TaN: Processed food is “de-natured food”. De-naturing is the process of converting or transforming food from its bio-compatible and bio-absorbable form into something totally unrecognizable and “toxic” to the body. De-naturing is achieved in many ways, all of which involve re-arranging the molecular structure – by exposure to high temperatures (such as cooking or pasteurizing, at temperatures way beyond 120 degrees C or 248 degrees F), by subjection to harsh and toxic chemical baths and reactions (such as the recent fiasco concerning the use of ammonia to render hamburger “safe” to consume, which broke into a scandal that required a massive public relations campaign to “silence” it; see: http://www.naturalnews.com/027872_ammonia_beef_products.html), by treating with radiation and with microwave (such as with almonds and with cashew nuts and with walnuts; see: http://www.nuthealth.org/nutrition-research/impact-of-irradiation-and-thermal-processing-on-the-antigenicity-of-almond-cashew-nut-and-walnut-proteins/ and http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/cashew.htm), and by any other process that deviate from the ancient and traditional ways of air-drying, of salting, of natural fermentation, of pickling, etc).
Conventional science – i.e., chemists and related fields – have the mistaken notion that things that are chemically identical will possess the same characteristics or properties and exhibit or behave in the same manner. However, they (probably) conveniently forget or ignore their own related field of stereochemistry or chiral chemistry, which espouses that there are right-handed and left-handed molecules (or mirror molecules) that are chemically identical but are not the same. The most obvious example is that of Carbon, where coal and diamond are both forms of carbon and are chemical twins but even just at the physical appearance level already show extreme differences.
WIth this argument, it would be stubborn and stupid to persist on the argument that raw and processed food are the same. There are critical points where the molecules are re-arranged and cause a change in properties and in behavior. In the case of temperature, the first critical threshhold is 40 degrees C or 104 degrees F (maximum tolerable body temperature before organic substances begin to break down). The second and final critical ceiling is 120 degrees C or 248 degrees F. Any food exposed to heat above this level becomes toxic and carcinogenic (refer to: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/acrylamide-in-food and to http://sciencenordic.com/print/1738).
Though it may be redundant, the most obvious example would be the transformation of wood to coal and to diamond under extreme pressure and temperat is needed?
This being said and (hopefully) convincingly exhibited, I hope this will put the matter to rest once and for all. Only naturally eaten – i.e., food eaten as nature (and God) intended: raw, whole, natural-grown, in season, and local – can be considered food, nothing else. Take our cue from animals; they know better and this is why those in the wild, most of the time, do not need physicians and do not need medicines. They may be animals but they know better when it comes to food and healthy lifestyles. This is because they follow nature’s (and God’s) dictates.
TaN: We are so obsessed with being germ-free and denying the fact that with each breath we take, we inhale millions of microbes – we are never germ-free at any given moment, even when in completely sanitized hermetically-sealed environments. Moreover, according to some articles I have come across – please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiome and http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-09/fyi-how-much-bacteria-do-people-carry-around and http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-humans-carry-more-bacterial-cells-than-human-ones&print=true – as much as 5 pounds of our body weight are microbes, up to 2-3% of your body mass. In fact, science have found that there are more types or species of bacteria in your body than you have types of cells – estimated to be 10:1.
Yes, microbes are an integral part of not only our daily existence but it is vital to our very existence. A case in point is that much of what we eat are actually indigestable by our body – despite the enzymes, the acids, and all the other paraphernalia we have for such a purpose – if it were not for the gut bacteria. According to an article – please refer to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21153898/ns/health-health_care/t/scientists-may-have-found-appendixs-purpose/#.UXTwFaKouSo, and to http://medicinereport.com/article/appendix-its-purpose-found, to name a few – it was found that vermiform appendix (as it is formally called) protects the good gut bacteria.
Another case in point is, according to another article I came across some time ago (please refer to http://healthworkscollective.com/immunophen/73516/gut-flora-support-immune-system and http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120702152940.htm), much of our body’s natural and inherent defense – the immune system – is made up of (symbiotic) bacteria. Their assistance in defending our body is invaluable. Furthermore, the mistaken notion of most medical and scientific experts that our appendix is but a useless remnant of our past and may be taken out anytime without affecting our body functions and health is absolutely poppycock and bovine ordure. It is now known and accepted that the appendix serves as an indispensable component of our health and digestive system where it stores or houses “reserved” bacteria for when the beneficial bacteria in the gut and those that make up an integral part of our body’s defense strategy. The body draws from the appendix at times when some catastrophe – such as being sick and/or taking antibiotics, necessarily or not – and re-inoculates the depleted stores. So, taking out the appendix is not a good idea. The same holds true with our tonsils.
It is, therefore, foolish to fall into the unfounded and absurd thinking that it is possible to create a germ-free environment.
TaN: The party-list concept, like NGOs (or non-government organizations), has its good arguments but it only reinforces the argument that government fails or is not doing its job, its obligations in the Social Contract – in return for taxation and other related matters, to protect the citizens and ensure “an equal playing field” and equal opportunities to all.
When I saw the campaign poster of a party-list – the one that is supposed to represent the marginalized sector of the senior citizens – I had an epiphany. It dawned on me that the emergence and continued presence of NGOs – and now, the party-list – proves that the government has been and is remiss in its obligations in the Social Contract. If it were not so, there would be no need for the party-list and the NGOs. Seniors would not need a party to represent their interests, so it is with the youth, the women, the ethnic tribes, etc. Neither would there be the need to have organizations (NGOs) that perform some of the functions that the government should be performing in the first place – like NGOs for the environment (that the DENR) should be doing.
While we are hoping that someday the party-list and the NGOs will be redundant, in the meantime, we must accept the reality that government is still incompetent and deficient due to it being riddled with graft and corruption and infiltrated by self-serving traitors and by opportunistic parasites. It is a Herculean task to rid government of these vermin but with persistent and consistent determination and commitment, it is not an impossible dream.
TaN: In re: upcoming Philippine elections – it is very disturbing that (1) the Comelec choses to violate and subvert the Constitutional provision mandating that a parallel manual count be conducted simultaneously with the automated count, justifying that a random manual audit is the same as a parallel manual count and (2) that lawyers are arrogantly arguing the case regarding the source code of the PCOS machines where it should clearly be argued by the technical experts and not by programmer-wannabe lawyers who pretend to know the implications of the software jargon they are espousing and likewise guaranteeing to the public that the binaries in the PCOS can and will do the job of producing accurate results.
It is pitiful and very dangerous that the Philippine election body – through its head – is arguing that a random manual audit (RMA) is the equivalent of the Constitution mandated parallel manual count (PMC). By any definition – unless they have changed the definition (again) – the RMA, under any circumstance and by any stretch of the imagination – is nowhere near the equivalent of the PMC. The RMA only entails taking a statistically significant sample (not the whole set) of the actual body of data and only compares the totals selected, while the PMC duplicates what the PCOS are (supposed to be) doing except that it is done physically (not electronically, sight unseen) with witnesses and the works for all the precincts. I have never been a fan of statistics and statistical probabilities because they can be manipulated – I know, because I have to shamefully confess that, in my innocent and ignorant youth, I had been a party to an episode wherein we announced a 50% success rate when in truth, it was so because our population size was only 2! Statistics can easily be manipulated and manipulative if one knows how and it can be done “cleanly” – unless everything is out in the open. So, by blindly putting out trust in machines that can easily be “commandeered” and entrusting such an important process is more perilous than playing Russian roulette with a fully-loaded firearm.
As to lawyers playing software expert wannabes, it is a matter of arrogance and saving face to stubbornly insist that everything – in the software aspect – is on the up and up. To adamantly persist in saying that there is no need for the source code because we have the binaries, that the source code has already been examined and certified by a so-called international certification somebody, that all detractors and opposition to the PCOS machines are sour graping, are sore losers, are out to destroy the credibility of the automation process or of the poll body, etc is not only employing squid tactics to deflect the issue but possibly even – directly or indirectly – participants in the hijacking of another election, just taking it to the next level of sophistication or automation.
Let me elaborate and illustrate how easy it is to manipulate (fully) automated elections – and software experts can confirm this one argument at a time. First, they argue that the source code has been certified by an international certification agency. When it comes to something as important as elections and the subsequent administration of a country that will ensue, a foreign entity sound credible in the sense that it is a dis-interested party, therefore it will be objective or unbiased. However, it could just as easily be that someone pays the agency to covertly certify something that the said agency has no stakes or interests in – against ethical principles. This is more than probable, considering how many foreign for-profit entities have only their interests in mind and how some transnational entities regard the Philippines – take the case of how OFWs are treated in a number of countries and of how the incidences of equating Filipino domestic helpers with certain derogatory terms. I would not put too much credibility in the certification issue.
Second, there is repeated assurances and re-assurances that, despite the inaccessibility of the source code, the binaries are credible and reliable enough to accomplish the job. They appear not to realize that we only have their word that the binaries originated from the supposedly certified source code. There is no direct evidence that the source code, when translated (i.e., compiled or interpreted, depending on the language translator used and on the software platform deployed) would be identical to the binaries in the PCOS machines. Unless and until there is direct publicly-credible and software expert witnesses properly documenting every step of the process of inspecting the source code, translating it into binaries, and loaded into the PCOS machines (via the compact flash cards), anywhere along the route (where there is even just an unguarded instant), there could be a deft “switcheroo” to slip another version of the software application into the PCOS machines – one that has been pre-programmed to do the bidding of another “master”. In fact, computer technology has reached such a level of sophistication where a pre-loaded software can be hacked remotely and wirelessly – no needing any physical contact whatsoever. It is already happening all around us repeatedly – like the introduction of a virus via a cruise missile in the first Gulf War targeting Iraqi radar stations – and something as important as installing “my people” in strategic positions in government is not beyond imagination and possibility.
Third, if the “correct” software application is installed in the PCOS machines, a field testing, no matter how rigorous testing is conducted, can produce successful and accurate results but still be lurking with sinister routines to be triggered on command during the appropriate instant. “Correct” here means that the binaries will contain a Trojan routine that will do the bidding of the “master” at any appropriate time. Again, the experts can confirm this, that a Trojan routine can lie dormant – a mole or a sleeper, in you will – until activated, like a certain date and time, a certain condition or input, a triggering signal or impulse received wirelessly – and suddenly “come to life” and do its pre-programmed mission and no one will be the wiser, except the people behind it. The Trojan can internally “record” the wrong results, adding to the pre-programmed recipient and deducting from the unfortunate “target” candidate “destined” to lose, but still “show” the proper choices made by the voter in his/her hardcopy. I must confess that I did it back in the early days of the desktop computers but only to demonstrate that anomalies in the counting of automated polls when not paralleled by a manual counting. I can tell the machine to behave normally and appropriately until a pre-determined condition or command is received. Then, it will operate the Trojan routine in the background, all the while running “normally” in the foreground.
Fourth, the Trojan routine may have been already hard-wired into the BIOS so the source code is but a mere formality. The Trojan can override the binaries any time and covertly change the results internally. The individually printed ballot results is of little use because (1) most voters will not keep their hardcopies, (2) those hardcopies that are kept by the voters will be kept separately (so getting them together to countercheck the results would be next to impossible), and (3) history has shown how tedious and frustrating and expensive it is to launch an election protest to open the ballots to confirm election anomalies.