We’re Going Back! China To Become The First Nation To Land On The Dark Side of the Moon



Next Story

China is set to do something no other nation has done, and that’s land on the far side of the moon. This year, they plan to launch two missions  known as “Chang’e 4”. The first part will launch in June, which will really act as a satellite positioned approximately 60,000 km behind the moon. This will serve for communication purposes, linking the Earth and the far side of the moon. This is, apparently, why we’ve never been to the dark side, because the technicalities of clear communication are impossible, so we’re told. This drastically counters all of the evidence suggesting we have been there. There are some articles linked below where you can learn more about that. Once this link is established, it will allow China to send the second part of the mission: a lander to the far side’s surface.

 By the way, Tidal forces from Earth have slowed the Moon’s rotation to where the same side is always facing the Earth, this is why the other side is called the Dark Side, because we can never look at it, not even with a telescope. That being said, I personally do not buy that explanation, completely. You will see why later in the article as I elaborate on the moon. Furthermore, I do believe we have been back, and were there prior to when we were told we got there, but that’s a different discussion all together.

Will the true findings of this mission be publicly disclosed to the world?  When it comes to space news, it’s so hard to believe anything we hear. Mainstream rhetoric completely goes against those speaking out who are directly from “within” and on the front lines. Now, that does not mean that these people may also be dishing out misinformation, but when you have them in multiples from various fields, from aerospace all the way to the ranks of the military, academia, politics and more, it’s not hard to see that something is going on. What that is, we don’t exactly know; but we do know it’s not always what we are told.


Related CE Article on The Black Budget


Take for example Robert Bigelow, who recently gave an interview with 60 minutes making it quite clear that he has knowledge of the fact that we are not alone, and that we have been visited, and are being visited. Multiple Apollo astronauts have said the same thing–there are literally to many examples to name. Apollo 14’s Edgar Mitchell told the world that he has been “privileged” enough to be in on the fact that we are not alone, and that they’ve been coming here for years.

Perhaps the greatest source of confusion is the moon. Surrounded by ‘conspiracy,’ according to my research, it seems that the conspiracy is not whether or not we went to the moon, it’s about what happened when we got there.  I go into more detail about that in an article I published in November of 2017: you can read it here.


For more information, before we get to the Dark Side of the Moon, you can also check out these selected articles:

A CE Podcast About The Face On Mars & Strange Structures On The Moon

Faking The Moon Landing Isn’t The Conspiracy, It’s What Really Happened When We Got There

“We Did Go To The Moon, But The Footage Was Fake”

The United States Tried To Detonate A Nuclear Weapon On The Moon. Somebody Responded When We Did


The Dark Side: Will We Get The Truth From China? If We Look At Some Recent History About This Issue, Perhaps Not…

As mentioned above, it’s so hard to get any genuine information. Take Dr. John Brandenburg. He was the Deputy Manager of the Clementine Mission to the Moon, which was part of a joint space project between the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and NASA. The mission discovered water at the Moon’s poles in 1994 (Source: page 16 of 18)(source)(source), but according to Brandenburg, the Clementine Mission had an ulterior agenda:

“The Clementine Mission was a photo reconnaissance mission basically to check out if someone was building bases on the moon that we didn’t know about. Were they expanding them? . . . Of all the pictures I’ve seen from the moon that show possible structures, the most impressive is a picture of a miles wide recto-linear structure. This looked unmistakably artificial, and it shouldn’t be there. As somebody in the space defense community, I look on any such structure on the moon with great concern because it isn’t ours, there’s no way we could have built such a thing. It means someone else is up there.”

Whether or not you believe them is up to you. But we have evidence that goes beyond witness testimony, and Brandenburg is just one small example among many.

Contrary to popular belief, reports of artificial structures on the moon are both common and persistent.  Among the first were from George Leonard’s 1976 book, Somebody Else is on the Moon, and Fred Steckling’s 1981 book, We Discovered Alien Bases on The Moon. 

This new study describes how they discovered seven Apollo-15 and four Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) images of the same enigmatic objects in the moon crater Paracelsus C, and how they differ significantly from the rocks scattered around and within the majority of craters on Luna.

Another great point the authors make: a decidedly conservative mainstream scientific establishment often rejects anomalies based on subject matter alone (i.e. there cannot be alien artifacts on the moon because there are no alien artifacts on the moon, or on other planets). Such a view is an example of circular reasoning, based on the belief that extraterrestrials do not exist, or if they do exist that they could not have traveled to our solar system.

One of the authors, Mark Carlotto, an image scientist with 30 years of experience in satellite remote sensing and digital image processing, studied optics, signal, and image processing at Carnegie-Mellon University from 1972-1981, where he received his Ph.D. in electrical engineering. He’s had several positions in academia and industry. Here are some of the peer-reviewed papers he’s authored and co-authored prior to this one.

Members of the Soviet Academy of Sciences (Vasin and Shcherbakov, 1970), run by the Russian Government, published an article entitled “Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence?” This article offered another explanation for how the moon may have been created. This seems to be a better hypothesis, because there is actually a considerable amount of evidence that points towards something suspicious happening on the Moon.

“We cannot help but come to the conclusion that the Moon, by rights, ought not to be there. The fact that it is, is one of those strokes of luck almost to good to accept.” – Isaac Asimov, Russian Professor of Biochemistry

“It’s easier to explain the non-existence of the Moon, than its existence.” – NASA scientist Robin Brett

“The best explanation for the Moon is observational error – the Moon doesn’t exist.” – Irwin Shapiro, Harvard Astrophysicist

When more people started to ask questions about some sort of presence on the Moon, the most common response was the fact that it would be impossible; that amateur astronomers, given the technology today, would be able to identify such claims with ease. This response is only half valid, given the fact that they would only be able to observe one side of the Moon!  A lot of information is available to suggest that there are some structures on the moon and also some type of operation occurring that’s unknown to the majority of people on planet Earth. They could be human operations, extraterrestrial operations, or joint human and extraterrestrial operations. If you are going to hide something from the eyes of astronomers, the “dark side” of the Moon is the perfect place to do it.

The STARGATE project was one of multiple programs that the U.S. government undertook to examine non-material science and “psi” phenomena like telepathy and telekinesis. It ran for more than two decades, and a lot of information regarding the program has since been declassified and opened for public viewing.

The program was used multiple times for successful intelligence collection, as outlined in a paper published after the declassification in 1995:

“To summarize, over the years, the back-and-forth criticism of protocols, refinement of methods, and successful replication of this type of remote viewing in independent laboratories has yielded considerable scientific evidence for the reality of the [remote viewing] phenomenon. Adding to the strength of these results was the discovery that a growing number of individuals could be found to demonstrate high-quality remote viewing, often to their own surprise. . . . The development of this capability at SRI has evolved to the point where visiting CIA personnel with no previous exposure to such concepts have performed well under controlled laboratory conditions.”

Remote viewing was one of their most successful programs under the STARGATE umbrella. Remote viewing is the the ability of individuals to describe a remote geographical location up to several hundred thousand kilometers away (or more) from their physical location. This phenomenon has been confirmed by multiple studies, having repeated the same thing, which is why the program ran in secret for more than two decades until it was declassified.

Successful replication of this type of remote viewing in independent laboratories has yielded considerable scientific evidence for the reality of the [remote viewing] phenomenon. Adding to the strength of these results was the discovery that a growing number of individuals could be found to demonstrate high-quality remote viewing, often to their own surprise. The CIA even participated as remote viewers themselves in order to critique the protocols. CIA personnel generated successful target descriptions of sufficiently high quality to permit blind matching of descriptions to targets by independent judges.”  (source)

A gentlemen by the name of Ingo Swann was able to successfully describe and view a ring around Jupiter, a ring that scientists had no idea existed. This took place immediately before the first ever flyby of Jupiter by NASA’s Pioneer 10 spacecraft, which confirmed that the ring did actually exist. These results were published in advance of the rings’ discovery.

Ingo wrote plenty about the Moon and his findings on it. The fact that this man was closely connected and often used by the intelligence community (2)(3) should sound some alarms in realizing the importance of his work. Also, the fact that he successfully remote viewed Jupiter before modern science could is astonishing.

Here’s what he had to say about the moon,

“It’s one thing to read about UFOs and stuff in the papers or in books. It is another to hear rumours which say they have captured extraterrestrials and downed alien space craft. But it’s quite another matter to find oneself in a situation which confirms everything. I found towers, machinery, lights, buildings, humanoids busy at work on something I couldn’t figure out .”

The implications of this information are huge, and we believe are spiritual in nature. For multiple reasons, this seems like an educated interpretation.

We have a lot of work to do on ourselves here on planet Earth, and perhaps that’s all tied into the ET phenomena in several different ways. All this and more is discussed exclusively in our Explorers Lounge.


Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

×

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Collective-evolution/~3/Mb0T8yEFx6Q/

California to Become First US State to Mandate Solar on New Homes


by Amanda Froelich Truth Theory

Way to go, California! The Golden state is on the verge of making solar standard the standard. In fact, as soon as 2020, it may be mandatory for all newly-constructed homes in the state to have solar panels.

If the initiative passes, which is expected, solar installations on new homes will dramatically increase. Said Bob Raymer, technical director for the California Building Industry Association: “California is about to take a quantum leap in energy standards. No other state in the nation mandates solar, and we are about to take that leap.”

The new provisions seek to increase battery storage, as well as increase reliance on electricity over natural gas. As OC Register reports, all houses, condos, and apartment buildings up to three stories tall would be affected by the solar mandate.

Exceptions will be made, of course, such as when the roofs of buildings are too small to accommodate solar panels. And, for builders that integrate batteries such as the Tesla Powerwall, “compliance credits” will be awarded.

While homebuilders and environmentalists have celebrated the news, there are some who wish California would stick to its original “net zero” goal. According to officials, such high standards are not feasible at the moment. Furthermore, mandating “net-zero” fails to address the state’s ultimate ambition of curbing climate change.

As Andrew McAllister, one of the state’s energy commissioners, pointed out, this is because true net zero homes still rely on the electric power grid. He said: “Zero net energy isn’t enough. If we pursue (zero net energy) as a comprehensive policy, we’d be making investments that would be somewhat out of touch with our long-term goals.”

Still, some remain hopeful. “We’re happy they’re making good progress,” said Kelly Knutsen, technology advancement director for the California Solar and Storage Association. “We wish they would go further. There’s always compromises.”

What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news!

Source: OC Register

Image Credit: Pxhere

Get free copy of our 33 Page Illustrated eBook- Psychology Meets Spirituality- Secrets To A Supercharged Life You Control! 

Source Article from https://truththeory.com/2018/05/17/california-to-become-first-us-state-to-mandate-solar-on-new-homes/

Norway to Become First Country to Only Allow Electric Ships Into Their Fjords


by Amanda Froelich Truth Theory

Over the years, Norway has established itself as a leader of green initiatives. Now, the Scandinavian country is proving its commitment to the environment once again by establishing the world’s first emission-free zone at sea.

Norway’s parliament adopted a resolution that would require all vessels, ships, and liners entering their world heritage fjords to produce zero carbon emissions. The ban is set to be enforced “as soon as technically possible,” but will go into full effect in 2026.

This is a major step for Norway, which receives hundreds of thousands of tourists visiting the country’s 1,160 fjords every year. Officials believe the resolution will not only benefit the environment, but support the health of the tourists and local communities.

“For the first time in the world there is a requirement for emission-free sailing in the fjords and their harbors,” said Marius Holm, head of the environmental foundation ZERO.  “Norway has long been a world leader in emission-free ferries based on sound political decisions on zero-emission requirements. Now the country is taking a step further in the maritime green shift that has global repercussions. At the national level, this will mean a welcome development towards emission-free solutions on many tourist ships, a significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and a halt to harmful local air pollution.”

Environmentalists are applauding the initiative, which is a welcome follow-up to the Norwegian Parliament’s decision in 2015 to require all ferries in new tenders to be equipped with zero or low-emission technology. Hege Økland, CEO of the maritime industrial cluster NCE Maritime CleanTech, commented on this when she said: “Norway has become a world-leading maritime supplier of low- and zero-emissions solutions. The decision on zero-emission fjords can secure our industry’s position in this area, so that Norwegian business will be strengthened and we can provide green solutions also to the rest of the world.”

Given the pace at which Norway is transitioning to a clean energy economy, it is possible the switch to zero emission sailing technology will take place much sooner than 2026. “Tourists come to see pure nature, not fjords full of exhaust. Norway also has an international responsibility to manage its world heritage sites. We have long been seeking concrete action, and are therefore very pleased with this decision on emissions-free fjords,” said Katrin Blomvik, director of the Geiranger Fjord World Heritage Foundation.

What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this news!

Source: GoodNewsNetwork Marine Log

Image Credit: Pixabay

Get free copy of our 33 Page Illustrated eBook- Psychology Meets Spirituality- Secrets To A Supercharged Life You Control! 

Source Article from https://truththeory.com/2018/05/14/norway-to-become-first-country-to-only-allow-electric-ships-into-their-fjords/

Humanity Has Become One Massive Genetic Experiment: What Everyone Should Know About GMOs



Next Story

Are you concerned about Genetically Modified Foods? Here’s (GMOs Revealed) a great documentary that addresses many of the questions and concerns most people have today. 

In March 2014, scientists from Indiana University announced that they had conducted research to examine the operations of the fruit fly genome “in greater detail than ever before possible” and had identified “thousands of new genes, transcripts and proteins.” Their results indicated that the fly’s genome is “far more complex than previously suspected and suggests that the same will be true of the genomes of other higher organisms.” Of the approximately 1,500 new genes that were discovered, 536 of them were found within areas that were previously assumed to be gene-free zones. Furthermore, when the flies were subjected to stresses, small changes in expression level at thousands of genes occurred, and four newly modelled genes were expressed altogether differently.

Why is this important? Because it reveals how little we know about this planet and the organisms dwelling on it, yet also how much we think we know. This kind of hubris is found within all areas of human knowledge, but particularly when it comes to science.

Another great example that I’ve used before is when the populace first realized that the Earth wasn’t flat. Another is a statement made by physicist Lord Kelvin, who stated in 1900 that “there is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” This assertion was shattered only five years later when Einstein published his paper on special relativity.

When it comes to our genes, and the genes of other organisms, we really do know next to nothing. Unfortunately, proponents of the biotech industry (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, etc.) claim otherwise, and have developed multiple, flawed assumptions that undergird agricultural bioengineering.

The information presented in this article comes from a variety of different sources, but my primary sourceis Steven Druker, a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity. He initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug (FDA) to release its files on genetically engineered foods, and recently published a book about it, which has received dozens of rave reviews from the world’s most accredited scientists in the field. I draw primarily from his book for this article.

“This incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well reasoned and scientifically solid, it’s a pleasure to read – and a must-read. Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don’t entail abnormal risk.” 

– David Schubert, PhD, molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

Natural Genetic Modification Versus Human Induced Genetic Modification

Biotech proponents have an unshakable faith in their GE crops, and these corporations also hold major sway over mainstream media outlets, and close relationships with government agencies like the FDA. Indeed, several high level industry employees have also held positions at these institutions. One example is the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Michael Taylor, who is also Monsanto’s former Vice President for Public Policy. While at the FDA, he was instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

Druker outlines in his book how the commercialization of genetically engineered foods was enabled by the fraudulent behaviour of these government agencies, and how this actually violates explicit mandates for federal food safety law. The evidence shows that the “FDA’s falsehoods have been abundantly supplemented with falsehoods disseminated by eminent scientists and scientific institutions, and the entire GE food venture.”

This is why it’s so amazing to see so many scientists within the field supporting the dissemination of truth, and bringing the falsehoods to light. So if you still think this type of thing is a conspiracy theory, we now have the documents as well as the science, which stands on its own, to show that something is terribly wrong here.

Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus of Genetics at Western University in London, Ontario, believes that Druker’s book is a “landmark” and that “it should be required reading in every university biology course.” 

There are several presumptions on which the bioengineering venture was based, and one of them is that natural breeding is more random and unruly than bioengineering. The standard argument holds that genetic modification has been occurring for thousands of years, and what we do now is simply that process sped up and made better.

Key Presumptions on Which the Bioengineering Venture Was Based

Genetic engineering is based on the presumption that the genome is just a linear system, where the action of a single gene will not impact the action of other genes, or disrupt their normal function.

In 2007, the New York Times published an article outlining how “the presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.” 

Basically, genes are viewed as autonomous, adding to the whole without acting holistically because they don’t express their proteins in a closely coordinated matter. Another assumption used to justify genetic engineering is that genes aren’t organized in a specific way, that the sequence in which they occur is meaningless From this point of view, a gene would function normally if it were relocated to a different chromosome or came from a neighbouring gene. Quite a big assumption, don’t you think? Giorgio Bernardi, a biologist at the University of Rome III who specialized in the study of genome evolution, calls this perspective a “bean-bag view of the genome” because it regards the genes as “randomly distributed.”

Druker explains:

Together, these two assumptions supported the belief that a chunk of recombinant DNA could be put into a plan’s genome without inducing disturbance — because if the behavior of the native genes was largely uncoordinated and their arrangement was irrelevant, there would be no important patterns that could be perturbed by such insertions. Accordingly, they engendered confidence in the precision of genetic engineering, because they implied that the outcome of a gene insertion would be exactly what the bioengineers expected.

How could biotech proponents push the idea that the target organism would continue to function just as it had before, and that the change would be limited to the new trait endowed by the inserted gene? How can it simply be assumed that this would not alter any of the organism’s other qualities?

These presumptions still underly genetic engineering today. The example of the fly above serves well here. In the New York Times article cited earlier, the author noted that “genes appear to operate in a complex network,” and states that “evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today’s commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals.”

Molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, who testified at New Zealand’s Royal Commission in 2001, notes that agricultural bioengineering “was based on the understanding of genetics we had 15 years ago, about genes being isolated little units that work independently of each other.” He also presented evidence showing that genes actually “work as an integrated whole of families.”

Despite the grave possibility that these presumptions are indeed wrong, they still form the backbone of genetic engineering today.

Antoniou himself was even selected to represent multiple nongovernmental organizations to present precaution reasons to the UK’s GM Review Panel, and a plethora of studies that clearly justify it. Despite his presentation, and many others’, the 11 other scientists on the panel, who were biotech proponents, dismissed these studies and continued to argue that it makes absolutely no difference how genes are arranged.

How can a scientist make such a statement?

What do we have as a result? As Druker says:

Such disregard, denial, or avoidance in regard to the evidence was essential for maintaining faith in the venture, because its predictability and safety have always relied on the genome being largely disjointed; and the more the genome instead appears to function as a tightly coordinated system, the more potentially disruptive and unpredictable are the interventions of the bioengineers.

Geneticist, activist, and environmentalist David Suzuki weighed in on this very subject a few years ago in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC):

By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment. . . . Essentially, the FDA has said that genetically modified organisms, or food, are basically not much different from regular food, and so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this: Geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, in what we call a vertical fashion . . . [but] what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it, what we call horizontally, into a totally unrelated species. Now, David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot plant and exchange genes. What biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other, without regard for the biological constraints. . . . It’s very very bad science. We assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion.

More Differences

This is a common argument made by GE-food proponents, and commonly used whenever an expert brings up a challenge to the technology’s safety. For example, David Schubert, PhD, a molecular biologist and the Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, commented in Nature Biotechnology that there was mounting evidence that the insertion of even one gene into a cell’s DNA alters the expression patters of genes throughout the entire cell. He said facts like this one, among many others, “cast doubt on the soundness of agricultural bioengineering — and entail the conclusion that it ‘is not a safe option.’ “

Predictably, when a professor and a laboratory director of one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions makes a comment like this, there’s going to be a response. This time it came in the form of a letter, published by 18 biologists at respected universities and institutions, stating that Dr. Schubert failed to properly consider “the genetic realities.” The main reality he allegedly failed to recognize is that the natural method of plant breeding is inherently more random than bioengineering.

A portion of the letter reads as following:

We do not take issue with Schubert’s basic contention that unintended genetic and metabolic events can take place. The reality is that ‘unintentional consequences’ are much more likely to occur in nature than in biotechnology because nature relies on the unintentional consequences of blind random genetic mutation and rearrangement to produce adaptive phenotypic results, whereas GM technology employs precise, specific, and rationally designed genetic modification toward a specific engineering goal.

In his book, Steven Druker offers the following counterargument: “This letter thus reveals how strongly the GE food venture relies on the presumption that the natural process driving biological development are intrinsically more disorderly and risk-bearing than the genetic interventions instigated by the human mind. And it confirms that this belief forms the ideological bedrock on which the venture rests.”

In fact, a report published in 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences couldn’t uphold “even the more modest notion that bioengineering and natural breeding pose the same risks.” The panel that produced the report ranked various modes of plant breeding in terms of their disposition to produce unintended effects. They were forced to acknowledge that bioengineering produces far greater effects than pollen-based sexual reproduction. Despite this fact, they still insisted that this does not mean a difference in risks.

Druker says in response:

Thus, there’s no rational way to reconcile the fact that natural breeding is less disruptive and more predictable than bioengineering with the claim that it poses equal or greater risk, which is why the admission in the 2004 report is a rarity — and why biotech proponents almost always ignore or deny that fact and instead assert that natural breeding is more disorderly and unpredictable.

Randomness

According to the biotech industry, natural plant breeding could actually result in crops that are dangerous to human consumption, which is why we should be grateful for genetic engineering. For example, in the same NAS report mentioned above, they portrayed what are known as “jumping genes” as more randomly mobile and threatening, but failed to recognize, as Druker points out, that although these entities do not pose risks within natural pollen based breeding, when bioengineering is employed they do because that process alone “tends to stir them up and get them jumping.”

When it comes to sexual reproduction, it’s yet another area where biotech proponents state that it’s a random phenomenon, despite the fact that we now know that it’s not random, and that there are multiple factors that can and do influence the genetics of life.   Genetic engineering, be it human induced or naturally occurring, requires a genetic “rearragnement,”  a recombination of DNA. The difference between the artificial way and the natural way is that the natural way does not disrupt the entire organism, as was discussed a little earlier in the article and touched upon in the Suzuki quote above.

As Druker explains:

This natural form of recombination occurs during the formation of gametes (the sperm and egg cells). It includes a step called crossover in which two partner chromosomes break at corresponding points and then exchange complementary sections of DNA; and every time a gamete is produced, every set of paired chromosomes engages in it. In this way, all the chromosomes end up with genes from both parents instead of from only one. However, all the genes are preserved, as is the sequences in which they’re positioned. The only changes are in the relationships between aleles. . . . So this natural recombination augments diversity while maintaining stability. And without it, except for the occasional favorable mutation, the composition of chromosomes would stay the same from generation to generation, and genetic diversity would grow at far too sluggish a pace.

He goes on to mention how natural recombination preserves the order of the genes, and is predictable in the way it cuts DNA. The entire process displays a great deal of order.

Despite this fact, scientists who support GE state, as in, for example, the 2004 NAS report, that “genetic engineering methods are considered by some to be more precise than conventional breeding methods because only known and precisely characterized genes are transferred.” They use the idea that the randomness and unpredictability of natural engineering make bioengineering safer.

Yet, as Druker so brilliantly captures:

This misleading tactic fixates on the predictability of the plant’s specific agronomic traits; and it portrays traditional breeding as less predictable than bioengineering because undesired attributes are often transferred along with the one that is desired. However, those who employ this ploy don’t acknowledge that if both parents are safe to eat, the unwanted traits hardly ever pose risk to human health. Rather, they’re undesirable for reasons irrelevant to risk (such as aesthetic appearance or seed size), and breeders must then perform back-crossing to eliminate them while retaining the trait they want. However,  although the inclusion of unwanted traits entails more work, it does not increase attendant risks. Therefore, while breeders can’t fully predict what traits will appear, they can confidently predict that the resulting plant will be safe to eat.

This is why the GE stance on natural modification is so flawed and misleading.

Druker goes on:

Although it describes the sexual reproduction of food-yielding plants as a messy and risky affair that involves the transfer of “thousands of unknown genes with unknown function,” we actually know quite a lot about those genes. And what we know is far more important than what we don’t know. We know that they’re all where they’re supposed to be, and that they’re arranged in an orderly fashion. And we know that during the essential process in which some of them are traded between partnered chromosomes in order to promote the diversity that strengthens the species, their orderly arrangement is marvelously maintained. Most important, we know that their functions mesh to form an exquisitely efficient system that generates and sustains a plant that regularly provides us with wholesome food.

This sharply contrasts with genetic engineering.

As you can see, comparing natural modification to biotech modification is not an easy process, and this isn’t even the tip of the iceberg. Research shows that it’s not natural modification that’s more random and risky, but biotech genetic modification:

The inserted cassettes are haphazardly wedged into the cell’s DNA, they create unpredictable disruptions at the site of insertion, the overall process induces hundreds of mutations throughout the DNA molecule, the activity of the inserted cassettes can create multiple imbalances, and the resultant plant cannot be deemed safe without undergoing a battery of rigorous tests that has yet to be applied to any engineered crop.

RELATED CE ARTICLES: 

Below are a few of many articles we’ve published on GMOs, if you’re interested in reading more please browse through our website.

Reviewed Science Loosing Credibility As Large Amounts of Research Shown To Be False

Wikileaks Cables Reveal The US Government Planned To Retaliate Cause & Cause Pain On Countries Refusing GMOs

Federal Lawsuit Forces The US Government To Divulge Secret Files On Genetically Engineered Foods

New Study Links GMOs To Cancre, Liver/Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption

Why Bill Nye Is Not A Science Guy: What He Gets Wrong About GMOs


Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.

×

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Collective-evolution/~3/lFD0PyuLwQo/

Children and pre-teens who lack sleep are 58% more likely to become obese as adults


Image: Children and pre-teens who lack sleep are 58% more likely to become obese as adults

(Natural News)
If you don’t want your child to grow up into an obese adult with a lot of health problems, make him get enough sleep. New research from the University of Warwick revealed that children and pre-teens who get less sleep less than others their age gain more weight as adults, and are more likely to become overweight or obese.

The researchers reviewed the findings of 42 population studies of infants, children, and adolescents aged 0 to 18. The said studies had a total of 75,499 participants, whose average sleep duration was analyzed using questionnaires, wearable technology, and other methods.

Participants were divided into two: short sleepers and regular sleepers. Short sleepers were those who slept less than the reference category for their age.

The reference category was based on the most recent National Sleep Foundation guidelines in the U.S. which say that:

  • Infants (four to 11 months) must get between 12 to 15 hours of sleep a night;
  • Toddlers (one to two years old) must sleep 11 to 14 hours nightly;
  • Pre-school children (three to five years old) need 10 to 13 hours of sleep a night;
  • School-aged children (six to 13 years old) between nine and 11 hours; and
  • Teens (14 to 17 years year old), eight to ten hours.

Researchers monitored the participants for three years. They took note of changes in their body mass index (BMI ) and documented incidences of overweight and/or obesity over time.

The research team revealed that short sleepers regardless of age gained more weight and were 58 percent more likely to grow up overweight or obese.

Get more news like this without being censored: Get the Natural News app for your mobile devices. Enjoy uncensored news, lab test results, videos, podcasts and more. Bypass all the unfair censorship by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Get your daily news and videos directly from the source! Download here.

Dr. Michelle Miller, Reader of Biochemical Medicine, Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, one of the study’s co-authors, said that their findings show that sleep can serve as a modifiable risk factor of future obesity. She added that their findings show that the tendency to become obese be detected very early on in life.

She warned that being overweight can lead to health problems like cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes, which she said is on the upswing among children.

Obesity has become so rampant worldwide, the World Health Organization has declared it a global epidemic. This is why the research team is all for the creation and implementation of educational programs that empower parents and children to get the most out of sleep.

How do you help children sleep well at night? Some suggestions:

  • Create a reward system – Give your child a star when he goes to bed on time and stays there the whole night long. Give him a prize if he earns three stars at night.
  • Avoid stimulating activities after dinner – That’s according to Dr. Carol L. Rosen, medical director of pediatric sleep services at Case Western Reserve University‘s School of Medicine at Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland. This means stashing the toys away, turning off the television and unwinding with a bedtime story or two.
  • Make your child feel comfortable – Check if the room temperature either too warm or too cold. Make sure the bedsheets, pillows, comforter, blanket and pillowcases are clean. Ask your child if he feels comfortable in his pajamas. Make sure the blankets don’t limit his movement.

A child’s health is a parent’s responsibility. Let us help our children sleep well at night so they will grow up to become healthy adults who can do their best in whatever they choose to do.

Do you know that a lot of modern-day diseases are preventable through proper lifestyle habits such as diet and exercise? You can find more articles on how to prevent these illnesses at Prevention.news.

Sources include:

AlphaGalileo.org

Parents.com

<!–

–>

Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/2018-05-07-children-and-pre-teens-who-lack-sleep-are-58-more-likely-to-become-obese-as-adults.html

Russia calls for EU nations not to become accomplices in Ukrainian war crimes

We call upon all member states of the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] not to become accomplices in the Kiev regime’s war crimes, not to provoke a disastrous military conflict in the center of Europe,” Russia’s permanent representative to the organization, Aleksandr Lukashevich, said at the meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna, Austria.

The Russian diplomat added that the so called “counter-terrorist operation” against the self-proclaimed republics of Lugansk and Donetsk was a nationalist stunt with inhuman objectives and criminal means to reach them. Lukashevich also said that the change of the operation’s format, planned by the Ukrainian authorities, would not lead to peace.

This prognosis is being confirmed by increasingly belligerent rhetoric, additional supplies of imported weapons to the Ukrainian military forces, the arrival of Western military instructors to Donbass,” he said. “We are also warning Kiev against the attempts to repeat the military escapades of 2014 and 2015,” Lukashevich said.

The envoy told the council that the OSCE’s own monitors had confirmed the reports about pro-Kiev forces violating the ceasefire and other points of the so called Minsk Accords – the plan for peaceful settlement made with participation of Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France. He mentioned the capturing of new territories and construction of new defensive installations and new minefields created by Ukrainian servicemen in several districts of Donbass.

Such a strategy by pro-Kiev forces would lead to new civilian casualties, Lukashevich noted. According to monitors, five civilians were killed and 24 more were wounded as a result of Ukrainian artillery raids last April.

In a separate development, the Russian agency for fighting serious crime, the Investigative Committee, has started two new criminal cases against Ukrainian servicemen who ordered and executed recent artillery raids on civilian installations in the Donetsk Republic. The cases have been initiated on the use of banned means and methods of warfare – a crime that can carry up to 20 years in prison under Russian laws.

The Investigative Committee’s spokesperson Svetlana Petrenko told reporters on Friday that her colleagues were investigating the incident in which an artillery shell from a Ukrainian cannon hit a residential building, killing two people; as well as another incident in which a car was destroyed and one civilian was killed by artillery fire. 

As it has already happened before, the main motive behind these crimes was the political and ideological hatred of Ukrainian military and national guard, caused by the refusal of Donbass people to recognize the current Kiev regime as legitimate and by their desire to found their own territorial-administrative units,” the official said.

Source Article from https://www.rt.com/politics/425842-russia-osce-ukraine-crimes/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS

When Does Civil Disobedience Become a Requirement?

When does civil disobedience become a requirement? When does conservative America refuse to follow the rules of the Deep State? How many freedoms are we going to sacrifice until we stand up and refuse to comply?

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DaveHodges-TheCommonSenseShow/~3/TPHIHKyhPZQ/

Philippines may become ISIS’ next caliphate



 


There are many indications that ISIS, or ISIS-inspired entities, are looking to renew their armed insurgency in the Philippines. As is typically the case, wherever ISIS goes, the US military is not too far behind.

Not many people will be aware that aside from the fact that peace-prize-laureate Barack Obama was bombing at least seven predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East at any given time during his presidency, he was also secretly drone-bombing the Philippines, as well. Obama’s drone campaign, of course, was widely regarded as one of the most effective recruitment tool for groups like ISIS (incidentally, a group now growing from strength to strength in the Philippines).

In fact, Operation Enduring Freedom Philippines, launched not long after the September 11 attacks rocked the United States in 2001 (and ending in 2014), is considered the largest US counterterrorism effort in the Pacific theater.

When an ISIS-inspired insurgency in the Philippines made headlines last year, the US military assisted the country’s authorities in its crackdown not long after. Shockingly enough, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte did not actually expressly authorize America’s renewed involvement in its country, having long signaled a greater desire to turn away from the United States and focus more on rebuilding relationships with rising giants Russia and China.

This paradigm which sees Duterte saying one thing while the Philippines’ military continues to do another can be seen even to the present day. Not too long ago, the US gifted six Boeing Insitu ScanEagle drones to the Philippines (for free), approved via a US grant of over $13 million. At around the same time, Duterte was making announcements of his own, independent of these transactions, stating that he would not allow Filipino troops to be dragged into any more US-led wars unless there is a direct threat against the Philippines. He even stated that his country had received nothing from “all these years of sacrifice” on behalf of the United States other than “brutality and agony.”

It appears that Duterte would prefer any means of battling extremism in his country other than relying on the US military. He even suggested arming civilians with “high-powered guns” – a strategy far too wild for even someone like Donald Trump.

US-Philippines Relationship Endures

From America’s point of view, however, the US-Philippines relationship continues unabated, and is growing stronger as time goes on.

“The Philippines and United States governments remain steadfast in their alliance and are committed to countering radicalization and violent extremism in the Philippines and Southeast Asia,” Marine Lt. Pentagon spokesman Col. Christopher Logan stated at the end of last year, according to the Military Times. “To support these efforts, and at the request of the government of the Philippines, we have enhanced our comprehensive counterterrorism cooperation that supports the Philippine Security Forces.”

Over the past eight years, the US has allegedly spent over $1 billion in foreign assistance to the Philippines, including over $85 million in counterterrorism related equipment, training and support to local forces.

Conveniently for the US, always itching to intervene in countries that maintain undeniable geopolitical significance, ISIS and other ISIS-inspired groups are beginning to regather their momentum in the country, which in turn will require a response of its own.

Not only are there now reportedly 23 armed groups inside the country operating under the banner of “ISIS Philippines,” but the US State Department also added ISIS Philippines and six other Islamist extremist groups to the US list of designated terrorists in February this year.

Not to mention that in mid-March, fighting broke out between the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF), reportedly killing at least 44 militants in the process. This group has also pledged its allegiance to ISIS, and if the media and the military are to be believed, this group did not actually engage the military in this particular scenario but were in fact pounced upon by the AFP on the southern island of Mindanao.

As ISIS is driven out of its caliphate in Iraq and Syria, reports have already emerged that these foreign fighters are arriving in the Philippines with the intent of recruiting and attacking Filipino towns. At the end of February this year, Philippines military officials warned that ISIS had gathered a small force of approximately 200 fighters in Mindanao with the aim of establishing its new caliphate, which would then be used as a launch pad for further attacks inside the country.

How on earth did ISIS establish itself in the Philippines?

There are two answers to this important question. The first one involves a much-needed historical review of the Philippines and its long endured battle against different colonial powers.

Last year, the main entity battling Philippines’ forces was not actually ISIS, but was a group known as the Maute. The Maute is composed of former Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) guerrillas as well as foreign fighters. The MILF movement actually evolved out of a separatist movement with the intention of establishing an independent Islamic state for the Filipino Muslim minority, who has endured centuries of clashes with the Spanish, American, and Philippines governments that have done nothing but oppress and marginalize them. According to one Muslim separatist, if the Philippines does not allow Muslim areas greater autonomy, the fighting is likely to continue to rock the Philippines for some time.

The second answer involves the wider geopolitical struggle taking place inside the Middle East. There are at least 1,200 Southeast Asians that have joined ISIS’ ranks in the wider Middle East region, including at least 200 Filipinos.

One WikiLeaks cable described how, already known to the authorities, the Philippines has what is regarded as “lax” border control, particularly in Mindanao’s southern backdoor, enabling “criminals and terrorist financiers to come and go with impunity.”

Another WikiLeaks cable details how Philippines officials were concerned about Saudi-origin terrorist financing coming into the Philippines. One other WikiLeaks cable affirmed Saudi businessmen were involved in concealing the transfer of Al-Qaeda funding to the infamous Abu Sayyaf Group, which is responsible for the largest terrorist attack on Philippines soil in recent history.

Of course, we already know that Saudi Arabia has for years spent billions of dollars”investing heavily in building mosques, madrasas, schools, and Sunni cultural centers across the Muslim world,” according to The Week. One separatist explained how in the Philippines, these madrasas are then used to teach young Muslims an extremist interpretation of the Koran.

We also know from Hillary Clinton’s leaked emails that Saudi Arabia is one of ISIS’ prime sponsors. Not to mention that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman just publicly admitted that Saudi Arabia did indeed knowingly spread Wahhabism – the same strain of Islam that ISIS uses to hold the entire Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia to ransom with – but what we did not know was that this was done at the request of Saudi Arabia’s Western allies in order to counter the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

A Hidden Agenda?

ISIS has a long history of travelling to places the US is vying to bomb. In Syria, the Obama administration used the pretext of ISIS’ rise to power as a means of gaining backdoor access to bomb Syrian territory, having previously been denied this opportunity in 2013. Within Iraq and Syria, the US allowed ISIS to move from place to place freely, up until it decided the jihadists had landed at a location the US was happy to reclaim for themselves. For those of you who don’t believe this, consider that the US granted safe passageway to thousands of ISIS fighters fleeing Raqqa so that they could travel on to Deir ez-Zor, Syria’s most oil rich region. The US military is now refusing to leave Deir ez-Zor, even bombing pro-government forces that get too close to comfort (the territory after all belongs to Syria, not the US and its allies on the ground).

If the US has ulterior motives, or has any hand in allowing ISIS to regain and regroup inside the Philippines as has been the case in Iraq and Syria, we can be sure that the real issue lies with the Philippines’ growing fondness for Russia and China; as well as Duterte’s defiant attitude towards Washington, who even invited the CIA to assassinate him at one point. For example, in October last year, three Russian warships, including two anti-submarine vessels arrived in Manila to unload weaponry and military vehicles also donated to the Philippines from Russia.

These types of developments are a deal-breaker for the United States, who wants a unipolar world in which it can rely on its allies to contain and counter both Russia and China (in turn, these allies are to rely on the US for military support only). As the world moves on and becomes more and more sick and tired of American foreign policy, even the United States’ more traditional allies are finding a soft spot of their own for the growing prowess of the Eastern bloc, as America’s influence continues to diminish.

Source











RELATED ARTICLES


Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEuropeanUnionTimes/~3/ms8NWjv5X_c/

Town Bypasses Constitution, US Citizens Given 60 Days to Turn in Guns Or Become Criminals

gunsguns

As the state promises gun rights activists they’re not coming for their guns, behind the scences they’re pleading for it to happen. And now the feared gun grab is occurring. Residents in Deerfield, Illinois have 60 days to surrender their “assault weapons” or face fines of $1000 per day per gun.

The gun ban ordinance was passed on April 2nd with residents left with few choices of how to dispose of their valuable “assault weapons.” Upon careful reading of the ordinance, residents will be left with revolvers, .22 caliber “plinking” rifles, and double barrel shotguns to defend their homes and families from criminals who could care less about the law.

Fines for not disposing of the weapons range from $250 to $1000 per day per gun for those who choose not to comply with the city’s ordinance. While a fine may seem reasonable to some, as TFTP has reported on multiple occasions, failure to pay fines always results in police action. It is not far-fetched to predict major turmoil and arrests in the event of non-compliance.

One example of the so-called “assault weapon” is the Ruger 10/22 which can accept magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Even though the 10/22 is not listed in the list of guns the village wants to see banned, the gun cannot legally be possessed in the village.

Residents have been instructed to either sell their guns, transfer the ownership to someone who lives outside the village, surrender their guns to Deerfield’s sheriff, or begin paying the fines.

Deerfield mentioned a number of cities where mass shootings took place, including Sutherland Springs, TX where 26 people were killed in the First Baptist Church. That shooting was actually stopped by a man who used the very gun Deerfield voted to ban. No mention was made of that fact in the ordinance.

Also included in the gun ban were semi-automatic pistols which can accept higher than 10 round magazines. That’s virtually all full size semi-automatic pistols.

Even though the village trustees ignored the pleas of residents to leave their guns alone, and passed the ordinance anyway, many residents were encouraged to ignore the gun ban and engage in civil disobedience.

Joel Siegel, a resident of Lincolnwood, warned the village’s residents that governments all across the world have moved to confiscate guns then turned around and ran roughshod over the people. He said, “There’s an ancient and honored American tradition called disobeying an unjust law…I have urged (people) to listen to their conscience and if so moved do not obey this law.”

Deerfield Mayor Harriet Rosenthal implied the students from the local high school helped sway her decision to bring about the ordinance. “Enough is enough,” Rosenthal said adding, “Those students are so articulate just like our students. There is no place here for assault weapons.”

The statement mirrors the knee jerk reaction to ban guns following a nationwide public outcry of students who supposedly feared for their own lives following the recent mass shooting in Florida.

Opponents of the gun grab vow to fight the action in court while others praised the trustees decision to ban semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. Ariella Kharasch, a Deerfield High School senior said she wants more action to be taken on both a local and national level.

“This is our fight…This is our generation’s fight. We’re going to keep fighting and this is part of it. Change happens gradually step by step. The fight does not end at the borders of our village.,” Kharasch said.

Predictably, law enforcement and retired law enforcement members of the community are exempted from the ban. Currently, in the U.S., law enforcement kills around 1,200 citizens per year. Ironically, that number is actually four times higher than those who die from rifles.

As TFTP has reported, cops have killed 450 percent more people than have died in the past forty years of mass shootings.

Source Article from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/illinois-town-residents-turn-guns/