Don’t stand by Daniel, the now convicted drug manufacturer and murderer

“What’s the harm in alternative medicine” you ask?

Daniel Smith and his partner are the first in line to be convicted for poisoning kids with bleach.
These people should’ve used their brains, sure, but the bigger baddie here is the online company that sells the bleach and calls it “Miracle Mineral Supplement”. They claim it can cure autism and claims that the side effects of bleach poisoning is actually leaches inside the body that has died from the “treatment”. It is in fact pieces of the stomach and intestinal lining that is expelled from the body due to bleach poisoning!
Roped in parents are convinced to not contact medical centres or visit hospitals, as this could “reset the progress” and thus they’ll never find out that this is such bullshit until their child dies. By that point, Jim Humble, the creator of MMS, has already raked in thousands of dollars from the parents.

Humble claims MMS and it’s slightly diluted version, CDS, can cure a whole host of things, from AIDS to autism and even cancer (even though it causes cancer for many of those who are unlucky enough to survive that long). Most people who are “treated” with MMS or CDS sustain long-term or permanent damage to their bodies even after just one treatment.
MMS is NOT legal for sale or use in the United States, hence why Humble runs his company completely online, using offshore offices and warehouses to ship the bleach directly to customers. Despite this, the main defense of the newly formed “StandByDaniel” movement is that the drug is legal.

Daniel Smith and one co-conspirator were convicted on 6 federal charges: one count of conspiracy, four counts of interstate sales of misbranded drugs, and one count of smuggling. The couple had been operating since 2004 out of their own home. Two more are due to be convicted by the end of this week.

MMS is also known as 28% chlorine dioxide dilution, or industrial bleach.

“Organic” farmers systematically abuse animals

A while back, I wrote about the harm in using words such as “natural” or “organic”. Today I’ll expand it a bit by talking about how it affects those who cannot speak for themselves, the animals.

In a recent Washington Post article, Peter Whoriskey delves into the world of “organic vegetarian” egg farming in the UK and US. He explains that the Federal Organic Program has limited the amount of synthetic meat replacements allowed in chicken diets to still be counted as “organic”. To me, this is a twofold shock. First that they allow any synthetic materials in anything called “organic”, since the purpose of the word is that they’ll try and trick you into believing it’s “all natural”. Secondly because chickens are raptors, omnivores.

If a chicken is without a source of methionine, they will get it where they can, which in nature would mean that they’ll peck on the ground until they find insects. In farms, they most often don’t have that ability, so they’ll turn cannibalistic and will peck at each other instead.

To prevent the chickens from eating insects, thereby making them lose the vegetarian status, the birds are kept inside on farms rather than outside on pastures. To keep them from losing the “organic” status, they are kept on a low-methionine diet. What you really buy when you buy eggs marked as “organic vegetarian” is animal abuse in a box. Everything people complain about in chicken farming, all rolled into one. Cramped space, mutilation, inside from birth to death, malnourished.

What is worse is that since the chickens “need to be organic”, synthetic medicine cannot be used. That rules out antibiotics, so many of the birds go around with open, infected wounds. Well, I say go around, what I really mean is stand stationary, hoping that the flock doesn’t decide to squish them.

This practice is not unique to chickens, or even birds. If you want to eat “organic”, you have to be ready to put yourself first, the farmer’s pocket second and the animals last. PETA reported last year that “organic” farmers feed their cows faeces in cramped feed-lots, since that is the only “natural” feed that is cheap enough to fatten them before slaughter. Since the faeces is “natural” and “not synthetic”, the meat can be labelled as “organic”. That’s the lucky ones that are taken to slaughter. If you want “organic” milk, you’ll have to settle with cows that are stationary their whole lives in a cramped slot, bathing in their own waste, forced into pregnancy once a year, giving birth in the slot they stand in and then having their calves taken away at birth. Their udders become infested in most cases, and again, no medicine is given because then they cannot label the milk “organic”.

Pigs, like chickens, are omnivores that need meat in their diet. To prevent the “organic” pigs from cannibalistic behaviour while the farmers malnourish them, their tails and ears are cut off. To prevent them from scavenging and digging for leftovers, rodents or insects, their noses are pierced (without anaesthetics) with a huge ring, often resulting in infection that goes untreated.

Due to the no-drugs-policy, the animals are never anaesthetised, not even when slaughtered, which often is done by hanging the animal upside down, slitting their throat to let them bleed to death over the course of a few minutes. The slaughtering machines used by “non-organic” slaughter houses could contain traces of chemicals, so those are not to be used. The animals are not fed on their way to slaughter, a trip that can take up to three days in some cases.

My question is “how could this happen?”. What made the masses believe that “organic” farming is more humane than factory farming, when the circumstances are so bad that even the most hardcore animal rights movements in the world recommend factory farming over “organic”?

Why UK got me (and its people) fat

As many know, I’m originally from Sweden. A few months ago I moved to United Kingdom and a short time later, my mother in law started poking my tummy and say “you’ve gotten fat”.

I was surprised, because I have not changed anything since I got here, so what went wrong?

A few days ago I read in Metro that activists were shut out of some government building after lobbying for a sugar restriction in food. The government don’t want to hear any about that! They want to focus on the matter at hand: why are the citizens getting fatter?

So I flipped on the news on the telly and the reporter said another cyclist had been killed in a hit-and-run. There had been protests outside some government building about the state of the walkways and cyclist routes and the fact that they are too close to the roads, but the Government doesn’t want to hear about that. They want to focus on the matter at hand: Why are kids in younger and younger ages getting fatter?

I went outside and looked into the distance. I saw hills, but no roads went over the hills and there were no signs of buildings there. The roads go through in tunnels or around the hills. The roads were completely flat, whatever elevation was there before were flattened to a level surface. No need for stairs, if there’s no elevations. About 80% of the medium-sized town’s population live in bungalows, one-story buildings with 3-6 rooms. This means the town has grown really wide, it used to be 5 different towns but they all grew so wide they grew into each other. There was something on the news about building plans for multi-family buildings and possible high-rises, but the Government doesn’t want to hear about that. They want to focus on the matter at hand: Why doesn’t kids get as much exercise any more?

I picked up a box of cereals for kids, it was called “Chocolate chip cookies” and I thought it was a cute gimmick. I opened the pack and there I saw miniature chocolate chip cookies. Not cereal made to look like it, but actual cookies with real chocolate chips in them. I read the nutritional facts and spotted the carbs, over 70%, where sugar was over 25%. That means in every 4 spoons the kids take, one of them might as well be completely filled with pure sugar. I checked the nutritionals on other cereals, several of them branded as “healthy”, such as Special K, All-Bran and Weetabix. All of them had close to or over 70% carbs and close to or over 20% sugar.

I talked to some of my new friends, a couple from another part of the town. I made them tea, as a test if I had gotten enough of the culture right to make proper tea. When I picked up the sweeteners we’ve bought to replace the added sugar in our diet, one of them immediately spoke up: “Don’t you know that sweeteners are bad for you? They make you fat and give you cancer!”.

I found this statement ridiculous, it’s the sugar that increases chances of stomach cancer and fatness, but I did some digging. Sure enough, a big majority of the British people believe that pure sugar is better for the body than artificial sweeteners and although the sweeteners doesn’t have any calories in them, people are willing to believe they are a higher cause of fatness than pure sugar. This applies to many things in the diet, where doctors and dieticians have made public recommendations against certain things and for others, with the right mindset, but it got twisted over time. A good example is fizzy drinks (also known as Soda in a big part of the world). Most parents refuse to give their child a fizzy drink, but have no problem giving them juice. This has been twisted over time by lack of proper food laws and the freedom of the food manufacturers and the dieticians and doctors have not kept up with their recomendations. Now you have parents that rather give their child a sugar-filled packet of juice than a 0-calorie fizzy drink, believing that the juice is good for the child and that the fizzy drink will make them a fat, cancer-filled blob.

Another good example is the “5 a day” rule that is so hard-coded into most British people today. It was made in a time when very few people ate fruits and vegetables and is a good thought, but the manufacturers have twisted it and the Government have permitted it. Now we have juices sugared fruits and vegetables soaked in sugar-water labelled as “healthy” and “one of your 5-a-day”, all with the Government seal of approval. Of course that will make people think it is healthy, even though it’s almost as bad for your body as crack, and at least as addictive.

There’s 15 different kids channels available between the Freeview (free channels, if you have a digital box) and the £5 expansion we have on our digital TV deal. Between them they broadcast 240 hours worth of content aimed to kids every 24 hours. The kids have learned to swap channels when ads are on and the box has recording functions, so they rewind, fast forward and swap back and forth for a constant stream, from 6am to midnight. They even have the telly in the bedroom, so they can watch it before they fall asleep. Between the constant sugar rush and the constant stream of televised content streamed right into their cortex, it takes a lot longer before they fall asleep. Even the active kids that run all over the house have trouble sleeping and often wake up in the middle of the night.

When the TV is off, they pick up their phones and go on CBBC On Demand or Youtube to watch even more. Sometimes they even combine the phone and the TV to watch TV while they watch TV. I even saw one kid that brought up Fram-In-Frame on the TV to have three shows on at once.

Overstimulation of the “lazy centre” of their brains, with little to no educational content, some of it even claiming to telling science when they really tell a load of bull. Understimulation of their “activation centre” of their brains, spending more time laying on the floor with a remote in one hand and a phone in the other.

And the Government shuts all protests out and then ask themselves: “Why are we getting so fat?”

The main issue with “carbon credits”

I’ve seen companies announce that they are “300% eco powered”, something that is quite impossible. As I read their explanation, I almost fell out of the chair in shock. They use so-called “carbon credits” to “offset the carbon emissions”.

Now, there’s several things wrong here and I’ll try to explain them. First, let’s take a look at what “carbon credits” are:

They come under many names, Footprint Credits, Offset Credits, Carbon Emission Credits, Windpower Credits etc., but they are basically the same thing. By buying a carbon credit, you’re supposedly offsetting your own “dirty power” with cleaner options. It may be a company that buys the extra carbon emission allotments from under other companies’ noses, thereby robbing them the chance to pollute. It may be a tree planted for every credit bought, a wind mill built for every X credits etc. etc.. What it is about is putting a band aid on the wound you’re creating with your pollution.

So, the problem?

The main problem is that it does nothing. If you’re taking a carbon emission allotment from a company and use it yourself, you haven’t reduced the amount of carbon emitted, you’ve just made sure it’s never used. Instead of a company producing goods, medicine or something useful, you’ve been driving your car for a month.

When it comes to “repairing” credits, like Windpower Credits or Tree Credits, you’ve still not reduced the emissions already made. A tree is nice and all, but if you continue to spew out carbon monoxide into the air, the tree won’t mean a thing. If you continue to use the “dirty” power, it won’t matter that you’ve helped build a windmill.

It’s like murdering 5 people and then make 5 women pregnant. You still have the same number of people, but for 20 years you’ve lost the 5 workers, you’ve added a cost on the society and it will take more time to get the use back than it’s taken to take it away… and there’s no guarantee that all 5 will be able to work.

All you’re really doing is making someone else rich for doing nothing at all!

Natural, organic and other dangerous words

I’ve recently gone into a debate with the owner of a pet food company over their slogan “Food without E-numbers”, trying to make the person understand that the E-number system isn’t used to define what food is natural or artificial, healthy or bad. The E-number system is used to define what chemical components are allowed to be used in food and consumables for sale in Europe.

This also spread to a tangent, when the person insisted that “food without E-numbers means it’s natural“.

That inspired me to write this little explanatory post.

Natural vs Artificial

Many food companies are proud to describe their products as “natural” when the food is healthy. What natural really means is that it is not artificial. The fact is that natural or artificial has no significance at all when it comes to healthiness or poisonous. The Destroying Angel is a perfectly natural mushroom, but it’s deadly even to touch. Uranium is all-natural, but it can kill you for just being near it for too long. Table salt is often artificially made by combining chemicals, because it’s easier and cheaper than extracting it from rocks and from sea water, it is also purer when done that way, meaning it is less harmful for you to eat artificial salt than rock salt or sea salt.

Organic

When someone call their food organic, I always chuckle a little. You see, organic simply means it is carbon based. that “organic coffee” you’re drinking right now, it is made from a carbon-based plant… not that there are any non-carbon-based plants, but still.

The “organic luxury sheets” are made from fibres containing carbon. Well, let me get you in on a little secret: Most compounds on this planet are carbon-based.

Organic is often also used to describe food that has been grown without pesticides, but that’s not entirely true. Many pesticides are carbon-based, so just because they are organic, doesn’t mean it’s free from pesticides or anything artificial.

E-Numbers or Free from chemicals

Ah, we’re back where we started. As stated earlier, an E-number simply means it is a chemical allowed to be used in food and consumables in Europe. Chemical doesn’t have to mean artificial, everything is made of chemicals. Two hydrogen atoms together with an oxygen atom is a chemical composition. It’s in fact what most of our bodies contains, what 70% of the surface of the planet is covered with, and it is entirely natural.
It is called Hydroxic Acid, Dihydrogen Monoxide or simply water.

E-numbers never make any judgement on if it was made artificially or through a natural process, it simply lists the chemical if it is allowed to be used in food.

Let’s take a few examples, if you’re in Europe, pick up a food packet and follow along:

One of the most common things you’ll see in the ingredient list of any food package is E101. This is Riboflavin, and it is not without its flaws. Riboflavin overdose might turn your skin orange, your urine glowing yellow and hardly ever leaves your body.

Riboflavin is a food colouring, used in just about any food that needs to be coloured brightly yellow or glowing orange, such as M&M’s. Riboflavin is also known as Vitamin B2 and is naturally extracted from orange or yellow plants and mushrooms.

In fact, all the chemicals in the 100-section of E-numbers are naturally extracted from plants and mushrooms, and they are all food colouring additives, several of them are vitamins. So anything that isn’t looking bland or desaturated contains something with an E-number in the 100-range.

No preservatives

Well, if you want your milk to be bad before it can hit the shelf, your imported luxury meat to be rotten before it can even hit the barbecue or that carrot to be all grey before you put it on the kitchen counter, then by all means, remove the preservatives.

A preservative can be perfectly natural, or artificial and none of that matters when it comes to health. One of our most common preservative, E203, Calcium Sorbate, is simply salt extracted from unfatty sorbic acid. It’s like putting it in salt, like they did in the olden days, but without the salty flavour or the dehydration of the item.

So, the next time you eat an organic, all-natural sallad without E-number and no preservatives, remember that you’re probably eating poisonous, rotten plants that are banned for use as food in Europe!

I am not against vegetarianism, I am against vegetarians attacking meat-eaters!

Contrary to popular belief, there is no actual proof that humans are the worst cause of extinction of other species. There are a few extinctions caused by humans, but many more are by climate changes, natural disasters and other animals moving into new territory.
Some human interaction, such as the domestication of some of the larger animals like cows and horses, are actually believed to have stopped extinction of several thousands of species, because even if their numbers are now a thousand times higher than it would be naturally, these species would eventually spread out to other territories and “push out” the species there, making them extinct.

Other human interactions, resulting in disaster for humans, have also proven to be beneficial to nature, as humans and the bigger animals cannot settle those areas and smaller animals can roam free.

Also, if we didn’t eat meat to the extent we do today, we would have to have farms about 10 times the sizes we have today, just to get enough vegetables and fruits to give us the food we need. That would be areas where no animals could live and we would probably be killing animals to get them to not eat our food, without actually taking care of their meat.
That would cause mass extinction in a fashion way worse than the one caused by human habitation today!

While doing research for this, I couldn’t find any sources with lists animal extinction causes, however I did find many lists naming humans as the main cause of extinction. However, comparing these lists to lists that states the date of extinction, it seems highly unlikely that humans would have been the main cause. For example, the sea cow has been on many lists of species made extinct by humans, but when the sea cow was discovered, they only numbered about 1500. The species was extinct before humans even discovered them!
Another example is the tasmanian devil, that was shot by European farmers in Australia due to them killing the livestock, however again, their numbers were well bellow the 10 000 required for a species survival and if humans hadn’t killed them, they would be extinct by now anyway.

Even the call sign of human driving animals to extinction, the Dodo bird, was not actually hunted down and killed off by humans. It was other animals, mostly companion animals such as dogs, that drove them to extinction by introducing diseases, hunting them for food or killing them if they got too close. The main attribution to their deaths were a small rodent that was indigenous to the the island that ate their eggs, so again, they were doomed to die off before man even set foot on the island.

I’m not saying man doesn’t kill animals, I’m not saying man doesn’t make some species extinct, but think of this the next time you’re about to say “you’re slaughtering innocent animals”, because the animals aren’t as innocent as they seem!