It is time people.
via Ishtarmuz's Blog
It is time people.
via Ishtarmuz's Blog
via Ishtarmuz's Blog
via Ishtarmuz's Blog
Genetically Modified Food, Panacea or Poison #GMO
The fact is, there has never been a single study on the human safety of these products. Any implication to the contrary is a pure fabrication. Make the corporate apologists produce a single study, and they can not. The important point is this. Among scientists, the scientific community is deeply divided as to whether these foods are safe or not, so the burden of proof is on industry. And so far, the corporations have failed to demonstrate the safety of these foods on humans through a single study. In the last thirty years global demand for food has doubled. In a race to feed the planet, scientists have discovered how to manipulate DNA, the blueprint of life, and produce what they claim are stronger, more disease-resistant crops. However, fears that Genetically Modified Food may not be safe for humans or the environment has sparked violent protest. Are we participating in a dangerous global nutritional experiment? This informative film helps the viewer decide if the production of genetically modified food is a panacea for world hunger or a global poison. [watch it here]
It is important to note that a pharmakon is both a medicine and a poison. The cure or the cause of an illness, or both. It is said that a medicine may be a cure in the proper context of an illness that it can treat with the correct dosage. This becomes part of the set and setting of any drug, not just psychoactive ones. It is clear that in the current idiot cycle created by our biotechnological world that pharmakon will be a word that will grow in importance soon. There are deep issues here involved in what we define as a drug, an illness and a treatment. Ultimately in a genetically engineered world we will come to see food as fundamental of all three.
Bayer Distributes AIDS
By J. Holcombe, D. Jacobson, and T. Ruhl
“Farbenfabriken Bayer’s worldwide efforts had left few places lacking aspirin. In the United States, Bayer’s giant factory produced aspirin under “American” management. After Bayer executives were charged with violating the Trading with the Enemies Act in August 1918, advertisements encouraged confidence in aspirin.” Karen Starko
The world has believed for almost a century that a new and virulent virus came out of nowhere worldwide and killed millions in 1918. Two reports, one published in 2008 and the second in 2009, lay that myth to rest for good.
The first report came as a press release on August 19, 2008, from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID):
“Bacteriologic and histopathologic results from published autopsy series clearly and consistently implicated secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory–tract bacteria in most influenza fatalities.”
People were killed by common bacteria found in the upper respiratory tract, according to research uncovered by F. William Engdahl:
“The 20 to 40 million deaths worldwide from the great 1918 Influenza Pandemic were NOT due to ‘flu’ or a virus, but to pneumonia caused by massive bacterial infection.”
The NIAID press release did not, however, address what caused the bacterial infections, but research by Dr. Karen Starko does. She implicates aspirin, dovetailing with the NIAID research on pneumonia from massive bacterial infection, and goes further in also explaining the extreme rapidity of death:
“Mortality was driven by 2 overlapping clinical-pathologic syndromes: an early, severe acute respiratory distress (ARDS)-like condition, which was estimated to have caused 10%-15% of deaths (sequential autopsy series are lacking); and a subsequent, aggressive bacterial pneumonia “superinfection,” which was present in the majority of deaths.”
In looking at reports of those who died, two distinct groups became readily apparent to Starko, based on a very distinctive time frame from health to death:
1. People who died of pneumonia from a bacteria infection became sick and things deteriorated at varying rates from there to death; and
2. People who died so astoundingly fast that those deaths became a classic part of the frightening legend of the 1918 “flu” – people perfectly well in the morning and dead within a matter of hours. [more]
By J. Holcombe, D. Jacobson, and T. Ruhl
“In February 1917, Bayer lost its American patent on aspirin, opening a lucrative drug market to many manufacturers. Bayer fought back with copious advertising, celebrating the brand’s purity just as the epidemic was reaching its peak.” The New York Times
In Part 1, we revealed that while most believed for 100 years that a flu virus killed millions of people worldwide in 1918, medical forensic research discovered that most died of pneumonia caused by a massive bacterial infection. Here, we discuss how this research also shows that homeopathy saved people’s lives during that time, while aspirin killed them.
Karen Starko’s research shows that “Aspirin advertisements in August 1918 and a series of official recommendations for aspirin in September and early October preceded the death spike of October 1918.”
“The number of deaths in the United increased steeply, peaking first in the Navy in late September, then in the Army in early October, and finally in the general population in late October.”
Of tremendous significance is a single sentence in Starko‘s work.
“Homeopaths, who thought aspirin was a poison, claimed few deaths.”
That sentence stands out against a backdrop of millions of the deaths caused by Bayer and the pharmaceutical industry of the day. [more]
Stop Genetically Modifying Foods
The Statement: “To date, Health Canada has not identified health risks associated with GM foods that have been approved for sale in Canada.” (Stephane Shank, Health Canada spokesperson, 07/05/2011)
Codex Alimentarius Commission—a group of the world’s food safety regulatory agencies—reached consensus last week on new guidelines that will make it easier for food makers to label products with genetically-modified ingredients. The new guidelines are voluntary, though, so don’t expect advertisements about GMOs on the box of your favourite breakfast cereal anytime soon. And part of the reason Canada has not moved to mandatory labeling of GM foods is because, as Stephane Shank put it, “To date, Health Canada has not identified health risks associated with GM foods.”
So, is GM food really safe?
We called Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a researcher in food distribution and safety at the University of Guelph, to find out. He told Science-ish, “There is no scientific evidence out there that would suggest GM seeds or foods that contain GMOs have health risks to consumers.” Dr. Charlebois did add this note of caution: the key phrase in Shank’s statement was ‘to date.’ “GMOs have only been accessible or readily available to consumers since 1994, so that’s 17 years ago. That’s not a whole lot of time for us to fully appreciate the risks around GMOs.”
Discourse around genetically modified organisms—defined by the WHO as “organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally”—has been a political and scientific battlefield. As a 2009 Nature news feature pointed out, “No one gets into research on genetically modified (GM) crops looking for a quiet life. Those who develop such crops face the wrath of anti-biotech activists who vandalize field trials and send hate mail… [Those] who suggest that biotech crops might have harmful environmental effects are learning to expect attacks of a different kind. These strikes are launched from within the scientific community and can sometimes be emotional and personal…” [more]
North America and Mind Control
I have followed conspiracy theories for a long time. I view them in the same way I view a good puzzle or riddle. Good ones have to a be complete and consistent. For this to be true they need to follow a logic of their own, but it need not follow any known rationale. The best ones have the beauty of simplicity. If they can build their “truths” from basic principles, then it can create a world of lies that is easily believed. Or they may just happen to be true.
All critical thinking about conspiracies, or anything really, begins by examining basic assumptions. First note what are the core assumption being made about human nature. Whether people are thought to be basically good, bad or neutral will drive how the theory is created, maintained and resolved. Whether people are thought to have free will, control and are able to change is equally critical. On the other hand, the nature of reality is also crucial to understanding conspiracy theories. Is reality realistic, unitary and rational? Or is reality unknowable, plural and meta-rational?
Most might think that conspiracy theorists all start with the assumptions that people are basically bad and helpless unless they submit to (and are saved by) my belief and that the only truth is mine and nothing less makes sense. In fact, only fundamentalist strains of conspiracy theory rely on these assumptions. The fundamentalist conspiracy always involves those with which they disagree and there is usually a matter of wealth, power and control involved. So that the enemy always is taking away what is seen as their birthright. The fundamentalist conspiracy often hides behind religion to continue to deny some segment of society the right to exercise some element of control over their lives. This usually starts with premises that rewrite history so that every moment in the redefined past is given meaning which you would have never seen unless you agreed that the enemy has engineered history for its purposes from the start.
More liberal conspiracy theorists usually find people basically good and having free will. These theorists often find themselves in the same Dystopian camp as the right. They do so because they seek out the flaws in their own own Utopian vision. They look at where all the models breakdown and work to fix them. In the process they learn to distrust much of what appears to be “just so” stories even though they tend to create their own. At first glance you might think the left are often Luddites or just irrational, but their creativity is not anti-science or anti-reason. It is often just such a thought process that takes the quantum leaps of insight that advance science and reason into new paradigms.
So the next time you hear what appears to be just another conspiracy theory consider where it is coming from, what are it assumptions, and where it could lead.
posted July 14th, 2011 |in Pak Tea House
We have been watching the so called democratic governments around the world, using words to enchain millions of minds and turn people into their obedient machines without a will and without any thoughtfulness in their actions beyond the lies they are fed , by their leaders – read role model, for many. What really makes words a bigger threat to freedom, justice, and truth than bullets is how they manipulate minds of the masses into submission. I call it speech enslavement, – they use words to bring people to compliance.
I’d like to mention a rather relative expression here that we all have so often heard of and most of us even despise; “conspiracy theory”. What is conspiracy theory really? Have we ever considered how often we have watched leaders use this term to shrug off things and how many times has this been an alternative answer to rather uncomfotable questions? The term “conspiracy theory” has thrown in more to the obliteration and enslavement of people in Pakistan than the oligarchical Establishment’s assassinations of reformers like Hakeem Saeed, Salman Taseer, Shahbaz Bhatti, Saleem Shahzad and other truth-telling speech a’meliorators. The stigma surrounding ideas and topics that are collectively referred to as “conspiracy theories” thwarts away the possible critical thinking among the masses avoiding to reveal the exact intentions of their biased leaders and the policies ratified by their governments. [more]