State Sets Massive Precedent, Passes Law To Effectively Ban The NSA

nsansa

Michigan has become the first state to ban the National Security Agency’s intrusive data collection practices by passing a law that prohibits law enforcement and state agencies from turning over personal data to the federal government without due process.

The Fourth Amendment Rights Protection Act, or HB4430, will go into effect next month after it passed the Michigan state legislature with overwhelming support and only one “no” vote.

The text of the bill states that its purpose is “to prohibit this state and certain other governmental agents, employees, and entities in this state from assisting a federal agency in obtaining certain forms of data without a warrant; and to prohibit certain uses of certain data collected without a warrant.”

According to the new law, the state and its political subdivisions “shall not assist, participate with, or provide material support or resources to a federal agency to enable it to collect or to facilitate in the collection or use of a person’s electronic data or metadata,” unless at least or more of the following criteria are met:

  1. The person has given informed consent.
  2. The action is pursuant to a warrant that is based upon probable cause and particularly describes the person, place, or thing to be searched or seized.
  3. The action is in accordance with a legally recognized exception to warrant requirements.
  4. The action will not infringe on any reasonable expectation of privacy the person may have.
  5. This state or a political subdivision of this state collected the electronic data or metadata legally.”

As the Washington Examiner reported, the new law is “the biggest accomplishment yet growing out of efforts to block water to a massive NSA data-storage center in Bluffdale, Utah.” Similar laws have been proposed and have fallen short in states such as Alaska, Maryland, South Carolina, and Washington.

The Fourth Amendment Rights Protection Act in Michigan claims the “electronic data” that will be protected from the NSA includes “an electronic communication or the use of an electronic communication service,” “the precise or approximate location of the sender or recipients of an electronic communication,” and “the identity of an individual or device involved in the communication.”

Michigan State Rep. Martin Howrylak, a sponsor of the bill, told the Examiner that he believes its passage “speaks to the fact that a lot of the domestic surveillance of American citizens is highly unpopular.

“It hangs up a sign on Michigan’s door saying, ‘No violation of the Fourth Amendment, look elsewhere,’” Howrylak said. “Democrats, as well as Republicans, would certainly stand very strong in our position on what this law means.”

While Howrylak said he thinks the law makes “a strong court case saying this is what the state intends,” he hopes other states will join in by passing similar legislation, in an effort to cripple the NSA’s illegal activities.

Next month marks 5 years since former NSA contractor Edward Snowden released a trove of classified documents revealing that the United States government was routinely collecting metadata from innocent American citizens without warrants, and using “national security” to justify its actions.

While the NSA’s warrantless data collection was ruled illegal by a court in June 2015, it has continued and the government has attempted to cover up its illegal actions by writing them into law. The latest example of this occurred earlier this year when Congress reauthorized Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Section 702 has served as the foundation for the NSA’s largest and most egregious surveillance programs for the last decade. The first attempt to reauthorize it was through the introduction of the USA Liberty Act. As The Free Thought Project reported, Congress claimed the bill would “better protect Americans’ privacy” by requiring the government to have “a legitimate national security purpose” before searching an individual’s database.

However, what the bill did not advertise was the fact that it did not actually address the legitimate problems that exist with Section 702. The FBI’s “legitimate national security purpose” could be justified by just about any reason the agency chooses to give, and agents would only need supervisory authority in order to search Americans’ metadata.

When the USA Liberty Act failed, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence introduced the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017, which renewed Section 702 for six years, after it was included in a massive spending bill passed by Congress.

By signing the Fourth Amendment Rights Protection Act into law, the state of Michigan is taking a stand against the federal government’s unconstitutional practice of stealing data from innocent Americans without a warrant, and it is setting a precedent for other states in the country to follow.

DASH cryptocurrency and The Free Thought Project have formed a partnership that will continue to spread the ideas of peace and freedom while simultaneously teaching people how to operate outside of the establishment systems of control like using cryptocurrency instead of dollars. Winning this battle is as simple as choosing to abstain from the violent corrupt old system and participating in the new and peaceful system that hands the power back to the people. DASH is this system.

DASH digital cash takes the control the banking elite has over money and gives it back to the people. It is the ultimate weapon in the battle against the money changers and information controllers.

If you’d like to start your own DASH wallet and be a part of this change and battle for peace and freedom, you can start right here. DASH is already accepted by vendors all across the world so you can begin using it immediately.

Source Article from https://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-sets-massive-precedent-passes-law-ban-nsa/

Massive hailstorm damages crops, wreaks havoc in many areas of Kashmir

hail damaged

    

Hail Storm wreaked havoc in several areas of Karnah Tangdarh in north Kashmir’s Kupwara district, causing damage to crops and walnut trees.

The hailstorm on Friday afternoon caused extensive damage to orchards and crop fields in many areas of Tangdarh Karnh including Tangdar, Gumal, Nowpora, Hajinar, Bagbela, Shamspora, Badwan, Tangdar Naar, Shatkula and Lootha.

The hailstorm which continued for at least four minutes damaged crops and walnut trees as well, causing huge damage to the farmers and growers.

Strong hailstorm was also reported in Khag area of Budgam District that resulted in extensive damage to apple and vegetable crops.

Meanwhile, the farmers and growers appealed government to provide compensation to them.

Source Article from https://www.sott.net/article/385951-Massive-hailstorm-damages-crops-wreaks-havoc-in-many-areas-of-Kashmir

Insane Photos Show Massive Ash Plume Looming Over Hawaii's Big Island

For more news videos visit Yahoo View.

People living near the Halemaumau Crater got quite the apocalyptic sight Wednesday as an ash plume, estimated to be 12,000 feet high, rose into the air and towered over the Big Island of Hawaii. 

Halemaumau is the main vent on the currently erupting Kilauea volcano. Officials have issued alerts for people to stay indoors and for aircraft to avoid the area. Photos from the massive ash plume show people still going about their day while golfing or stopping to take photos of the gigantic cloud. 

See more photos of the massive ash plume below. 

 

(Mario Tama via Getty Images)(Mario Tama via Getty Images)

People watch at a golf course as an ash plume rises in the distance from the Kilauea volcano on Hawaii’s Big Island in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. 

 

(Mario Tama via Getty Images)(Mario Tama via Getty Images)

A woman takes a photo as an ash plume rises from the Kilauea volcano on Hawaii’s Big Island on May 15, 2018.

 

(Mario Tama via Getty Images)(Mario Tama via Getty Images)

A man drives a golf cart at a golf course as the ash plume rises.

 

(Terray Sylvester / Reuters)(Terray Sylvester / Reuters)

People watch as ash erupts from the Halemaumau Crater.

 

(Mario Tama via Getty Images)(Mario Tama via Getty Images)

 

(Mario Tama via Getty Images)(Mario Tama via Getty Images)

 

(Terray Sylvester / Reuters)(Terray Sylvester / Reuters)

 

(Terray Sylvester / Reuters)(Terray Sylvester / Reuters)

Birds fly towards ash erupting from the Halemaumau Crater.

 

(Terray Sylvester / Reuters)(Terray Sylvester / Reuters)

 

(Mario Tama via Getty Images)(Mario Tama via Getty Images)

Photographers work as lava from active fissures illuminates volcanic gases from the Kilauea volcano. 

  • This article originally appeared on HuffPost.

Source Article from https://www.yahoo.com/news/insane-photos-show-massive-ash-151433515.html

Childish Gambino debuts at No. 1 with ‘This Is America,’ as video becomes massive hit

Childish Gambino, the musical stage name for actor Donald Glover, has reached a new milestone with “This Is America.” The song has debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100, and the provocative video for “This Is America” has become a massive viral hit with its social commentary on gun violence and racial issues. Billboard also reports that “This Is America” is No.1 on the Billboard charts for Streaming Songs and Digital Song Sales.

“This Is America” is the first No. 1 hit for Childish Gambino. Previously, his biggest hit was 2016’s “Redbone,” which peaked at No. 12 on the Billboard Hot 100, and has shipped 4 million copies in the U.S., according to the Recording Industry Association of America. 

The juggernaut for “This Is America” began on May 5, with the debut of the “This Is America” video, directed by Hiro Murai. In just nine days, the video racked up more than 110 million views on YouTube. Also on May 5, Glover performed “This Is America” live for the first time on “Saturday Night Live,” in an episode where he was the host and musical guest.

The past year has been an amazing one for Glover. He’s won several awards (including two Emmys and two Golden Globes) for “Atlanta,” a comedy/drama TV series that’s loosely based on Glover’s real-life experiences. Glover is a star, executive producer, writer and director on the show. He also won a Grammy for “Redbone” (Best Traditional R&B Performance). 

Glover’s movie career is also enjoying a hot streak: He stars as Lando Calrissian in the Lucasfilm prequel “Solo: A Star Wars Story” (in theaters on May 25), which is set to be one of the biggest hit movies of 2018. Glover is also the voice of Simba in the 2019 remake of “The Lion King.”

Childish Gambino’s fourth studio album (title and release date to be announced) is expected to be released sometime in 2018. It will be Childish Gambino’s first album under Glover’s new deal with RCA Records, which has partnered with his Wolf + Rothstein label to release music from Childish Gambino and other artists. Childish Gambino’s “This Is America’ 2018 North American tour begins Sept. 6  in Duluth, Georgia and ends Oct. 9 in Denver

Source Article from https://m.axs.com/childish-gambino-debuts-at-no-1-with-this-is-america-as-video-becomes–130290

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/

US government seeking one million SLAVES for massive study of DNA, health habits

FOTM–What could possibly go wrong?

From NY PostWanted: a million people willing to share their DNA and 10 years of health habits, big and small, for science.

On Sunday, the US government will open nationwide enrollment for an ambitious experiment: If they can build a large enough database comparing the genetics, lifestyles and environments of people from all walks of life, researchers hope to learn why some escape illness and others don’t, and better customize ways to prevent and treat disease.

“A national adventure that is going to transform medical care” is how Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, describes his agency’s All of Us Research Program.

Congress has authorized $1.45 billion over 10 years for the project. It all hinges on whether enough people around the country will sign up, either online or through participating health centers.

There’s already interest: More than 25,000 people got early entry to the project over the past year through an invitation-only pilot test run by participating universities and health providers.

Why study so many? Most of today’s medical care is based on what happened to the average person in short studies of a few hundred or thousand patients with a specific health condition.

And most people who volunteer for those studies are white, leaving questions about the best care for people of different races.

“One-size-fits-all is far from an optimal strategy,” Collins said Tuesday in announcing enrollment for All of Us.

The project involves “precision medicine,” using traits that make us unique to forecast and treat disease. Learning enough to individualize care requires studying a massive number of participants: the healthy and not-so-healthy, young and old, rural and urban, blue-collar and white-collar — and people of all races and ethnicities.

For now, participants must be at least 18. Next year, the study will open to children, too.

While there are other big “biobanks” of genetic data from at least 100,000 people, the NIH project aims to be the largest and most diverse of its kind. At least half of the participants must be from groups traditionally under-represented in medical research, Collins stressed.

Genes aren’t the whole story: Sure, what genes you harbor can raise your risk for various diseases. But other factors can increase or reduce some genetic risks.

So first volunteers will share electronic health records and blood samples, and answer periodic questionnaires about their diet, sleep, environmental exposures and other lifestyle factors. Theymight wear fitness trackers and other sensors.

And later this year they’ll start undergoing genetic testing, initially to look for so-called “variants” in DNA that affect disease risk, similar to what some private companies now sell, Collins said. Fully mapping the genetic code is too pricey now for a million people, but that more comprehensive approach eventually will be used with some participants, too.

Among the first lessons Collins hopes to learn is about resilience: Why do some people stay healthy despite smoking or pollution or poor nutrition? “We have no idea how those people escape those odds,” he said.

Learn your results: Unlike with most medical studies, participants can choose to see their own test results and share them with their physician long before the study reaches any big-picture conclusions. A caution: There are still many questions about how best to use the results of genetic tests. Still, “we will try to help their doctors sort through what it means,” Collins said.

One result that might bring a quick benefit: Genetic variants can signal who is prone to side effects from more than 100 drugs, information that could be used to prescribe a safer drug if only their doctors knew, Collins added.

Protecting privacy: The privacy of DNA databases made headlines last week when investigators used a free genealogy website to track down a suspected California serial killer. That’s pretty different than the security under which medical DNA must be handled.

NIH said it has taken as many steps as possible to safeguard against would-be hackers. Volunteers’ medical data is stripped of identifying information and replaced with a code. Only scientists meeting specific security requirements will be cleared to study the data. NIH also said federal “certificates of confidentiality” prohibit disclosure to law enforcement.

Privacy wasn’t a worry for Michelle McNeely, 41, an early participant at Dallas’ Baylor Scot & White Health System. She underwent breast cancer treatment in 2016 and considers taking part in All of Us a way to give back.

“If they can use my genes and someone’s genes in California and someone’s genes in New York to find some common ground, to help discover some cure — they can use my genes all day long,” McNeely said.

Source Article from http://govtslaves.info/2018/05/us-government-seeking-one-million-slaves-for-massive-study-of-dna-health-habits/

Massive Amounts of Gold Leaving the US-What Does It Mean?

 

What does it mean when the gold begins to leave the country? It means one of two things. It means that an economic collapse is imminent, or it means war is on the near horizon. Here is the complete story.

 

For more stories like these, visit The Common Sense Show

Please donate to offset the costs of The Common Sense Show

PREPARE WITH DAVE–  4 WEEKS OF $250 STORABLE FOOD ONLY $99

FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL AND DON’T FORGET TO “LIKE” US

From the Hagmann blood sugar protocol to the Hodges joint protocol, Dr. Broer has helped hundreds of thousands of people. There is something for everybody at Healthmasters.com. Take 5% off the cost of your order with coupon code DAVE5

From the Hagmann blood sugar protocol to the Hodges joint protocol, Dr. Broer has helped hundreds of thousands of people. There is something for everybody at Healthmasters.com. 

CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE-  USE THE COUPON CODE   “5COMMON” TO TAKE 5% OFF 

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DaveHodges-TheCommonSenseShow/~3/hax2irg8rqE/

Massive sinkhole opens up on farm after record rain in Rotorua, New Zealand

Colin Tremain next to the sinkhole

    

A giant sinkhole has opened up on a farm near Rotorua following Sunday’s record breaking rainfall in the region.

The sinkhole, or tomo, was about 200 metres long, 30m wide and 20m deep, farm manager Colin Tremain said.

It runs along a fault-line at the Tumunui farm and was discovered by one of the farm’s staff, who went out to get the cows first thing on Monday morning.

It’s the ninth serious tomo that has been on the farm that was at least 10m deep, Mr Tremain said.

Mr Tremain said he would put a fence around it because it was a waste of time trying to fill it in.

“There was one around the other side, I was watching it in the rain, huge amounts of water going in, it wasn’t even filling up with water, it’s just going straight out the bottom.”

The tomo would get even bigger because there was already a crack which extended 400 to 500 metres through the property, Mr Tremain said.

The farm had 146 millimetres of rain over a 24 hour period on Sunday.

According to NIWA, Rotorua had its wettest hour on record with 51.8mm of rain falling between 10am and 11am on Sunday, with a total of 167.8mm of rain falling between 4am on Saturday and 6pm on Sunday.

Source Article from https://www.sott.net/article/384405-Massive-sinkhole-opens-up-on-farm-after-record-rain-in-Rotorua-New-Zealand

Exclusive New Video From Greenpeace Reveals Massive Deforestation In Indonesia

Landcover, forest clearance and plantation development in PT Megakarya Jaya Raya palm oil concession. PT MJR is part of the Hayel Saeed Anam group which has a number of palm oil related interests including Pacific Inter-Link which controls HSA’s palm oil refining and trading interests. Ulet Ifansasti / Greenpeace

Via Ecowatch

A palm oil supplier to Mars, Nestlé, PepsiCo and Unilever is destroying rainforests in Papua, Indonesia, a new investigation by Greenpeace International has revealed. Satellite analysis suggests that around 4,000 hectare of rainforest were cleared in PT Megakarya Jaya Raya concession between May 2015 and April 2017—an area almost half the size of Paris.

Photos and video (below) taken in March and April 2018 show massive deforestation in PT MJR, a palm oil concession controlled by the Hayel Saeed Anam Group (HSA), including in an area zoned for protection by the Indonesian government in response to the devastating forest fires in 2015. Development is prohibited in these areas. The footage is being released soon after Greenpeace revealed that these leading global brands are falling behind in their publicized commitments to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains by 2020.

“Just weeks ago we asked major consumer brands like Pepsi and Nestlé to confirm that they were making good on their commitments to stop buying palm oil from companies that destroy forests, but this footage reveals just how far behind they really are,” said Palm Oil Campaigner at Greenpeace USA Diana Ruiz. “Brands need to ensure their supply chains are free from deforestation and the only way to do this is to proactively monitor and enforce their no deforestation standards.”

Although PT MJR is not yet producing palm oil, two other HSA subsidiary companies—Arma Group and Pacific Oils & Fats—supplied palm oil to Mars, Nestlé, PepsiCo and Unilever, according to supply chain information released by the brands earlier this year. Each of these consumer companies has published a “no deforestation, no peat, no exploitation” policy that should prohibit sourcing from rainforest destroyers.

“Brands have been talking about cleaning up their palm oil for over a decade. Companies like Unilever and Nestlé claim to be industry leaders. So why are they still buying from forest destroyers like the HSA group? What are their customers supposed to think? What will it take to get them to act?” added Richard George, forest campaigner at Greenpeace UK.

This case also raises serious questions for the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). Many HSA Group palm oil companies are members of the RSPO, although PT MJR and the other HSA Group concessions in this district are not. Members of the RSPO are not allowed to have unaffiliated palm oil divisions, and the development witnessed in PT MJR would also violate several of the RSPO’s Principles and Criteria.

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/2018/05/01/exclusive-new-video-from-greenpeace-reveals-massive-deforestation-in-indonesia/