Here you go. Not 5 or 50 minutes, but 11 hours of rain forest sounds!
If you don’t achieve enlightenment after this, you should go into politics.
Natural sounds of a rain forest for relaxation, yoga, and reverie.
Here you go. Not 5 or 50 minutes, but 11 hours of rain forest sounds!
If you don’t achieve enlightenment after this, you should go into politics.
Researchers say men are more likely to use drugs alone, which has been called a death sentence in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.
Drug overdoses killed hundreds of people in British Columbia in 2016, and no group died more often than men.
Men accounted for more than 80 percent of OD deaths across the province, or 605 of the 755 recorded deaths between January and November of 2016. Nearly 60 percent of them were between the ages of 19 and 39.
The super-potent opioid fentanyl has been detected in 299 male OD cases so far, compared with 75 cases involving women.
Though the gender gap appears to be a striking one, it’s far from a new trend. Over the last decade, the proportion of men dying of overdose has hovered around 75 percent—rising from 72.2 to 80.1 percent since 2011, according to coroner data.
Why do so many more men die of drug overdose than women? As anyone who has ventured onto a Reddit comment forum can probably guess, it’s difficult to raise this question without eliciting a fair volume of rage and anti-feminist conspiracy. What you don’t tend to hear are answers based on scientific research and first-hand experience. VICE reached out to a few experts to get a fuller picture of what’s going on.
One of the reasons for the disparity, say researchers in the field, is that men on average take more hard drugs than women. The most recent Canadian survey on alcohol, tobacco and drug use found that about one percent of women reported taking “hard” drugs (including coke, crack, ecstasy, meth, acid, or heroin) within the past year, compared with three percent of men.
According to a University of British Columbia nursing professor who studies youth, gender and drug use, the way men and women use drugs may also be a contributing factor.
“Some research has shown that women tend to use with others, and are less likely to be alone when they’re injecting drugs or using other medications,” UBC’s Elizabeth Saewyc told VICE. When other people are around, there’s a better chance that someone will be able to respond quickly and get them some help, she said.
With the rise of deadly synthetic opioids like fentanyl and carfentanil, which have increasingly been found in BC street drugs, the risk of dying while using alone has risen significantly. On top of using alone, opioid-dependent men may be less cautious, according to Saewyc: “It may be that they’re taking larger doses without recognizing the potential risks there.”
Frontline activist Sarah Blyth, who helped establish a cluster of volunteer-run overdose prevention tents in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, told VICE that theory is backed up by her experience on the ground. “Men are more likely to use alone,” she said. “Using alone is the thing that’s actually killing people.”
Blyth added that men are also over-represented in Vancouver’s homeless population. “It’s not surprising to people in the Downtown Eastside,” she said. “There are more men than women living here.” The latest homeless count in Vancouver found that about 76 percent of the city’s street homeless were men.
Although the percentages may match up, Saewyc warned against jumping to conclusions about street homelessness and overdose rates. “You have to be careful about definitions of street homelessness, and who gets counted where,” she said. “If women are able to temporarily access couch surfing, or go home with a sexual partner, they may not be counted… I would be cautious, as we don’t have an underlying denominator.”
Though risk taking, drug use and homelessness are cross-cutting issues, Saewyc says more research is needed. “It’s clearly a huge health issue, and one that we definitely need to get a better handle on,” she said.
VICE reached out to the BC Coroner for comment, but did not receive a reply by press time.
Follow Sarah Berman on Twitter.
Photo by Jackie Dives
This post is from 2012 at another blog.
June 27, 2012
A few years ago I was living in a small town in Vancouver Island, Canada. A town already on the brink of collapse because the main employer, a pulp mill, had decided to shut down its operations in that town. ( The fact that the corporation is a foreign-owned company is for another post.)
I had a new friend. He was an assistant manager for one of the big supermarkets that dominate the food supply in that town. Owned by Loblaw, the largest food retailer in Canada, with over 1400 supermarkets.
That night he called me at around 11pm and asked me to come over. I sensed urgency in his voice so I was there in short time. He explained to me that, earlier on we had experienced a major black out, a power storm had knocked out the electricity supply to the town for three days. He had been told by senior management that all frozen foods were to be discarded. I asked him, why couldn’t they just give the foods to a local food bank? He said that they had to scan the frozen foods for insurance reasons, and then all the foods were to be put in the crusher and destroyed.
OK, so why not give the foods after the scanning ? They could not be bothered.
That’s why he called me. He knew I was an activist that had contacts in town. I knew many of the social outcasts in town. He asked me if I had an idea.
Doh! Not difficult really.
So after he scanned some of the foods, he let me take them. I proceeded for the next few hours to grab as much of the goods that my little vehicle could handle and brought them to Crack House Central. The place in town where no one knows your name. Crack heads have to eat and have families by the way. And yes, they do spend most, if not all of their money, on crack.
You should have seen the faces of the users when I showed up with about $1000 worth of frozen foods. I asked them to please take the foods home before continuing on their ride to Hell.
By the way, crack is gender neutral. There were as many women as men in the house when I arrived. 14 people sitting so quietly that you would not even suspect a cat lived there. That drug makes you paranoid to the extreme.
So we managed to save approximately $1000 worth of frozen food. My friend told me that altogether he must have destroyed another $5000 worth of stuff through the night.
So there you have it.
Capitalism at its most efficient self.
Jan 3, 2017
Anxiety takes a toll on people: they worry, they feel irritable, they avoid social gatherings — like an upcoming New Year’s Eve party. Juvenile salmon also experience stress when faced with unfamiliar situations, such as migrating out to sea where they’ll encounter predators. While anti-anxiety medication helps countless humans function better in their daily lives, new research shows the drugs also make salmon less inhibited, which can have potentially devastating effects.
In a study out of Sweden’s Umeå University, researchers show oxazepam — a pharmaceutical prescribed to humans for the treatment of anxiety, alcohol withdrawal, and insomnia — affects the downstream migratory behaviour of Atlantic salmon.
Exposing fish to anti-anxiety medication isn’t something that only happens in scientific studies: when humans excrete drugs, some can end up in wastewater effluent and subsequently in sensitive habitats where salmon may get an unintended dose. The researchers found that when fish ingest oxazepam, it makes them migrate faster and farther — potentially recklessly so.
Leaving the freshwater nursery and heading out to sea is part of the salmon lifecycle, but landing in the big blue too soon can be risky. Fish may find ocean conditions unfavourable — too cold, too dangerous, or lacking food, for example.
Source: God Hates Mexicans
With permission from
People will believe anything if it flatters their vanity. Think of the idea that Americans are God’s favorites and that the Almighty directs history for America’s benefit, even when that harms non-Americans, particularly non-Whites.
From the belief that divine providence guides America’s destiny came two more bad ideas. American exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny were heroic-sounding euphemisms used to justify the trampling of Native Americans and Mexicans in the course of the US Empire’s mad dash across the continent.
Divine providence was such a transparently self-serving and chauvinist notion that we can be thankful that it has vanished from American thinking. Except that it hasn’t. Michael Medved, nationally syndicated conservative radio host, makes the case for heavenly intervention on behalf of the United States in his new book, The American Miracle: Divine Providence in the Rise of the Republic.
Medved argues that the rise of the US cannot be explained naturalistically; there must have been a divine guiding hand. The American Miracle opens with the “extraordinary coincidence” of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both dying fifty years to the day from the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Such a wildly improbable conjunction of events, writes Medved, could not have been mere coincidence. In another early chapter, Medved describes how unusual weather conditions saved the Continental army following the disastrous Battle of Long Island. A fierce storm on the night of August 29/30, 1776 kept British troop ships from reaching vulnerable American positions. A dense fog, unprecedented during the Summer months, rose up towards morning and continued past daybreak, concealing the Americans and allowing them to make a strategic retreat from Long Island across the East River to Manhattan. Incredibly, not one American life was lost during the retreat.
The Almighty also brought about the freeing of the slaves. President Lincoln had determined not to issue an Emancipation Proclamation until there was a major Union victory; otherwise, Emancipation would be seen as an act of Northern desperation. The Union victory at Antietam on 17 September 1862 gave Lincoln what he wanted. That victory, Medved writes, came about through a literal miracle. Confederate battle plans wrapped around three cigars were found by Union soldiers in a campground which Confederate troops had vacated the day before. Possession of the Confederate plans ensured Union victory. Five days later, on September 22, 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.
Medved finds in such wildly improbable occurrences “a pattern for which the influence of some higher power remains the most rational explanation.”
Baloney. Strange concatenations of unlikely circumstances happen everywhere, not just to Americans. People in every nation can point to “evidence” that God loves them best. Were George Washington’s many escapes from death testament to divine protection, as Medved insists? Fidel Castro survived dozens of assassination attempts by the CIA and lived to be 90. Washington only lived to be 67. Did God love Castro 34% more than George Washington?
Washington and Fidel may just have been lucky. Still, if you want to believe that God kept Jefferson and Adams alive long enough so that they could expire on the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, be my guest. That belief is harmless. And if you believe as does Medved that the attempt on the life of President Andrew Jackson failed because God kept the powder in the assassin’s gun from igniting, that belief is harmless too (although even the reviewer for the conservative Commentary magazine questioned why God would want to save the life of this slaughterer of thousands of Native Americans).
What should disturb us, however, is occasions when, to hear Medved tell it, God’s intervention on behalf of America harms non-Americans, particularly non-Whites. On such occasions, ruling elites use divine providence to justify American imperialism and racism.
Consider Medved’s chapter on the Mexican War. The Mexican War divided the US public between extremists who wanted to seize all of Mexico and moderates who just wanted half. Moderation won out. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed by the US and Mexico on February 2, 1848, formally ended the war and ceded California and large chunks of what would become New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado to the United States for $15 million.
Unknown to both Mexico and the Administration of President James K. Polk, gold had been discovered nine days earlier on January 24 at Sutter’s Mill, California. The deal would not have gone through had Mexico known what it was losing. Medved says that the timing of the discovery was no accident. Medved quotes a French prospector who said at the time: “It had been so ordered by Providence, that the gold might not be discovered until California should be in the hands of the Americans.”
What the hell had the Mexicans done to piss God off? The US had been the aggressor in what Mexicans aptly call la intervención norteamericana. The Mexican War was a blatant land grab which the US cloaked in the half-baked notion of Manifest Destiny. In asking for a Declaration of War, President Polk told Congress that Mexico had “invaded” US territory. Polk knew that was false. Americans were the invaders. Washington sent troops into Mexico pursuant to a bogus claim that the border of Texas (which had become a US state in 1845) extended as far south as the Rio Grande (p. 241). Medved unquestioningly accepts Polk’s bogus claim as sincere. The US House of Representatives did not. In November 1848, the House voted to censure President Polk for starting an unnecessary war.
As for Manifest Destiny, Medved is fine with it. Medved told a caller to his December 2 show that he was glad the US acquired California. California, he said, had been going to waste under the Mexicans. The Mexicans, and the Spanish before them, had done nothing to develop California. Or to populate it. Medved tells us that in 1848, a mere “7,500 people of European ancestry” (because Whites are the people who matter) lived in California. California must have seemed to Americans like a land without people for a people without (enough) land.
Today, the phrase “Manifest Destiny” has gone out of fashion, replaced by the secular doctrines of “humanitarian intervention” and the “right to protect” (with its hip abbreviation “R2P”). Don’t be fooled. These are simply this season’s imperialist styles. The US still goes where it pleases and takes what it wants.
Why then does God “shed his grace” on America rather than let loose the thunderbolts we deserve? It is not because Americans are better than other people, Medved assures us. Medved explains that God blesses the US “not as reward for distinctively righteous behavior but as an exercise of his inscrutable will” (p. 21). I’ll say it’s inscrutable. In the case of the Mexican War, God’s will was downright perverse if we believe that God gave victory to the nation that started the war.
Medved insists that God’s grant of His favor imposes “obligations” on America towards the rest of the world. Tell that to the Pentagon and State Department. Medved is aware of the left’s criticism of US foreign policy, but rejects it. Medved points out that America’s military interventions in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. (it is a lengthy “etc.”) added no territory to the US. Yes, but what Medved does not consider is that it is less hassle for an imperial power to rule indirectly from outside than directly from inside. Medved also declares that US military interventions have largely not benefited the US, but are carried out at great expense. To US taxpayers, certainly, but the military-industrial complex does just fine.
I told a priest in my antiwar group about Medved’s book. He replied by telling me about eisegesis. Don’t confuse that with exegesis. In exegesis, believers approach a biblical text with an open mind with the purpose of determining the text’s meaning. Eisegesis, on the other hand, is imposing your own meaning on Scripture. My friend said that it sounded like that is what Medved was doing.
Medved sees himself in The American Miracle as telling history’s greatest success story. It has not been a success story for non-Whites. It still isn’t. The US robbed Mexicans of half of their country in the 1840s. Medved’s subtext, whether he intends this or not, is that God hates Mexicans. Why else would He hand half of Mexico—including California’s gold—to the American aggressors? It seems like many Americans hate Mexicans, too. We have just been through a Presidential election where 62,979,636 voters cast their ballots for a candidate who promises mass deportations. That’s 46.1% of all votes cast. (To his credit, Michael Medved rejects Donald Trump’s plans for mass deportations.)
God must hate Native Americans, too. Western expansion drove Native Americans from their homes, and to this day, Whites continue to displace Native Americans. Running an oil pipeline through a mostly White city like Bismarck, ND is unthinkable. But Whites don’t have a problem with the Dakota Access Pipeline fouling Native American water and destroying Native sacred grounds at Standing Rock. (Medved has referred to the water protectors on air as “morons.”)
My purpose has not been to attack religion. My purpose has been to attack the misuse of religion in the service of imperialism. It is a misuse of religion to suggest that God blesses one people by bringing calamity down on another. It is a misuse of religion to suggest that God favors the strong over the weak, Americans over non-Americans, Whites over non-Whites. I prefer to think that God blesses the downtrodden, the victims of injustice, not the conqueror. I do not know how many Americans share Medved’s views. Let’s hope it is not many. That would be a blessing.
 The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History remarks that “The American takeover of California caused an indigenous population decline that was sharper than in any other time or place in U.S. history. In 1848 the California Indian population was probably about 150,000. By 1860, it was only 30,000.” See Jeffrey Ostler, “Genocide and American Indian History,” in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History (Mar. 2015).
The Philippines decades-old foreign policy dependence on the US State Department has ended, in favor of the non-dictatorial sphere of Russia and China.
With permission from
Jan 3, 2017
The decision has already brought relative peace in the region, rendered the Clinton-Obama “Pivot to Asia” sinister plan, and have brought the archipelago concrete gains in terms of socioeconomic and military cooperations with the two BRICS countries.
Russia flags war games with US ally PH, and S. China Sea joint drills with claimants
By: Agence France-Presse January 3, 2017 4:46 PM
MANILA – The Russian Navy said Tuesday it was planning to hold war games with the Philippines, as two of its ships made a rare stop in Manila following Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte’s pivot from the United States.
Rear Admiral Eduard Mikhailov, the deputy commander of the Russian Navy’s Pacific fleet, said the joint military exercises would focus on maritime piracy and terrorism, which he described as the region’s two top security concerns.
“We’re very sure that in the future we’ll get such exercises with you, maybe just the maneuvering or maybe use some combat systems and so on,” Mikhailov told reporters beside the docked Russian destroyer Admiral Tributs.
Mikhailov also raised the prospect of joint exercises with China and Malaysia in the South China Sea, where competing territorial claims have been a major source of tension and potential conflict for decades.
“We really hope that in a few years, the military exercises for example in your region, in the South China Sea, will (involve) for example, not only Russia-Philippines, but Russia, Philippines, China and maybe Malaysia together.”
The visit was only the third ever by Russian military vessels to the Philippines, according to the Filipino Navy’s Commodore Francisco Cabudao, who led the welcoming ceremony for the Russian ships.
The Philippines, a former American colony, had for decades been one of the United States’ most important and loyal allies in Asia. The two are bound by a mutual defense pact.
But Duterte, a self-described socialist, has during his six months in power sought to dramatically shift his nation’s foreign and military alliances towards China and Russia.
Philippines no longer seen as ‘Trojan horse of the US’ – envoy to China
Despite warming relations between the Philippines and China, Manila will not sever ties with its long time ally the United States, Philippines new envoy to China has said.
The Philippines are undertaking “a strategic shift in foreign policy,” according to the country’s new ambassador to China Jose “Chito” Sta. Romana.
The assurance comes despite the harsh, sometimes crude statements from Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, which led many to believe that the Philippines leader had turned away from the US and was looking toward China.
“We were one-sidedly imbalanced in favor of the US,” he said. “We are not abandoning our alliance with the US … We are basically trying to normalize our relations with China.”
“The Chinese viewed the Philippines as a geopolitical pawn or Trojan horse of the US. Now they look at us as a friendly neighbor,” Romana added.
The Philippines have been one of the most loyal and long-term allies of the US in the South Asian region, but President Duterte has threatened to end the relationship on numerous occasions.
… China, unlike the US, respects the “internal affairs” of the Philippines, the new ambassador said.
“The problem came after they began lecturing him. The president considers it an internal affair,” he said. “The Chinese don’t comment on your internal affairs.”
In November, Duterte canceled the purchase of over 26,000 US rifles for the national police force after the US decided to halt the sale over alleged human rights violations. The Philippines leader last month threatened to cancel a signed 1998 pact between the US and the Philippines if the US did not renew a large-scale aid package.
The pact allows the US troops to conduct joint drills on the islands. The US had maintained permanent military bases in the Philippines, but the last of them was removed 25 years ago. Since 2012, around 600 US military have been deployed in the Philippines to train troops, but their numbers have been reduced in recent years.
China, in turn, offered the Philippines $14 million worth of arms, as well as a $500 million long-term loan for other Chinese equipment, such as small arms and motor boats.
… Apart from military cooperation, the Philippines are “seriously studying” opportunities of joint exploration of natural resources with China in the disputed waters of the South China Sea.
The Philippines’ pivot to the BRICS was unthinkable six months ago. Now, the geostrategic location of the country will never be exploited by any warmongering superpower, in the next six years, under the strong leadership of a President Duterte.
That should give the region a respite from the troublesome Khazarian clique which might still be embedded in the incoming Trump administration.
Media continues to ignore shady Clinton past
With permission from Shepard at
Laughably, these same talking heads (and the entire mainstream media for that matter) have continued to completely ignore the numerous high profile shady dealings that failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has been involved in.
From direct connections to the handling of the Hammond family case that involved a Russian mining company to selling chemical weapons to terror supporting nations, Clinton has a documented record of working with the worst countries throughout the world.
In late January 2016, Intellihub founder Shepard Ambellas published a viral report that connected the dots between the Hammond family, the BLM, Hillary Clinton, and a Russian mining company. Subsequent research by Jon Rappoport confirmed Shepard’s reporting and brought it to a major TV audience on the Infowars Nightly News.
In a nutshell, Hillary and her foundation were implicated in a dastardly scheme, along with the Russian State Nuclear Energy Corporation,Rosatom, and a few dubious Canadian elite, to sell off American land to foreign entities for the purpose of uranium mining.
Unbelievably, this is literally only ONE of the many instances of obvious corruption by Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State during which she turned the State Department into her own little pay to play operation.
Pay to play weapon transfers
In May 2015 the International Business Times published an exhaustive investigation into Clinton’s dealings during her tenure as Secretary of State. The report revealed that Hillary had approved hundreds of billions of dollars worth of arms sales to numerous sketchy foreign governments.
Unsurprisingly to those who have studied how the Clinton political machine works, almost all of the countries (and defense contractors involved on the other end) who received increased weapons deals had donated to the Clinton family foundation to the tune of over 100 million dollars.
To be clear, we are directly talking about a transparent pay to play operation that has been publicly exposed to include hundreds of billions of dollars yet agencies tasked with prosecuting these type of crimes (the FBI in particular) have so far filed not even a single charge.
The International Business Times reported: (emphasis mine)
Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data.
That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.
These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.
In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.
Alright so we have Hillary Clinton lining her and her families pockets in exchange for increased arms sales to our allies. Pretty blatant corruption but at least they are our allies right?!?
At this point the story gets even more sinister as it is revealed that many of the countries who donated to Clinton’s foundation and subsequently received increased weapons were authoritarian regimes accused of gross human rights abuses as well as a record of support for terrorists.
That’s right, as the White House and the entire corporate media continue to attack Trump over dubious claims of Russian hacking, former secretary of state and failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton walks free despite openly taking donations to sell arms to rogue nations, including chemical and biological weapons.
The IBT’s report continues:
The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department.
Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton also accused some of these countries of failing to marshal a serious and sustained campaign to confront terrorism. In a December 2009 STATE DEPARTMENT CABLE published by Wikileaks, Clinton complained of “an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.”
She declared that “Qatar’s overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region.” She said the Kuwaiti government was “less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks.” She noted that “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups.”
All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department.
Its almost as if she would specifically accuse a country of one abuse or another as a signal to them that it was time to donate. Once they did, the weapons begun to flow. This is a documented fact that cannot be changed no matter how hard the vast network of Clinton shills try to confuse and misinform.
The case of Algeria is particularly damning as the Business Times was able to prove that Clinton’s State-Department publicly attacked the country for numerous police state tactics only to change course and sell them arms, including chemical and biological weapons, at a 70 percent increase after they donated a cool half million to her family foundation.
In its 2010 Human Rights Report, Clinton’s State Department inveighed against Algeria’s government for imposing “restrictions on freedom of assembly and association” tolerating “arbitrary killing,” “widespread corruption,” and a “lack of judicial independence.” The report said the Algerian government “used security grounds to constrain freedom of expression and movement.”
That year, the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and its lobbyists met with the State Department officials who oversee enforcement of human rights policies. Clinton’s State Department the next year approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The increase included authorizations of almost 50,000 items classified as “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment” after the State Department did not authorize the export of any of such items to Algeria in the prior year.
During Clinton’s tenure, the State Department authorized at least $2.4 billion of direct military hardware and services sales to Algeria — nearly triple such authorizations over the last full fiscal years during the Bush administration. The Clinton Foundation did not disclose Algeria’s donation until this year — a violation of the ethics agreement it entered into with the Obama administration.
Similarly, the monarchy in Qatar was chastised by the State Department for a variety of human rights abuses only to have Clinton oversee a 14-fold increase in weapons sales to the terror supporting nation during her time as Secretary of State.
The Business Times report also revealed that the arms manufactures on the other end of all these sales were also donating millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Like I noted above, this is a transparent and utterly corrupt, full-scale pay to play operation.
That group of arms manufacturers — along with Clinton Foundation donors Boeing, Honeywell, Hawker Beechcraft and their affiliates — were together listed as contractors in 114 such deals while Clinton was secretary of state. NBC put Chelsea Clinton on its payroll as a network correspondent in November 2011, when it was still 49 percent owned by General Electric.
To recap, foreign countries and American defense contractors donated over 100 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for a massive increase in arms sales that amounted to hundreds of billions of dollars.
Let that sink in for a moment.
In late September of 2014, Indigenous Elders and Medicine People of North and South America united for four days in sacred ceremony in Green Grass, South Dakota. The significance of this meeting is profound. Its outcome is the Statement which Chief Looking Horse delivers in his native Lakota language, at the United Nations Tillman Chapel. It is the embodiment of a confluence of prophecies which speak to the necessity to activate a new level of consciousness for the benefit of humanity and the earth. Although their statement illuminates the nuclear crisis at Fukushima, the fundamental message is for humanity to spiritually awaken to protect and restore the sacred.
It’s interesting, because according to various account, this is the message of many ‘contactee’s’ who are currently experiencing contact:
Another aspect of this society might have also dealt with extraterrestrial contact. I am not Native American, so when it comes to the topic of sharing beliefs from our very recent past from this culture, it’s best to leave it up to those who are direct descendants from where these stories permeated, and those who grew up around the Elders sharing them.
Stories of intelligent beings visiting our planet from the cosmos date back to the beginning of time, and span throughout several different cultures at various points in human history. Antiquity is filled with stories of beings, materials and flying objects that, according to modern day thinking, should not have existed.
When it comes to Native American ‘lore’ and extraterrestrials, they were commonly referred to as ‘Star Beings.’
For example, Richard Wagamese, One of Canada’s foremost authors and storytellers from the Wabaseemoong First Nation in Northwestern Ontario writes how:
“My people tell of Star People who came to us many generations ago. The Star people brought spiritual teachings and stories and maps of the cosmos and they offered these freely. They were kind, loving and set a great example. When they left us, my people say there was a loneliness like no other.” (source)
He goes on to write, “If Star People did come to the Ojibway, where did they go? Where did they come from? Who brought teachings to them? What scientific magic did they own that allowed them to make such an incredible journey – and is it possible for us?”
Well, if you’re reading this Richard, based on my research, I believe they left because of the path the human race was on, one of destruction and, if we are able to restore balance and peace as well as create an experience where all living beings can thrive in harmony, I believe they would return, at least the spiritual beings you speak of in your writing. But that’s just my opinion, one that’s based on years of research and intuitive feelings.
Another example comes from Stephane Wuttunee, who is a Plains Cree and French Canadian author and storyteller. He wrote a piece for UFO digest in 2008, explaining that his perception and understanding “of the ET phenomena as a Native person and its global implications” comes from “having been partially raised within the culture itself.”
In his article, he makes a clear point to mention that, in his culture, they “give far greater attention to the seeking of the spiritual understanding of things rather than going after “the truth” as people from dominant cultures do. This is part of the reason why we tend to stand back and view or listen at first rather than bare in with questions or take the hard, direct approach.” (source)
I think it’s important to mention the spiritual understanding and implications are connected to this topic, especially with all of the fear propaganda that is continuously pumped out into the mainstream. Yes, it’s going to ruffle a lot of feathers and interfere with the belief systems of many, but sometimes it’s OK to put those aside to at least entertain another idea.
Wuttunee, like Wagamese, mentions the “Star People.” Stating that, while growing up, he heard of “distant relations and Star People living amongst the stars many times, mainly around campfires and during traditional ceremonies. Far from being anything to be feared, Star People was just another term I grew up around. I remember listening in awe and fascination at the thought of us having relations that lived off and outside our world, and sometimes spoke to them in my silent moments at night. I wanted to know who they were and what they looked like, if they had families like us etc. In all honesty, the only time I was exposed to “aliens” per se was when I would go to the outhouse and read the Weekly World News or National Enquirer. It wasn’t until my later teens that I discovered that people from the dominant cultures were talking about the same “people” as my elders did, though each side’s sense of perception of these people seemed radically different from one another.”
He goes on two write about how his elders never really made any clear distinctions between extraterrestrials and the spirit world.
“In fact, at times I heard Aboriginal elders blend the two together and treat them as one, which I have to admit did kind of take me for a spin when I was young. Were our distant relations physical like us? Did they also exist amongst us in spirit? I had many unanswered questions, so I guess from a fairly young age I had some unraveling to do.”
He also points out how stories of abductions were not really spoken of, but rather stories of interactions with beings from other worlds and realms, mostly using telepathic communication and, sometimes, full on physical and friendly encounters.
“To this day, I’ve often wondered for instance, if White Buffalo Calf Woman, the teacher who brought Native people the four traditional medicines of sweetgrass, sage, cedar and tobacco might have been one of these otherworldly visitors.”
He ends his article by making the an important point (to him), that in his culture, there is no reason to be fearful, and that the Star People come from far away and visited us quite often in the past, and will do so again in the future.
In light of the way things are in the world, I’d have to say it’s about time someone dropped in again for some tea and bannock, in any case, the fire is lit and the door is open.”
Blow is a video of Sioux Chief Golden Light Eagle speaking about the Star People. One thing that really resonated with me was the fact that he mentioned modern day terms like “extraterrestrial” and “EBE, and how they create separation and judgements. It reminded me of a video where the Dalai Lama urged us to look upon them as we look upon ourselves — another equal form of life. You can watch that video and read more about that here.
Jan 2, 2017
Snopes, one of the new arbiters of Fake News for Facebook, has been utterly remiss in its fact-checking duties by failing to report the false allegation The Russians hacked into Vermont’s power grid — perhaps because the original claim appeared in the Washington Post.
But for whatever reason, Snopes — whose CEO David Mikkelson stands accused by ex-wife Barbara Mikkelson of embezzling company money to hire prostitutes — simply didn’t bother to report on the Post’s dangerous assertion Russian state actors had tampered with critical infrastructure.
Now emblazoned with an editor’s note essentially stating its original article amounted to Fake News, the Post declared on New Year’s Eve, “Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say” — but, as harrowing as that seems, the Department of Homeland Security begs to differ.
In fact, it simply isn’t true.
“While our analysis continues, we currently have no information that indicates that the power grid was penetrated in this cyber incident,” DHS assistant for public affairs J. Todd Breasseale said in a statement after the Post’s article justifiably garnered national attention.
Snopes, however, apparently didn’t deem the claim significantly influential to report as false, despite its perilous underlying suggestion — given attacks on the critical infrastructure are considered worthy of forceful response by the U.S. government — Russia should be targeted for military retribution.
Indeed, President Obama just expelled 35 Russian diplomats over as-yet unproven allegations The Russians hacked the presidential election — the theoretical hack of the nation’s power grid would present far more treacherous consequences.
But Snopes remained mum on the subject. Labeling the Post’s latest Fake News about Russia as ‘false’ should be plastered on the fact-checker’s front page — it not only isn’t there, keyword searches for anything related to Vermont, Russian hackers, the power grid, Washington Post, and more find no results for this particular story.
According to the Post’s editor’s note,
“An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid.”
But Snopes — who will soon be part of a team tasked with deciding whether or not news items should bear the Scarlet Letter term, ‘disputed,’ on the world’s largest social media platform — is completely derelict of duty.
Tasked along with Politifact, FactCheck.org, the Associated Press, and ABC News with vetting the veracity of news items posted to Facebook in the near future, Snopes and the others have been repeatedly accused of liberal bias. This has understandably raised alarm that accurate but right-leaning news items — or any articles not in tandem with the political left establishment — will be unjustly branded as Fake News, punished by Facebook’s unforgiving algorithms, and, thus, have a chilling effect on dissenting opinion.
Beyond basic bias, however, Snopes not excoriating the Washington Post’s egregiously fake story on The Russians Hacking Vermont shows the organization has no tangible interest in actual fact-checking — rather, the outlet appears to spend its time attacking independent, alternative, and right-leaning media organizations.
And it does so even when the information published is accurate and verifiable — or flagrantly and intentionally false.
Snopes also attempted to ‘debunk’ the story of a man given a DUI, who had only caffeine in his system, by claiming that the Free Thought Project “(implied) his legal troubles were the result of merely drinking too much coffee.”
However, that is not at all what was reported. In fact, the Free Thought Project simply covered the police department’s own admission that Schwab was charged with a DUI and the only drug in his system at the time was caffeine. These two facts are indisputable. However, the supposed arbiter of ‘fake news’ insisted on slandering the Free Thought Project anyway.
Make no mistake, a fact-checker who doesn’t take the time to debunk a viral claim of Russia hacking the U.S. electrical grid — that has since been retracted for being Fake News — has no business being tasked as Facebook’s arbiter of Fake News.
Instead, Snopes’ grievously deficient debunking of the McCarthyite corporate press proves the dangers of planned soft censorship — and the need to maintain an open platform for all opinion — one where alternative media can continue unhindered in calling out corporate media’s lack of journalistic credibility.
High-tech washing machines and fridges will soon be used by detectives gathering evidence from crime scenes, experts have forecast.
The advent of ‘the internet of things’ in which more devices are connected together in a world of ‘smart working’ could in future provide important clues for the police.
Detectives are currently being trained to look for gadgets and white goods which could provide a ‘digital footprint’ of victims or criminals.
Mark Stokes, the head of the digital, cyber and communications forensics unit at the Metropolitan Police told The Times: “Wireless cameras within a device, such as fridge, may record the movement of owners and suspects.
“Doorbells that connect directly to apps on a user’s phone can show who has rung the door and the owner or others may then remotely,m if they choose, to give controlled access to the premises while away from the property.
“All these leave a log and a trace of activity. The crime scene of tomorrow is going to be the internet of things.”
The new Samsung Family Hub Fridge has cameras that carry a live feed of its contents, so shoppers can tell what they need when they are out at the shop. The dates and times that people logon to the fridge, therefore could provide alibis or prove people were not were they said they were.
Mr Stokes said detectives of the future would carry a ‘digital forensics toolkit’ which would allow them to analyse microchips and download data at the scene, rather than removing devices for testing.
However the police could come up against opposition from companies making the gadgets, who are concerned about the privacy of their customers.
In the US, Amazon is currently fighting requests by the US authorities to hand over recordings from one of its Echo home entertainment systems belonging to James Andrew Bates.
Officers in Arkansas are investigating the murder of Victor Collins who was found dead at Mr Bates’ hot tub in 2015. They have already taken evidence from an electric water meter, which appears to show that a huge amount of water was used. Detectives say it could have been to wash blood away from the patio.
The Echo delivers weather forecasts, controls thermostats and light switches, and plays music. But it also has artificial intelligence and improves over time based on the owner’s voices so could provide insight into what happened on the night of Mr Collins’ death.
From the way Israel is reacting, you would think that someone had dropped a nuke on Tel Aviv.
Prime Minister Netanyahu summoned the US ambassador to deliver an official diplomatic protest.
He went public with his attack, too, calling the recent actions against Israel “reckless and destructive” and excoriating John Kerry and President Obama for their own part in this fiendish skullduggery.
He ordered the Israeli diplomatic machinery to start curtailing their working ties with UN Security Council members, including minimizing diplomatic visits and denying foreign ambassadors access to the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
Not to be outdone, Rabbi Levi Shemtov, executive vice president of American Friends of Lubavitch, turned the National Hanukkah Menorah lighting ceremony in Washington on Sunday into a weapon of diplomacy when he squeezed in a not-so-subtle dig about the “darkness” of the UN Security Council’s recent actions.
Even Newt Gingrich got in on the act, finding an excuse to blame the whole fiasco on (who else?) those dastardly Russkies.
More specifically, the Security Council passed Resolution 2334 last week, condemning “all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions.”
For those not well versed in the subject, compare the resolution’s language to the literal dictionary definition of ethnic cleansing: “the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of an ethnic minority by a dominant majority in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity.”
What countries on the planet could possibly object to a resolution condemning ethnic cleansing? Well, for a long time the only two countries on the planet that have objected to this type of resolution have been Israel and the United States, with the US specifically vetoing resolution after resolution on the crimes of Israel in occupied Palestine. But the US sat this one out, choosing to abstain from the vote rather than veto it; hence Netanyahu’s ire at the Obama administration.
The US’ abstention on this resolution is not just unorthodox; it is almost without precedent. As Jean Shaoul points out in a recent article on the resolution:
“According to a Security Council Report, the US has vetoed 30 resolutions relating to Israel and the Palestinians, and another dozen relating to Israel and Lebanon or Syria. Combined, these make up more than half of its 77 vetoes since the UN was established in 1946.”
So unusual is this inversion of the diplomatic status quo that we were just treated to the pinnacle of bizarro politics: a speech by US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power—humanitarian love bomber and wife of Cass “Cognitive Infiltration” Sunstein—that wasn’t complete nonsense.
“The total settler population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem now exceeds 590,000. Nearly 90,000 settlers are living east of the separation barrier that was created by Israel itself. And just since July 2016 – when the Middle East Quartet issued a report highlighting international concern about a systematic process of land seizures, settlement expansions, and legalizations – Israel has advanced plans for more than 2,600 new settlement units. Yet rather than dismantling these and other settler outposts, which are illegal even under Israeli law, now there is new legislation advancing in the Israeli Knesset that would legalize most of the outposts – a factor that propelled the decision by this resolution’s sponsors to bring it before the Council.”
Feel free to insert your own wisecrack about broken clocks being right twice a day here.
So what does all of this mean? Luckily for Israel, it means almost nothing.
The resolution itself is, needless to say, completely toothless, lacking any mechanism to compel Israel to enforce its own laws on the illegal settlements.
Sanctions, of course, are not an option, because as we all know even requiring labels for settlement-made Israeli goods is a heinous act that could (gasp!) delegitimize Israel.
And to top it all off, President-elect Trump has gone out of his way to make sure that his close personal friend, the “great great” Prime Minister Netanyahu, will have his way with America once again during the Trump administration.
Not only has Trump tweeted threats to the UN in retaliation for the resolution (right idea, wrong reason), but he has appointed David Friedman as Ambassador to Israel. Friedman has no diplomatic experience whatsoever, and his only qualification seems to be that he was Trump’s bankruptcy lawyer, but he is also a staunch supporter of the illegal settlements and opponent of a two-state solution.
And just last week Trump announced Jason Greenblatt as his special representative for international negotiations. Greenblatt, an ex-settler who previously worked guard duty at a Jewish settlement in the West Bank, will be the Trump official overseeing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Still, even if the Security Council’s resolution is largely symbolic, it is now part of the official UNSC record and can be cited by the international community in future condemnation of illegal Israeli action. Individual symbolic resolutions may not amount to much, but the precedent of calling Israel out on its flagrantly illegal behavior, like their war crimes in Gaza in 2014, does add up in the long run. But that is small comfort to the people of occupied Palestine in the meantime.
As for Netanyahu, he gets to go on the outrage circuit, drumming up sympathy points from a soon-to-be President Trump, who has already declared himself a lifelong friend of Israel and perpetuated the 9/11 lies to blame that false flag event on Israel’s enemies rather than on the true perpetrators of the crime. And Netanyahu can also win sympathy points from his staunch supporters on the American right by blaming this whole event on Obama and the entire United Nations Security Council.
Strangely, though, amidst all the brouhaha of frayed diplomatic relations and curtailing of ties, there is no word yet out of Tel Aviv on whether Israel will be declining the record-setting $38 billion aid package the Obama administration promised earlier this year.
At least 52,369 people were killed in Iraq during 2016. Another 21,795 were wounded.
According to figures compiled by Antiwar.com, at least 9,148 civilians, 6,430 security personnel, and 36,661 militants were killed. Also, three U.S. servicemen were killed in combat in Iraq. (A fourth one was killed fighting the Islamic State militants in Syria.) A British bomb disposal expert and 125 members of the Kurdistan Workers Party were killed as well. Two French soldiers, a British bomb disposal expert, and an Australian N.G.O. worker were wounded. These figures are similar to 2015’s, which were 52,045 killed and 19,651 wounded.
In December, at least 3,174 people were killed and 1,939 were wounded. Of these, 798 were civilians killed. Another 1,658 civilians were injured. Security forces lost 154 personnel, while another 177 were wounded. At least 2,181 militants were killed, and 104 were injured. Also, at least 41 Kurdistan Workers Party (P.K.K.) members were killed in Turkish airstrikes within Iraqi territory. These figures are likely to be low estimates.
Due to the nature of the conflict and the Iraqi government restricting the release of actual numbers, true counts are impossible to derive. Last month, when 5,719 people were reported killed and another 1,734 were wounded, the United Nations had given reasonable estimates that the Iraqi government later criticized. Subsequently, the U.N. said it would no longer publish estimates concerning security personnel.
Occasionally, however, a glimpse into the extent of the bloodshed is given. For example, the head of the heath department in Erbil, Saman Barzinji, said on December 22 that about 7,595 injured people, including security personnel, had been taken to hospitals in Erbil during operations in Mosul. However, even assuming that the figure was accurate at the time, it only measures how many wounded arrived at hospitals within Barzinji’s jurisdiction. Many of the injured were treated at field hospitals or clinics closer to the fighting before being released.
Also, figures concerning the number of militants killed could be faulty. Baghdad may be exaggerating the numbers for propaganda purposes. Or, they may even be counting civilians as militants, perhaps accidentally. Without independent confirmation from behind enemy lines, these figures are likely never to be known fully.
In other news, French President Francois Hollande traveled to Iraq to visit with French troops and meet with Iraqi officials.
At least 342 were killed and 31 were wounded in more recent violence:
A booby-trapped flag killed an army officer and wounded three soldiers in Abu Garma.
An attack on Mtabijh left two militiamen dead and three wounded.
Clashes are ongoing near Baquba.
Islamic State militants captured a village in the Abu Saida region.
By Jacqueline Hansen
Jan 03, 2017
Canada’s top 100 CEOs earned an average of $9.5 million in 2015. (Getty Images)
The compensation of Canada’s highest-paid CEOs jumped seven per cent between 2014 and 2015, to a record high average of $9.5 million, according to a new study.
In a report published Tuesday, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives looked at salary information from 249 TSX-listed companies. The think-tank then calculated numbers based on the 100 people at the top of that list.
According to the group, the richest 100 CEOs in Canada took in an average of $9.5 million in 2015, a figure that includes salaries, bonuses, share grants and stock options.
That’s well ahead of the $49,510 the group says the typical full-year, full-time worker earned in 2015.
Based on 2015 earnings, Canada’s 100 top CEOs will earn by 11:47 a.m. today (Jan. 3) what the average Canadian will make in a whole year.
“Nobody’s worth that much money, I mean, this is absurd,” says Hugh Mackenzie, a research associate at the think-tank and author of the report.
“Thirty years ago they managed to scrape by on 40 times what the average person is paid, and now it’s 193 times.”
Between 2008 and 2015, the country’s 100 top-paid CEOs saw their compensation climb about 30 per cent, while the average wage for Canadians increased by just 17.5 per cent.
The highest-paid CEOs, according to the study, in order were:
Only two women made the list — Linda Hasenfratz, of Linamar Corp., who was compensated a total of $14.2 million, and Dawn Farrell, of TransAlta Corp., who earned $4.5 million.
Of the top 100 highest-paying CEOs on the list, five people are named Marc or Mark, five named Michael, four named Al, John, Paul and Steve, and three named Brian, Charles and Donald.
Jan 3, 2017
to their non-GMO or near-isogenic counterparts. In fact, the whole idea of substantial equivalence has been spun into existence by Big Biotech as a clever way to peddle their wares – but they like to have it both ways. You see, when it comes to health, nutrient composition and regulation, Big Biotech insists that GMOs are substantially equivalent to non-GMO foods, so as to ensure they get full market access with minimal or no regulation – not even labeling. Yet, when it comes to intellectual property and patents, Big Biotech turns around and insists they “own” the molecules and combinations that make up GMOs, and that it is their property. Many astute people have long spotted the deception and inherent contradiction in the substantial equivalence argument. Now, a recent peer-reviewed scientific study has taken the analysis to a whole new level, showing that GMOs are not so substantially equivalent to non-GMO crops at all.
The recent study is entitled An integrated multi-omics analysis of the NK603 Roundup-tolerant GM maize reveals metabolism disturbances caused by the transformation process. To reach its conclusion, it used deep and complex analysis over various fields (proteomics, metabolomics and transcriptomics), which is why the title contains the word multi-omics. These are state-of-the-art molecular profiling ‘omics’ methods. Proteomics is the large-scale study of proteins, metabolomics is the study of small biochemical molecules and transcriptomics is the study of transcriptomes (the set of all messenger RNA molecules in one cell) and their functions. Since this peer-reviewed study quickly jumps into technical language, I am summarizing its results here in plain English to make it more digestible for the average person (and hopefully more digestible than GMO corn!).
The study mentions in its abstract that there were various ways in which the GMO corn tested (variety NK603) differed from the non-GMO or isogenic version used as a control:
“Proteome profiles of the maize kernels revealed alterations in the levels of enzymes of glycolysis and TCA cycle pathways, which were reflective of an imbalance in energy metabolism. Changes in proteins and metabolites of glutathione metabolism were indicative of increased oxidative stress. The most pronounced metabolome differences between NK603 and its isogenic counterpart consisted of an increase in polyamines including N-acetyl-cadaverine (2.9-fold), N-acetylputrescine (1.8-fold), putrescine (2.7-fold) and cadaverine (28-fold), which depending on context can be either protective or a cause of toxicity.”
To break all this down, what it means is this: the GMO corn had markedly different effects compared to the control non-GM corn. These changes included the plant producing different levels of enzymes, undergoing an imbalance in energy metabolism, having indications of oxidative stress and producing 4 different polyamines (a type of protein). Almost all of these changes are not healthy.
It’s important to remember that genetic modification involves the random splicing of genes whose consequences cannot possibly all be measured, taken into account or even known. By studying the results closely on a proteomic, metabolomic and transcriptomic level, the study found that the GM plant was subjected to extra stress. This meant the GM plant had to alter its usual way of growing in order to adapt to the stress by producing more antioxidant enzymes, more hydrogen peroxide and more glutathione (to try to rid itself of the toxic herbicides being sprayed on it). In short, the entire metabolism of the plant was upset:
“The transformation process and the resulting expression of a transgenic protein cause a general disturbance in the GM plant and it is clear that NK603 maize is markedly different from its non-GM isogenic line at the proteome and metabolome levels. In addition, our data correlates with previous studies, which observed higher amounts of ROS (reactive oxygen species) that act as free-radicals promoting oxidative stress in those transgenic plant materials. We also confirm a metabolic imbalance in energy and carbohydrate metabolism.”
The presence of increased levels of polyamines mentioned above (N-acetyl-cadaverine, N-acetylputrescine, putrescine and cadaverine) is a sign that GMOs may be health-destroying rather than health-promoting or substantially equivalent to non-GMO foods. The lead scientist of the study Dr. Michael Antonio acknowledges that these polyamines can sometimes have beneficial effects; however he also writes:
“The marked increase in putrescine and especially cadaverine is a concern since these substances are potentially toxic, being reported as enhancers of the effects of histamine, thus heightening allergic reactions, and both have been implicated in the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines with nitrite in meat products … Additionally, it is known that polyamines are typically elevated in plants under abiotic stress conditions.”
The doctrine of substantial equivalence is based on a shallow and crude analysis that the nutrient compositional profile between GMO and non-GMO foods is roughly comparable or within a similar range. Yet is it fair to conclude the 2 are “close enough” or substantially equivalent just by comparing their nutrient profile? For starters, there are numerous studies that have found that non-GMO or organic produce is far higher in nutrients that its GMO counterpart.
However, even if the nutrient profile is similar, any fair comparison must take into account that GMOs are specifically engineered to be heavily sprayed with toxins, such as glyphosate, and to hold this glyphosate in their cells. How can the 2 possibly be substantially equivalent when the GMO variety is chock full of toxins? Additionally, the devil in is the details. The compositional analysis includes measurements of total protein content but not a profile of the different types of proteins which is more important information.
This study is further evidence that we need to quickly re-evaulate the faulty notion that GMOs are somehow different enough to be awarded patents and monopolies based on intellectual property (in essence owning Nature), while substantially equivalent enough that they don’t need labelling, packaging warnings, regulating or outright banning. A government genuinely committed to the health of its citizens would ban GMOs outright pending further investigation, putting the burden of proof upon Big Biotech to demonstrate its modified food does not adversely affect human health. Some nations such as Russia have taken the bold step of outlawing GMOS and refusing any GM food to be allowed in their country. Of course, proving that GMOs do no harm would be most difficult for the Big Biotech corporatocracy, given the existing evidence which implicates GMOs with organ failure, autism, infertility and cancer.
Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the worldwide conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance.