TaN: Just because (plant) food have been grown from soil in a farm does not automatically mean it is healthy or organic. The quality of the soil determines the quality of the plant food raised in it. The plant cannot draw nutrients from the soil where there is none to siphon.
It has only been relatively recent that we have noticed and understood regarding the vital role of micro and trace nutrients. While it is true that macro nutrients are the principal sources of life-sustaining substances, it is the micro and trace elements that keep life healthy and disease-free.
It is therefore sensible (and very advantageously beneficial to man) that the soil is constantly replenished with these micro and trace elements in order that our food supply will be assured of being healthy (because its nutritional requirements are complete). And how do we ensure that this happens?
First, do not POISON the soil — by not applying chemical fertilizers and observing correct agricultural practices (which is using integrated natural pest management methods because plants and nature has its own way of managing infestations and keeping environmental equilibrium and returning unconsumed organic materials and waste back into the soil). Second, not only avoid but DO NOT introduce non-native or non-endemic species. And last, clear only as much land for farming as needed and not be concerned with making (huge) profits. [Btw, the traditional way of letting crop rotation and providing the soil with a period to “rest and replenish” itself helps significantly. This gives the soil sufficient time to recover and restock its depleted nutrients caused by monoculture and planting the same crop over and over again.]
Moreover, have you ever noticed that during droughts, parched farmlands exhibit cracked and caking soil, whereas those in nature do not show the same symptoms or manifestations? Have you ever wondered why?
Well, it is probably because (commercial) farmlands are “dead” — devoid of any living organism below the surface. All life that inhabit and sustain the soil are poisoned by chemical toxins — such as pesticides, fungicides, bactericides, (inorganic/artificial) chemical fertilizers, air pollution precipitates (from industry smoke stacks and chimneys and from fossil-fuel combustion engine exhausts), factory run-offs, mining wastes, and many more — so there is nothing (alive) in the soil to retain moisture and hold the soil together. The underground “fabric of life” cannot maintain the network of interlocking threads and webs that serve as a mesh to literally hold everything together, as well as retain moisture which will prevent surface cracking and caking.
This is very rudimentary both traditional farm folks and so-called agricultural experts fail to notice or consider.
TaN: It is one of government’s function to ensure its people are protected from harm, so what if the government does something detrimental to the people but is — wittingly or unwittingly — ignorant of the risks but there are enough supporting evidence showing dangers? Is it still ethical or is it moral for government to continue and turn a blind eye despite the available evidence and the precautionary principle even if there is urgency?
Is it justified or justifiable for government to put its people at risk just because it assumingly has good intentions? A good case in point is the vaccine controversy, especially that of those against childhood diseases (like mumps, measles and rubella or MMR) and those being offered for free to non-industrialized countries and the poverty-stricken areas in First World countries.
By keeping the evils of the toxic vaccine cocktails from the people, vaccine manufacturers are able to push their poison onto the unsuspecting public and, for those who are in the know and/or resist, the government is “enlisted” into their “noble” cause to ensure their three-birds-with-one-stone scheme — i.e., (1) rake in obscenely massive amounts of profit, (2) implement their NWO (New World Order) agenda of depopulation, and (3) creating a subservient global sheeple population that will serve as their personal serfs and peons, who will serve their every whim and caprices
In the last case, when the government becomes complicit to the interests of a specific private sector or industry, it stops protecting the well being of the general population and therefore lost the right to govern. Its legitimacy is forfeit and the people has the right to replace the administration or even the government.
Moreover, if and when the people are further deprived or prevented from exercising their inherent right to replace their public servants — due to infidelity to their sworn duties and responsibilities, not protecting the interests of the population — the people have every right to take or engage in whatever means deemed necessary, short of employment of what are immoral or unethical, to remove the public officials from office.
And in this case of abetting or complicit in the pushing of toxic vaccines onto the unsuspecting population and either not doing any real research and serious study on the true impact of the vaccines on health or deliberately ignoring evidence that show impacts contrary or contradictory to what is being made known by vaccine manufacturers.
TaN: I wholly agree with a statement I heard from the video “Four Horsemen” directed by Ross Ashcroft — (I paraphrase: There is no satiety for things that are not essential). Since such things are not essential, there is neither compulsion nor mandate nor necessity for people to avail or purchase or utilize or come to possess them. Having such things is purely voluntary.
However, the “waiving” of the safety requirement is neither absolute nor does it absolve criminal liability, especially if the item has the potential to do harm or injury or cause a negative impact on the individual (or society). A good case for argument would be that of cigarettes, where it has been determined — and Big Tobacco has finally but still reluctantly owned up and admitted — that (not the tobacco itself but) the chemicals included in the manufacturing of cigarettes provide not only absolutely no nutritional (let alone healthful) benefits but even cause toxic and life-threatening (lifestyle) diseases, ranging from something as chronic as COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and asthma to cancer (of the respiratory system: lungs, esophagus, larynx, tongue, mouth, gums, nose).
In addition, incapacity or inability to reach the point of saturation or satiety is characteristic of non-essential things — things that we desire or want rather than what we need or require. Needed things have a point or threshold where it becomes no longer a need but an excess or luxury.
If and when one becomes “addicted to or hooked on” something non-essential, the point of satiety disappears and only will continue and constantly crave. This cannot be said of essential things because there is a natural trigger or cut-off mechanism that switches off our craving. It is only when the essential has metamorphosed into a non-essential that this cut-off mechanism or satiety trigger disappears or is deactivated.