Sunday, March 22, 2015

A View From Space with Gary Bell the Spaceman, March 21, 2015

TOPICS: Prince Charles, Marshall plan, cabalist John (Cohen) Kerry, solar eclipse, prince Charles, the Hobbit trilogy, Middle Earth, Beowolf, Tolkien, Lucifer.
Please share this.

Sunday, March 15, 2015

A View From Space with Gary Bell the Spaceman, March 14, 2015

Please share this.

Science has been hijacked by corporate junk science, which pretends to be real science but is actually highly fraudulent. Here are the top 10 tricks it uses.

Corporate junk science is an all-pervading presence in our society. It’s everywhere. The scientific journals of the entire world, offline and online, have been flooded with so much fake science that it has, sad to say, become practically impossible for the average person to wade through all of it and sort out the wheat from the chaff. However, the fake science I am referring to here is not unintentional or sloppy work, which is more of a minor problem in the scheme of things (since it will eventually be corrected with due diligence), but rather the deliberately fraudulent “scientific studies” which are put out by major corporations with a definite agenda in mind – usually establishing a fake scientific basis of “safety” for their products, whether they be vaccines, mobile phones, GMOs, tobacco, fluoride, soda or soft drinks, etc. It’s nothing more than corporate junk science, and many people, including doctors, scientists and academics, have been taken in hook, line and sinker by it.

It’s time to shine the light on this ugly phenomenon. Science is meant to be about the pursuit of truth and understanding how our world works. It is truly sickening to see the extent to which it has been hijacked to serve corporate interests – to make a tiny, tiny 0.0001% rich at the expense of harming and killing the rest of mankind.
A recent study published on JAMA entitled “Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration” found some very disturbing things in its sample of 57 studies that it analyzed:
“Fifty-seven published clinical trials were identified for which an FDA inspection of a trial site had found significant evidence of 1 or more of the following problems: falsification or submission of false information, 22 trials (39%); problems with adverse events reporting, 14 trials (25%); protocol violations, 42 trials (74%); inadequate or inaccurate recordkeeping, 35 trials (61%); failure to protect the safety of patients and/or issues with oversight or informed consent, 30 trials (53%); and violations not otherwise categorized, 20 trials (35%).”
Take a look at this first finding. It states that 39% which is around 2/5 of studies committed data falsification! How can we possibly trust medical science when the fraud is so blatant and widespread? And it’s not as though the authors of these studies come out and admit it. The study also found that:
“Only 3 of the 78 publications (4%) that resulted from trials in which the FDA found significant violations mentioned the objectionable conditions or practices found during the inspection. No corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other comments acknowledging the key issues identified by the inspection were subsequently published.”
Another study at PLOS ONE entitled “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data” concluded that:
“It is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this.”
In light of all of this, if we want the truth, we need to look at the whole structure of how “science” works in the real world. We need to get wise to the methods that are used by unscrupulous groups to further their agenda. With that in mind, here is a list of the top 10 tricks used by the corporatocracy to pull the wool over your eyes by manipulating science and substituting their fake corporate junk science instead (thanks to Webster Kehr of for compiling his instructive list, from which the below points are derived).

1. Substituting Synthetic for Natural Versions of a Nutrient

Those who know a little about nutrition probably realize by now that there is a vast difference between a nutrient found in a food or plant, and its synthetic counterpart artificially made in a lab. All vitamin C is not created equal; some versions are more equal than others. The same goes for other vitamins. It also applies to minerals, since some are derived from plant or animal matter (“organic”) whereas others are derived from rock (“inorganic”). The body can’t assimilate inorganic minerals, so all those so-called “natural” supplements full of rock and fossil-derived calcium are useless, and are actually harming your body by causing calcification.
When the corporatocracy wants a result skewed against an unpatentable natural solution and in favor of one of their patentable products, they simply use the synthetic (and less potent) version of that nutrient in the study and “find” that it is ineffective. Corporate junk science at its best!

2. Isolating Nutrients to Remove their Power of Synergy

Here’s another trick used by corporate junk science. If it’s trying to “scientifically prove” that a natural substance is ineffective, rather than testing the whole substance, it will isolate certain nutrients from it, declare them the only ones with any health benefit, then find them ineffective. This is like taking a clove of garlic, declaring that allicin is the only thing in it that could possibly do any good for human health, and then disregarding the whole plant when allicin doesn’t do everything you expected. The same goes for when corporate junk science, intentionally or not, tests the wrong nutrient and declares itself finished with testing.
Nature doesn’t work like this. Plants are complex organisms. Some are composed of hundreds of different phytonutrients which work together synergistically to produce wellness in the human body. Real science would test the whole plant open-mindedly in a variety of ways to try to discover and unlock the secret to its healing potential.

3. Contaminating the Tests

Webster Kehr mentions a case involving laetrile or amygdalin (colloquially called vitamin B17). He writes that the “NIH contaminated an already bogus pill being used in a study. Natural laetrile cannot and has never given a patient the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. It simply is impossible. The NIH refused to allow an alternative laetrile vendor to supply natural laetrile for the study – so they could create a custom pill for the study. In creating their custom bogus laetrile pill, it was not enough for them to not have any natural laetrile in the pill. A worthless pill would not have given any patient the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. They also had to lace the pill with inorganic cyanide so that the patients would have the symptoms of cyanide poisoning.”
As explained in my article “Natural Cancer Cure Laetrile (Amygdalin, Vitamin B17) Works Better than Chemotherapy“, the cyanide contained in apricot kernels, apple seeds, etc. is a selective cancer cell killer. It leaves healthy cells alone, because they can disable the cyanide.

4. Altering the Treatment Plan

If corporate junk science can’t prove a natural substance itself is ineffective, then it uses the trick of altering the treatment plan, so that people are getting the correct amount of that substance. This could be as simple as making the dosage too low or too high, or combining the substance with other foods or drink which disable its healing effects, or heating it, etc. Just like Big Pharma drugs, natural cures require a patent to follow a correct dosage and treatment plan for them to be successful in healing disease.

5. Getting Tricky with Statistics

Mark Twain once said that there are “lies, damn lies and statistics”. Corporate junk science often plays around with the numbers to emphasize one thing and hide another thing. Big Biotech often does this with their GMO studies, for instance, never allowing a study to exceed 90 days (after which the deleterious effects of GMOs begin to emerge).

6. The False Worship of Double Blind Studies

Are double blind studies always the gold standard? As Kehr points out, “in many cases, a double blind study makes no sense in the world. For example, how could you do a double blind study comparing a person who refuses all orthodox cancer treatments with someone who goes through chemotherapy? It is a stupid concept, because after one day a person would know which group they were in … How can you compare chemotherapy to Vitamin C in a double blind study? The chemotherapy group would have intense pain, sickness, their hair will fall out, and so on. The Vitamin C group would have no added pain, no sickness (except perhaps diarrhea), and their hair will not fall out, etc.”

7. Selecting Patients Favorable to the Agenda

The selection protocol in determining which patients to choose for a study is important, because by carefully selecting the patients in a study, you can to a large extent control the outcome of the study. Kehr gives examples of how the Mayo Clinic choose a narrow range of cancers as opposed to Pauling and Cameron when testing the efficacy of vitamin C as a natural cancer treatment.

8. Bribing the Peer-Review Group

In my article “The Massive Flaw with the Scientific Hierarchy of Evidence“, I highlighted how a distinguished 20-year medical journal editor became so appalled with the flagrant corruption of corporate junk science, she declared that it was no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published. The peer review process has itself become too corrupted.
This is from Webster Kehr:
“In June [2002], the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to drug companies whose medicines were being analyzed.
The reason? The journal could no longer find enough independent experts. Drug company gifts and “consulting fees” are so pervasive that in any given field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off in some way by the industry. So the journal settled for a new standard: Their reviewers can have received no more than $10,000 [per year] from companies whose work they judge. Isn’t that comforting?

9. Controlling the Publicization of the Results

Most scientists are given contracts by the corporatocracy which contain a clause forbidding them to publicize results that the funders don’t like. This means that Big Pharma, Bir Agra, Big Biotech or whoever it is has the legal right to suppress the results of any study they don’t like – including being able to stop scientists from submitting such studies to a journal.

10. Controlling the Funding and Hiding the Funders

Science is, to some extent, by the admissions of one of its branches quantum physics, based on the state of the observer. So, it is unsurprising that it can be manipulated by placing the people who have your point of view in control. An outcome is more likely to be generated when you have people expecting (or subconsciously intending) that result. On top of this, results can be bought and the true finance behind that bribery can be hidden through front groups, think tanks, shell corporations, fake grassroots (astroturf) organizations and many other means.
The 10 tricks do, of course, exist in addition to the massive category of data falsification, where corporations omit and distort results at will through all sorts of chicanery (e.g. not reporting patients who suffer side effects and instead labeling them as “non-compliant”).
Corporate junk science is like a cancer parasiting off the host and destroying humanity’s attempt for knowledge and objectivity. The time has come to expose it fully and restore truth.
Please share this.

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Did Something Begin In 2012... That Will Zenith In 2016? PART 1: THE FOURTH TURNING by Tom Horn

Originally Posted: April 30, 2013 

I learned this week that our good friend Sue Bradley has gone home to be with Jesus. She went into the Lord's arms early in the morning on April 26, 2013.
In 2008 and again in 2012 with input from Steve Quayle and I, Sue began working on one of her last articles titled The Fourth Turning: The Protocols and The Gray Champion. A couple months back, she had emailed me from her hospital room and said she was about to expand this Fourth Turning work based on some “Zenith 2016” material I had just shared with her. Unfortunately, like with the passing of David Flynn, the world will probably never know what Sue was about to reveal. What we do know is her work was partially based on a book published in 1997, The Fourth Turning, which describes itself as “a book that turns history into prophecy.” It explains cycles of life and generational archetypes through the examination of Western historical paradigms over the past five centuries. By surveying the past and identifying contemporary markers, William Strauss and Neil Howe, the authors of the work determined an astoundingly prescient forecast in which they saw a cascade of incidents that would ultimately lead to chaos and the “Fourth Turning.” Keep in mind they made these predictions over sixteen years ago, long before the September 11, 2001 attacks on America or the financial issues of today. Among the scenarios they foresaw were:
The first could be economic distress with a government beset by fiscal crisis, the state laying claim to federal tax monies, federal marshals enforcing orders, tax rebellions, special forces and an ensuing constitutional crisis:
The second is a terrorist attack, involving an airliner, a military response, authorization for house to house searches and false flag accusations against the administration;
A third scenario is an economic disaster involving Wall Street and a federal budget impasse which results in a stalemate;
The fourth consideration is Eco-environmental malaise with the Centers for Disease Control announcing the spread of a new communicable virus with quarantines and relocations;
The fifth projection is geopolitical in nature with growing anarchy throughout the former Soviet republics prompting Russia to conduct training exercises around its borders, a Russian alliance with Iran, soaring gold and silver prices and global military responses.
In describing these insightful scenarios, Strauss and Howe felt a catalyst would unfold as a result of a specific dynamic and, “An initial spark will trigger a chain reaction of unyielding responses and further emergencies” (the war on terror?).
According to Strauss and Howe in 1997, this chain reaction was already prepped to unfold as the result of natural cycles or “Turnings” in which generations are doomed to forget—and thus to repeat—the mistakes of the past. The authors describe a Turning as “an era with a characteristic social mood, a new twist on how people feel about themselves and their nation. It results from the aging of the generation [before it].” A society enters a Turning once every twenty years or so, when all living generations begin to enter their next phases of life. The living generations or “saeculae” comprise four cyclical “Turnings”, characterized as:
The First Turning (THE HIGH), an era of enthusiastic collective strengthening and civic development, having burned the brush and swept the ashes of preceding structure.
The Second Turning (THE AWAKENING), is built on the energies and accomplishments of the High but finds increasing yearning for introspection with a high tolerance for spiritual expression outside the parameters of predetermined standards.
The Third Turning (THE UNRAVELING), begins as the “society-wide embrace of the liberating cultural forces” loosed by the Awakening shows signs of civic disorder and decay, a heightened sense of self-reliance and an increasing withdrawal of public trust. This builds to a near crisis of downcast pessimism and a palpable pall that can only be remedied by yielding to the next.
The Fourth Turning (THE CRISES and the era we have now entered), is by far, the most perilous as societies pass through the greatest and most dangerous gates of history. As desperate solutions are sought for “sudden threats” on multiple cultural fronts, confrontation is passionate and decisions are often reactive, aggressive. “Government governs, community obstacles are removed, and laws and customs that resisted change for decades are swiftly shunted aside. .. A grim preoccupation with civic peril causes spiritual curiosity to decline… Public order tightens, private risk-taking abates, and... child-rearing reaches a smothering degree of protection and structure. The young focus their energy on worldly achievements, leaving values in the hands of the old. Wars are fought with fury and for maximum result.  [i]
Through the examination of an enormous amount of political and cultural history, Strauss and Howe processed over five hundred years of Anglo-American cultural nuance into remarkable, well-organized and predictable cycles and it is from this reservoir they finally stake an uncanny claim:
Just after the millennium, America will enter a new era that will culminate with a crisis comparable to the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Great Depression, and World War II. The very survival of the nation will almost certainly be at stake. [ii]
Strauss and Howe saw the United States of that time (1997) in the Third Turning, “midway through an Unraveling,” roughly a decade away from the next Crisis or Fourth Turning:
America feels like it’s unraveling. Although we live in an era of relative peace and comfort, we have settled into a mood of pessimism about the long-term future, fearful that our superpower nation is somehow rotting from within.
      The next Fourth Turning is due to begin shortly after the new millennium… Real hardship will beset the land, with severe distress that could involve questions of class, race, nation, and empire…
     The very survival of the nation will feel at stake.
     Sometime before the year 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history, commensurate with the American Revolution, Civil War, and twin emergencies of the Great Depression and World War II.
     The risk of catastrophe will be very high. The nation could erupt into insurrection or civil violence, crack up geographically, or succumb to authoritarian rule. If there is a war, it is likely to be one of maximum risk and efforts — in other words, a TOTAL WAR. [iii]
The striking details contained within The Fourth Turning illustrate the precision that was distilled with a close examination of historical patterns and contemporary application.
Although the authors note that the events described are not absolute, they also insist that the cycles, these Turnings, cannot be interrupted. As summer follows spring, an Unraveling precedes a Crisis of Faustian proportions:
It will require us to lend a new seasonal interpretation to our revered American Dream. And it will require us to admit that our faith in linear progress has often amounted to a Faustian bargain with our children.
     Faust always ups the ante, and every bet is double-or-nothing. Through much of the Third Turning, we have managed to postpone the reckoning. But history warns that we can’t defer it beyond the next bend in time. [iv]
While a “Faustian bargain” sounds ominous, Sue wrote, there is little evidence that the Anglo-American “Dream” has undergone the introspection and discipline necessary to buffer the arrogant recklessness of this generation and its administration.
NBC’s Chuck Todd noted on the evening of November 4, 2008 that Barack Obama was a changing of the guard in the United States from the Baby Boomer presidencies of William Clinton and George W. Bush. The Toronto Globe and Mail referred to President-elect Obama as being a member of Generation X, being born in 1961. And Strauss and Howe assigned Generation X—the Thirteenth Generation—to those who would bring us to chaos and the start of the Fourth Turning . . . culminating in a Zenith of events scheduled for the year 2016.
Stay tuned. Part Two coming soon.

Please share this.

Monday, March 2, 2015

How To Erase Your Home From Google, Yahoo And Bing Maps

Private companies like Google now have the legal right to use the kind of spy satellite technology once reserved for agencies like the NSA.

Our homes have been on Google for years, but the detail was limited to objects no larger than about 20 inches. Last year the US Department of Commerce lifted restrictions that essentially allow companies like Google and Microsoft (which owns Bing) to show images to the world as small as 12 inches.

That means they can use pictures of your property with far greater detail – potentially showing features like the color of your mailbox, objects sitting in your backyard, and even the types of plants growing in your garden.

“You can actually definitely see (car) windshields,” DigitalGlobe’s Kumar Navulur told DigitalGlobe is one of the satellite companies using the new technology. “We can actually tell you whether it’s a truck or an SUV or a regular car. We can identify pictures of a baseball diamond.”

Imagery taken is now for sale at DigitalGlobe’s website.

If that was not disturbing enough, Google paid $500 million for SkyBox Imaging, a company that provides real-time high resolution pictures. Google plans to add Skybox imagery to Google Maps.

What does all this mean? It is going to be easier than ever for companies to take detailed pictures of your property.

The bad news is that, so far, it is impossible to hide your home from these next-generation eyes in the sky. The good news, though, is that all of the major mapping websites – Google, Bing and Yahoo – allow you to blur your home on their “street view” images, which often provide even more detail than satellite images.

It’s not uncommon to see pictures of families playing in their yards or children walking the dog – right there on Google Maps for the world to see. Google’s computers are programmed to “blur” faces and license plates, but they don’t catch everything.

Below you will find directions on how to blur your home on the street view functions of Google Maps, Bing and Yahoo. It only takes a few minutes for each one.

Google Maps
  • Visit and enter your home address.
  • Look to the lower-right of the screen. You should see a little icon that looks like a yellow person in the tool bar.
  • Click on that icon and drag it over to your address location on the map to access Street View.
  • The map should be replaced by a picture of your home or business. If you don’t see your home, then move up and down the street or rotate the picture until you do. (If it still doesn’t work, then Google may not have an image of your home.)
  • Click on “report a problem” on the bottom-right.
  • Follow the directions, and fill out the form.

Bing Maps
  • Visit and enter your home address.
  • From the top of the map, drag the blue icon that looks like a person to your street. (Note: Bing requires installation of a program, Silverlight. If you street does not turn blue when dragging the “blue person” icon, then your house has not been photographed for Bing’s maps.)
  • Click on the question mark at the bottom-right of the screen.
  • Click “report an image concern.”
  • Request that your home be blurred.
Yahoo Maps
  • Visit
  • Drag the gray icon that resembles a person (top-right) to your street. (If it won’t drag, then your street has not been photographed for Yahoo.)
  • Click on “report image” at the bottom-left of the screen. It will take you to a different website.
  • Click on “request blurring,” and follow the directions.
Beyond these steps, it is wise to follow up after several days or weeks to make sure your home has been blurred.
Please share this.