which is only concerned with labeling. Every effort has been made by FDA to create regulations and rules that would have no other effect than to expedite the closing of small supplement manufacturers as they move towards redefining nutritional supplements and dietary aids along with alternative health therapies as medicinal.The Consumer Report also states that of the supplements tested many were found to be contaminated with heavy metals and other toxins, including prescription medications. It also says that most of this contamination originates in China....just like the melamine contaminated products.
Did the FDA move to halt these products? No! Do they inspect any Chinese producers? No! Were any penalties levied against Chinese producers? No!
What FDA did do in the case of the melamine contamination was to establish an acceptable amount of melamine in Chinese imports. Melamine is highly toxic at any level.
The use of the words and phrases such as, may, could, might, thought to be, are the same vague words used to justify the use of toxic vaccines and medications. Any of these pharmaceuticals "may, might, could be or may be thought to be" useful in fighting disease, but no one seems able to provide any conclusive evidence that they do, although we do seem to bury a large number of people subjected to them and we have to deal with the long term care for those who survive these things but who are now permanently damaged.
As a result of their continuing protection of, and approval of, untested medications and vaccines producers, is it any wonder the FDA (Food & Drug Administration) is now openly referred to by the public as the "Federal Death Administration"?
This agency has given its approval to medications that have caused heart attacks, strokes, birth defects, autism, neurological disorders, seizures, coma, sudden infant death, infertility, cancer, leukemia, brain damage, dementia, amnesia, liver damage, muscle damage, high blood pressure, hemorrhages, blood clots, blindness, and so many other life threatening or life impairing conditions that it is impossible to list them all. The list of medications and vaccines that have been pulled from the market is extensive. Yet not one of them was taken off the market until the desired profits of the product manufacturer were realized and not once were criminal charges ever levied at a pharmaceutical company that decided profits were far more important than human lives.
This approval is given in lieu of money. It is given while accepting the intentionally skewed testing data provided by the same corporations seeking approval. The FDA rarely, if ever, actually does any independent testing of new drugs and vaccines. This is not a matter of the FDA not having enough authority; they have far more authority than they were ever intended to have.
The problem is that they are a privately owned federal corporation unlawfully empowered to write rules and regulations (law-making) by congress ceding its authority, and as such are autonomous. Nothing in the FDA mandates and guidelines requires them to act in the public interest. And the fact is; they don't.
About the author
Marti Oakley is a political activist and former op-ed columnist for the St Cloud Times in Minnesota. She was a member of the Times Writer's Group until she resigned in September of 07. She is neither Democrat nor Republican, since neither party is representative of the American people. She says what she thinks, means what she says, and is known for being outspoken. She is hopeful that the American public will wake up to what is happening to our beloved country . . . little of it is left. Her website is The PPJ Gazette
Friday, January 20, 2012
Farmer feeds GMO corn to his pigs: they all become sterile.
Farmer feeds GMO corn to his pigs: they all become sterile.
Jerry Rosman, a pig farmer in Iowa, was cultivating GMO corn,(Roundup Ready and BT) and fed this corn to his pigs.
Result: his sows became infertile, and then after one year he went bankrupt.
See the whole interview here: http://vimeo.com/20237421
Is it an incident isolated to Iowa ? Check this article from Greenpeace; http://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/news/no-need-for-condoms-ge-corn/
"Austrian scientists fed mice over a course of 20 weeks a mixture of 33 percent Monsanto GE corn (NK 603 x MON 810) and non-GE corn.
These mice gave birth to less babies and lighter babies in their third and fourth litters. Mice fed on non-GE corn had babies as normal.
These differences are statistically significant."
To have a more global idea on the issue and the relation between GMOs and sterilisation, please read the book "Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation": Available on Amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Destruction-Hidden-Genetic-Manipulation/dp/097371...
Jerry Rosman, a pig farmer in Iowa, was cultivating GMO corn,(Roundup Ready and BT) and fed this corn to his pigs.
Result: his sows became infertile, and then after one year he went bankrupt.
See the whole interview here: http://vimeo.com/20237421
Is it an incident isolated to Iowa ? Check this article from Greenpeace; http://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/news/no-need-for-condoms-ge-corn/
"Austrian scientists fed mice over a course of 20 weeks a mixture of 33 percent Monsanto GE corn (NK 603 x MON 810) and non-GE corn.
These mice gave birth to less babies and lighter babies in their third and fourth litters. Mice fed on non-GE corn had babies as normal.
These differences are statistically significant."
To have a more global idea on the issue and the relation between GMOs and sterilisation, please read the book "Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation": Available on Amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Destruction-Hidden-Genetic-Manipulation/dp/097371...
The Vaccination Agenda: An Implicit Transhumanism/Dehumanism
 |
| © greenmedinfo.com |
Let's face it: the only real justification for using vaccines to "immunize" ourselves against disease is derived from the natural fact that when challenged by infectious agents the humoral arm of our immune system launches a successful response capable of conferring lasting immunity. Were it not for the elegance, proficiency, and mostly asymptomatic success of our recombinatorial immune system in dealing so well with infectious challenges, vaccination would have no cause, no scientific explanation, no justification whatsoever.
In fact, ever since the adaptive, antigen-specific immune system evolved in early vertebrates 500 million years ago, our bodies have been doing a pretty good job of keeping us alive on this planet without need for synthetic, vaccine-mediated immunity. Indeed, infectious challenges are necessary for the development of a healthy immune system and in order to prevent autoimmune conditions from emerging as a result of TH2 dominance. In other words, take away these natural infectious challenges, and the immune system can and will turn upon itself; take way these infectious challenges and lasting immunity against tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pathogens we are exposed to throughout our lives, would not be possible.
Can vaccines really co-opt, improve upon, and replace natural immunity with synthetic immunity?
How many will this require?
Are we not already at the critical threshold of vaccine overload?
By "improving" on our humanness in this way, are we not also at the same moment departing dramatically from it?
Read more..
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Alzheimer's Disease: Studies Suggest That Meat Is Medicine
 |
| © Unknown |
The European Journal of Internal Medicine just published a paper discussing "Nutrition and Alzheimer's disease: The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet." Authors Seneff, Wainwright, and Mascitelli provided this abstract:
"Alzheimer's disease is a devastating disease whose recent increase in incidence rates has broad implications for rising health care costs. Huge amounts of research money are currently being invested in seeking the underlying cause, with corresponding progress in understanding the disease progression. In this paper, we highlight how an excess of dietary carbohydrates, particularly fructose, alongside a relative deficiency in dietary fats and cholesterol, may lead to the development of Alzheimer's disease. A first step in the pathophysiology of the disease is represented by advanced glycation end-products in crucial plasma proteins concerned with fat, cholesterol, and oxygen transport. This leads to cholesterol deficiency in neurons, which significantly impairs their ability to function. Over time, a cascade response leads to impaired glutamate signaling, increased oxidative damage, mitochondrial and lysosomal dysfunction, increased risk to microbial infection, and, ultimately, apoptosis. Other neurodegenerative diseases share many properties with Alzheimer's disease, and may also be due in large part to this same underlying cause." [Emphasis added]The idea certainly echos findings that type 2 diabetics (i.e. people with high blood sugar) have an increased risk of diabetes. In search of an explanation for the link between diabetes and Alzheimer's, Salk Institute researchers did some experiments discussed in this article at Science Daily:
To get at the bottom of the question why diabetes predisposes people to Alzheimer's disease as they age, the Salk researchers Schubert, Burdo and Qi Chen, in collaboration with diabetes expert Nigel Calcutt, a professor in UCSD's Department of Pathology, induced diabetes in young mice, whose genetic background predisposes them to acquire the symptoms of Alzheimer's with old age.
These [high blood sugar] mice suffered damage to blood vessels well before any overt signs of Alzheimer's disease such as nerve cell death or the acquisition of amyloid deposits, the hallmark of the disease, could be detected in their brains. Further experiments revealed that the vascular damage was due to the overproduction of free radicals, resulting in oxidative damage to the cells lining the brain's blood vessels.
"While all people have a low level of amyloid circulating in their blood, in diabetics there may be a synergistic toxicity between the amyloid and high level of blood glucose that is leading to the problems with proper blood vessel formation," says Burdo. [Emphasis added]Some researchers have even proposed that Alzheimer's disease is a novel third form of diabetes:
Read complete article..
| Comment: I've added revelation to the analecta study group as a marker for evolution and life force in association with animals which are also humans. This leave the references to Apoc as principally chaos as the avenger. This is where the Hamadryad has moved in. |
Supplements: The Real Story Natural or Synthetic? Foods or Tablets?
 |
| © N/A |
It's a nutritional "Catch 22": The public is told, confusingly: "Vitamins are good, but vitamin supplements are not. Only vitamins from food will help you. So just eat a good diet. Do not take supplements! But by the way, there is no difference between natural and synthetic vitamins."
Wait a minute. What's the real story here?
A recent health study reported that the risk of heart failure decreased with increasing blood levels of vitamin C [1]. The benefit of vitamin C (ascorbate) was highly significant. Persons with the lowest plasma levels of ascorbate had the highest risk of heart failure, and persons with the highest levels of vitamin C had the lowest risk of heart failure. This finding confirms the knowledge derived over the last 50 years that vitamin C is a major essential factor in cardiovascular health [2,3]. The study raises several important questions about diet and vitamin supplements.
Was it Food or Supplements?
The report discussed vitamin C as if it were simply an indicator of how many fruits and vegetables were consumed by the participants. Yet, ironically, the study's results show little improvement in the risk for heart failure from consuming fruits and vegetables. This implies that the real factor in reducing the risk was indeed the amount of vitamin C consumed. Moreover, the study appears to utterly ignore the widespread use of vitamin C supplements to improve cardiovascular health. In fact, out of four quartile groups, the quartile with the highest plasma vitamin C had six to ten times the rate of vitamin C supplementation of the lowest quartile, but this fact was not emphasized. This type of selective attention to food sources of vitamin C, while dismissing supplements as an important source, appears to be an attempt to marginalize the importance of vitamin supplements.
Read more..
Vaccine warfare! Texas carpet-bombs 7,000 square miles with air-dropped rabies vaccines
 |
| © unknown "Health Bombs" |
(NaturalNews) The weaponization of vaccines just took another leap forward in America with the recent air-dropping of rabies vaccines by the Texas Department of State Health Services. Using a battery of small planes based out of Del Rio, Texas recently dropped 1.8 million edible vaccine packets over 7,700 square miles of rural Texas.
The packets contain edible rabies vaccines dipped in fish oil and coated with fish meal to entice foxes and coyotes to eat them. Once consumed, the animal is "vaccinated" against rabies, researchers claim.
Of course, what these researchers don't yet understand in their scientific ignorance (and arrogance) is that they are also engaged in a rabies DNA / RNA bombardment of Texas. As even the Institute of Medicine has admitted, MMR vaccines for use in humans actually cause measles because many of the vaccines contain live viral strains. (http://www.naturalnews.com/033447_Institute_of_Medicine_vaccines.html)
Vaccine manufacturing is conducted under such poor quality control today that vaccines are routinely shipped out the door containing viable viral strains that often infect and sometimes even kill human victims. For example, in 2009 Baxter Pharmaceuticals was caught red-handed shipping out live avian flu viruses to 18 countries (http://www.naturalnews.com/025760.html).
What Texas Dept. of State Health Services workers probably don't yet grasp is that vaccine manufacturers routinely use vaccines to spread the very disease they claim to be preventing. By injecting live rabies strains into a small percentage of the vaccines dropped on Texas (say, one percent), they are effectively engaging in a DNA carpet-bombing run that will absolutely guarantee rabies continues to remain endemic throughout feral animal populations in the state. This, of course, will result in yet more rabies vaccines being purchased to "combat the problem," thereby achieving the goal of the entire scam: To sell more vaccines to the government.
When it Comes to Accepting Evolution, Gut Feelings Trump Facts
 |
| © n/a |
For students to accept the theory of evolution, an intuitive "gut feeling" may be just as important as understanding the facts, according to a new study.
In an analysis of the beliefs of biology teachers, researchers found that a quick intuitive notion of how right an idea feels was a powerful driver of whether or not students accepted evolution - often trumping factors such as knowledge level or religion.
"The whole idea behind acceptance of evolution has been the assumption that if people understood it - if they really knew it - they would see the logic and accept it," said David Haury, co-author of the new study and associate professor of education at Ohio State University.
"But among all the scientific studies on the matter, the most consistent finding was inconsistency. One study would find a strong relationship between knowledge level and acceptance, and others would find no relationship. Some would find a strong relationship between religious identity and acceptance, and others would find less of a relationship."
"So our notion was, there is clearly some factor that we're not looking at," he continued. "We're assuming that people accept something or don't accept it on a completely rational basis. Or, they're part of a belief community that as a group accept or don't accept. But the findings just made those simple answers untenable."
Haury and his colleagues tapped into cognitive science research showing that our brains don't just process ideas logically - we also rely on how true something feels when judging an idea. "Research in neuroscience has shown that when there's a conflict between facts and feeling in the brain, feeling wins," he says.
The researchers framed a study to determine whether intuitive reasoning could help explain why some people are more accepting of evolution than others. The study, published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, included 124 pre-service biology teachers at different stages in a standard teacher preparation program at two Korean universities.
First, the students answered a standard set of questions designed to measure their overall acceptance of evolution. These questions probed whether students generally believed in the main concepts and scientific findings that underpin the theory.
Then the students took a test on the specific details of evolutionary science. To show their level of factual knowledge, students answered multiple-choice and free-response questions about processes such as natural selection. To gauge their "gut" feelings about these ideas, students wrote down how certain they felt that their factually correct answers were actually true.
The researchers then analyzed statistical correlations to see whether knowledge level or feeling of certainty best predicted students' overall acceptance of evolution. They also considered factors such as academic year and religion as potential predictors.
"What we found is that intuitive cognition has a significant impact on what people end up accepting, no matter how much they know," said Haury. The results show that even students with greater knowledge of evolutionary facts weren't likelier to accept the theory, unless they also had a strong "gut" feeling about those facts.
When trying to explain the patterns of whether people believe in evolution or not, "the results show that if we consider both feeling and knowledge level, we can explain much more than with knowledge level alone," said Minsu Ha, lead author on the paper and a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Teaching and Learning.
In particular, the research shows that it may not be accurate to portray religion and science education as competing factors in determining beliefs about evolution. For the subjects of this study, belonging to a religion had almost no additional impact on beliefs about evolution, beyond subjects' feelings of certainty.
These results also provide a useful way of looking at the perceived conflict between religion and science when it comes to teaching evolution, according to Haury. "Intuitive cognition not only opens a new door to approach the issue," he said, "it also gives us a way of addressing that issue without directly questioning religious views."
When choosing a setting for their study, the team found that Korean teacher preparation programs were ideal. "In Korea, people all take the same classes over the same time period and are all about the same age, so it takes out a lot of extraneous factors," said Haury. "We wouldn't be able to find a sample group like this in the United States."
Unlike in the U.S., about half of Koreans do not identify themselves as belonging to any particular religion. But according to Ha, who is from Korea, certain religious groups consider the topic of evolution just as controversial as in the U.S.
To ensure that their results were relevant to U.S. settings, the researchers compared how the Korean students did on the knowledge tests with previous studies of U.S. students. "We found that the both groups were comparable in terms of the overall performance," said Haury.
For teaching evolution, the researchers suggest using exercises that allow students to become aware of their brains' dual processing. Knowing that sometimes what their "gut" says is in conflict with what their "head" knows may help students judge ideas on their merits.
"Educationally, we think that's a place to start," said Haury. "It's a concrete way to show them, look - you can be fooled and make a bad decision, because you just can't deny your gut."
Ha and Haury collaborated on this study with Ross Nehm, associate professor of education at the Ohio State University. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation.
Related:
The Real Butterfly in Your Stomach: Scientists Explore the Possibility of a "Second Brain" in Our Gut
| Comment: These relationships (head and gut) are also eloquently displayed in etymology beginning with the idea of the celebrant, someone who experiences the Eucharist where greed is addressed, and this is immediately followed by a critical point of sleep or fusion which ends with interpretation of god and the analecta for the perfect storm. See Letter G - Gaia The linguistics of (head) is appropriated in the formalizing of speech labels. See Letter K - Avatar |
The Bitter Truth About Splenda
If you were told to ingest a biologically alien synthetic chemical whose presence on this planet did not predate 1976, and whose structure is only a few atoms away from the deadly pesticide DDT, and you knew that not only were there no long term human safety studies performed on it, but that it had been already proven in tests to have following adverse health effects:
· Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage)
· Enlarged liver and kidneys.
· Abnormal histopathological changes in spleen and thymus
· Increased cecal weight
· Reduced growth rate
· DNA Damage
· Adverse changes to gastrointestinal bacteria
· Abnormal Pelvic Mineralization
· Decreased red blood cell count
· Hyperplasia of the pelvis
· Aborted pregnancy (Maternal & Fetal Toxicity)
· Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights
· Bowel inflammation
· Triggering migraine
· Increase glycosylation of hemoglobin (HbA1c) for diabetics
….would you still consume it? Of course not! And yet, millions of Americans (including our precious children!) are doing exactly that by consuming Splenda. So, what is sucralose, chemically speaking?
Like “Splenda,” the term “sucralose” is a cute little marketing ploy. The true name of this ugly little chemical is actually too long for the human tongue to comfortably pronounce (which is usually an excellent indication that it is not safe to ingest!) Go ahead and see if you can wrap your vocal chords around this phonetic monstrosity:
1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside
Despite the intended insinuation, sucralose is not a form of sucrose (cane sugar). Sucralose/Splenda is produced through artificially substituting three hydroxyl groups (hydrogen + oxygen) with three chlorine atoms in the sugar (sucrose) molecule. Natural sugar is a hydrocarbon built around 12 carbon atoms. When transformed into Splenda it becomes a chlorocarbon, in the same family as deadly pesticides like DDT, insecticides, biocides, disinfectants like Chlorox Bleach, and WWI poison gas like dichlorourea. The makers of sucralose/Splenda argue that this “remarkably stable” chemical passes unchanged into the urine and feces, when in fact, up to 11% to 27% is absorbed into the body (FDA, 1999). In fact, the varying degrees to which sucralose is absorbed is used as a marker for gut and intestinal permeability to determine certain disease states. Once absorbed, some portion of this chlorocarbon accumulates in the body (between 1.6% to 12.2%). What effects will these accumulated chemicals have? According to James Bowen, M.D:
“Any chlorocarbons not directly excreted from the body intact can cause immense damage to the processes of human metabolism and, eventually, our internal organs. The liver is a detoxification organ which deals with ingested poisons. Chlorocarbons damage the hepatocytes, the liver’s metabolic cells, and destroy them. In test animals Splenda produced swollen livers, as do all chlorocarbon poisons, and also calcified the kidneys of test animals in toxicity studies.”
How can this be true for an FDA approved sweetener?
FDA approval does not in any way guarantee safety…..sadly enough, in many cases, it guarantees the exact opposite. Take aspartame for instance. Aspartame (Equal/NutraSweet) contains 10% methanol, which is broken down in our body into two extremely toxic substances: formaldehyde and formic acid. There are over 30 known adverse health effects associated with its consumption! This sweetener gained FDA approval in 1981, despite appalling evidence linking it to cancer, particularly, brain cancer.
So, if Splenda is not a viable alternative to sugar, what can we use instead?
When one uncouples the experience of “sweetness” from caloric content, the body becomes confused because it does not receive nourishment and therefore will not attain satiety – this, in turn, leads to overindulgence. Indeed, new studies have shown exactly this: those who consume synthetic sweeteners are more prone to obesity. What this means is that when we ingest something sweet, it should also have caloric and nutritional content. Anything less than this equation is a recipe for failure and ill health. Thankfully Nature provides us with a veritable cornucopia of healthy sweeteners: honey, stevia, xylitol, erythritol, and dehydrated organic cane juice, all of which are available at your local health food store. Next time that sweet tooth calls, remember not to succumb to advertising hype which would convert poisonous chemicals into “magical” no-calorie sweeteners. Use both common sense and a sense of moderation, and your body will thank you. If you were told to ingest a biologically alien synthetic chemical whose presence on this planet did not predate 1976, and whose structure is only a few atoms away from the deadly pesticide DDT, and you knew that not only were there no long term human safety studies performed on it, but that it had been already proven in tests to have following adverse health effects:
Why Is an Atheist High School Student Getting Vicious Death Threats?
Why Is an Atheist High School Student Getting Vicious Death Threats? by Greta Christina
Her state representative has called the student "evil" and she has been threatened with violence, rape and death. What gives?
If you take away just two things from the story about atheist high school student Jessica Ahlquist, and the court case she won last week to have a prayer banner taken out of her public school, let it be these:
Let's get #1 out of the way first. This court decision -- that as a public school in the United States, Cranston High School West cannot promote religion, either any particular religion or the idea of religion in general -- is, in any legal sense, entirely non-controversial. In ruling after ruling, for decades now, this principle has been made eminently clear. There have, of course, been some genuinely controversial court cases recently about separation of church and state, which examined previously untested questions and established new legal precedent.
But Jessica Ahlquist's was not one of them. Not even in the slightest. This was a no-brainer. If the school district's lawyers didn't uncategorically advise the district that they didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell, and fervently plead with them to concede the case before trial, they should be disbarred. (A PDF of the full court ruling, including extensive citation of clear precedent, can be found on the Friendly Atheist blog.)
Read complete article..
"We can make so many jokes about this dumb bitch, but who cares #thatbitchisgointohell and Satan is gonna rape her." (commenter)
Her state representative has called the student "evil" and she has been threatened with violence, rape and death. What gives?
If you take away just two things from the story about atheist high school student Jessica Ahlquist, and the court case she won last week to have a prayer banner taken out of her public school, let it be these:
- The ruling in this case was entirely unsurprising. It is 100 percent in line with unambiguous legal precedent, established and re-established over many decades, exemplifying a basic principle of constitutional law.
- As a result of this lawsuit, Jessica Ahlquist is now being bullied, ostracized and threatened with violence in her community. She has been called "evil" in public by her state representative, and is being targeted with multiple threats of violence, rape and death.
Let's get #1 out of the way first. This court decision -- that as a public school in the United States, Cranston High School West cannot promote religion, either any particular religion or the idea of religion in general -- is, in any legal sense, entirely non-controversial. In ruling after ruling, for decades now, this principle has been made eminently clear. There have, of course, been some genuinely controversial court cases recently about separation of church and state, which examined previously untested questions and established new legal precedent.
But Jessica Ahlquist's was not one of them. Not even in the slightest. This was a no-brainer. If the school district's lawyers didn't uncategorically advise the district that they didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell, and fervently plead with them to concede the case before trial, they should be disbarred. (A PDF of the full court ruling, including extensive citation of clear precedent, can be found on the Friendly Atheist blog.)
Read complete article..
| Comment: This article is quite revealing and shows how a so-called religion is not a religion at all, but a form of racism. The girl in question who is given or claims the label atheist is really not an atheist at all, but someone who understands the tenant of religion itself, that being that "freedom of association," pertaining to god is what a real Christian is, and a real Christian would hold the highest respect for such a person. A state representative who purports racism does not belong there. Atheism is a religious connotation developed in the English language to accommodate the alteration of the vowel A which carried the "not," definition for many words, thus "not god," as Jesus the agnostic who was not god nor could prove he was, thus the story told. Since English is absent of etymological teachings, these senses are never realized. |
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Occupy London - Poaching and The Compassionate Revolution
Occupy London - Poaching and The Compassionate Revolution - OccupyTVNY
George Bardat is a British activist and member of Occupy the London Stock Exchange (LSX). A resident of the camp at St Paul's catherdral since its inception on October 15th, he is also one of three defendants representing the occupiers in the eviction trial versus the City of London Corporation. With a forcible eviction looming now that the judge has ruled in favor of the city, George shares his thoughts on the evolution of the movement.
George Bardat is a British activist and member of Occupy the London Stock Exchange (LSX). A resident of the camp at St Paul's catherdral since its inception on October 15th, he is also one of three defendants representing the occupiers in the eviction trial versus the City of London Corporation. With a forcible eviction looming now that the judge has ruled in favor of the city, George shares his thoughts on the evolution of the movement.
The Medicinal Marvel That Is Flaxseed
 |
| © GreenMedInfo.com |
Flaxseed has remarkable therapeutic properties, with over 50 potential applications in the prevention and treatment of disease, as documented in the peer-reviewed biomedical literature itself*
Flaxseed's role in breast cancer is one of the more compelling areas of research, considering this is the #1 form of cancer afflicting women today, and that most women still equate "prevention" with subjecting themselves to annual breast screenings involving highly carcinogenic 30 kVp gamma rays -- overlooking entirely the role of diet, as well as avoidable chemical exposures. (More on this topic)
Given that flaxseed already has an exceptional nutritional profile, there are a broad range of reasons to incorporate it into the diet, even if only as a nourishing food. The main reason why the public is so enthralled by flaxseed (and rightly so!) is for its relatively high levels of omega-3 fatty acids, and the density of soothing, mucilaginous fiber it contains. Now, an accumulating body of scientific research reveals flaxseed's hitherto secret 'second life' as a medicinal powerhouse, confirming how timelessly true was Hippocrates proclamation that food is also medicine.
In 2005, the journal Clinical Cancer Research published a placebo-controlled study involving patients who received a 25 gram flaxseed-containing muffin over the course of 32 days. After observing a reduction in tumor markers and an increase in programmed cell death (apoptosis) in the flaxseed-treated patients, the authors concluded: "Dietary flaxseed has the potential to reduce tumor growth in patients with breast cancer."
Additional animal research supports flaxseed's role in suppressing human breast cancer. In immunosuppressed mice (thymus removed), flaxseed and an extract of pure secoisolariciresinol diglucoside from flaxseed was capable of suppressing the estrogen-fed (estradiol-17 beta) growth of transplanted human breast cancer tumors.
The anti-cancer effects of flaxseed are not limited to breast cancer alone. Prostate cancer, another archetypally hormone-senstive cancer, is also benefited from this remarkable seed. In a 2008 study published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, prostate cancer patients scheduled at least 21 days before prostate removal were randomnly assigned to one of 4 groups: 1) control (usual diet) 2) flaxseed-supplemented diet (30 g/d) 3) low-fat diet 4) flaxseed-supplemented, low-fat diet. The authors noted "Proliferation rates were significantly lower (P < 0.002) among men assigned to the flaxseed arms." The study concluded: "Findings suggest that flaxseed is safe and associated with biological alterations that may be protective for prostate cancer."
How does flaxseed work to prevent and/or regress hormone-associated cancers? The surprising answer is it is due to flaxseed's distinctively hormonal and/or hormone-modulating activity. Flaxseed contains compounds known as phytoestrogens which have the ability to interact with cellular estrogen receptors. Although an increasingly common mantra in the conventional medical community (particularly in the field of oncology) is to identify all estrogens, including phytoestrogens, as "carcinogenic," the weight of the evidence stands against this accusation, both in the case of soy and flaxseed. Our indexing project, for instance, has identified 36 studies on soy's anti-breast cancer properties. It helps to understand the biochemistry in order to make sense of how a plant estrogen may actually reduce estrogen activity in the body...
The byproducts of flaxseed fermentive biotransformation in the colon: namely, enterodiol (END) and enterolactone (ENL), are known to modulate estrogen levels in tissues affected by these compounds. They are weakly estrogenic, which explains why they may alleviate hot flash symptoms in women dealing with hormone insufficiency, but are also antiestrogenic, capable of binding to estrogen receptors and blocking out more powerful estrogens (both endogenous and xenobiotic) at the same time. This is also known as Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulation (SERM): the ability to down-regulate estrogen activity in one tissue (breast), and up-regulate it in another (bone or brain). Soy contains the phytoestrogen compound genistein, also a byproduct of the bacterial biotransformation, which shares in this dual-acting SERM activity. Although drug companies have attempted to reproduce SERM-like affects with novel, synthetic compounds, often the unintended, adverse affects far outnumber the intended therapeutic ones. This is one reason why the discovery of pharmacologically active principles in foods, i.e. food as medicine, holds so much promise as the drug-driven system of conventional medicine begins to collapse under the growing weight of its own incompetence.
In the meantime, while you are enjoying flaxseed as a nourishing food, it is reassuring to know you may gain protection from the following health conditions in the process:
Breast Cancer (12 articles)
Dry Skin (2 articles)
Prostatic Hyperplasia (3 articles)
Breast Cancer: Prevention (3 articles)
Diabetes Mellitus: Type 2 (3 articles)
Aging Skin (2 articles)
High Cholesterol (2 articles)
Lupus Nephritis (2 articles)
Prostate Cancer (3 articles)
Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity (1 article)
Blepharitis (1 article)
Cardiovascular Disease (1 article)
Cholesterol: LDL/HDL Raito (1 article)
Diabetes: Cardiovascular Disease (1 article)
Dyslipidemias (1 article)
Elevated CRP (1 article)
Estrogen Deficiency (1 article)
Hot Flash (1 article)
Meibomian gland dysfunction (1 article)
Metabolic Syndrome X (1 article)
Prostate: PSA Doubling Time (1 article)
Skin Diseases (1 article)
Colon Cancer (5 article)
Adiponectin: Low Levels (3 articles)
Polycystic Kidney Disease (3 articles)
Fatty Liver (2 articles)
Abdominal Obesity (1 article)
Arteriosclerosis (1 article)
And Many More...
*The information provided in this document is not intended to diagnosis, prevent, treat or cure any disease. By sharing this information, we are pointing the viewer to the research itself as source of education.
Turmeric Offers Powerful Anti-Cancer Benefits Without Side Effects
Turmeric Offers Powerful Anti-Cancer Benefits Without Side Effects by Andre Evans
Turmeric comes from the root of the Curcuma longa plant, found in Indonesia and southern India, and is known for its widespread use in many South Asian and Middle Eastern countries. Widely used as a spice, it increasingly has been recognized as a powerful medicinal remedy that influences many aspects of your health. Most notably, turmeric has been found to reduce tumors by an astounding 81%.
In turmeric is also something known as curcumin, a natural phenol. Named for the plant from which it’s derived, curcumin is the pigment that gives turmeric its distinctive color. It is thought to be the source of the many medicinal effects turmeric is being known to have. Curcumin alone is known to positively impact over 560 diseases according to peer-reviewed research.
Among these, turmeric can be recognized for its ability to improve your digestive system and metabolism. It also improves your body’s ability to eliminate wastes and toxins and digest various proteins and fats. This is why traditionally, turmeric is used as an ingredient in many curry dishes — often including rice and beans, creating a synergy effect that allows the food to be more properly utilized by the body.
Curcumin, and subsequently turmeric, have also been found to have some stunning anti-Alzheimer’s properties. This may be due to the powerful anti-inflammatory effects of curcumin that have been well-documented in many studies.
Turmeric also acts as a multi purpose body cleanser, promoting and protecting kidney function while also enhancing your blood flow. Positive effects on cardiovascular function and cholesterol balance have also been observed. Having antioxidant properties, it also helps to attack free radicals and promote overall health. If this were not enough, turmeric has a significant role in cancer prevention. In populations where turmeric is broadly used like India and the Middle East, cancer rates are lower. Turmeric has been found to prevent cancer cells from forming and spreading, as well as helping the body to destroy otherwise mutated cancer cells, prohibiting cancer from reaching mature forms.
Turmeric is common, inexpensive and provides a potent means for you to increase your overall health and biological functioning. With its regular application in your diet or daily supplement routine, you can expect to begin reaping its many health benefits.
Turmeric comes from the root of the Curcuma longa plant, found in Indonesia and southern India, and is known for its widespread use in many South Asian and Middle Eastern countries. Widely used as a spice, it increasingly has been recognized as a powerful medicinal remedy that influences many aspects of your health. Most notably, turmeric has been found to reduce tumors by an astounding 81%.
In turmeric is also something known as curcumin, a natural phenol. Named for the plant from which it’s derived, curcumin is the pigment that gives turmeric its distinctive color. It is thought to be the source of the many medicinal effects turmeric is being known to have. Curcumin alone is known to positively impact over 560 diseases according to peer-reviewed research.
 |
| Advertisement |
The Powerful Benefits of Turmeric & Curcumin
Among these, turmeric can be recognized for its ability to improve your digestive system and metabolism. It also improves your body’s ability to eliminate wastes and toxins and digest various proteins and fats. This is why traditionally, turmeric is used as an ingredient in many curry dishes — often including rice and beans, creating a synergy effect that allows the food to be more properly utilized by the body.
Curcumin, and subsequently turmeric, have also been found to have some stunning anti-Alzheimer’s properties. This may be due to the powerful anti-inflammatory effects of curcumin that have been well-documented in many studies.
Turmeric also acts as a multi purpose body cleanser, promoting and protecting kidney function while also enhancing your blood flow. Positive effects on cardiovascular function and cholesterol balance have also been observed. Having antioxidant properties, it also helps to attack free radicals and promote overall health. If this were not enough, turmeric has a significant role in cancer prevention. In populations where turmeric is broadly used like India and the Middle East, cancer rates are lower. Turmeric has been found to prevent cancer cells from forming and spreading, as well as helping the body to destroy otherwise mutated cancer cells, prohibiting cancer from reaching mature forms.
Turmeric is common, inexpensive and provides a potent means for you to increase your overall health and biological functioning. With its regular application in your diet or daily supplement routine, you can expect to begin reaping its many health benefits.
Fukushima Radiation Spreads Worldwide
 |
| © Stormsurf |
California, Finland, Canada, Australia Hit By Radiation
The University of California at Berkeley detected cesium levels in San Francisco area milk above over EPA limits ... and even higher than they were 6 months ago.
Finnish public television says that cesium from Fukushima has been detected in lichens, fungi and elk and reindeer meat in Finland.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency confirmed a radiation cloud over the East Coast of Australia.
The West Coast of Canada is getting hit by debris from Japan ... and at least some of it is likely radioactive.
The authors of the controversial study claiming 14,000 deaths in the U.S. so far from Fukushima are now upping their figure to 20,000. I spoke with nuclear health expert Chris Busby about their study, and he said that mortality figures fluctuate pretty substantially in the normal course, and so it is hard to know at this point one way or the other whether their figures are accurate.
And while there is no evidence linking them to Fukushima, Bed Bath and Beyond has recalled radioactive tissue holders after they set off police radiation monitors aboard a delivery truck This may just be an example of the incredibly lax handling of radioactive materials.
And thyroid cancers are - mysteriously - on the rise in the U.S.
But don't worry: The owner of the Fukushima plant has the plant in cold shutdown, so everything is "under control" ... Although temperatures have apparently jumped inside Fukushima's number 2 reactor, and the Japanese have no idea where the nuclear fuel has gone, so they are drilling a hole into the containment vessel to try to find it.
Freedom of Speech, Internet Censorship and SOPA
The First Amendment to the Constitution states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Whoa boy. I don’t want to imply that there has been the wholesale disregard on the part of our current government when it comes to upholding hold this amendment, but, at least when it comes to the part about “freedom of speech”, things are beginning to look a bit murky. And, today, with many popular websites undergoing a “blackout” in protest of the proposed Stop Online Piracy (SOPA) legislation, I thought I would offer my own thoughts on the matter.
First of all, it is a given that freedom of speech is the right of citizens of the United States. This means that our government cannot and should not be making an attempt to restrict or penalize speech because of its content or viewpoint. So, when there is talk of restricting Internet content, my eyebrows go up quizzically, wondering just what limits would be placed on those restrictions. Moreover, as electronic media becomes the norm rather than the exception, how does reading something on the Internet differ from reading a book, a magazine, or a printed newspaper?
Let’s take a look at printed books. For years, various books have been censored in the schools. Heck, books such as James Joyce’s Ulysses, J. D. Salinger’s Catcher In the Rye, and Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn have each been censored at one time or another. The point is that at some point, some “authority” decided what was appropriate and what was not. Looking back on these specific titles, it seems silly does it not?
Moving on to the Internet and Internet content, do you really want some “authority” to determine what is appropriate and what is not? I don’t think so. As a matter of fact, to me that smacks of the regulation of thoughts and the regulation of ideas. It means less freedom and more mind control. Clearly, that is not a good thing.
I would like to suggest that legislated Internet censorship by our government goes too far. It translates into the elimination of our right to express individual ideas and opinions publicly on blogs, in forums and in online newsletters. And it translates into the deprivation of our right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. I don’t know about you, but I take pride in the fact that I can say whatever I want, read whatever I want, and think whatever I want. As long as I am not causing harm, there is no reason for our government to stifle these acts. And they most certainly should not do so by telling me that it is for the “greater good”.
Let us call it what it is: Government censorship is a way for government to control society by protecting its citizens from what it thinks is appropriate. And in recent times, let’s face it: The US government’s ability to use sound judgment in determining what is appropriate just plain stinks.
Today I encourage you to contact your elected officials and tell them that you oppose any attempt to censor your right to read what you want and to say what you want. Tell them that censoring the Internet will not advance freedom, but, instead, will set us back to a time when we were powerless to make our own decisions, and powerless to have a say in the way we lived our lives.
You may contact your senator here: Email your Senator and you may contact your representative here: Email your Representative.
The Final Word
I will end with this quote attributed to Mieczyslaw Maneli, a Polish diplomat and university professor who spent time in Auschwitz:
“Wherever there is a loophole in the existing laws protecting traditional American liberties, the opponents of these freedoms try to squeeze in. Whenever legislators create the slightest opening to allow some kind of censorship, the censors will be born and will march again.”
Enjoy your next adventure through common sense and thoughtful preparation!
Gaye Levy, the SurvivalWoman, grew up and attended school in the Greater Seattle area. After spending many years as an executive in the software industry, she started a specialized accounting practice offering contract CFO work to emerging high tech and service industries. She has now abandoned city life and moved to a serenely beautiful rural area on an island in NW Washington State. She lives and teaches the principles of a sustainable, self-reliant and stylish lifestyle through emergency preparation and disaster planning through her website at BackdoorSurvival.com. SurvivalWoman speaks her mind and delivers her message with optimism and grace, regardless of mayhem swirling around us. Enjoy your next adventure through common sense and thoughtful preparation!
Related:
An Open Letter From Security Experts, Academics and Engineers to the U.S. Congress: Stop Bad Cybersecurity Bills
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout
English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout by Sue Gardner
Sott.net Comment: To see a list of those expressing concern with SOPA and PIPA, compiled by the Center for Democracy & Technology, go here.
To: English Wikipedia Readers and Community
From: Sue Gardner, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director
Date: January 16, 2012
Today, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States - the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate - that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia.
This will be the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged a public protest of this nature, and it's a decision that wasn't lightly made. Here's how it's been described by the three Wikipedia administrators who formally facilitated the community's discussion. From the public statement, signed by User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker and User:Billinghurst:
But although Wikipedia's articles are neutral, its existence is not. As Wikimedia Foundation board member Kat Walsh wrote on one of our mailing lists recently,
Like Kat and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, I have increasingly begun to think of Wikipedia's public voice, and the goodwill people have for Wikipedia, as a resource that wants to be used for the benefit of the public. Readers trust Wikipedia because they know that despite its faults, Wikipedia's heart is in the right place. It's not aiming to monetize their eyeballs or make them believe some particular thing, or sell them a product. Wikipedia has no hidden agenda: it just wants to be helpful.
That's less true of other sites. Most are commercially motivated: their purpose is to make money. That doesn't mean they don't have a desire to make the world a better place - many do! - but it does mean that their positions and actions need to be understood in the context of conflicting interests.
My hope is that when Wikipedia shuts down on January 18, people will understand that we're doing it for our readers. We support everyone's right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. We think everyone should have access to educational material on a wide range of subjects, even if they can't pay for it. We believe in a free and open Internet where information can be shared without impediment. We believe that new proposed laws like SOPA and PIPA, and other similar laws under discussion inside and outside the United States - don't advance the interests of the general public. You can read a very good list of reasons to oppose SOPA and PIPA here, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Why is this a global action, rather than US-only? And why now, if some American legislators appear to be in tactical retreat on SOPA?
The reality is that we don't think SOPA is going away, and PIPA is still quite active. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. All around the world, we're seeing the development of legislation intended to fight online piracy, and regulate the Internet in other ways, that hurt online freedoms. Our concern extends beyond SOPA and PIPA: they are just part of the problem. We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.
On January 18, we hope you'll agree with us, and will do what you can to make your own voice heard.
Sue Gardner,
Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
From: Sue Gardner, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director
Date: January 16, 2012
Today, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States - the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate - that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia.
This will be the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged a public protest of this nature, and it's a decision that wasn't lightly made. Here's how it's been described by the three Wikipedia administrators who formally facilitated the community's discussion. From the public statement, signed by User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker and User:Billinghurst:
It is the opinion of the English Wikipedia community that both of these bills, if passed, would be devastating to the free and open web.In making this decision, Wikipedians will be criticized for seeming to abandon neutrality to take a political position. That's a real, legitimate issue. We want people to trust Wikipedia, not worry that it is trying to propagandize them.
Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might wish to take against SOPA and PIPA. This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation. The overwhelming majority of participants support community action to encourage greater public action in response to these two bills. Of the proposals considered by Wikipedians, those that would result in a "blackout" of the English Wikipedia, in concert with similar blackouts on other websites opposed to SOPA and PIPA, received the strongest support.
On careful review of this discussion, the closing administrators note the broad-based support for action from Wikipedians around the world, not just from within the United States. The primary objection to a global blackout came from those who preferred that the blackout be limited to readers from the United States, with the rest of the world seeing a simple banner notice instead. We also noted that roughly 55% of those supporting a blackout preferred that it be a global one, with many pointing to concerns about similar legislation in other nations.
But although Wikipedia's articles are neutral, its existence is not. As Wikimedia Foundation board member Kat Walsh wrote on one of our mailing lists recently,
We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world's knowledge. We're putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.The decision to shut down the English Wikipedia wasn't made by me; it was made by editors, through a consensus decision-making process. But I support it.
But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.
Like Kat and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, I have increasingly begun to think of Wikipedia's public voice, and the goodwill people have for Wikipedia, as a resource that wants to be used for the benefit of the public. Readers trust Wikipedia because they know that despite its faults, Wikipedia's heart is in the right place. It's not aiming to monetize their eyeballs or make them believe some particular thing, or sell them a product. Wikipedia has no hidden agenda: it just wants to be helpful.
That's less true of other sites. Most are commercially motivated: their purpose is to make money. That doesn't mean they don't have a desire to make the world a better place - many do! - but it does mean that their positions and actions need to be understood in the context of conflicting interests.
My hope is that when Wikipedia shuts down on January 18, people will understand that we're doing it for our readers. We support everyone's right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. We think everyone should have access to educational material on a wide range of subjects, even if they can't pay for it. We believe in a free and open Internet where information can be shared without impediment. We believe that new proposed laws like SOPA and PIPA, and other similar laws under discussion inside and outside the United States - don't advance the interests of the general public. You can read a very good list of reasons to oppose SOPA and PIPA here, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Why is this a global action, rather than US-only? And why now, if some American legislators appear to be in tactical retreat on SOPA?
The reality is that we don't think SOPA is going away, and PIPA is still quite active. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. All around the world, we're seeing the development of legislation intended to fight online piracy, and regulate the Internet in other ways, that hurt online freedoms. Our concern extends beyond SOPA and PIPA: they are just part of the problem. We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.
On January 18, we hope you'll agree with us, and will do what you can to make your own voice heard.
Sue Gardner,
Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Sott.net Comment: To see a list of those expressing concern with SOPA and PIPA, compiled by the Center for Democracy & Technology, go here.
Thousands Hit Athens Streets Demanding End to Austerity
 |
| Greece has entered its fifth consecutive year of austerity-fuelled recession, with unemployment reaching a record high of 17.7 per cent. (photo: Getty) |
Strikes affect public transportation, other services
Agencies are reporting that thousands of Greeks have taken to the streets and have taken part in strikes in ongoing protests over the country's harsh austerity measures.
The Guardian reports on the timing of the strikes:
The industrial action -- the first of 2012 -- has been timed to coincide with the return of technical teams from the European Union, the IMF and the ECB.The Associated Press reports huge numbers taking part in the protests:
Some 10,000 protesters took part in rallies in central Athens over potential pay cuts in the recession-battered private sector. Anti-austerity strikes in the capital disrupted public transport and other services. Journalist unions also launched a 48-hour strike.From Reuters:
"We demand that austerity policies are abandoned and that the legislation that crushes our labour and insurance rights and turns workers into slaves is abolished," the EKA labour union, which represents workers in Athens, said in a statement.Al Jazeera reports that the austerity measures have coincided with high unemployment rates:
Greece has entered its fifth consecutive year of austerity-fuelled recession, with unemployment reaching a record high of 17.7 per cent.
Fluoride Linked to #1 Cause of Death in New Research
 |
| © Natural Society |
Groundbreaking new research has linked sodium fluoride to cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death worldwide. Researchers found that fluoride consumption directly stimulates the hardening of your arteries, a condition known as atherosclerosis that is highly correlated with the #1 killer. Sodium fluoride is currently added to the water supply of many cities worldwide, despite extreme opposition from health professionals and previous studies linking it to decreased IQ and infertility.
In their research, scientists examined the relationship between fluoride intake and the hardening (calcification) of the arteries. Studying more than 60 patients, the researchers found a significant correlation between fluoride consumption and the calcification of your arteries. Published in the January edition of the journal Nuclear Medicine Communications, the research highlights the fact that mass fluoride exposure may be to blame for the cardiovascular disease epidemic that takes more lives each year than cancer.
According to the authors of the study:
"The coronary fluoride uptake value in patients with cardiovascular events was significantly higher than in patients without cardiovascular events."Amazingly, this is not the first report to come out on the dangers of water fluoridation, however the United States government along with other nations have allowed for the continued fluoridation of the public water supply despite these key findings. In fact, the U.S. government has even gone on record stating that a reduction in water fluoridation needs to occur following the results of a massive study that found water fluoridation affected cognitive function to the point of lowering the IQ of children. It turns out that the announcement was little more than a public relations stunt to curtail the massive wave of activism that followed the findings.
Government Admits Dangers Yet Continues to Pump Fluoride Into Your Water Supply
Over 24 other studies have unanimously concluded that fluoride negatively impacts cognitive function. In addition to these 24 studies focusing on cognition, over 100 animal studies have linked fluoride to an increase in male infertility, diabetes, and a whole host of other health problems. In the latest study on cognition, it was found that that 28% of the children who lived in an area where fluoride levels were low achieved the highest test scores. This means that the children exposed to less fluoride scored normal or advanced, while only 8% of fluoridated children did the same.
In fact, the safety precautions regarding sodium fluoride are quite telling themselves:
- Risk and Safety Phrases.
- R25 - Toxic if swallowed.
- R32 - Contact with acid liberates very toxic gas.
- R36/38 - Irritating to skin and eyes.
- S1/2 - Keep locked up and out of reach of children.
- S22 - Do not breathe dust.
- S36 - Wear suitable protective clothing.
- S45 - In case of accident or if you feel unwell, seek medical advice immediately (show the label whenever possible.)
Since 1962 the government has recommended fluoride levels between 0.7 and 1.2 milligrams per liter in the nations drinking water. Toted as an excellent cavity blocker, fluoride has been praised for its alleged power to prevent tooth decay and boost oral health. Research has now revealed that fluoride, the very substance that is supposed to prevent tooth decay, actually does nothing to prevent against cavities. In fact, vitamin D has been found to be significantly more effective in cavity prevention without the extreme side effects. Instead of damaging your body, vitamin D slashes your risk of just about everything fluoride consumption causes.
According to the latest numbers, over 72 percent of Americans drink water treated with fluoride. Is it any wonder that cardiovascular disease rates are off the charts? Perhaps most concerning is the fact that fluoride does not even prevent cavities, which is the very reason legislators have pushed to keep it in the public water supply despite the links to deadly disease. Even if fluoride was found to prevent cavities, would it be worth the adverse effects?
Fluoride should be completely removed from the international water supply as it is a threat to public health. Until the proper legislation is passed, acquiring a high-quality water filter that removes fluoride is vital for the health perseverance of you and your family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)