[another last-minute insertion] TaN: The CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) of the United States of America has just announced that the flu vaccine (for this year) is not effective. There are speculations that it is in response to the news from Italy where people receiving the same vaccine has died — a dozen as of last report taken from NaturalNews.
It is both interesting and dismaying to know that so many people putting misplaced blind trust in authorities who have repeatedly and consistently shown to be functioning not in the interest of public — rather it is perceived to be serving the interest of Big Pharma. The problem with conventional or mainstream medicine is the they never (and are not expected to) act (truly) serve the public but look out for their profit.
In truth, if we observe and do some research carefully it will be noticed that the flu season “occurs” during the winter season so the natural question would be: Why only during then? This leads to more research as to the reason and one will see that the immune system is more sluggish (and takes longer to respond) in low temperatures — this explains why fever is a natural common response by the body to most illnesses. Also, the intensity and duration of sunlight is shorter during winter months and vitamin D(3) — which is produced by the skin when exposed to sunlight and to be dissolved in saturated fat — is a critical (hormone) component in the body’s defense mechanism.
Therefore, flu vaccines become redudant when people get enough sunlight and have sufficient intake of saturated fats in their diet to support the body’s immune system, instead of depending on flu vaccines which have time and again been proven not only to be ineffective but even toxic and lethal — as can be witnessed in the recent incidence of deaths in Italy as a direct result of the flu vaccine.
In addition, it can also be gleaned from in-depth research that viruses are the cause of flu (or influenza) and it is known that viruses have a very high evolutionary rate — i.e., it mutates constantly and quickly, so much so that by the time a vaccine is developed for a target virus, it would have mutated to a form or strain that is “immune” to whatever vaccine was developed. In this light, flu vaccines are modern-day snake oil, only deadlier but more profitable.
Finally, what is the rationale behind the USA National Vaccine Injury Act — a “no fault” compensation system which, in effect, shields or protects vaccine manufacturers from suit arising out of wrongful deaths or disabilities as a direct result of getting vaccinations? [Please refer to: http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/200-if-vaccines-are-safe-then-why-did-congress-give-them-legal-immunity-why-are-they-above-the-law.html]
[last-minute insertion] TaN: In the recent case of death of Eric Garner while being subdued by New York Police officers (in a supposed choke hold) and where the verdict came back as “not guilty” for the death, I personally think the verdict was wrong. A New York authority argued that since Mr Garner was able to speak, it implies that the latter was able to breathe — so there is no reason to say Mr Garner was choked to death. As expected, the defense is relying on literal interpretation to justify the tragedy.
First, it is admitted by the NYPD (New York Police Department) that they have a policy in place against the use of choke holds (because of their lethal potential) by police officers so it would be nice to hear what the findings of the medical examiner on whether there was evidence of a choke hold or not.
Second, it must be realized that people often do not use the proper and accurate terms in their utterances, especially when they are under stress or in a traumatic situation. The supposed (and it is clearly and distinctly audible) phrase “I can’t breathe” by Mr Garner should not be taken literally. While it is true that a person who cannot breathe cannot speak, it must be remembered that Mr Garner was being overwhelmed by a gang of police officers so the victim’s phrase should have been taken to mean “I am having difficulty breathing”. One can be in a choke hold and still be able to say a few words, especially at the onset of the choke hold. It should be noticed that Mr Garner no longer spoke after his last utterance, which would imply that his air must have been completely cut off by then and had eventually led to his demise.
Third, it is not sufficient (for the concerned and alleged responsible police officer) to say that he had no intention to cause the demise of Mr Garner. Of course, no one (in his right mind, and especially to say it publicly) would have the intention to harm another, much less cause a death. But regardless whether there was any intention or not, the fact remains that Mr Garner’s death was directly caused by the use of excessive force. It can be clearly and plainly seen in the (ceullular phone) video that there were more than enough police officers on top of Mr Garner to ensure that the latter is down and immobilized and that the choke hold (because the medical examiner report showed the asphyxiation as the COD or cause of death). The choke hold (or whatever it was that was applied that led to the death) should never have been used.
It would appear that there is a gradual but steady increase in incidents involving police and law enforcement officers using excessive force in the performance of their duties and functions. And I can foresee that the worst is yet to come, what with rise in “donations” by the United States of America military of their unused/surplus or “used” (and have since been replaced with newer and better) equipment to law enforcement agencies and departments which were never designed or intended for civilian deployment rendering them ill-suited and “over-qualified”. Some of such “donated” military equipment are high-powered automatic assault rifles, heavy-armored personnel carriers with external mounted offensive weapons systems, drones and surveillance equipment, and munitions. Just wait until these “big boys’ toys” are used by testosterone-fueled and over-zealous police officers against unarmed and peaceful law-abiding citizens.
Finally, the increase in such incidents, especially against non-whites, are bolstered by the successive court verdicts acquitting or vindicating the accused and, which this, expect more such incidents and occurrences in the future. But there is a way to stop this madness but it will take a concerted and determined effort by everyone — after all, All it takes for evil to win is for all good men to do nothing.
TaN: It is bad enough that people make and keep wild animals as pets, but it is absolutely irresponsible and unthinking to have one not endemic or native to the locality. This is the primary culprit in the global headache of alien species invasion and the extinction (or at least the endangment) of many endemic flora and fauna. Since the introduced species have no known natural enemies or predators, they have an advantage over the native ones thereby giving the alien both hunting and reproductive advantage.
The nuisance brought on by introduced species negatively impact agriculture, health, tourism, and even life. In agriculture, they can destroy crops or prey on beneficial plants and animals. In health, they can be harboring pathogens never encountered before ergo immunity is compromised. In tourism, they can damage the environment, spoiling the natural beauty. And in life, they can directly threaten man, such as when they go berserk and hurt children or the large or venomous ones even adults.
In addition, once the introduced species are loose in the wild and have established some kind of foothold (and begin to reproduce), it is practically impossible to monitor and control.
TaN: One major cause for the increasing widespread and unbridled spread lifestyle diseases — thyroid and endocrine system conditions, hypertension, obesity, eye and ear problems, and cancer, to name a few — is our constant and consistent “immersion” in a toxic ocean of consumer products.
By consuming (i.e., eating, wearing, applying, and using) these products, we expose ourselves to a bombardment of deadly chemicals and EMFs or electromagnetic fields that inundate and ravage us with no breather or respite.
This continuous exposure eventually wears down our body’s defenses and we consequently succumb to (lifestyle) diseases.
I reiterate — as I have repeatedly mentioned in early TaNs — that: (1) Do not put anything in the mouth that should not be swallowed (because it is the SAME THING); (2) Do not put or apply anything on the skin that should not be put in the mouth (because it is the SAME THING); and, (3) Man-made things can never match, much less be better, than natural or God-created.
Putting something in the mouth is the same as swallowing it because the thinnest part of the skin is under the tongue — which is always moist and warm and filled with capillaries. Nothing is absorbed into the body unless and until it is dissolved and saliva is a very good solvent. Once dissolved, the solute passes through the thin membrane and is carried off by the blood (in the capillaries). This is why instant relief or quick action heart medications are often administered sub-lingual or under the tongue.
As for skin application being the same as putting it in the mouth, this is how the trans-dermal nicotine patch works. Smokers wanting to quit smoking puts the patch on any skin surface (usually somewhere at the abdomen or belly where it is not so conspicuous) and the nicotine is absorbed directly by the skin and into the blood — through osmosis.
Finally, man-made equivalents of natural or God-created things are often ineffective and commonly even harmful. Logic tells us that if the artificial calcium, for instance, added to, say, milk is as good (if not better) than the natural calcium already in milk, this implies that all calcium are the same and it does not matter where it is sourced, the body will bio-assimilate it. However, logic or critical thinking will tell us that, if this were so, why buy expensive commercial milk fortified with calcium when there is more calcium in a piece of chalk (calcium carbonate) so might as well mix in chalk with milk or, better still, chew chalk.
Experts, if they are really deserving to be called that, fail to explain the field of (natural and physical) science called chiral or stereochemistry. In this field, it explains that though substances may be chemically identical, their specific molecular arrangement determines it properties. The classic example I like to use is Carbon.
Coal and diamonds are both made up of carbon, yet the two are worlds apart. The former is opaque black and soft while the latter is transparent or glassy and the hardest known natural substance. But I digress again and tend to do this a lot.
TaN: Election campaign contributions cannot be considered conflict of interest, regardless of whether the contributor is from an industry or sector where a conflict of interest arising is great or highly probable. The purpose is to show preference and (financial) support for a particular candidate.
To pre-empt or discourage a candidate to become “beholden” to a certain contributor (due to the size of the contribution), the law should specify that contributions should not exceed a certain ceiling or maximum limit per contributor. This way, should the contributor want to give a sizeable amount, s/he would have to “use” several “dummies or proxies”. So, in order that there would be a small chance of “circumventing” this campaign contribution amount law, the maximum contributable amount should be quite small — like 1,000 — and the list of contributors (and the amount) should be submitted to the Commission on Elections as well as posted publicly for all and sundry to scrutinize (say, in cyber space or published in at least 2 daily newspapers of wide circulation).
Moreover, if there should be any prohibition, it should be that contributions can only come from real persons and not from businesses, industries, or any non-living entity. This is to ensure that a contributor can only donate once — and not use non-persons to “sneak past” the contrinution ceiling provision.
As to the issue of contributors holding top management positions in large corporations, it is argued that even if their contribution is on a personal capacity and does not represent any company/corporation, it can still be construed as a corporate contribution and make the candidate feel “indebted”. However, with the contribution ceiling set at such a low amount, it is doubtful that the candidate will feel indebted — assuming that non-persons are permitted to make contributions.
Finally, to avoid overwhelming the Commission on Elections with going over the campaign contributions and expenses from all candidates after the elections, it is recommended that a schedule for submission of contributors’ list and their corresponding contributiion amounts to be enforced and complied with while still in the campaign period. This way, the scrutinization of the contributors and contributions can be gradually compared against the campaign expenses to-date — i.e., the candidate will have a lot of explaining to do if and should his/her campaign expenses far exceeds the contributions received.
TaN: In a local television health program, a well-known expert on emotional and mental health conditions, mentioned that depression is actually “an extreme form of being lonely”. I beg to disagree. Though I respect her opinion, I posit that depression is more of a case of feeling useless.
From what I can gather and to remain consistent with earlier TaNs regarding man’s purpose for being in this world, man’s primal and constant (personal) pursuit in this world is happiness and this can only be accomplished by being useful — i.e., to be able to contribute positively and beneficially to (truly) improve the lives of others. As it has been taught repeatedly (for emphasis) both in words and by example in the Holy Scriptures through Jesus Christ, when He preached and performed miracles freely for the benefit of all.
This is also echoed in E F Schumacher, in Buddhist Economics, that it is the duty of man to flourish and this is achievable only through work — and “work” is defined as human activity where one’s talent and labor are integral and essential to the creation and production of goods and services for the benefit of society, monetary or financial gain aside.
It is, therefore, essential when depression is to be treated that the afflicted individual must engage in meaningful and worthwhile activities that bring benefit and good to others — to make him/her feel as though s/he is still important and not impotent. Only when we serve others do and will we feel the true sense of joy — all others, especially those what address selfish interests and needs, are fleeting and often unsatisfying. It is for this precise reason why people go from one (self-serving) “achievement” to another, one (self-serving) “ambition” to another, one (self-serving) “endeavor” to another.
In some cases, the remedy is more than mere encouraging the depressed individual to socialize. This is most true if the depression is accompanied by cognitive failure or (short-term) memory loss — although depression itself, especially the more serious or advanced form, has some degree of cognitive failure or memory loss.
Finally, probably the most difficult part of treating depression is to get the individual to acknowledge the depression. Without the acknowledgement and cooperation of the depressed, no improvement can be expected. In fact, this is likewise true for all medical treatments. People erroneously think that when they get better or well, it is because of the physician — that they owe a debt of gratitude to the physician and that they thank the physician for their recovery. In truth, if the patient does not follow physician instructions, no healing will occur — assuming that allopathic physicians are really able to provide proper medical care and remedies.
Please, let us not grab undeserved credit.
TaN: In a television advertisement I just recently saw, it was trying to sell an anti-bacterial product (by making it appear and implanting into viewers’ minds that bacteria are harmful and bad for health) and I was suddenly reminded of how important bacteria is to our health and that 99% of bacteria are actually benign or even beneficial. In truth, if it were not for bacteria, our immune system would be overwhelmed and most of the (healthful) nutrients in our food would not be absorbed, assimilated, and used by our body.
It is amazing that so many people still believe in the erroneous belief that bacteria (and viruses) are harmful. This is the Germ Theory of Louis Pasteur who, supposedly in his deathbed confession gave instructions that his notes are to be locked for 50 years after his death and finally admitted, “I LIED”. And this is the position and advocacy of Big Pharma ever since — primarily because it ensures obscenely monstrous profits.
However, if one follows the reports and findings that were published but not given much prominence by Big Media and Big Pharma over years, one would see and realize that a mere miniscule 1% of all bacteria are considered harmful to man. In fact, most bacteria are benign and quite a number are not only beneficial but even essential to man’s health, well-being, and existence.
Repeatedly in my earlier TaNs, I mentioned that Pasteur’s archrival, Antoine Bechamp (and his Pleomorphic Theory), had the correct theory — that, instead of bacteria (and viruses) being the culprit of diseases, it is the organism itself that is the cause. Benign bacteria react to the environment and “goes into action” only when the conditions are right.
In nature, alkaline environments signify (thriving) life, whereas acidic ones imply that there is an organic (living) creature that is either sickly or dying. In either case, it is a sign for (nature’s) bacteria to commence the breaking down or decomposition process — disassembling the complex chemical compounds and substances back into their elemental components so nature can recycle and re-use them. This is when people get sick and either eventually die or recover — the latter if something was (successfully) done to return the organism’s acidic state back to alkaline which will stop the bacteria’s decomposition activities.
In numerous and varied cases, we observe that a majority of those stricken and become diseased by bacteria eventually recover. And, remember that bacteria (and viruses) are everywhere. In fact, it has been said that millions of bacteria (and viruses) are taken into the lungs with each breath we take. The argument is if bacteria is so pervasive, why is there still life everywhere? And why is it that only a few of those sick with the same bacteria do not recover? If the bacteria is the culprit or the cause of (deadly) diseases, then all who are infected should subsequently die — of become scarred or incapacitated, if the disease is not fatal.
Finally, there are so many inconsistencies with the arguments of Big Pharma but most people blindly (and “loyally”) believe in them because they do not think — critically — otherwise one can easily see through the thin veil of deception of Big Pharma. As they say, None are as blind as those who refuse to see.
TaN: Just because something is common among the great majority does not necessarily mean that it is normal — much less the “new normal”. A prime example would be disease, specifically lifestyle diseases. Just because more and more people are “stricken” with lifestyle diseases, like hypertension, obesity, osteoporosis, arthritis, cancer, etc, does not mean that being diseased is (now) normal. This is similar to the argument that: A need can become a want, but a want cannot become a need.
There is no such “animal” — my college mentor used to say. Normal implies that it is what is, what should be, and what has always been. If something normal, suddenly or otherwise, is substituted or replaced with a “new normal”, it would only mean that it (the former) never was the normal. Just like many universal truths, they are absolutes and forever and this means they will stay the same for all time.
The “introduction” of a new normal appears to be an attempt to subvert what is and should be with what was not for the purpose of conditioning people’s minds into accepting the substitution or replacement.
The reason behind this conditioning can be many and varied. It has numerous “applications”. As a case in point, the “new normal” may be used by Big Pharma to convince people that lifestyle diseases are expected of everyone as they age and the only means of living and maintaining a “normal” life is to buy into their (toxic and ineffective) pharmaceutical chemicals and vaccines. This ensures a steady and continuous inflow of profit into the coffers of Big Pharma.
Another “new normal” is extreme weather. Climate change deniers argue that the increasing incidences of powerful weather systems and occurences are not the result of (irresponsible and unsustainable) human activities and practices. Instead, they claim that the weather extremes are but part of the natural schedule of climate changes through the ages, conveniently forgetting or leaving out the roles and impact of industrial air pollution and greenhouse gases (GHGs), including those arising from large corporate feedlots or CAFOs (Concentrate Animal Feeding Operations).
Other “new normals” are: global conflict and terrorism (via drone attacks and retaliatory responses), poverty (when the UN anti-poverty slogan changed “eradication” to “mitigation”) and hunger, and domestic and civilian violence and abuse — among others. [Speaking of “hunger”, I recall a recent news item reporting that all the wasted (and often uneaten) food in the USA could feed over 1 billion people — i.e., they will not ever go hungry.]
Stop biting into the fraudulent hype of the “new normal” — there is no such animal.