Sunday, March 29, 2015
Sunday, March 22, 2015
A View From Space with Gary Bell the Spaceman, March 21, 2015
TOPICS: Prince Charles, Marshall plan, cabalist John (Cohen) Kerry, solar eclipse, prince Charles, the Hobbit trilogy, Middle Earth, Beowolf, Tolkien, Lucifer.
Please share this.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Science has been hijacked by corporate junk science, which pretends to be real science but is actually highly fraudulent. Here are the top 10 tricks it uses.
Corporate junk science is an all-pervading presence in our society. It’s everywhere. The scientific journals of the entire world, offline and online, have been flooded with so much fake science that it has, sad to say, become practically impossible for the average person to wade through all of it and sort out the wheat from the chaff. However, the fake science I am referring to here is not unintentional or sloppy work, which is more of a minor problem in the scheme of things (since it will eventually be corrected with due diligence), but rather the deliberately fraudulent “scientific studies” which are put out by major corporations with a definite agenda in mind – usually establishing a fake scientific basis of “safety” for their products, whether they be vaccines, mobile phones, GMOs, tobacco, fluoride, soda or soft drinks, etc. It’s nothing more than corporate junk science, and many people, including doctors, scientists and academics, have been taken in hook, line and sinker by it.
It’s time to shine the light on this ugly phenomenon. Science is meant to be about the pursuit of truth and understanding how our world works. It is truly sickening to see the extent to which it has been hijacked to serve corporate interests – to make a tiny, tiny 0.0001% rich at the expense of harming and killing the rest of mankind.A recent study published on JAMA entitled “Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration” found some very disturbing things in its sample of 57 studies that it analyzed:
“Fifty-seven published clinical trials were identified for which an FDA inspection of a trial site had found significant evidence of 1 or more of the following problems: falsification or submission of false information, 22 trials (39%); problems with adverse events reporting, 14 trials (25%); protocol violations, 42 trials (74%); inadequate or inaccurate recordkeeping, 35 trials (61%); failure to protect the safety of patients and/or issues with oversight or informed consent, 30 trials (53%); and violations not otherwise categorized, 20 trials (35%).”Take a look at this first finding. It states that 39% which is around 2/5 of studies committed data falsification! How can we possibly trust medical science when the fraud is so blatant and widespread? And it’s not as though the authors of these studies come out and admit it. The study also found that:
“Only 3 of the 78 publications (4%) that resulted from trials in which the FDA found significant violations mentioned the objectionable conditions or practices found during the inspection. No corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other comments acknowledging the key issues identified by the inspection were subsequently published.”Another study at PLOS ONE entitled “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data” concluded that:
“It is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this.”In light of all of this, if we want the truth, we need to look at the whole structure of how “science” works in the real world. We need to get wise to the methods that are used by unscrupulous groups to further their agenda. With that in mind, here is a list of the top 10 tricks used by the corporatocracy to pull the wool over your eyes by manipulating science and substituting their fake corporate junk science instead (thanks to Webster Kehr of CancerTutor.com for compiling his instructive list, from which the below points are derived).
1. Substituting Synthetic for Natural Versions of a Nutrient
Those who know a little about nutrition probably realize by now that there is a vast difference between a nutrient found in a food or plant, and its synthetic counterpart artificially made in a lab. All vitamin C is not created equal; some versions are more equal than others. The same goes for other vitamins. It also applies to minerals, since some are derived from plant or animal matter (“organic”) whereas others are derived from rock (“inorganic”). The body can’t assimilate inorganic minerals, so all those so-called “natural” supplements full of rock and fossil-derived calcium are useless, and are actually harming your body by causing calcification.When the corporatocracy wants a result skewed against an unpatentable natural solution and in favor of one of their patentable products, they simply use the synthetic (and less potent) version of that nutrient in the study and “find” that it is ineffective. Corporate junk science at its best!
2. Isolating Nutrients to Remove their Power of Synergy
Here’s another trick used by corporate junk science. If it’s trying to “scientifically prove” that a natural substance is ineffective, rather than testing the whole substance, it will isolate certain nutrients from it, declare them the only ones with any health benefit, then find them ineffective. This is like taking a clove of garlic, declaring that allicin is the only thing in it that could possibly do any good for human health, and then disregarding the whole plant when allicin doesn’t do everything you expected. The same goes for when corporate junk science, intentionally or not, tests the wrong nutrient and declares itself finished with testing.Nature doesn’t work like this. Plants are complex organisms. Some are composed of hundreds of different phytonutrients which work together synergistically to produce wellness in the human body. Real science would test the whole plant open-mindedly in a variety of ways to try to discover and unlock the secret to its healing potential.
3. Contaminating the Tests
Webster Kehr mentions a case involving laetrile or amygdalin (colloquially called vitamin B17). He writes that the “NIH contaminated an already bogus pill being used in a study. Natural laetrile cannot and has never given a patient the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. It simply is impossible. The NIH refused to allow an alternative laetrile vendor to supply natural laetrile for the study – so they could create a custom pill for the study. In creating their custom bogus laetrile pill, it was not enough for them to not have any natural laetrile in the pill. A worthless pill would not have given any patient the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. They also had to lace the pill with inorganic cyanide so that the patients would have the symptoms of cyanide poisoning.”As explained in my article “Natural Cancer Cure Laetrile (Amygdalin, Vitamin B17) Works Better than Chemotherapy“, the cyanide contained in apricot kernels, apple seeds, etc. is a selective cancer cell killer. It leaves healthy cells alone, because they can disable the cyanide.
4. Altering the Treatment Plan
If corporate junk science can’t prove a natural substance itself is ineffective, then it uses the trick of altering the treatment plan, so that people are getting the correct amount of that substance. This could be as simple as making the dosage too low or too high, or combining the substance with other foods or drink which disable its healing effects, or heating it, etc. Just like Big Pharma drugs, natural cures require a patent to follow a correct dosage and treatment plan for them to be successful in healing disease.5. Getting Tricky with Statistics
Mark Twain once said that there are “lies, damn lies and statistics”. Corporate junk science often plays around with the numbers to emphasize one thing and hide another thing. Big Biotech often does this with their GMO studies, for instance, never allowing a study to exceed 90 days (after which the deleterious effects of GMOs begin to emerge).6. The False Worship of Double Blind Studies
Are double blind studies always the gold standard? As Kehr points out, “in many cases, a double blind study makes no sense in the world. For example, how could you do a double blind study comparing a person who refuses all orthodox cancer treatments with someone who goes through chemotherapy? It is a stupid concept, because after one day a person would know which group they were in … How can you compare chemotherapy to Vitamin C in a double blind study? The chemotherapy group would have intense pain, sickness, their hair will fall out, and so on. The Vitamin C group would have no added pain, no sickness (except perhaps diarrhea), and their hair will not fall out, etc.”7. Selecting Patients Favorable to the Agenda
The selection protocol in determining which patients to choose for a study is important, because by carefully selecting the patients in a study, you can to a large extent control the outcome of the study. Kehr gives examples of how the Mayo Clinic choose a narrow range of cancers as opposed to Pauling and Cameron when testing the efficacy of vitamin C as a natural cancer treatment.8. Bribing the Peer-Review Group
In my article “The Massive Flaw with the Scientific Hierarchy of Evidence“, I highlighted how a distinguished 20-year medical journal editor became so appalled with the flagrant corruption of corporate junk science, she declared that it was no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published. The peer review process has itself become too corrupted.This is from Webster Kehr:
“In June [2002], the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to drug companies whose medicines were being analyzed.
The reason? The journal could no longer find enough independent experts. Drug company gifts and “consulting fees” are so pervasive that in any given field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off in some way by the industry. So the journal settled for a new standard: Their reviewers can have received no more than $10,000 [per year] from companies whose work they judge. Isn’t that comforting?
9. Controlling the Publicization of the Results
Most scientists are given contracts by the corporatocracy which contain a clause forbidding them to publicize results that the funders don’t like. This means that Big Pharma, Bir Agra, Big Biotech or whoever it is has the legal right to suppress the results of any study they don’t like – including being able to stop scientists from submitting such studies to a journal.10. Controlling the Funding and Hiding the Funders
Science is, to some extent, by the admissions of one of its branches quantum physics, based on the state of the observer. So, it is unsurprising that it can be manipulated by placing the people who have your point of view in control. An outcome is more likely to be generated when you have people expecting (or subconsciously intending) that result. On top of this, results can be bought and the true finance behind that bribery can be hidden through front groups, think tanks, shell corporations, fake grassroots (astroturf) organizations and many other means.The 10 tricks do, of course, exist in addition to the massive category of data falsification, where corporations omit and distort results at will through all sorts of chicanery (e.g. not reporting patients who suffer side effects and instead labeling them as “non-compliant”).
Corporate junk science is like a cancer parasiting off the host and destroying humanity’s attempt for knowledge and objectivity. The time has come to expose it fully and restore truth.
Please share this.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Did Something Begin In 2012... That Will Zenith In 2016? PART 1: THE FOURTH TURNING by Tom Horn
Originally Posted: April 30, 2013
I learned this week that our good friend Sue Bradley has gone home to be with Jesus. She went into the Lord's arms early in the morning on April 26, 2013.
Please share this.
I learned this week that our good friend Sue Bradley has gone home to be with Jesus. She went into the Lord's arms early in the morning on April 26, 2013.
In
2008 and again in 2012
with input from Steve
Quayle and I, Sue
began working on one
of her last articles
titled The
Fourth Turning: The
Protocols and The Gray
Champion. A
couple months back,
she had emailed me
from her hospital room
and said she was about
to expand this Fourth
Turning work based on
some “Zenith 2016”
material I had just
shared with her.
Unfortunately, like
with the passing of
David Flynn, the world
will probably never
know what Sue was
about to reveal. What
we do know is her work
was partially based on
a book published in
1997, The Fourth Turning, which describes itself as “a book that turns
history into
prophecy.” It
explains cycles of
life and generational
archetypes through the
examination of Western
historical paradigms
over the past five
centuries. By
surveying the past and
identifying
contemporary markers,
William Strauss and
Neil Howe, the authors
of the work determined
an astoundingly
prescient forecast in
which they saw a
cascade of incidents
that would ultimately
lead to chaos and the
“Fourth Turning.”
Keep in mind they made
these predictions over
sixteen years ago,
long before the
September 11, 2001
attacks on America or
the financial issues
of today. Among the
scenarios they foresaw
were:
The
first
could be economic
distress with a
government beset by
fiscal crisis, the
state laying claim to
federal tax monies,
federal marshals
enforcing orders, tax
rebellions, special
forces and an ensuing
constitutional crisis:
The
second is a
terrorist attack,
involving an airliner,
a military response,
authorization for
house to house
searches and false
flag accusations
against the
administration;
A
third scenario is
an economic
disaster involving
Wall Street and a
federal budget impasse
which results in a
stalemate;
The
fourth
consideration is
Eco-environmental
malaise with the
Centers for Disease
Control announcing the
spread of a new
communicable virus
with quarantines and
relocations;
The
fifth projection
is geopolitical in
nature with growing
anarchy throughout the
former Soviet
republics prompting Russia
to conduct training
exercises around its
borders, a Russian
alliance with Iran,
soaring gold and
silver prices and
global military
responses.
In
describing these
insightful scenarios,
Strauss and Howe felt
a catalyst would
unfold as a result of
a specific dynamic
and, “An initial
spark will trigger a
chain reaction of
unyielding responses
and further
emergencies” (the
war on terror?).
According
to Strauss and Howe in
1997, this chain
reaction was already
prepped to unfold as
the result of natural
cycles or
“Turnings” in
which generations are
doomed to forget—and
thus to repeat—the
mistakes of the past.
The authors
describe a Turning as
“an era with a
characteristic social
mood, a new twist on
how people feel about
themselves and their
nation. It results
from the aging of the
generation [before
it].” A society
enters a Turning once
every twenty years or
so, when all living
generations begin to
enter their next
phases of life. The
living generations or
“saeculae”
comprise four cyclical
“Turnings”,
characterized as:
The
First Turning (THE
HIGH),
an era of enthusiastic
collective
strengthening and
civic development,
having burned the
brush and swept the
ashes of preceding
structure.
The
Second Turning (THE
AWAKENING),
is built on the
energies and
accomplishments of the
High but finds
increasing yearning
for introspection with
a high tolerance for
spiritual expression
outside the parameters
of predetermined
standards.
The
Third Turning (THE
UNRAVELING),
begins as the
“society-wide
embrace of the
liberating cultural
forces” loosed by
the Awakening shows
signs of civic
disorder and decay, a
heightened sense of
self-reliance and an
increasing withdrawal
of public trust. This
builds to a near
crisis of downcast
pessimism and a
palpable pall that can
only be remedied by
yielding to the next.
The
Fourth Turning (THE
CRISES and the era we
have now entered),
is by far, the most
perilous as societies
pass through the
greatest and most
dangerous gates of
history. As desperate
solutions are sought
for “sudden
threats” on multiple
cultural fronts,
confrontation is
passionate and
decisions are often
reactive, aggressive.
“Government governs,
community obstacles
are removed, and laws
and customs that
resisted change for
decades are swiftly
shunted aside.
.. A
grim preoccupation
with civic peril
causes spiritual
curiosity to
decline… Public
order tightens,
private risk-taking
abates, and... child-rearing
reaches a smothering
degree of protection
and structure.
The young focus
their energy on
worldly achievements,
leaving values in the
hands of the old. Wars
are fought with fury
and for maximum
result.
[i]
Through
the examination of an
enormous amount of
political and cultural
history, Strauss and
Howe processed over
five hundred years of
Anglo-American
cultural nuance into
remarkable,
well-organized and
predictable cycles and
it is from this
reservoir they finally
stake an uncanny
claim:
Just
after the millennium,
America will enter a
new era that will
culminate with a
crisis comparable to
the American
Revolution, the Civil
War, the Great
Depression, and World
War II. The very
survival of the nation
will almost certainly
be at stake. [ii]
Strauss
and Howe saw the
United States of that
time (1997) in the
Third Turning,
“midway through an
Unraveling,” roughly
a decade away from the
next Crisis or Fourth
Turning:
America
feels like it’s
unraveling. Although
we live in an era of
relative peace and
comfort, we have
settled into a mood of
pessimism about the
long-term future,
fearful that our
superpower nation is
somehow rotting from
within.
The next Fourth
Turning is due to
begin shortly after
the new millennium…
Real hardship will
beset the land, with
severe distress that
could involve
questions of class,
race, nation, and
empire…
The very survival of
the nation will feel
at stake.
Sometime before the
year 2025, America
will pass through a
great gate in history,
commensurate with the
American Revolution,
Civil War, and twin
emergencies of the
Great Depression and
World War II.
The risk of
catastrophe will be
very high. The nation
could erupt into
insurrection or civil
violence, crack up
geographically, or
succumb to
authoritarian rule. If
there is a war, it is
likely to be one of
maximum risk and
efforts — in
other words, a TOTAL
WAR.
[iii]
The
striking details
contained within The
Fourth Turning
illustrate the
precision that was
distilled with a close
examination of
historical patterns
and contemporary
application.
Although
the authors note that
the events described
are not absolute, they
also insist that the
cycles, these
Turnings, cannot be
interrupted. As summer
follows spring, an
Unraveling precedes a
Crisis of Faustian
proportions:
It
will require us to
lend a new seasonal
interpretation to our
revered American
Dream. And it will
require us to admit
that our faith in
linear progress has
often amounted to a
Faustian bargain with
our children.
Faust always ups the
ante, and every bet is
double-or-nothing.
Through much of the
Third Turning, we have
managed to postpone
the reckoning. But
history warns that we
can’t defer it
beyond the next bend
in time. [iv]
While
a “Faustian
bargain” sounds
ominous, Sue wrote,
there is little
evidence that the
Anglo-American
“Dream” has
undergone the
introspection and
discipline necessary
to buffer the arrogant
recklessness of this
generation and its
administration.
NBC’s
Chuck Todd noted on
the evening of
November 4, 2008 that
Barack Obama was a
changing of the guard
in the United States
from the Baby Boomer
presidencies of
William Clinton and
George W. Bush. The
Toronto Globe and Mail
referred to
President-elect Obama
as being a member of
Generation X, being
born in 1961. And
Strauss and Howe
assigned Generation
X—the Thirteenth
Generation—to those
who would bring us to chaos and the
start of the Fourth
Turning . . .
culminating in a Zenith of
events scheduled for
the year 2016.
Stay
tuned. Part Two coming soon.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Rocco Galati on The Case to “Reinstate” the Bank of Canada - March 3, 2015
The Case to “Reinstate” the Bank of Canada
GUEST: Rocco Galati, Toronto based lawyer.
GUEST: Rocco Galati, Toronto based lawyer.
Please share this.
Monday, March 2, 2015
How To Erase Your Home From Google, Yahoo And Bing Maps
Private companies like Google now have the legal right to use the
kind of spy satellite technology once reserved for agencies like the
NSA.
Our homes have been on Google for years, but the detail was limited to objects no larger than about 20 inches. Last year the US Department of Commerce lifted restrictions that essentially allow companies like Google and Microsoft (which owns Bing) to show images to the world as small as 12 inches.
That means they can use pictures of your property with far greater detail – potentially showing features like the color of your mailbox, objects sitting in your backyard, and even the types of plants growing in your garden.
“You can actually definitely see (car) windshields,” DigitalGlobe’s Kumar Navulur told Gigaom.com. DigitalGlobe is one of the satellite companies using the new technology. “We can actually tell you whether it’s a truck or an SUV or a regular car. We can identify pictures of a baseball diamond.”
Imagery taken is now for sale at DigitalGlobe’s website.
If that was not disturbing enough, Google paid $500 million for SkyBox Imaging, a company that provides real-time high resolution pictures. Google plans to add Skybox imagery to Google Maps.
What does all this mean? It is going to be easier than ever for companies to take detailed pictures of your property.
The bad news is that, so far, it is impossible to hide your home from these next-generation eyes in the sky. The good news, though, is that all of the major mapping websites – Google, Bing and Yahoo – allow you to blur your home on their “street view” images, which often provide even more detail than satellite images.
It’s not uncommon to see pictures of families playing in their yards or children walking the dog – right there on Google Maps for the world to see. Google’s computers are programmed to “blur” faces and license plates, but they don’t catch everything.
Below you will find directions on how to blur your home on the street view functions of Google Maps, Bing and Yahoo. It only takes a few minutes for each one.
Google Maps
Bing Maps
Please share this.
Our homes have been on Google for years, but the detail was limited to objects no larger than about 20 inches. Last year the US Department of Commerce lifted restrictions that essentially allow companies like Google and Microsoft (which owns Bing) to show images to the world as small as 12 inches.
That means they can use pictures of your property with far greater detail – potentially showing features like the color of your mailbox, objects sitting in your backyard, and even the types of plants growing in your garden.
“You can actually definitely see (car) windshields,” DigitalGlobe’s Kumar Navulur told Gigaom.com. DigitalGlobe is one of the satellite companies using the new technology. “We can actually tell you whether it’s a truck or an SUV or a regular car. We can identify pictures of a baseball diamond.”
Imagery taken is now for sale at DigitalGlobe’s website.
If that was not disturbing enough, Google paid $500 million for SkyBox Imaging, a company that provides real-time high resolution pictures. Google plans to add Skybox imagery to Google Maps.
What does all this mean? It is going to be easier than ever for companies to take detailed pictures of your property.
The bad news is that, so far, it is impossible to hide your home from these next-generation eyes in the sky. The good news, though, is that all of the major mapping websites – Google, Bing and Yahoo – allow you to blur your home on their “street view” images, which often provide even more detail than satellite images.
It’s not uncommon to see pictures of families playing in their yards or children walking the dog – right there on Google Maps for the world to see. Google’s computers are programmed to “blur” faces and license plates, but they don’t catch everything.
Below you will find directions on how to blur your home on the street view functions of Google Maps, Bing and Yahoo. It only takes a few minutes for each one.
Google Maps
- Visit Google.com/maps and enter your home address.
- Look to the lower-right of the screen. You should see a little icon that looks like a yellow person in the tool bar.
- Click on that icon and drag it over to your address location on the map to access Street View.
- The map should be replaced by a picture of your home or business. If you don’t see your home, then move up and down the street or rotate the picture until you do. (If it still doesn’t work, then Google may not have an image of your home.)
- Click on “report a problem” on the bottom-right.
- Follow the directions, and fill out the form.
Bing Maps
- Visit Bing.com/maps and enter your home address.
- From the top of the map, drag the blue icon that looks like a person to your street. (Note: Bing requires installation of a program, Silverlight. If you street does not turn blue when dragging the “blue person” icon, then your house has not been photographed for Bing’s maps.)
- Click on the question mark at the bottom-right of the screen.
- Click “report an image concern.”
- Request that your home be blurred.
- Visit Yahoo.com/maps
- Drag the gray icon that resembles a person (top-right) to your street. (If it won’t drag, then your street has not been photographed for Yahoo.)
- Click on “report image” at the bottom-left of the screen. It will take you to a different website.
- Click on “request blurring,” and follow the directions.
Please share this.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
A View From Space with Gary Bell the Spaceman, February 28, 2015
TOPICS: All about Perception, Spock, MSM ETC...
Please share this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)