what internet

ONENESS, On truth connecting us all: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7421476B2

Monday, October 04, 2010

How Corporations Own the US Congress « Speak Truth 2 Power

How Corporations Own the US Congress

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21052

by Shamus Cooke

With the November elections quickly approaching, the majority of Americans will be thinking one thing: “Who cares?” This apathy isn’t due to ignorance, as some accuse. Rather, working people’s disinterest in the two party system implies intelligence: millions of people understand that both the Democrats and Republicans will not represent their interests in Congress.

This begs the question: Whom does the two party system work for? The answer was recently given by the mainstream The New York Times, who gave the nation an insiders peek on how corporations “lobby” (buy) congressmen. The article explains how giant corporations — from Wall-mart to weapons manufacturers — are planning on shifting their hiring practices for lobbyists, from Democratic to Republican ex-congressmen in preparation for the Republicans gaining seats in the upcoming November elections:

“Lobbyists, political consultants and recruiters all say that the going rate for Republicans — particularly current and former House staff members — has risen significantly in just the last few weeks, with salaries beginning at $300,000 and going as high as $1million for private sector [corporate lobbyist] positions.” (September 9, 2010)

Congressmen who have recently retired make the perfect lobbyists: they still have good friends in Congress, with many of these friends owing them political favors; they have connections to foreign Presidents and Kings; and they also have celebrity status that gives good PR to the corporations.

Often, these congressmen have done favors for the corporation that is now hiring them, meaning, that the corporations are rewarding the congressmen for services rendered while in office, offering them million dollar lobbyist jobs (or seats on the corporate board of directors) that requires little to no work.

The same New York Times article revealed that the pay for 13,000 lobbyists [!] currently bribing Congress is a combined $3.5 billion. It was also explained how some lobbying firms keep an equal amount of Democrats and Republicans on hand, so they can be prepared for any eventuality in the elections.

This phenomenon is more than a little un-democratic: when millions of people vote for a candidate, the outcomes are quickly manipulated and controlled before the election even happens.

Interestingly, the corporate-directed Wall Street Journal wrote a similar article in 2008, as the Democrats had begun to dominate politics in Washington:

“Washington’s $3 billion lobbying industry has begun shedding Republican staffers [politicians], snapping up Democratic operatives [politicians] and entire firms, a shift that started even before Tuesday’s ballots were counted and Democrat Barack Obama captured the presidency.” (November 5, 2008)

This article was appropriately titled “Lobbyists Put Democrats Out Front as Winds Shift.”

The corporate money flows from party to party, so that the same goals are achieved: higher profits for corporations. The sums thrown at these politicians are mind boggling: the Associated Press reported that the corporate-orientated Chamber of Commerce spent “… nearly $190 million since Barack Obama became president in January 2009.” (August 21, 2010)

These numbers explain the “deeper” differences between Democrats and Republicans — money. Each party is a machine that vies for power because this power carries with it vast sums of corporate money. The longer a party is in office and the more connections it makes, the more its net worth to corporations, the more that these rewards can be spread to the different layers of the party. There is indeed a real-life, nasty fight between the Republican and Democratic Parties to dominate this corporate money.

One “interest group” that ex-Congressmen don’t work for is labor unions. Unions spend millions of dollars to help get Democrats elected, and millions more is spent trying to get their ear while they’re in office.

But unions cannot out-spend the banks; and they can’t offer millionaire retirement packages to retired Senators. The corporate retirement plans of Congressmen prove where their minds are while in office, and whose interests are being looked after.

Unions cannot continue to pretend that the Democrats are their “friends.” Labor has very little to show for this dysfunctional, decades-long friendship: union membership continues to shrivel as do jobs, wages and benefits for workers – a losing strategy if ever there was one.

A “lesser of two evils” approach to politics equals evil politicians for labor, no matter who wins. In fact, the lesser-evil Democrats have become increasingly evil over the years, to the point where the party as a whole is more Conservative than the Nixon-era Republicans.

The point has been reached where — in various states — Democratic governors are being endorsed by unions after promising to attack the wages and benefits of public workers!

To get out of this vicious, dead-end cycle, unions could unite their strength to form coalitions that promote independent labor candidates: 100 percent funded by labor to govern 100 percent in the interest of working people. All other roads lead back to the corporate lobbyists.

Dr. Mercola and Alkaline Water: Natural Health Information

Dr. Mercola and Alkaline Water: Natural Health Information:
Natural Health Newsletter

Date: 10/04/2010 Posted By: Jon Barron

surprised doctorOn September 11th, Dr. Joseph Mercola published an article on alkaline water titled: If You Fall for This "Water Fad" - You Could Do Some Major Damage. Amazingly, Dr. Mercola's newsletter generated hundreds of emails to the Baseline of Health Foundation virtually overnight -- all from people who were confused by his newsletter and were looking for clarity.

Let me begin by stating unequivocally that I am a fan of Dr. Mercola and frequently recommend his newsletter. Also, I normally don't "take on" the other alternative health newsletters since we're all fighting the same fight...although on occasion from a slightly different vantage point. But this particular article deviates sharply from my point of view on several key points. And since the topic it addresses is so fundamental and so important to health and has already generated hundreds of queries, I need to address it.

Effectively, Dr Mercola's position on alkaline water and water ionizers can be summed up in the following statement from his newsletter, "It is my impression that the scientific justification for these water systems is absent and these consumers have merely fallen under the spell of a skilled marketer who selectively misused pseudoscientific information, and twisted it around to scare them into buying their product."

That's a very strong statement, and it certainly calls into question the motives and ethics of a number of "non marketers" who believe in the value of water ionizers and drinking alkaline water, people who do not collect any money for supporting their use. Is it fair to brand them all as pseudoscientific spell binders? I don't think so, and it's one of the key reasons I felt the need to write this newsletter. In fact, in some ways, Dr. Mercola's concerns are surprising, and his objections actually un-Dr-Mercola-ish. Also, it should be noted that in the end our recommendations concerning alkaline water don't differ that much at first glance. However, when it comes to the effect of pH on health, little differences matter hugely. With that in mind, let's take a look at Dr. Mercola's concerns about alkaline water one at a time to see how he arrived at his conclusion as stated above and to see how those concerns stand up.

Dr. Mercola explains the theory

According to Dr. Mercola, "the theory behind alkaline water [at least according to the marketers] is, in a nutshell, that alkaline (ionized) water is a powerful antioxidant with surplus electrons that can "mop up" the dangerous free radicals you have coursing through your veins. Marketers claim alkaline water can correct excess acidity in your tissues, which can then prevent or reverse cancer, arthritis, and other degenerative diseases."

As stated, Dr. Mercola's summary is mostly true, but does leave out a couple of "game changing" points. First, how alkaline is the water we're talking about? We'll return to that later, but for now, just keep in mind that too much of anything can be bad for you -- even healthy things. Drink too much water of any kind after intense exercise and you might suffer from "water intoxication," which in rare circumstances can actually be fatal. Too much vitamin D or A are toxic. Likewise, selenium, zinc, and iron are all essential at low levels but are highly toxic at high levels. Again, too much of anything can be bad for you. So what does this mean in regard to alkaline water? It means that while a certain amount of alkalinity in water may be beneficial, too much alkalinity can be toxic. The key, of course, is knowing what that point is and how long you can drink water at any given pH.

Second, Dr. Mercola talks about the "claims" of marketers. However, if you base objections around the claims of marketers, you can throw out virtually any health alternative. For example, Dr. Mercola sells açaí on his site. But a quick search on the net shows that marketers claim that the "benefits of Açaí are enormous. The antioxidant qualities mean that it fights cancer, slows down aging, and helps with cardiac functioning and blood circulation. This is helpful for those suffering from any kind of inflammation or arthritis." In addition to being illegal because they amount to medical claims, these claims sound a lot like the claims for alkaline water that so concern Dr. Mercola.

But just because marketers make outrageous claims for açaí, doesn't negate the actual benefits the berry extract provides, which is why Dr. Mercola sells it. And likewise, just because marketers make silly claims for alkaline water doesn't mean that it doesn't have real benefits, and therefore, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the alkaline bath water so to speak.

Dr. Mercola goes on to say, "In truth, there are very, very few legitimate scientific studies about the effects of alkaline water on human health."

But can't the same thing be said for the açaí extract that Dr. Mercola sells? In fact, there are almost no studies supporting the claims of açaí enthusiasts -- legitimate or otherwise. In fact, Dr. Mercola acknowledges as much when he says, "Preliminary studies from the University of Florida show açaí's promise as a food that can boost your health and slow the signs of aging -- and is being studied for its potential to reverse chronic health issues." Think about that for a moment. All that Dr. Mercola can offer in support of açaí is one single "preliminary" study. In his article on alkaline water, Dr. Mercola says, "Most of the circulating information is distributed by clever marketers, with very little scientific validity to back up their claims." In the end, the question we must ask is: why hold açaí and alkaline water to different standards -- other than the fact that Dr. Mercola sells one and not the other? (Incidentally, if you read or listen to Dr. Mercola's article on acai, you might want to check out my article on antioxidants afterwards, My Dog's Better than Your Dog.)

That said, there is "in truth" far more scientific evidence in support of alkaline water than Dr. Mercola indicates. Yes, most of it involves animal studies, but there are over two dozen of them, which beats açaí hands down. And even the pioneerMayo clinic acknowledges the potential of alkaline water to slow bone loss. Here are just a handful.

  1. Selective stimulation of the growth of anaerobic microflora in the human intestinal tract by electrolyzed reducing water
  2. Acid-base balance and hydration status following consumption of mineral-based
    alkaline bottled water
  3. Enhanced induction of mitochondrial damage and apoptosis in human leukemia HL-60 cells due to electrolyzed-reduced water and glutathione
  4. Protective mechanism of reduced water against alloxan-induced pancreatic beta-cell damage: Scavenging effect against reactive oxygen species
  5. Inhibitory effect of electrolyzed reduced water on tumor angiogenesis
  6. Anti-diabetic effect of alkaline-reduced water on OLETF rats

Another objection to alkaline water that Dr. Mercola has is that "most water ionizers and alkalizers are being marketed by multi-level marketing (MLM) companies with less than stellar ethics" and through which you pay inflated prices.

And yes, some MLM companies are guilty of both things. But MLM companies also pioneer valid health concepts that the mainstream is not yet ready to accept, and because of that, they often take a number of arrows for the rest of us. As the old saying goes, "Pioneers are the ones with the arrows in their backs." For example, the Shaklee Corporation began marketing the first "natural" vitamin supplements in the early 1900's before the concept of vitamins of any kind was really understood. MLM companies also led the way on environmentally safe cleaners and the green super foods. Both spirulina and blue green algae were introduced en masse through MLM companies. Again, you don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

In his article, Dr. Mercola says, "The concept of the acidity or alkalinity of your body - or of water - is based on the pH scale. So it's necessary to have a basic understanding of what pH is… PH is simply a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions… the lower [a liquid's] pH, the more free hydrogen ions it has" and the more acid it is.

And that is absolutely correct, if you summarize the concept "simply." But in fact, there's another way of looking at pH that opens up one of the major benefits of alkaline water to our understanding. Hydrogen ions tie up oxygen. That means that the more acid a liquid is, the less available the oxygen in it.

Every cell in our body requires oxygen for life and to maintain optimum health. Combine that with what we know about hydrogen ions, and we see that the more acid the blood (the lower its pH), the less oxygen is available for use by the cells. Without going into a discussion of the chemistry involved, just understand that it's the same mechanism involved when acid rain "kills" a lake. The fish literally suffocate to death because the acid in the lake "binds up" all of the available oxygen. It's not that the oxygen has gone anywhere; it's just no longer available. Conversely, if you raise the pH of the lake (make it more alkaline), oxygen is now available and the lake comes back to life. Incidentally, it's worth noting that cancer is related to an acid environment (lack of oxygen) -- the higher the pH (the more oxygen present in the cells of the body), the harder it is for cancer to thrive.

Understanding this is important for two reasons: (1) it reveals one of the primary benefits of alkaline water -- more "available" oxygen in the system and (2) it explains why alkaline water helps fight cancer, which we'll talk more about later.

Dr. Mercola's recommendations

"So, what are the recommendations for optimal drinking water pH? The WHO has published a nearly-600 page document called ‘Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality.' In this voluminous tome, you would expect to find everything you'd ever want to know about your drinking water, right? Well, everything EXCEPT a pH recommendation - there are no health-based guidelines for pH! They state that pH usually has "no direct impact on consumers." …Most likely the optimal pH of the water you were designed to drink is somewhere between 6.5 and 7.5."

Is Dr. Mercola really basing his recommendation for water pH on the World Health Organization Guidelines? I did not realize that he was such a fan of the WHO. Based on his articles such as The FORBIDDEN Truth About WHO's 2009 ‘Pandemic' and Tamiflu: Kids Increasingly Immune to Its Effects and WHO Advisor Secretly Pads Pockets with Big Pharma Money, he seems to be consistently discounting the WHO as a reliable arbiter of health advice and, in fact, frequently counters their advice with recommendations of his own. For example, Dr. Mercola directly contradicts WHO's recommendation to get vaccinated for Swine flu. I have no problem with that. In fact, that was good advice and matched my recommendation on Swine flu vaccinations. So why now is the WHO such a reliable authority when it comes to drinking alkaline water? What makes them such a reliable authority on this issue -- other than that they agree with Dr. Mercola?

watering plantsDr. Mercola spends a section of his report talking about the optimal pH for plants and fish and how that might relate to humans. "Although the research is clear that alkaline water has detrimental effects on plants and animals, there are not many studies with humans…An ecological study in the Netherlands found that an influx of alkaline water led to the demise of a native plant called Stratiotes aloides L… If you are a gardener, you can view a helpful illustration of the environmental effects of pH in your own garden. If your pH is low, your hydrangea produces pink flowers, but if your pH is high, you'll get blue flowers."

In these statements, Dr. Mercola implies that all life does better in a slightly acidic environment, but this is far from the truth. First of all, for that to be true, you would have to ignore all of the studies I cited earlier that demonstrate the benefits of alkaline water for animals. And then, of course, you have to ignore the ocean, the mother of all life, which has an average pH of about 8.1. Unfortunately, one of the problems associated with increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is that it is combining with the ocean water to form carbonic acid, which is steadily lowering the pH of the world's oceans, with potentially catastrophic effects to a wide variety of ocean life (e.g., coral reefs and shellfish). The bottom line is that if you're going to look to nature to make a point about optimal pH, then you have to look at all nature to get a balanced picture.

And when you're talking about human pH, the one number that stands out over all others, because it is so critical -- a change of a couple of tenths of a point in either direction could be fatal -- is blood. The ideal pH for blood sits at about 7.4, slightly alkaline -- not acidic.

"There has been a great deal of debate about battling cancer by making your body alkaline. This has become a focus of interest as cancer rates have skyrocketed (along with many other chronic, debilitating diseases), while our bodies have become more acidic from our processed-food diets. The scientific research about the benefits of alkalinity is by no means conclusive…There are some scientific studies that really argue against alkalinity, at least with respect to preventing or treating cancer.

"Consider the research by Robert Gilles, who has studied tumor formation and acidity. According to Gilles, tumors, by their very nature, make themselves acidic - even in an alkaline cellular structure. In other words, they make their own acidity.

"Scientists who are in the process of developing prototypes for potential new anticancer agents that selectively kill tumor cells by interfering with the regulation of intracellular pH, have found that alkaline treatments do NOT have the desired effect - but strongly acidic treatments do.

"Talk about fighting fire with fire - they are fighting acid-loving cancer cells with acid!

"LESS alkalinity inside a cancer cell seems to be what you want, not more.

"So, all of those ionizer salesmen promising alkaline water will lower your cancer risk are completely clueless when it comes to what the scientific research actually shows."

Well, the above section from Dr. Mercola's article is certainly shocking, and speaks strongly against the use of alkaline water when it comes to cancer -- or not. First of all, Dr. Gilles, cited by Dr. Mercola, actually comes to a quite different conclusion than Dr. Mercola seems to imply. To quote from the same study Dr. Mercola cites:

"Because the intracellular pH of cells in tumors remains neutral-to-alkaline, acidity of the interstitial space will increase resistance to many chemotherapies, based on a reduced partitioning of weakly basic chemotherapeutic drugs into the relatively alkaline cells…A large acid-outside pH gradient can exert a protective effect upon the [cancer] cell from weak-base drugs such as anthracyclines and vinca alkaloids, which have pKa values of 7.5 to 9.5. Recently, it has been shown that reversal of the tumor pH gradient with bicarbonate can improve the therapeutic efficacy of doxorubicin (pKa =7.6), which is one of the most widely prescribed antineoplastic agents used in the treatment of breast cancer."

In other words, Dr. Gilles is saying the introduction of alkalinity into a cancerous environment is beneficial, not harmful. And in fact, the use of alkaline pH to fight cancer has a long history:

To be fair, Dr. Mercola mentioned the existence of such studies supporting the use of alkalinizing treatments for cancer, but dismisses them as inconclusive and deems them unworthy of even referencing. On the other hand, once you remove the Gilles study from Dr. Mercola's arguments, since it actually contradicts his conclusions, you're left with one single study cited by Dr. Mercola on which to base the astonishing conclusion: "LESS alkalinity inside a cancer cell seems to be what you want, not more." Someday, that statement may indeed turn out to be true, but not today -- not even close.

Dr. Mercola then makes an even more astonishing reference to support his argument that acidity is good for fighting cancer and alkalinity is bad. He states, "Even more interesting is a 2005 study by the National Cancer Institute, which revisits the use of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) to treat cancer. They found that, in pharmacologic doses administered intravenously, ascorbic acid successfully killed cancer cells without harming normal cells. This is yet another vitamin cexample of cancer cells being vulnerable to acidity, as opposed to alkalinity."

To put it simply, the above statement does not make logical sense.. If we were to take Dr. Mercola's argument at face value, that the natural health benefits of ascorbic acid are merely the result of its acidity, not its unique molecular structure, then Linus Pauling would be all wrong, as would virtually everyone in the alternative health field. We could theoretically pop any acid pills such HCL digestive pills and receive all the same anticancer benefits of vitamin C. In fact, taken to its "illogical" conclusion, we might determine that acid reflux disease prevents cancer since it dumps more acid into the system, and that, of course, is nonsense. But even beyond that, it also should be noted that implying that ascorbic acid increases the body's acidity level flies in the face everything published concerning the connection of diet to body pH. As anyone who studies the pH issues associated with diet knows, ascorbic-acid, citrus-based fruits are known to actually alkalinize the body, not acidify it -- which totally turns Dr. Mercola's argument on this particular point upside down.

Dr. Mercola then concludes this section on alkalinity and cancer by stating, "The bottom line is that alkaline water isn't cancer's magic bullet."

That may or may not be true, but nothing presented by Dr. Mercola so far comes close to proving the point. In fact, once you strip away the failed arguments and references, all you are left with is a personal opinion expressed by Dr. Mercola, with no facts or studies that actually support it.

Balance is Key

Dr. Mercola then says, "As is true with many things, in the end it's a matter of balance. Water that is too acidic or too alkaline can be detrimental to human health and lead to nutritional disequilibrium. This was demonstrated in a Swedish well water study, which found both pH extremes to be problematic. Your body simply was not designed to drink highly alkaline water all the time. So I believe it's best to be VERY careful when it comes to something as foundational as the water you drink on a daily basis. If you get it wrong, you could really cause yourself some major damage."

On this point, we are in total agreement. When it comes to health, extremes are bad. Or to paraphrase Paramahansa Yogananda, "Too much of a good thing is bad. No matter how healthy a thing is, if you overindulge in it, disease will result instead of health."

"It makes sense that you are designed to drink water that occurs naturally, which excludes alkaline water with pH levels of 8 and above."

I don't disagree with the essence of Dr. Mercola's thought here -- with one big caveat. If you're eating well and living cleanly, then yes, you want to drink water with a naturally occurring pH only slightly above neutral. However, if you are eating the typical Western diet, high in meat, grains, sodas, and sugars that acidify the body, then you have a different problem. Your pH balance is now so far out of normal that you must go beyond normal in the other direction to counter it. My recommendation for daily drinking water pH is about 7.5 to 8 -- depending on how acid forming your diet is. Long term consumption of higher pH water should be reserved for special circumstances.

At this point, Dr. Mercola introduces a perplexing argument, "And if you drink alkaline water all the time, you're going to raise the alkalinity of your stomach, which will buffer your stomach's acidity and impair your ability to digest food as low stomach acid is one of the most common causes of ulcers. This can open the door for parasites in your small intestine, and your protein digestion may suffer. It also means you'll get less minerals and nutrients over time - in fact, some of these health effects can already be seen in hard-core alkaline water drinkers."

balanceFirst of all, let's be clear here. Stomach acid has a pH of about 0.8-1.0. That means that any water you drink, whatever its acidity level, is going to dilute your stomach acid and interfere with digestion if you drink it with your meals, which is why I constantly admonish people not to drink more than 4 ounces of liquid with your meals. The bottom line, then, is that if you're drinking water with your meals, any difference in pH is virtually irrelevant -- digestion will suffer. If you're drinking water between meals, then it has no effect on digestion as it passes through the stomach quickly and on into the small intestine, where an alkaline environment is preferred. Keep in mind, your pancreas pours sodium bicarbonate into your duodenum to convert the acidic "slurry" coming from your stomach into an alkaline "slurry" with a pH of about 8.0. Which brings up the question, why did Dr. Mercola only talk about the acidic pH of the stomach when discussing digestion and not the alkaline pH of the intestinal tract?

Dr. Mercola, now moves on to a new point, "Alkalinity is also potentially a problem because it is antibacterial, so it could potentially disrupt the balance of your body's beneficial bacteria."

Again, the pH of a healthy intestinal tract is slightly alkaline, not acidic, so I'm not sure which beneficial bacteria he's talking about that would benefit from an acid environment. But more to the point, acidity kills bacteria. That's the reason your urine is slightly acidic, not alkaline -- to kill any E. coli that might make their way into your urinary tract. This is one of the reasons cranberry juice is effective in treating urinary tract infections -- it acidifies your urine. That means that contrary to what Dr. Mercola says, raising the pH of your urine doesn't kill bacteria in your urinary tract, it allows them to thrive. Actually, a point that Dr. Mercola could have made is that if you make yourself too alkaline, to the point where your urine is no longer acidic (something a number of people who are "into" drinking alkaline water actually try and do), you are more likely to have urinary tract infections. Amusingly, even though the fact that acidity (not alkalinity) kills unwanted bacteria in your urinary tract contradicts his statement immediately above, it actually speaks in support of Dr. Mercola's ultimate position -- that drinking too much high alkaline water can be detrimental to your health. However, it takes excessive consumption of extremely alkaline water to change the pH of your urine.

Living Water

Dr. Mercola now begins to make clear his position on what represents the ideal pH for drinking water, "What you want is pure water - water that is clean, balanced, and healthful, neither too alkaline nor too acidic. Ideally, the pH of your water should be close to 7, which is neutral.

"Somewhere between 6 to 8 is likely fine."

This actually represents quite a spread. Keep in mind that the pH scale is logarithmic. That means that each 1-unit change in pH represents a ten-fold change in hydrogen ion concentration. In other words, 6.0 water is one hundred times more acidic than 8.0 water. Fortunately, Dr. Mercola subsequently provides a more specific recommendation.

"And some of the most healthful waters in the world - that emerging from mountain springs - are actually acidic in the range of 6.5. and would absolutely be my preference if it were readily available."

Well, here we have a definitive statement from Dr. Mercola on the optimum pH for drinking water, and as it turns out, it's nowhere near as open ended as the 6.0 to 8.0 range he mentioned previously. It's very specific and slightly acidic. Unfortunately, the context within which it's provided is highly misleading. Yes, some mountain springs are slightly acidic, depending on the minerals naturally occurring in them. But the most famous mountain waters in the world, waters renowned for their healing properties, are highly alkaline. I'm referring to the waters coming down from the Himalayas, and specifically to the waters of the Hunza valley, which have a pH that runs between 9 and 11.

Conclusion

At this point, I'm no longer quoting Dr. Mercola.

As I said at the beginning of this newsletter, I'm a fan of Dr. Mercola. And, for the most part, we share many of the same opinions. Even in areas where we disagree, such as in terms of what constitutes a healthy diet, the disagreement is less than it first appears. Although Dr. Mercola believes in the virtues of meat and dairy more than I do, we are at least in agreement as to what form they should take if you eat them.

  • Organic
  • Grass fed
  • Raw for dairy
  • Etc.

But on this particular issue, alkaline water, his article totally missed the mark and contains a number of inaccuracies. Eventually, his ultimate position, that slightly acidic water is preferable to any form of alkaline water when it comes to drinking, may one day be proven true. But not today.

Therefore based on a preponderance of the evidence as it exists today, I would recommend drinking slightly alkaline water (7.5-8.0) on a daily basis, and reserve higher alkaline water for special occasions. Now, when compared to Dr. Mercola's preferred pH of 6.5, it appears to be a rather insignificant difference -- one point on the pH scale, centered around neutral at 7.0. But appearances can be deceiving. The pH scale is logarithmic. In fact, technically, pH is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration. That means that for each 1-unit change in pH, the hydrogen ion concentration changes ten-fold. In other words, 6.5 water is ten times more acidic than 7.5 water -- and 100 times more acidic than 8.5 water.

The bottom line is that although the difference between our recommendations may at first appear small, they are, in fact, not. I believe that the evidence strongly supports drinking water on a daily basis that is upwards of 50 times more alkaline than Dr. Mercola recommends -- with higher levels reserved for special occasions. As to how you get that water, that's up to you. Water ionizers, although expensive, certainly do the trick.

In conclusion, I am still a fan of Dr. Mercola and still recommend his website to my readers. But as for this particular article, I believe that Dr. Mercola missed the mark; it simply does not rise to his usual high standards. I am sure he will do better next time. In any case, I encourage you to read his article, If You Fall for This "Water Fad" - You Could Do Some Major Damage, yourself and make your own assessment.

More Problems with Genetically Modified Foods

More Problems with Genetically Modified Foods: "This Supermarket 'Health Food' Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks
Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 04 2010 | 55,243 views

By Jeffrey Smith

Arpad Pusztai


Biologist Arpad Pusztai had more than 300 articles and 12 books to his credit and was the world’s top expert in his field.

But when he accidentally discovered that genetically modified (GM) foods are dangerous, he became the biotech industry’s bad-boy poster child, setting an example for other scientists thinking about blowing the whistle.

In the early 1990s, Dr. Pusztai was awarded a $3 million grant by the UK government to design the system for safety testing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). His team included more than 20 scientists working at three facilities, including the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, the top nutritional research lab in the UK, and his employer for the previous 35 years.

The results of Pusztai’s work were supposed to become the required testing protocols for all of Europe. But when he fed supposedly harmless GM potatoes to rats, things didn’t go as planned.

Within just 10 days, the animals developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partially atrophied livers, and damaged immune systems. Moreover, the cause was almost certainly side effects from the process of genetic engineering itself. In other words, the GM foods on the market, which are created from the same process, might have similar affects on humans.

With permission from his director, Pusztai was interviewed on TV and expressed his concerns about GM foods. He became a hero at his institute -- for two days.

Then came the phone calls from the pro-GMO prime minister’s office to the institute’s director. The next morning, Pusztai was fired. He was silenced with threats of a lawsuit, his team was dismantled, and the protocols never implemented. His Institute, the biotech industry, and the UK government, together launched a smear campaign to destroy Pusztai’s reputation.

Eventually, an invitation to speak before Parliament lifted his gag order and his research was published in the prestigious Lancet. No similar in-depth studies have yet tested the GM foods eaten every day by Americans.

Irina Ermakova

Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences, was shocked to discover that more than half of the baby rats in her experiment died within three weeks. She had fed the mothers GM soy flour purchased at a supermarket. The babies from mothers fed natural non-GMO soy, however, only suffered a 10% death rate. She repeated her experiment three times with similar results.

Dr. Ermakova reported her preliminary findings at a conference in October 2005, asking the scientific community to replicate her study. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Her boss told her to stop doing anymore GM food research. Samples were stolen from her lab, and a paper was even set fire on her desk. One of her colleagues tried to comfort her by saying, “Maybe the GM soy will solve the overpopulation problem.”

Of the mostly spurious criticisms leveled at Ermakova, one was significant enough to raise doubts about the cause of the deaths. She did not conduct a biochemical analysis of the feed. Without it, we don’t know if some rogue toxin had contaminated the soy flour. But more recent events suggest that whatever caused the high infant mortality was not unique to her one bag of GM flour.

In November 2005, the supplier of rat food to the laboratory where Ermakova worked began using GM soy in the formulation. All the rats were now eating it. After two months, Ermakova asked other scientists about the infant mortality rate in their experiments. It had skyrocketed to over 55 percent.

It’s been four years since these findings were reported. No one has yet repeated Ermakova’s study, even though it would cost just a few thousand dollars.

Andrés Carrasco

Embryologist Andrés Carrasco told a leading Buenos Aires newspaper about the results of his research into Roundup, the herbicide sold in conjunction with Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops.

Dr. Carrasco, who works in Argentina’s Ministry of Science, said his studies of amphibians suggest that the herbicide could cause defects in the brain, intestines, and hearts of fetuses. Moreover, the amount of Roundup used on GM soy fields was as much as 1,500 times greater than that which created the defects.

Tragically, his research had been inspired by the experience of desperate peasant and indigenous communities who were suffering from exposure to toxic herbicides used on the GM soy fields throughout Argentina.

According to an article in Grain, the biotech industry “mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats.” In addition, four men arrived unannounced at his laboratory and were extremely aggressive, attempting to interrogate Carrasco and obtain details of his study. “It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction,” he said. “I hadn’t even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached.”

Argentina’s Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a petition calling for a ban on Roundup, and the Ministry of Defense banned GM soy from its fields.

Judy Carman

Epidemiologist Judy Carman used to investigate outbreaks of disease for a state government in Australia. She knows that health problems associated with GM foods might be impossible to track or take decades to discover. Moreover, the superficial, short-term animal feeding studies usually do not evaluate “biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function, and kidney function” and are too short to test for cancer or reproductive or child health.

Dr. Carman has critiqued the GMO approval process on behalf of the Public Health Association of Australia and speaks openly about her concerns. As a result, she is repeatedly attacked. Pro-GM scientists threatened disciplinary action through her Vice-Chancellor, and circulated a defamatory letter to government and university officials.

Carman was awarded a grant by the Western Australia government to conduct some of the few long-term animal feeding studies on GMOs. Apparently concerned about what she might find, GMO advocates wrote letters to the government demanding that the grant be withdrawn. One scientist tried to convince the Western Australia Agriculture minister that sufficient safety research had been conducted and he should therefore cancel the grant.

As his evidence, however, he presented a report summarizing only 60 GMO animal feeding studies -- an infinitesimal amount of research to justify exposing the entire population to GM foods.

A closer investigation, however, revealed that most of the 60 were not safety studies at all. They were production studies, measuring, for example, the animals’ carcass weight. Only 9 contained data applicable to human health. And 6 of the 9 showed adverse effects in animals that ate GM feed!

Furthermore, there were several other studies with adverse findings that were mysteriously missing from the compilation. Carman points out that the report “does not support claims that GM crops are safe to eat. On the contrary, it provides evidence that GM crops may be harmful to health.”

When the Western Government refused to withdraw the grant, opponents successfully interfered with Carman’s relationship with the university where she was to do the research.

Terje Traavik

Prominent virologist Terje Traavik presented preliminary data at a February 2004 meeting at the UN Biosafety Protocol Conference, showing that:

  1. Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed serious symptoms while the corn was pollinating;
  2. Genetic material inserted into GM crops transferred to rat organs after a single meal; and
  3. Key safety assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into question the safety of using these viruses in vaccines.

The biotech industry mercilessly attacked Dr. Traavik. Their excuse? -- he presented unpublished work. But presenting preliminary data at professional conferences is a long tradition in science, something that the biotech industry itself relied on in 1999 to try to counter the evidence that butterflies were endangered by GM corn.

Ironically, three years after attacking Traavik, the same biotech proponents sharply criticized a peer-reviewed publication for not citing unpublished data that had been presented at a conference. The paper shows how the runoff of GM Bt corn into streams can kill the “caddis fly,” which may seriously upset marine ecosystems. The study set off a storm of attacks against its author, ecologist Emma Rosi-Marshall, which Nature described in a September 2009 article as a “hail of abuse.”

Companies Prevent Studies on Their GM Crops

When Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow discovered problematic side effects in GM sunflowers, Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Dow AgroSciences blocked further research by withholding GM seeds and genes.

After Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey found significant reductions in cancer-fighting isoflavones in Monsanto’s GM soybeans, the seed seller, Hartz, told them they could no longer provide samples.

Research by a plant geneticist at a leading US university was also thwarted when two companies refused him GM corn. In fact, almost no independent studies are conducted that might find problems. According to a scathing opinion piece in an August 2009 Scientific American,

“Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers ... Only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal.”

A group of 24 corn insect scientists protested this restriction in a letter submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. They warned that the inability to access GM seeds from biotech companies means there can be no truly independent research on the critical questions. The scientists, of course, withheld their identities for fear of reprisals from the companies.

Restricted access is not limited to the US. When a Japanese scientist wanted to conduct animal feeding studies on the GM soybeans under review in Japan, both the government and the bean’s maker DuPont refused to give him any samples. Hungarian Professor Bela Darvas discovered that Monsanto’s GM corn hurt endangered species in his country. Monsanto immediately shut off his supplies.

Dr. Darvas later gave a speech on his preliminary findings and discovered that a false and incriminating report about his research was circulating. He traced it to a Monsanto public relations employee, who claimed it mysteriously appeared on her desk -- so she faxed it out.

GMO Contamination: Don’t Ask and Definitely Don’t Tell

GMO tomatoIn 2005, a scientist had gathered seed samples from all over Turkey to evaluate the extent of contamination by GM varieties. According to the Turkish Daily News, just before her testing was complete, she was reassigned to another department and access to her lab was denied.

The unexpected transfer may have saved this Turkish scientist from an even worse fate, had she discovered and reported contamination.

Ask Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist from UC Berkeley. In 2001, he discovered that the indigenous corn varieties in Mexico -- the source of the world’s genetic diversity for corn—had become contaminated through cross pollination with GM varieties.

The government had a ban against GM corn to prevent just this possibility, but apparently US corn imported for food had been planted nonetheless.

Dr. Chapela submitted the finding to Nature, and as a courtesy that he later regretted, informed the Mexican government about the pending publication. He was called in to meet with a furious Director of the Commission of Biosafety and GMOs. Chapela’s confirmation of contamination would hinder introduction of GM corn. Therefore the government’s top biotech man demanded that he withdraw his article. According to Chapela, the official intimidated and threatened him, even implying, “We know where your children go to school.”

When a traumatized Chapela still did not back down, the Underminister for Agriculture later sent him a fax claiming that because of his scientific paper, Chapela would be held personally responsible for all damages caused to agriculture and to the economy in general.

The day Chapela’s paper was published, Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek began posting messages to a biotechnology listserve called AgBioWorld, distributed to more than 3,000 scientists. They falsely claimed that Chapela was biased, that his paper had not been peer-reviewed, that Chapela was “first and foremost an activist,” and his research was published in collusion with environmentalists. Soon, hundreds of other messages appeared, repeating or embellishing the accusations. The listserve launched a petition and besieged Nature with a worldwide campaign demanding retraction.

UC Berkeley also received letters from all over the world trying to convince them not to grant Chapela tenure. He had overwhelming support by his college and department, but the international biotech lobby was too much. Chapela’s tenure was denied. After he filed a lawsuit, the university eventually reversed its decision.

When investigators later analyzed the email characteristics sent by agitators Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek, the two turned out not to be the average citizens they claimed. According to the Guardian, both were fabricated names used by a public relations firm that worked for Monsanto. Some of Smetacek’s emails also had the internet protocol address of gatekeeper2.monsanto.com -- the server owned by Monsanto.

Science and Debate is Silenced

The attacks on scientists have taken its toll. According to Dr. Chapela, there is a de facto ban on scientists “asking certain questions and finding certain results.” He says, “It’s very hard for us to publish in this field. People are scared.” He told Nature that young people “are not going into this field precisely because they are discouraged by what they see.”

New Zealand Parliament member Sue Kedgley told a Royal Commission in 2001: “Personally I have been contacted by telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns about aspects of the research that is taking place ... and the increasingly close ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced that if they express these fears publicly ... or even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out of their institution.”

University of Minnesota biologist Phil Regal testified before the same Commission, “I think the people who boost genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition.” Sue Kedgley has a different idea. She recommends we “set up human clinical trials using volunteers of genetically engineered scientists and their families, because I think they are so convinced of the safety of the products that they are creating and I’m sure they would very readily volunteer to become part of a human clinical trial.”

To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply, visit www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.

To learn how to choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.

About the Author

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the topic. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are unsafe and should never have been introduced.

Mr. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply.

Sources:


Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Together we CAN get GMOs banned from the US. Europe was able to do it over a decade ago without any government assistance. All they did was educate the consumers, and that was enough pressure on the food industry to drop their ploys.

If we band together as an effective army we will be able to do this. Please understand that the VAST majority of people in the US do not want GM foods, so this is an EASY battle to win. All we have to do is a bit of organizational work.

So let me tell you how we are going to achieve the removal of GMOs in the US.

October is Non-GMO Month, and you’ll receive a lot of important information about genetically engineered foods this week.

The Tipping Point is Near - The Time to Join is NOW!

How many Americans do we need to convince to avoid eating genetically modified foods to achieve the same victory in the US?

We believe it’s only about FIVE PERCENT of US shoppers!

So, changing the shopping habits of about 5.6 million households may be sufficient to eliminate GMOs in the US.

That is our goal!

We already have these numbers on our side. About 28 million Americans buy organic on a regular basis. Eighty-seven million Americans think GMOs are seriously unsafe. A hundred and fifty nine million Americans, the majority, say they would avoid GMOs if labeled!

Unfortunately, no labeling is required, making your commitment to avoid GM foods all that more complicated. But that’s where we come in.

How You Can Help Others to Avoid GMO Foods

Most people want to avoid GMO foods but it is virtually impossible to do so, since the government prevents GMO labeling.

However, Jeffery Smith has compiled a resource for you to avoid the government block of information. It is the free Non-GMO Shopping Guide. We realize that with the challenging economy it is very difficult for many to donate money to help this cause, so we are merely asking for your time and connections with your family and friends.

You can really help by making this message go viral. So if you are convinced that GMO foods should not be in the US, please send this information to everyone you know; post it on Facebook and Twitter…

You can also print out the Non-GMO Shopping Guide and give it to your friends and family.

If you feel more ambitious you can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk, and bring them to the grocery stores in your area. Talk to the owner or manager and get permission to post them in their store.

Who Will You Share this Information With?

You can help nurture this consumer mindset by bringing information to your local natural food store owner, so that she can share it will all of her customers as well. IRT has created a complete Retailer Campaign Kit for this purpose.

You can also share information with your child’s school, your health care providers, and food manufacturers. The IRT has created information kits for all of them, available here:

  • Heath care provider kit
  • Parents and Schools educational material
  • Manufacturers information kit

Please remember to share this with your friends and family, but do so lovingly. You don’t want to make yourself a pest and risk your relationship with them. But believe me, this is a MUCH easier sell than getting them to stop smoking or eating less sugar since most do not want GMOs anyway, and it doesn’t involve giving anything up.

You may even want to share this information with your church or religious leaders. As Jeffrey says,

“There are certain religious groups that think the genetic engineering process itself violates God’s laws. So ‘GMO’ for them really means, ‘God Move Over’ and not ‘Genetically Modified Organism.’”

Must-See Movies to Share!

The IRT has created a film called Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals, which is a powerful way for parents to get an initiation into the health dangers. It’s only 28 minutes long, which is ideal for local access TV.

You can simply bring the film to your local access TV station, and sometimes they’ll play it 10, 20, or even 30 times because they’re always looking for material and are open to support from the community.

There’s also a video called Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!, which exposes the dangers of GM bovine growth hormones. Any parent still feeding their child milk from cows injected with rBGH needs to see this film! They’ll never make the same mistake again…

Another powerful video you can share with your friends and family is Jeffrey’s Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods lecture.

Your Action Plan

I’ve already mentioned a number of different ways for you to get actively involved during Non-GMO Month. To recap, and add a few more suggestions, here is a list of Action Item for you to pick and choose from:

  1. Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.
  2. Download the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure and keep it with you whenever you shop, or download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

    You can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk and give it to your family and friends.

  3. Urge food manufacturers to join the Non-GMO Project and become Non-GMO Project Verified. This is currently the only way for manufacturers to get around the fact that there’s no GM-labeling system.
  4. Urge your local food retailers to join the Non-GMO Project’s Supporting Retailer Program.
  5. If your budget allows support this urgent mission by generously donating to the Institute of Responsible Technology.
  6. Bring the film Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals to your local access TV station, or perhaps your child’s school, along with some educational material specifically designed for teachers and educators. <
  7. Share Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!, and Jeffrey’s lecture, Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods with everyone you know. Post them to your Facebook page, or email the links to your network of friends and family.
  8. Join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.

Together, We Control the Future of Our Food

Please join us in this important campaign. Do as much or as little as you can. Maybe you can’t make a donation to IRT, but you can distribute 20 Non-GMO shopping guides to your closest family and friends.

Together, we can make a difference. Together, we can reach the tipping point and push GMOs out of our food supply.

Together, we can protect the health of future generations and help accelerate the progress toward more sustainable agriculture in the United States.

Let’s do it!

Monday, September 27, 2010

Why hemp could save the world - National freethought | Examiner.com

Why hemp could save the world - National freethought | Examiner.com:
D.M. Murdock * Freethought Examiner

Why hemp could save the world

  • August 10th, 2010 6:37 pm ET
industrial hemp for victory to save the world
Industrial hemp in France
(Photo: Aleks)

That title probably should say, "Why hemp could have saved the world all along," because the plant should never have been banned in the first place, and its prohibition has led to untold suffering around the globe. If we—the global human population—had been able to grow the miracle plant hemp (Cannabis genus) locally and to use it for local industries and businesses, including and especially for fuel, we would never have needed to be addicted to oil, for one, an addiction that is at the root of much misery. We would never have allowed ourselves to be lorded over by international oil-mongers whose crimes against humanity have become legion, including wholesale invasion of other lands and slaughter of countless people.

None of this oil-related horror—along with the deplorable degradation of the environment globally—would have occurred if hemp had not been prohibited but had been used wisely and intelligently as a major foundation of human society. Indeed, hemp-based economies could still save the human world, while hemp planting could go a massively long way in rescuing the natural world as well.

Thousands of uses for amazing hemp

It is said that hemp has up to 50,000 uses, from fiber to fuel to food, but I'll just provide a taste here:

In modern times, hemp has been used for industrial purposes including paper, textiles, biodegradable plastics, construction, health food, fuel, and medical purposes with modest commercial success. In the past three years, commercial success of hemp food products has grown considerably.

Hemp is one of the faster growing biomasses known, producing up to 25 tonnes of dry matter per hectare per year, and one of the earliest domesticated plants known. For a crop, hemp is very environmentally friendly, as it requires few pesticides and no herbicides. ("Hemp," Wikipedia)

A partial list of hemp uses includes (there are many within each category):

food—seeds, oil, flour
medicine—salves, anti-nausea
toiletries—soap, shampoo, lotion
textiles—clothing, towels, bedding, canvas
household products—carpet, detergent, paint, toys
industrial products—paper, concrete, insulation, fuel, car parts

(It should be noted that medical marijuana is a different strain of cannabis that contains significant amounts of the active chemical THC, whereas industrial hemp contains negligible amounts and is not capable of getting anyone "high.")

One highly important use of hemp has been in detoxifying nuclear waste, as demonstrated by experiments in the Ukraine, for example, on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Moreover, hemp fuel could actually replace the dangerous and costly nuclear power industry.

Much of this information about the history and uses of hemp comes from the writings of, among many others, the late great Jack Herer, whose book The Emperor Wears No Clothes has become a classic, with hundreds of thousands of copies bought or given away over the past 25 years. Inspired by these writings, I myself have been a hemp activist for 20 years or so, after I learned about it while in Los Angeles—where I actually met Herer and several other major players in this important field. I once got a complaint for faxing a hemp factsheet to (other) law offices, while another time I stood up at presidential candidate Jerry Brown's press conference and asked the former California governor first about U.S. foreign policy and its repercussions, and then whether or not it was time to seriously consider hemp as a viable solution to many of the world's problems. That was in 1994, and there's a film of the exchange somewhere on Youtube, I'm told.

Why hemp was banned

When studied, the history of hemp prohibition can only be deemed a disgrace, exposing, as it appears to turn out, some of the greatest villains ever to set foot upon the earth. Despite the anti-hemp propaganda of these individuals, the fact is that this versatile plant has been used in numerous cultures around the world since the dawn of civilization:

Hemp (cannabis) was also used for making cloth in temperate Europe... Since it was resistant to seawater, it was particularly useful for making sails. Hemp seeds occur in a few European sites from LBK [c. 5500 BCE] onward, and possible hemp cloth was found in a Late Neolithic French site; hemp textiles were certainly in production by the Iron Age in Thrace and Greece.... (Jane McIntosh, Handbook of Life in Prehistoric Europe, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 107)

It is also claimed that "Ötzi the Iceman," a 5,300-year-old mummy found frozen in the Swiss Alps, was discovered to be wearing clothing made of hemp, as well as carrying marijuana in his pouch.

"Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!" George Washington

As an example of how vital hemp used to be to humanity, it is said that the United States may never have succeeded if a number of its founders had not been hemp farmers—an industry that made them rich. Indeed, first American President George Washington himself is quoted as saying, "Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!"

In fact, hemp farming was required by law or otherwise encouraged in several early American villages and towns:

In 1619, because hemp was such an important resource, it was illegal not to grow hemp in Jamestown, Virginia. Massachusetts and Connecticut had similar laws. During the 1700's, subsidies and bounties were granted in Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, North & South Carolina, and the New England states to encourage hemp cultivation and the manufacturing of cordage and canvas. (John Dvorak, "America's Harried Hemp History")

One of the most important facts concerning American use of hemp is that the Declaration of Independence itself was drafted on hemp paper.

According to hemp activists, industrial "robber barons" and "medico-fascists" colluded in an unholy war against the common people to create monopolies that have since destroyed the planet and led us to the brink of complete and utter collapse. For example, in order to corner the paper market, media mogul William Randolph Hearst teamed with DuPont, enlisting the help of Harry Anslinger, the first Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, who actively worked to associate hemp with "marijuana" and to demonize it, so that his cronies could make a killing off cutting down the American Northwest's forests.

Oil-mongers jumped on the bandwagon, so they could force us all not to have local fuels but to buy from them—getting us addicted to the product of foreign sources that have since become huge national security problems with the trillion$ in oil money they have sucked out of our economies.

Hemp for humanity

Since that ominous time when hemp was first prohibited for capitalistic purposes, the world has degenerated to a truly frightening point where we are overwhelmed by problems—and we really don't even want to contemplate the dire consequences of our actions and state of existence. Human civilization is not well; nor is the environment, largely because of our industrial lifestyle, which reveals itself in horrendous pollution in numerous parts of the world and, probably, in climate change.

There is hope, but we must transcend our prejudices and biases, which are largely based on false morality in this case, as well as just plain greed by those who are either amoral, immoral or both. We must immediately adapt our ways and begin hemp farming worldwide on a massive scale and effort never before seen by humanity. Anti-hemp objections based on flawed interpretations of "God" or "Allah" must be thrown out the window in a haste. These nonsensical protestations and obstructions are preventing us from utilizing a "God-given plant" that has so many uses it's hard to think what it isn't good for. It's high time to end the injunction against hemp, which is also a major repression of our own freedom and independence. If local communities had their own locally produced resource base, there would be no need to take that of others, no incursions or invasions, no endless warfare. Not only can we hope but we can also demand the change, for our humanity, survival and posterity.

D.M. Murdock is the author of controversial books and articles on comparative religion and mythology that can be found at TruthBeKnown.com, Stellar House Publishing and Freethought Nation. For more articles from the Freethought Examiner, be sure to subscribe!

NASA UPGRADES 2012 SOLAR STORM WARNING - LEARN HOW TO PREPARE

NASA UPGRADES 2012 SOLAR STORM WARNING - LEARN HOW TO PREPARE

Award winning astrophysicist Alexia Demetria says our solar system
is entering an interstellar energy cloud that will soon bring global catastrophe.


In light of recent news, the following information is paramount. On July 14, 2010 we learned that our sun is passing through an interstellar energy cloud which excites/energizes the sun. NASA, along with The National Academy of Science and other world renowned scientist are so concerned about this up and coming solar maximum in late 2012, that way back in March 10, 2006 NASA issued a solar storm warning (in writing) for 2012. What NASA omitted in their 2006 solar storm warning is what prompted NASA in the first place to issue a 2012 solar storm warning four years in advance? Then in 2010, NASA again warns the general population of a pending solar storm, telling the population to get ready for a once in a lifetime solar storm. Despite that news agencies and websites like this one are beginning to cover this developing story, no high government official has yet to stick his or her neck out to make an official announcement about the catastrophic implications as to allow the global population to begin preparing.

The following scientific data revealed by Alexei Dmitriev further supports NASA's original 2012 solar storm warning issued back in March of 2006.

Astrophysicist Alexei Dmitriev says that both Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 satellites reveal that our sun, as well as our entire solar system, is now moving into an interstellar energy cloud. Opher, a NASA Heliophysics Guest Investigator from George Mason University says this interstellar energy cloud is turbulent. Dmitriev explains that this cloud of energy is exciting the atmospheres of our planets and especially our sun. As this interstellar energy cloud continues to excite/charge the sun, it causes the sun to become more active, resulting in greater output from the sun. IE: Bigger and more frequent solar storms and CME's resulting in the Carrington effect. This interstellar cloud of electrical energy is also absorbed by the Earth, and scientist have found that it results in more earth quakes, all while dramatically effecting our weather here on earth. When asked how long will it take our sun to pass through this interstellar energy cloud, Dr. Dmitriev replied, "I don't know. But If I had to guess, I would say somewhere between two thousand to three thousand years." This interstellar cloud is a wispy band of charged particles through which our solar system is slowly moving through.

When Dr. Dmitriev was asked what are the implications of all this for earth he replied, "Global catastrophe! Not in tens of years from now, but in ones of years" ...in that this global catastrophe is basically right around the corner setting the stage for NASA's latest solar storm warning 2012-2013.

Dr. Dmitriev is talking about the Carrington Effect which can knock out electrical power and all modern forms of communications world wide for months on end, even years. When that happens, global anarchy and mass looting will soon begin as the food chain will become paralyzed/crippled in modern countries, while water shortages will quickly become a threat to our very survival because electricity is what runs the pumps that gets the water to our homes and offices. If you are not prepared prepared to be self efficient for one to two years, then you and your family will be at risk of dehydration and starvation during a time when drinking water, food and toilet paper will be more valuable then money itself.

To hear the entire 122 minute report go here. Or go to straight to video #3, and start it at the 5:28 minute mark to learn more about this interstellar energy cloud as it unfolded on the radio.

NASA ISSUES NEW WARNING TELLING US TO PREPARE FOR A ONCE IN A LIFETIME SOLAR STORM

Despite that high profile scientist along with NASA and the National Academy of Science are all warning us about solar storms in 2012-2013, we ourselves have no way of knowing one way or the other if any catastrophic events will take place such as solar storms, great earthquakes, super volcanic eruptions, pole shifts, planet crossers and so forth. There by we do not imply or make any such claims of pending catastrophic events, rather we simply report on the facts as we find them. This website gathers it's scientific data information information that is gathered from US government websites, including independent sources such as the National Academy of Science, NOAA, NASA, CNN, BBC, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, MSN News and other space agencies whenever possible. Please note that when we express our opinion on something, we make sure that we state that, "it's our personal opinion that..." this way the reader knows we are not trying pass-off our personal opinion as fact. In the event something does happen within the next few years, we have put together a Solar Storm Survival Guide which can be downloaded. This is not a scare tactic, rather everyone should be ready for any kind of national emergency regardless as to whether or not 2012 or 2013 holds any real threats.

As you may know, on March 10th, 2006 NASA's own website issued a solar storm warning for 2012. Then in June of 2010 NASA reinforces their original 2006 warning telling the public to get ready for a once in a lifetime solar storm. Dr Richard Fisher, head of NASA's Heliophysics Division said: "We know it's coming but we don't know how bad it's going to be." However, "the next solar maximum should be a doozy" says Dikpati. NASA say's the sun storm will be in full swing around 2012-2013, however the National Academy of Science says, "The solar storm could start any day now." "Who ever is right, the storm is coming!" says NASA.

But what NASA is not telling the general public, is what we should be doing to prepare only that they tell us to do so. Unlike hurricanes and snowstorms, most have no idea what they could be doing to prepare for a sunstorm.

By now you should have begun to notice major news agencies as well as talk radio are starting to cover this slow developing story detailing exactly what NASA's warning actually means to the public. If it turns out that NASA, along with other world scientist are is indeed right, "The Economic Damage In The United States Alone Will Be Twenty Times Greater Then Hurricane Katrina that hit New Orleans" says NASA. *Keep in mind that mankind is in uncharted water when it comes to knowing for absolute certainty what the long and short term effects will be, that is, should a super solar storm clash with modern civilization.

If the earth in fact gets a direct hit by a solar storm producing x-class solar flares, (Coronal Mass Ejection or CME) ...it can cripple the world in more ways then we can possibly imagine, as it will cause nearly every electronic device to no longer work until it gets fixed. Imagine no more working cell phones, cars, trucks, planes, ships, computers, navigation systems, TV, radio, iPods, or game machines, let alone no more advanced medical services. *Since more then likely there will be no electric power in most of the world for many months on end, there will be no modern banking system in place, no New York Stock Exchange, credit cards will be worthless and what cash, silver and gold you have will be king. Food stores will soon be looted in the name of survival, most gas stations can't pump gas for what cars and trucks that might still be working. All forms of radio communication will no longer work during this period, making it difficult if not impossible for local law enforcement to maintain law and order, and National Marshall Law = (Rex-84) will be ordered that the public will be mostly unaware of.

Before you know it, the the city water and sewer system will stop working. If you are on an electric well pump, you lose your water right away, (unless it's a hand pump) where as those in the city might have a few days to a week or so before they lose all their water pressure. Even worse, those who don't have at least twelve to twenty four months of secured food and water, starvation will set in, which stands to kill hundreds of millions world wide if not billions; where as third world countries will not be as adversely effected. *Remember... most of the world population no longer supply their own food and water, rather people buy it. If food trucks don't run, then they cant get the food to the stores. Even if somehow cars and trucks still worked, gas stations will be without power for months and thus unable to pump gas without having to run a costly generator. No doubt what gas their is available will be top dollar, easily exceeding ten US dollars per gallon in many locations world wide.

It will be one big nightmare if the earth takes a direct hit from a super CME, thus changing billions of lives forever. Leading countries like the US would be temporally setback well over a hundred and fifty years. But there are numerous things we can do to easily survive the coming solar storm rather then us becoming a victim. To better understand why NASA and other's are forecasting a "doozy" , "once in a lifetime solar storm" in the first place, be sure to visit, Insights From The Author for full details found below highlighted in yellow.

We must keep in mind that it will take years to fully repair the damage electrical grid and power stations resulting from a direct hit of a perfect solar storm. This once in a life time solar storm event that NASA is warning everyone about is not to be taken lightly, especially if NASA and the National Academy of Science is indeed right. It's not so much that the solar storm itself is the real threat where as starvation and anarchy/chaos is the bigger threat. Yes, some say that a direct hit from a massive CME could do environmental damage as well, possibly causing the side of the earth facing the sun to climb to unthinkable temperatures, possibly causing fires. But we think that might be a bit far reaching to think that way. Nevertheless, there are a lot of unknowns here and we will just have to see what happens, and just how bad it really gets. Taking shelter in a cave near you or underground shelter could in the end be your best bet, that is, if you want to play it on the safe side.

No one at an official level such as world leaders, are going to make any special announcement about the pending danger to earth, as to do so, would instantly cause world wide panic. People such as yourself who learn about the coming super solar storm now, are the ones that have any real chance at protecting themselves and family against this potential looming disaster that may begin to unfold at any time now. As for everyone else? For the most part the rest of the world population will be clueless and wont have any idea at first what happen when their electronic world comes crashing down around them.

  • NASA warns public to prepare for a, "once in a lifetime super solar storm event." This event can start at anytime with little to no warning.
  • NASA's Heliophysics Division said: "We know it's coming but we don't know how bad it's going to be."
  • Are you ready and know what to expect, let alone how to prepare?
  • Do you know how to make a special safe room to protect you and family from prolong electromagnetic radiation which can be deadly?
  • Do you understand that most anything electronic will no longer work? This effects computers, phones, satellites, hospitals, even the electronic ignition system for cars and trucks.
  • Do you know what steps to take to protect your car from permanently breaking down from a powerful super solar storm?
  • Did you know that a super solar storm would knock out most power world wide for months and take years to repair it all, costing trillions in damages world wide?
  • Are you prepared with at least twelve to twenty four months of previsions for food, water, medicine and heating?
  • Are you aware that a killer super solar storm would lock down modern countries like the United States, Europe, Asia, and Canada for months?
  • Are you aware of that countries like the U.S. have an Anti Hoarding Act that effects you during a national crises? ((Learn how not to have your food purchases tracked))
  • Are you ready to fend for yourself as food stores most likely will not be in operation for months because of looters, gangs and no power, and especially a lack of food supplies?
  • Well... are you???
Download the Solar Storm Survival Guide to learn how you can easily protect yourself and all of your electronics, as well as your car. It's a condensed manual that can make the difference between becoming a victim or a survivor. Simply said; the guide offers lots of things that you wish you never new about, but will be glad you did should NASA and the National Academy of Science have this right.