TaN: Listening to Mike Adams commenting on Rupert Sheldrake’s Morphic Resonance, I suddenly realized and understood the inanity of what conventional (pseudo-)science has been forcing us to believe — that everything is in the DNA and our fate is “sealed” (just like coventional and mainstream hogwash medicine when they say that our lifestyle diseases are inherited and there is no cure but only maintenance toxic pharmaceuticals and vaccines).
It finally hit me that DNA does not contain many more beyond the physical and physiological and even beyond epigenetics…behavior, attitude, organic form and structure, and consciousness. DNA (or deoxyribose nucleic acid) are mere proteins — four to be exact: guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine (or GATC) — and can only effect chemical processes and nothing more. They only direct the chemical aspect of the physical. They do not dictate what shape or form the organism will take, the behavior it will adopt, the life and lifestyle the organism will live.
At best, DNA can only determine the reflexes or how it reacts to outside or external stimuli and when and how certain bodily processes will take place (when certain conditions arise). It determines the eye and hair color while environment dictates skin color but not the form of the organism.
It has been argued — and rightly so — that the proteins in man’s DNA is no different from those of any other (higher form of) animal, say from another mammal like a lion, an elephant, a whale, or even something more familiar as a dog or cat or even a goldfish. Just as the materials used to make a house is the same as those used to erect a building yet the two are very different.
Try in earnest as much as we may, we will not find anything in the DNA regarding what the organism looks like. It is much like the concrete, glass, metal, wood, polymer, and stuff that make up a structure and, when it is demolished, there is nothing in the rubble that can show what the structure looked like — only the blueprint (or photographs).
So, it does not make sense to believe in the nonsensical dribble being peddled and pushed by Big Pharma, the conventional medical industry, and their parrots that lifestyle diseases and even natural mental or psychological “abnormalities” are hereditary and can be determined or found in one’s genes and should be treated.
In fact, just a couple of years back, there was news (surprisingly in mainstream media) that the Obama administration has been funding and conducting research into the “evilness” gene — shades of George Orwell’s 1984 and the film Minority Report. This means that if and when they “find” the evil gene in you — assuming it does exist and they will be able to convince people and pass legislation for it to make it legal — they can use it as a basis for arresting and incarcerating you. GUILTY! Just for having the “evil” gene.
The Age of Pre-emptive Crime is nigh. And couple that with smart (and spying) devices (like phones and household appliances and fixtures) and vehicles (like self-driving/-propelling cars) and with the proliferation of drones and with nanotechnology devices and with interactive Internet-linked garments and RFIDs (radio frequency identification) and with digital money and with the impending consolidation of super regions (North American Union, African Union, Asian Union, etc), and, surprise surprise, the prophesied Apocalypse and the number of the Beast.
TaN: In the controversy over gas emissions and global warming, aside from the debate and arguments of the energy sources, many forget or disregard or do not consider the “contribution” of the machines and equipment that consume the energy generated. It must be remembered that heat is almost always a byproduct, if not the principal output (as in heaters and cookers), of any work or activity.
Even when the machinery or equipment is electrical or electricity-operated or -powered, there will still be heated from its operation even though generation of heat is not the main purpose or design, as in a stove. Take the case of the simple and ubiquitous electric fans. Though their main output is wind, the motor that turns the blades to produce the wind generate heat as they consume energy. Another case in point is another ubiquitous appliance, our lighting fixtures where, no matter how “cool” it is to the touch, there is still heat generated although light is the intended output.
Whenever there is work done, there will always be heat produced; and, no matter how insignificantly and negligibly small the amount of heat is produced, when there is a sufficient quantity produced (individually), as all the LED (light-emitting diodes) lights in the world combined, there is still a quantitatively significant amount involved or generated.
The most rudimentary of all is something as simple, as familiar, and as fundamental as living. Our bodies produce heat. The only time it does not is when it is dead — just as the saying goes: the only environmentally-friendly car is an unused one, be it a scrap heap or parked somewhere.
TaN: The trouble with most people is they are too quick to put their trust in what is man-made instead of those from God. One good case in point is the over — and very wrongful — (ab)use using sunscreens/sunblocks where the product causes osteoporosis, among many other diseases and conditions.
The problem with sun protection are multiple. First, the sun is good for us (and our health) so it does not make sense in “protecting” (or to protect) ourselves against it. Without the sun, nothing lives. It is what drives not only the planet but our entire solar system. It drives the climate and weather, regulates the seasons and the day-to-day diurnal-nocturnal cycle, provides life-sustaining solar or radiant energy (for the plants so animals can feed on them). It provides the vital vitamin D that our body needs for strong bones and healthy immune system, among many other things. Without the sun, ours will be a dead planet.
Second, sun protection products are topical which means they are applied on the skin. Skin application means that it serves as a barrier between the sun’s rays and our skin, where vitamin D is manufactured (with the valuable and vital assistance of saturated fat). Without vitamin D — dissolved in saturated (not unsaturated) fat — and a couple of other easily doable things, we cannot have strong bones. [Btw, it is not calcium that build strong bones but another metal, magnesium. High calcium intake often leads to the formation of stones, especially if the calcium is synthetic or man-made and is the principal cause of prostate problems.] Therefore, using sunblocks and sunscreens is a bad idea — that can be made worse or worst by consuming unsaturated fats (especially the processed kind or those that are derived from non-traditional sources) and not engaging in physical activity (especially those without weight-bearing load or features).
Third, everything is aggravated or exacerbated by living in the wrong geographical zone or latitude with the improper or incorrect skin pigmentation — i.e., the darker the skin pigmentation, the nearer the equator and vice versa. This is because skin pigmentation is the body’s way of protecting against too much sun exposure. Darker skinned people need more intense exposure because the melanin pigment resists sun damage while making it more difficult to produce vitamin D on the skin (in the presence of saturated fat). The alternative of taking vitamin D — the beneficial or healthy variety — from food sources is only for exceptional cases and not for all or most instances.
In conclusion, as in the beginning statement, man-made substitutes are and will never be a match, not even close, to what nature and God made. [Note: Certain foods provides the body with an internal sunscreen or sunblock, such as tomatoes. This way, the skin still produces the much needed vitamin D while the subcutaneous sunscreen or sunblock still protects against sun damage.]