Latest Entries »

Conative?


I have just come across a word I like – conative. Apparently it is not a word that is in use much but it is part of a model of thinking:-

“Psychology has traditionally identified and studied three components of mind: cognition, affect, and conation (Huitt, 1996; Tallon, 1997). Cognition refers to the process of coming to know and understand; the process of encoding, storing, processing, and retrieving information. It is generally associated with the question of “what” (e.g., what happened, what is going on now, what is the meaning of that information.)
Affect refers to the emotional interpretation of perceptions, information, or knowledge. It is generally associated with one’s attachment (positive or negative) to people, objects, ideas, etc. and asks the question “How do I feel about this knowledge or information?”
Conation refers to the connection of knowledge and affect to behavior and is associated with the issue of “why.” It is the personal, intentional, planful, deliberate, goal-oriented, or striving component of motivation, the proactive (as opposed to reactive or habitual) aspect of behavior (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven & Tice, 1998; Emmons, 1986). It is closely associated with the concept of volition, defined as the use of will, or the freedom to make choices about what to do (Kane, 1985; Mischel, 1996). It is absolutely critical if an individual is to successfully engage in self-direction and self-regulation.
Some of the conative issues one faces daily are:
• What is my life’s purpose and are my actions congruent with that purpose?
• What are my aspirations, intentions, and goals?
• On what ideas, objects, events, etc. should I focus my attention?
• What am I going to do, what actions am I going to take, what investments am I going to make?
• How well am I accomplishing what I set out to do?” [Source]

Now conative knowledge is also described as experiential knowledge and it was this that attracted me to the word; I was hoping to contrast cognitive with conative. However the motivational stuff doesn’t sound too experiential to me.

Knowledge is not all “equal”. When you have experienced something that knowledge is unshakeable. When ignorant sceptics want to tell me acupuncture doesn’t work, then I know they are not scientists but promoting an agenda. When science fails to apply itself to consider chi as real, given that so many people accept its existence it is a failure of science. Now that I have found that my plant-based diet has developed increasing yin excess that affected my sleep, metabolism, lungs and heart, I have strong indicators that the existence of yin-yang is real (I accept the possibility that starting to eat meat has done something else to my body other than making my food more yang but I have not learnt of such an interpretation). When meditation as empirical knowledge can be repeated, then it is the failure of science to apply itself to recognising this truth. Experiential knowledge carries a conviction with it that goes beyond misplaced authority.

Science applied through academia is mostly cognitive. Academic justification comes from a reference source, and such sources have “respect” – and therefore weight – that allows cognitive development through analysis to develop new conclusions as knowledge. But what is the axiom that this knowledge has developed from? It has developed from a reference but that reference could be greatly distanced from the initial experiential knowledge that gave it justification. It is worth considering this distance a little more. An original thinker writes a book, and for some reason academia accepts the original thinking that is in the book. That thinking might merit the original thinker being given a professorship – if her/his face fits. Other academic without the experience of that original thinker start to write about what is in the book – NOT about the experience that was the original thinking. If these thoughts become widely accepted more and more people wrote about what is written, often such writings don’t even source the original thinker especially of that thinker is not contemporary. Writing about the writings might give someone a professorship and her/his text might become the substance of a lecture course in which case a student is writing about a book that is about a book that is about a book that might not even reference the original thinking. As such cognitive knowledge does not have the conviction of the experiential because it is so distanced, it was this contrast that I wanted to make between cognitive and conative but am now unsure of the scope of the word “conative”.

Experiential knowledge is not for me based on any volitional or motivational or better “internal” reaction prior to experiencing the knowledge. Experienced knowledge is real, it is open to misinterpretation but it cannot be refuted as a real experience. It is axiomatic, science only interprets. For scientific principle, cognitive “so-called” knowledge, to contradict experiential knowledge is principle misapplied. An experience cannot be contradicted, that knowledge inviolable. When a Christian has a vision – a religious experience, the facts of the description of that vision is real, the interpretation of that vision as coming from God or Jesus is open to doubt and enquiry, the vision itself is not. If a child remembers a past life the description of that memory is real, it has to be proven to be fake or not but the memory cannot be dismissed. For science to dismiss reincarnation and therefore to dismiss the memory is not valid science, because science has failed to accept what is real – the description that the child gave. This example is not given because I believe in reincarnation – I don’t believe in anything, it is given because there is an important difference in types of knowledge. Conative knowledge based on experience cannot be refuted, only the interpretation or cognitive conclusions from it can be.

It is the approach of psychology, this “cognitive-affect-conative” approach that is flawed. It is evaluating knowledge by starting in the mind, to me this is a flaw. What is real is the experience, what is not real is any interpretation of that experience. However well-intentioned that interpretation is limiting. Consider an event such as a road accident. Accounts of that accident vary – whether by intention or not – because the knowledge that is accepted by the mind is not as full as the experience itself, the event, the accident. What is understood – recorded or accepted – in the mind is limited by the processes of mind.

Here is where mindfulness makes a hit. Consider the description of mindfulness as judgement-free awareness. If there is mindfulness then what is understood from the accident would be as close as possible to the actual event because it is simply awareness without any application of mental processes (judgement-free). As far I understand the language mindfulness is not cognitive but conative. Because it is based on the experience mindfulness has greater validity.

This brings me to something that is very important to understand at the moment. The 1% has recognised that the internet can be used to cause confusion, and with the ensuing confusion they are able to exploit the lack of resistance. Climate change was awareness, it was based on experience and backed up by scientific method. The Koch Brothers and their fakery financed climate denial, and because they were able to finance it to such an extent then the quantity of that financed denial impacted on the perceived knowledge. This is the confusion – financed confusion – to benefit the 1% who then continue to exploit the environment. In this case knowledge is being ignored by the 1% in order to create profit, and by promoting cognitive knowledge – in this case the cognitive knowledge is creating confusion – they are able to avoid paying for the consequences of their profit-making; they are able to avoid any concerns for the environment.

Fake News is not based on experience but cognitive approaches. The 1% pay for the repetition, and because of our education we do not discriminate between cognitive knowledge and experiential or conative knowledge. We do not have the convictions of our experience because we are conditioned to accept the cognitive and conative as equivalent. We cannot allow our experience to be undermined because we are not encouraged to accept a convicted approach. Conative knowledge has conviction because the experience is real. Educators need to recognise this especially in a world of fake news.

This brings me to insight, there is no greater conviction than insight. The only thing that should change a genuine insight is a new insight that demotes the older one to being that of clinging (to the old insight). Because many in academia do not experience insights they do not discuss its validity. Instead of insight being evaluated as conative or experiential knowledge it is passed off as simply another thought or idea that can come or go. But insight is not this it comes from the state of mind which enables pure truth to be accepted, this is why insight is so often associated with meditation.

Knowledge itself is not inviolable but the type of knowledge. Knowledge that comes from experience has truth but is open to misinterpretation. Knowledge that comes from insight is inviolable because the process of insight is a process that enables the mind to connect to truth. Insight brings with it a conviction that can thwart all cognitive attacks – necessary in this world where the cognitive approaches of the khandas attempts to undermine the truth which is insight. It might be more appropriate to consider the word conative as that which is beyond the khandas but that might be my simply appropriating definition. Truth is beyond the khandas:-

And the khandas contain the cognitive and affect of the psychological model. Khandas – rupa – body, vedana – feelings, sanna – perceptions, sankhara – mental processes or proliferations, vinnana – consciousness that can attach to the khandas or move beyond and allow sunnata to connect to the mind. I am suggesting that the conative might best be considered as a description of the consciousness that moves beyond giving truth to sunnata.

I like where this has gone, conative as being that which goes beyond the khandas. Not sure how much this is the intention of the word.

<– Previous Post “Truth?” Next Post –>

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Advertisements

Truth?


Since my early retirement I have enjoyed learning from the internet. I got sucked into conspiracies and subscribed to what I assumed were left-wing newsletters that kept me informed. It is only with examining the rise of Trump that I have determined that many of these are right-wing intellectuals. This is understandable as I see their funding as being a knock-on effect of the 1%-manipulations.

However whilst I describe this right-wing intellectualism, it does not mean that this information is untrue – far from it. I consider these intellectuals the right-wing periphery, and have no wish to dissociate from them. Of course that does not mean I have any right-leanings.

For me the issue lies with the answer to this question, how do we overcome the 1%? And the answer for me is very clearly Collective Unity, and struggling as the United 99% against the 1%. It is never clear to me how the individualism of these good right-wing intellectuals will overcome something as powerful as the 1%. In my view they need to overcome their abhorrence of the liberals, an abhorrence I also feel, and somehow find a way of working in Unity against the 1%.

Government and taxation is of course very divisive. When I look at the neoliberal governments of Blair and Obama I understand why these intellectuals are against taxation and government. As a teacher I incline to defend the educational aspect of governance, but I know that the caring aspects are only a subterfuge for the main current purpose of taxation – accumulation of wealth to the 1% through taxation for defence spending on the wars-for-profit.

There needs to be some form of commitment to Unity, and I don’t see these right-wing intellectuals wanting that; I must just accept the bonus of knowledge that the right-wing periphery funding provides. The egos that comes with individualism anywhere on the political spectrum has also to be recognised and defeated, ego is a major divisive factor.

I am old enough for truth to be easy, proletarian struggle. Occupy reinforced that with its simple 1% clarity. But these understandings are interspersed throughout a steady campaign of confusion. Politically for me this has shown itself clearly recently with the identification of the left with liberalism, when I think that people might identify my position with neoliberalism, its wars-for-profits and wage-slavery I shudder. But the clarity of my truth has to be tempered by the obvious failure of the genuine left to unite and be meaningful, hence the ease with which we have been labelled with the liberals.

This blog on truth was sparked by watching this video called “The Republic of Science” from Judith Curry, I absolutely do not recommend this video. In Mandtao I examine science – I am posting this in my main blog Zandtao as well. As a Buddhist I am firmly committed to 100% enquiry (4 Agreements as well). Science needs questioning because science is establishment. Now saying science is establishment for me means that science is controlled by the 1%, and when you listen to Judith she talks of the way science is controlled. She makes a very convincing case, that creative scientists (who she calls mavericks) are restricted by the science establishment and government direction. This is excellent, Mandtao would appear to say the same thing but the reality is the exact opposite.

Judith Curry is on the periphery of the Koch brothers campaign for climate denial. I suspect, although I don’t know, that whatever funding she gets stems from the vast amounts the Koch brothers have used to dominate the internet. So-called independent media. I have no interest in her climate denial evaluation – she might have a genuine position; she does not appear to be a direct definitive climate denier. What concerns me is that her analysis of science is so close to the truth that it is so easy to fall for her line.

The problem is she does not see the source of the problem as the 1%. She talks mostly of the science establishment stifling mavericks, who can argue with that? Her position is then that the establishment is stifling the maverick who talks of climate denial. This is so plausible but oh so dangerous. The question is “when is science stifling maverick creativity?” as opposed to “when is scientific knowledge refuting politically and financially-inspired bogus claims of climate denial?” these are significantly different positions yet so subtle. On the level of daily science, the source of funding that creates such destructive scepticism cannot be traced to the 1%, and leaves blogposts such as this in the realms of lunatic conspiracy. This is the purpose of confusion. And with the current level of collective confusion there can be no Unity to fight.

How can I ask for all to see through such subtle manipulation?

I have a completely misguided acquaintance who can put “likes” on my 1%-posts, and yet can support Trump. How confused is he? He does not have a mass movement base to his understanding. An individualist will examine Judith Curry’s individualist examination of science – the individualism that celebrates mavericks, and can see the partial truth of what she says as truth. The mass movement says “where is the hand of the 1%?”, and immediately looks at finance. Once you apply that paradigm you see the Koch Brothers and climate denial – whether Judith believes what she says or not.

I can support her analysis of the scientific establishment, and I thank the funding that has powered that. I can thank the right wing for the Corbett Report that brings this and other useful information to light. But if I am unsure I ask the mass movement question “where is the hand of the 1%?” …. and there is clarity.

As Mandtao the maths/stats man I am a supporter of scientific knowledge and scientific method. I attack the science establishment for similar reasons to Judith Curry’s video “the Republic of Science”, but in the end she is supporting the 1%, the Corbett Report is supporting the 1% by promoting her. All the scepticism around climate change can only be seen in terms of 1%-industries, the Koch Brothers campaign, and how any doubts that arise enable this industrial establishment to continue with the environmental damage and pollution – whatever “scientific point” Judith or others raise.

It is sad in this world that the 1% are so sick, so detached from the species they are a part of, that they want to destroy the very Unity of who we are – the ONE planet. And they will finance and manipulate at any level to enact their sickness. It is so hard to understand how these people became so sick, I understand why Icke wants to separate them and call them lizards, but they are just sick humans. We have to face the understanding that humanity can become as sick as these people.

<– Previous Post “Two Econommics” Next Post “Conative?” –>

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Two Economics


The Mandtao blog is concerned with science and knowledge, so it might be a strange place to find discussion about economics, but this is a clear example of how academia is being used. And academia is the western home of knowledge.

My knowledge of academia’s delivery concerning economics is limited, but it is very clear to me that what is required to become qualified as an economics expert definitely has a strong application of blinkers. For most people in the world of work, understanding of economics is rooted in supply and demand. Because most peoples’ transactions are limited this is a reasonable approach. Go to the farmers’ market. You buy veg that is available, you don’t buy what you don’t want. The farmer is left with surplus of what people don’t want so they change what is grown until eventually there is a balance between supply and demand. The study of economics then extends this supply and demand principle, embellishes it with additional theories, applies a few graphs, and we have a supposed understanding of economics. Competition is an essential aspect of supply and demand. At the farmers’ market if someone sells cheaper more customers will buy, and competition is a means of keeping the prices down – supposedly at the control of the consumer.

Economics is of course a study of money. So we get a history lesson in which money was originally introduced as a means of easing transactions at the farmers’ market from when it was barter. We did not have to bring huge items to exchange, we didn’t have to decide that an hour of maths teaching is worth a pound of potatoes, gradually value was applied to various trades and their products and money was used as a means of trading at a farmers’ market. It is assumed in academic economics that theories of money are based around this transaction theory.

Taxation is also an important aspect of the modern economy. We pay a proportion of our income to the government so that the government has sufficient money to run schools, hospitals and the like. I question this. When the British were colonising Africa they needed to build infrastructure (such as trains) to get the raw materials back to the motherland. At the time Africans had a barter economy so when the British required labour there was no incentive to work. The colonial authorities insisted that all individuals must pay a money tax forcing money as the means of transaction on the barter economy. In this case taxation was required to build the infrastructure for the companies importing raw materials. This monetary flow is an indicator as to the underlying function of taxation despite the schools and hospitals rhetoric.

It is assumed that all finance is expected to balance their books. This is clearly the case at an individual level when if we don’t balance our own books and we owe money we can eventually be imprisoned. Debt is in fact encouraged both by the banks and the system. If we have debts we must try to pay them back, it is therefore necessary for us to work to pay them back and we are brought into the financial system. People who have marketable skills such as teachers are encouraged to get mortgages and other forms of credit, so that they become more concerned about losing their jobs and are willing to put up with injustice at work in order to repay their debts.

Economics as an academic subject is far more complicated than these five simple axioms, and it is this complexity that it is claimed people cannot understand. Experts are then required to interpret the business of economics so economics is an almost mystical understanding of transactions and finance. And people trust the experts. And experts become experts by accepting the above axioms, learning the mental contortions that get applied to our global economic dealings, and it is generally accepted that, although things look wrong because of the many injustices, there are experts guiding the economic system based on the axiomatic approach as described above.

I am going to describe the above as the 5 axioms of 99%-economics, and these are the axioms that the 99% are expected to follow. And this expectation in extreme circumstances is backed up by the law such as the case of repossessions and failure to make loan repayments.

Now I want to consider another set of economic practices. Let us examine the conduct of transnationals (multinationals) – huge companies (owned by the 1%) who as a rule buy the raw materials, own the means of importing the materials, own the means of production, own the distribution logistics and own the retail establishments. At all levels of the sale of a product the profits are made by the transnational.

At this stage one might argue big is not necessarily wrong, one might contend that transnationals compete with each other keeping the price down. I argue differently. Firstly in BigFood at a supermarket there might well be 7 or 8 different brands owned by the same transnational. No competition. The number of BigFood transnationals is limited so together they fix the prices, it is not the consumer demand described in 99%-economics. They have sufficient stocks and are sufficiently big that if consumers reduce their demand BigFood does not have to respond. Whilst mothers spend a long time on their family budget seeking bargains they are very much at the mercy of high level BigFood decisions rather than any consumer wisdom.

The word transnational came into usage because as such they are not subject to national tariffs and customs duties. Part of the murky mysticism of economics are organisations such as World bank, IMF, GATT, WTO and other Acronyms, actions of whom we are not meant to understand, yet whose actions directly impact on the way economics work. These organisations facilitate international finance and transnationals to the detriment of small businesses and local transactions. Small businesses do not control all the aspects of the economic life of their own product, and are often squeezed out by the monopolistic bullying practices of the transnationals aided by the Acronyms, often leading to takeovers and increasing “centralisation” on fewer and fewer transnationals.

These transnationals have tremendous power and dominate the economic life of individual consumers. They have tremendous influence over governments sufficient for me to say that they are more powerful than governments. As evidenced by environmental damage governments are unable to exert control over the transnationals. Climate denial became real through business investment especially after the international community outvoted the US at various COP meetings that eventually reached the limited Paris accord. Now their stooge has pulled out America and enacts numerous environmentally-damaging policies. [It is better to understand that Trump is not an individual with policies, but a stooge enacting policies of the fellow wealthy. Avoid personalising as it ignores the true nature of the economic system.]

The transnationals control production – what we buy, and finance through banks and Acronyms form an alliance that controls global economic life. It is this alliance I see as the 1% controlling the global economy using 1%-economics.

Transnational cartels and market mechanisms remove competition, and eliminate any vestige of supply and demand. The banking and insurance dynasties control money. Under their control that money has lost its transactional raison d’etre, and the accumulation of money is facilitated by the financial sector. Money moves away from the 99% to the owners of finance and the transnationals leaving our economies controlled by the whims of the superrich. With jobs and consumer-potential being controlled by the whims of their decisions, the backdoor governments offer tax breaks, incentives, loopholes and now in the US, the new tax laws, so that the burden of taxation is placed on the poor whilst transnationals are evading tax at will. Taxation has now become a means of transferring money (wages) from the poor to the rich. Because this 1%-alliance controls government they control the printing of money. The US tax bill makes no efforts to balance the books, but is simply a political manoeuvre to benefit the 1%. For 8 years the UK government has applied an austerity policy to the 99% following the crash with the supposed aims of balancing the books. But the only observable change in wealth has been an increase in the gap between rich and poor.

To understand 1%-economics you need only understand this, the actual economic system is designed to increase the accumulation of wealth to the 1%. Initially this began with real transactions but then they determined that there could be increased accumulation through “imaginary transactions”. 1%-control of governments perpetuates this accumulation through fiat policies that become necessary when accumulation has depleted government coffers. The policy of 1%-economics is print more money when necessary.

It is also intended that we fail to comprehend the vast amounts of money appropriated by the 1%. Examine this. ****** I suspect that the wealth of just one family, such as Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Waltons, Gates, is equivalent to enough money for a billion people to live – certainly the poorest of us. Whilst population numbers concern me, it is not the lack of natural resources that leads to poverty and hunger but the accumulation of the few superrich.

The interaction of these two economic systems is on a knife edge. We are conditioned to accept the economy as described in 99%-economics whilst the actual system continues to accrue for the 1%. People see the systemic failure of economics but then experts continue to maintain the charade of the 99%-economics, and encourage people to have confidence in it. For most there is a failure to actually consider the economic realities because a breakdown in the economic system, which would follow from an actual examination of financial dealings and the ensuing lack of confidence (as demonstrated by the crash in 2008), can only lead to chaos – violent chaos. Aware of this the 1% already have private security in place. It is not if but when.

Governments will continue to maintain the charade of 99%-economics as per 1%-instruction. They understand the nature of the two economics, but manage the impending catastrophe through brinkmanship rather than economic strategies that could lead to 100% stable and sustainable economics. We survive by hope, hope that the sickness of the 1% doesn’t demand such an accumulation that the delusion is broken, the conditioning is shattered, and chaos breaks out.

Hope is not enough. Constructive 100%-economics that can lead to stable transactions need to be introduced but this is unlikely as the only people who can introduce them are the 1% as they are in control. And that would be like saying to the mentally ill end your delusions, how can they end them when they don’t know they are deluded?

I used to have faith that the 1% would maintain the system through brinkmanship, now that faith is gone. War is spreading, is on the increase, countries just hope they are not the next one to be targeted. Rather than brinkmanship the 1% are now turning to private security, and accepting that the future holds a protected apartheid existence in which they survive and the 99% fight amongst each other for the crumbs that trickle down.

Now only hope.

<– Previous Post “Cumulative toxic load” Next Post “Truth?” –>

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Cumulative Toxic Load


We live in a toxic environment. We go out on the street and there are fumes from cars. Our ecology is damaged by toxicity from factories and cars. In our food there are toxins primarily caused by factory-produced foods which are preserved in order to sell and make a profit, and to grow more food – not quality food – we use pesticides (chemical poisons). Particularly post-second world war we have increasingly ingested foods with toxins especially those people who eat fast foods. All of this could be called our toxic load.

Nature has given us the liver to cope with toxic load, but especially for those who drink the toxic load becomes too much, the liver packs in and dies – a simplistic model!

BigFood has food scientists, and they look at how to preserve the food in order to help with profits. How safe the food then is we don’t know although there are some food regulations. However it is industry standard to accept carcinogens such as MSG and aspartame.

I think it reasonable to say that vaccines add to this toxic environment but before I go on I want to reiterate that with regards to epidemic vaccines this toxic environment is minimal compared to the benefits. Have the people who advocate changes to vaccines limited their own personal toxic load elsewhere first? Do they drive electric cars? As with all things the toxic load must be reduced, and as vaccines are compulsory scientists ought to be more circumspect about the toxic load. But to then suggest that the toxic load in vaccines is enough to warrant a choice not to be vaccinated is in my view preposterous.

However in general it is my view that science does NOT take enough care with toxins in our food and toxins in our medicines; profits in BigFood and BigPharma come first. Because of this I understand the questioning about vaccines but that questioning needs to be kept within the scientific community and not used as a divisive political weapon.

I will not take flu vaccines as in my view the vaccine adds to my toxic load. I have always had doubts about mercury in vaccines – thimerosal. With regards to epidemic vaccines I accept the thimerosal risk but with flu vaccines I don’t. I note this woolly argument in John Oliver’s good piece on vaccines. I have not observed BigPharma as having a policy that they respond to public clamour just to ease those fears, thimerosal in my view has some toxicity. Not enough to refuse to take epidemic vaccines – removed or not.

I have a completely different view about flu and the use of flu vaccines. I don’t take the toxicity of vaccine slightly, and don’t choose to take vaccines unnecessarily. For me the flu is an unnecessary vaccine. Who is concerned about flu? The employer. For many people the only time they have off work is for colds or flu, and the employers begrudge that. I believe some employers insist on flu vaccine for employees – disgraceful, that is a freedom of choice that should be fought. Come on libertarians – attack your paymasters. People have been sacked in the US at TriHealth and Essentia for not taking flu vaccines. If you are in health situations where you are in close contact with vulnerable people, I think the flu shot is reasonable. But in the case of Essentia they did not negotiate with the nurses; that is suspicious. But to be clear the flu virus is not known to be effective – CDC only 40-60% effective. Given the toxic load of the vaccine, I have to question the use of a flu vaccine and its imposition. Hence my proviso about the vulnerable.

I was a teacher and flu was a big problem but it should be noted that such absences were not simply flus but also colds; much time was lost because of these colds and flus. A flu will go round the school downing teachers and students alike. Students come back to school too quickly because parents have issues with care. Teachers are always under pressure to teach at whatever the personal cost, so during the cold and flu season the classroom is a cauldron; I know I always went back too early yet I resisted returning to work more than most teachers I think because I believed I should only be at work if I was capable of doing the job and when I was not a possible source of infection. I wonder whether 40-60% effectiveness would dent this problem.

I have no doubts at all that it is the “cauldron” nature of the classroom that makes the situation far worse. Rather than treating the classroom as child-care provision, if it was seen as a place of education where teachers and students had to be feeling competent to learn, then I suspect flus would be less of a problem.

On a personal level I have always considered colds and flus as a measure of stress, it was not so much the contagion in the cauldron but whether my immune system was strong enough to cope. As a retired person I do not pick up that many flus – this was not true at one stage because of andropause, if it happens I take vit c and sleep it off – watching favourite movies. I don’t see myself in a “CDC-vulnerable” group, and am not willing to fill myself with the additional toxins for a dubious benefit.

But that is me. Dr Mercola is against flu shots – look at this. He is concerned about the toxins present in the vaccines – similar to Vaccines Revealed, but he did not join their team whose integrity is compromised. He goes into more details as why specifically he is against the flu vaccine as opposed to epidemic vaccines. Here, Scientific American describes how they make up the vaccine. Dr Mercola describes the process similarly but he notes that even though it is flu season it is not one (or the most popular three) that we necessarily get for that season, we could get a different flu. His view, the flu vaccine is not very effective. So why take a flu vaccine that is not effective? And because absence might well be colds rather than flu, it would seem to be an ineffective imposition.

I don’t like it but if you are working with vulnerable old people flu might not give you a problem but could well hurt the vulnerable. I understand why nurses want to refuse, and that is why I think it should be discussed with nurses’ organisations. If the research and understanding is good why didn’t Essentia negotiate? That is heavy-handed oppression, and to me indicates something else.

Within this issue of toxic environment there appears to be a weakness in the science – as far as I know. I am prepared to accept that when food scientists investigate the toxicity of their products, the side effects are within acceptable limits. However, how much investigation goes into cumulative toxic load in humans? The problem is not the effect of the individual toxic product but the cumulative effect of all the toxins in all products as well as dealing with environmental toxins.

The issue is not even that simple. I give you a case study I know well – me. When I was teaching I did not care about toxicity. When I was young I drank. Once I stopped drinking I did not care about diet too much – although I was mainly vegetarian for health reasons. All my life I had migraines; I retired early at 54 – not for health reasons – with stomach issues – reflux migraines and so on. I had hoped that my health would improve because I was not being stressed by the job, but it did not. After a year I was diagnosed with GERD, detoxed and went on a plant-based diet. Gradually my health improved. I consider stress was an important factor in my poor health in the job when I was older, but after retirement the cause was toxins. I had to remove the cumulative toxic load before I could be healthy.

To me it seems that one individual toxic cause such as vaccines is not the problem, it is the cumulative effect. Baby products tend to have stricter food regulations so there is limited cumulative effect there. But the baby gains its health from the mother, how much toxic accumulation does the mother have? Cigarettes and alcohol are discouraged in mothers, why? Toxic effect. Mothers are encouraged to eat healthy diets. Why? Toxic effects. So if there are toxic effects that can affect babies, can they also not affect adults?

Dr Mercola has his own system for detoxing and building up immunity – as described in the flu-shot article. In my view everyone should examine their own diets and attempt to reduce the cumulative toxic effect. Science also needs to do more about this cumulative effect. But to recommend a reduction with epidemic vaccine shots is completely irresponsible. With regards to flu vaccines I think the situation is different (except when in contact with the vulnerable and their weakened immune systems) as the benefits are nowhere near as clear. But the issue is not an individual toxic source but the cumulative effect, no one source can be blamed so the problem continues. What can we do about the control of the food science by BigFood and BigPharma? Nothing. But we can control the toxins we take in with our foods. One obvious method – a macrobiotic diet. But detoxing and reducing toxic intake can help. It can never be 100% but then Nature gave us livers. Do the best you can but at least try to reduce toxic intake – reduce the cumulative toxic load.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.


This is the perfect example of libertarian stupidity. Unlike European libertarian history in the US Libertarians are right-wing, their politics is right-wing although based on principle. What they are is freedom, freedom and more freedom. This sounds good until you look at how they apply it, and then their intelligence is seen as woefully short; it also explains why they get so much right-wing funding. Their freedom means no regulations. Sounds good. Who wants to be bound by regulations? I am a considerate and compassionate person so I don’t need telling what to do.

Are all people this way? If not, educate them. All sounds good.

But then look at reality. We live in a 1%-system. The 1% accumulate huge amounts of money through real and imaginary trading and trade manipulations, and hive the money off into offshore accounts. This is the system we live in. The greed of these people is a sickness because of the global harmful implications of what they do. They are mentally ill, they are in charge, and the only thing that limits them are a few ineffective regulations. When the system is run by mentally ill people, then giving those people greater freedom is blind stupidity. That is libertarianism in the US.

So now we come to freedom of choice in vaccines. Now any sensible person looks at this and says you cannot have freedom of choice with vaccines, everyone has to be vaccinated against epidemic diseases otherwise they could start up again. To argue for freedom of choice is just plain stupid. It is the same blind stupidity shown with regards to regulations. (And government for that matter.) Principle before common sense.

That does not put an end to questioning, there has to be questioning. When science is dominated by the 1%-system of BigPharma and BigFood, there has to be questioning. But if that questioning does not produce a change, then vaccines have to be accepted. Not freedom of choice. Nobody should be promoting freedom of choice with regards to vaccines. It is good there is questioning, there is no problem with doubt, but there can be no freedom of choice with vaccines. One person choosing not to be vaccinated can cause deaths amongst many. There cannot be libertarian principle here. That is just plain stupid.

Yet in this video in general that is exactly what Vaccines Revealed are doing promoting freedom of choice. This is the height of irresponsibility, and again I question the integrity of any scientist who is prepared to add their name to a list who supports an organisation (the film-makers) who are promoting freedom of choice. In my school doctrinaire freedom of choice was intentionally disruptive, in the case of epidemic vaccines it is criminally stupid.

Then we have the ludicrous concept of informed consent (see this clip) that again appeals to intellectual arrogance. How can there be consent with regards to vaccines? If one person refuses to vaccinate then it potentially risks everyone. That is the only consent issue.

The people who make the informed decision about vaccines ought to be the scientific community independent of any business or social pressure of any kind. Vaccines are a scientific decision, if the science says vaccinate then we vaccinate. Most of the questioning within this video belongs within the scientific community, the scientists must decide – there are good questions but science must decide. End of story, no consent – informed or otherwise.

But how informed can people be about such a decision – even if consent were on the table. How much information can a lay person understand about this issue? Science investigated this, that or the other and came to this conclusion. Is that informed? Maybe, but meaninglessly so. The intellect likes to believe it can understand everything, it is arrogant. Informed consent just appeals to this arrogance, it is another aspect of right-wing egotism as is freedom of choice. Informed consent is concerned with individual choice such as “choosing chemo”, vaccines cannot be an individual decision – that decision must be based on scientific evidence. Unlike cancer I don’t believe there is the evidence with regards to vaccines, I think it is just part of the funded, designed confusion strategy.

Basically this video just creates fear. The makers of the movie might believe they are doing a public service but creating fear only adds to the confusion and benefits the 1% only. That’s why they got their funding.

In conclusion I think the makers of this video are irresponsible, and the video casts more doubts on the scientific team who supported the video than they do on the issues of vaccines.

But flu vaccines ….

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Vaccines

I have never looked into vaccines so unlike the cancer issue I have no understanding. A couple of weeks ago a scientist friend commented on a vaccine thread. His position was total science claiming there was no dubious practice from the scientific establishment. My approach was to say that even if there was BigPharma would not listen – he got me. In that same thread I was vilified by a vaxxer!!

When I looked at this thread my friend had pointed out that Andrew Wakefield’s study had been completely debunked scientifically. I remember John Oliver talking about vaccines, and quoted him as evidence. Is John Oliver scientific evidence? I would tend to argue yes. John’s humour is often based on deeper analyses of current events showing the inconsistencies and hypocrisies that depth can show – some depth. His appeal is to the Liberal media and Liberal establishment so you don’t see pieces about their establishment support of war or wage-slavery – the usual neo-liberal blindspots. I surmise that his research is sufficiently sound because Liberals like to believe they are not part of “fake news”.

The Liberal establishment is a factor when considering vaccines. Their unquestioning position concerning intellectuals, science and vaccines is characteristic of such liberalism. They might voice against the 1%, but their analysis of 1%-influence is laughable in its ignorance especially considering their level of education – or maybe because of their level of education. Because the Liberal establishment is a factor, right-wing establishment will take the opposite position. Therefore if there is questioning of vaccines right-wing populism will automatically join the affray against the Liberals leading to Liberal bleating and counter-vitriol.

The issue is further hyped because for vaccines to work it has to be 100%. Liberals know this as do scientists so when vaccines are questioned it is not a matter of individual choice as it needs to be 100%. That is enough for the mental proliferations (sankhara) of some individualists to go off the charts talking about liberties etc. So right-wing creation of confusion is worse than being the usual tool for political division and propagation of the 1%, it is dangerous.

Mostly the issue of vaccines does not affect me. If I get the flu I sleep it off, preferring a week at home to a needle of chemicals. That is not because of vaccines per se but because of my fear of chemical poisons that might be contained in vaccines. Without any sound knowledge to the contrary, I would always recommend to parents they vaccinate children, and if the community I live in were legally required to take a vaccine I would take it without question – out of a community duty to the 100%.

But I have doubts about vaccines because so many have claimed that vaccines have caused problems. For that reason alone I question vaccines. But that questioning has to be based on far more than the above collection of ideas, hence this investigation.

Vaccines Revealed have produced a video (series of videos?) on vaccines. It is called “Truth about Vaccines” was fronted by Ty Bollinger and it had a similar approach to the cancer series so it seemed appropriate. But before I start any examination of vaccines I have to point out, as I did with cancer, that the only basis for evidence can be scientific. My concern for chemicals in the flu vaccine is not based on science, it is based on a general fear of our toxic environment and how that toxic environment has affected my health. It is a loose rationale (sufficient for me) but I am retired – taking a week off school because of the flu would not have been an option and might well have led me to have a flu-shot. I took anti-biotics when forced, and I do now if I have an infection in a cut – but I avoid them. My position is not informed, it is not sound.

At the website there is a teaser video, it was hype – maybe it has to be for advertising. There appeared limited science in the video, just a collection of fears. More importantly there is a team of scientific supporters who include Andrew Wakefield whose supposed science connecting MMR and autism was considered fraudulent. He published in The Lancet, a respectable journal, suggesting a link whilst at the same time holding a press conference to promote his own interests with far more self-acclaiming assertions. In my view the integrity of the Lancet was used (long discussion on this here), and the Wakefield article was later retracted. Here is a bmj article on the issue, and this quote sums it up “Furthermore, Wakefield has been given ample opportunity either to replicate the paper’s findings, or to say he was mistaken. He has declined to do either. He refused to join 10 of his coauthors in retracting the paper’s interpretation in 2004, and has repeatedly denied doing anything wrong at all. Instead, although now disgraced and stripped of his clinical and academic credentials, he continues to push his views.” Wakefield committed fraudulent science, was stripped of his credentials, and yet Vaccines Revealed allowed him on their team. Here is some more info on the fraud. This fraudulence brings the other members of the team into question, I personally would not want to be academically connected to a fraud. This makes all that is in this video questionable.

Of course the video still adds to the confusion, adds to the division, and yet does not affect the status quo of BigPharma profits. So it is right-wing funded!!

Here is the video. It begins with stating that a person who questions vaccines is not taking sides – a good point. Given that vaccines have been questioned it would help to get rid of the confusion – leading to the funding question.

On reflection overnight I have closed the question for me. To begin with we have to recognise that vaccine science has wiped out epidemic diseases. This is a biggie. If vaccines are to be brought into question then there needs to be a huge bank of evidence that vaccines have serious collateral damage; to me this appears not to be the case.

This questioning is mostly coming from the right-wing in which rabid individualism overrides the needs of the population. Here is a case in which individual rights have to take second place. A vaccine only works if everyone takes it, therefore the rights of the richer few individualists have to be questioned.

My main reason for avoiding BigPharma medicines is the side effects, I subscribe to the belief that there are sufficient cases where side effects are much worse than the healing power of the drug. This brings me to the regulatory bodies. I believe the regulatory bodies are in the pockets of BigPharma and do not have enough teeth. I feel they accept R&D made by the companies themselves quite simply because they do not have the resources to test themselves and are not powerful enough to stand against BigPharma.

However with regards to vaccines I don’t think there is strong evidence that BigPharma has forced the regulatory bodies into playing down the individual cases that arise from vaccines.

A big factor in my belittling of “Vaccines Revealed” is the lack of professional integrity. Professional integrity demands that all associated with what you are doing is above board. A professional does not allow themselves to be associated with anything dubious. Andrew Wakefield is a fraud, yet he is part of the Vaccines Revealed team. As a sceptic asking questions about vaccines I am tainted by being associated with Andrew Wakefield, and in this situation I am not a professional. As a professional teacher I have sufficient understanding of the meaning of professionalism to say that all of that team are compromised. Perhaps their questioning has some relevance, as a sceptic all questioning has relevance, but to go on a public platform to undermine the scientific community when that platform has Wakefield on it shows a lack of professionalism.

There are professional scientific mechanisms in place to deal with the individual cases, to examine other aspects of science associated with vaccines, and there is only conjecture that such mechanisms are not sufficient. Many are answered in this lay informed blog although I don’t totally agree with her approach. John Oliver who has a research team produced this lay synopsis which also answers many questions.

I have spent my life questioning the establishment, both politically and scientifically. I believe that scepticism is the way one should function normally – never accept what they tell you. For this reason I have asked about vaccines. But from what I can tell science is asking those questions and science has it covered. There is no doubt that if vaccines were harmful BigPharma would try to cover it up because they would lose profits, but there is no evidence this is happening. When you examine the cancer industry there is a huge amount of evidence and verifiable anecdotal evidence that cut burn and poison is not sound and that alternatives are not being investigated, but with vaccines there is no such evidence.

So that brings us to politics and the 1%-tactic of confusion. There is no doubt in my mind that there is funding around on the right-wing for questioning vaccines. There is no doubt in my mind that there are profits such as Bob Sears’ book (John Oliver’s clip) for some. Confusion is around, and this instability benefits the 1% generally without affecting the profits of BigPharma. If Trump is sowing seeds then we know it is 1%-confusion.

Scepticism is important but at some point science must be trusted. In the case of vaccines there appears to be absolutely no evidence at the moment that science cannot be trusted. There is strong evidence that there is right-wing funding to create confusion. Typically Andrew Wakefield had sponsors for making the film “Vaxxed” after he had been struck off.

In the case of vaccines questioning outside of science is not constructive. Keep the scepticism within science, vaccines at the moment is not an issue ordinary parents should be concerned about, but scepticism should be watchful in the future in case things change. There is a danger we are crying wolf now, and maybe later ….

But flu vaccines ….

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Confusion – the new Divide-and-Rule

Yesterday I spent a long time considering the “Truth about Cancer” even though I only used half of one of the videos. There is a very clear conclusion – confusion. Why?

There is a well-known left-wing adage – divide-and-rule colonialism. Typically the hegemony would find an existing division usually religious or tribal, and favour one group – protestants in Ireland, land deals in Zimbabwe, Obote’s minority rule in Uganda.

Since Occupy in 2011 the ruling 1% have been concerned about a different Unity – the 99%. So they have been funding the internet to prevent Unity of the 99%. And the purpose of that funding is confusion that allows the status quo to remain – the status quo which accumulates profits for the 1%.

So let us examine the cancer issue through this confusion paradigm. There are two issues about which there are sound questions:-

Do the established treatments work?
Do the alternative treatments work?

When you begin to examine these questions with genuine scepticism you are unable to get an answer because the only people who can give you proper answers are independently-funded medical research scientists. The methodology of this research would have to be agreed by all parties so that conclusions could be generally accepted. This cannot happen because the major player, BigPharma, will not work with the other players, alternative treatments. Why? Because it would expose weakness in their established treatments – the cut/burn and poison of operation, radiation and chemotherapy. Without scientific evidence there is sufficient doubt for the established regimen of treatments to continue to be used. The people who now benefit from the established treatments, BigPharma and BigFinance, continue to do so.

What became very clear to me yesterday is that there is sufficient scientifically-verified data to warrant genuine scientific enquiry about both the above questions. Oncologists are apologists for their treatments, but they do not control research. It would require the whole of the cancer profession to stand up and demand appropriate research on these established treatments but there are too many vested interests for this to happen. So the confusion and status quo remains.

I did not investigate any of the alternative treatments yesterday but I have previously. There are strong cases that merit consideration. I am no expert, I do not believe there is a “cure”, but if I had cancer and I had money I would go Gerson. As I don’t have money I would improve the quality of my diet – it is good anyway, I would go to acupuncture as often as I could and do Chi Gung daily, exercise, try to find medical cannabis and meditate. I would listen to but not trust the advice of oncologists, and would never trust chemo unless I could be assured it would be part of the 2.1% successes in 5 years. But that is me and I am no expert so my recommendation means nothing.

And there again is the confusion. There could be clarity. If sufficient mainstream research were done I believe Gerson could be scientifically proven to work, and could then be funded by medical insurance or the NHS. But this is not scientifically known, and in my view will never be scientifically knowable because BigPharma will never allow it. Confusion. The same might also apply to other alternative treatments.

Whilst we live in a 1%-system there will always be confusion, whilst the profits of BigPharma, BigFinance and BigFood are all dependent on the status quo it will never change from confusion. Treatments will remain the same. Ordinary people will be subjected to cut, burn and poison perhaps unnecessarily. There will be some benefits so that there will be some reason to accept the establishment. Some people will go to alternative treatments, and there will be talk of cures as can be found widely on the net. But nothing will be resolved, there will be confusion and that suits the 1% of BigPharma.

This issue of confusion also explains the funding for alternatives. Mainstream science will continue to produce some studies about the established treatments, studies questioning the status quo will never be universally accepted. There will be funding for some of the alternative treatments because individuals benefit – the rich need to know where to go. There will be funding for sceptics who decry the mainstream as well as for those who decry alternatives. Why? Because it all creates confusion and that confusion benefits the 1%.

And then there is the laughable position of the supposed scientists at SBM discussing acupuncture. “This is important to the understanding of the acupuncture literature, as many of the positive studies are coming out of China. The unrealistically high percentage of positive studies makes the Chinese body of clinical literature very suspect.” Even when there is no doubt they appeal to racism, infer the Chinese scientists “liars”, and create confusion.

If you have cancer what do you do? Don’t trust anyone – including me. Don’t trust the oncologists but try to determine what the state of scientific research is with regards to your cancer, treatment and the longevity of the treatment. Change your lifestyle. Eat healthy organic food, watch what you drink and drink healthily. Do aerobic exercise. Find some form of exercise that promotes the chi, Chi Gung, Tai Chi or others, and good breathing – prana. And meditate. With all of this you will probably fill your days!!! . These are recommendations, changing lifestyle is not necessarily a cure but there is nothing there that can hurt – all these lifestyle choices are beneficial.

I refer back to Occupy and the 99%. At that time there was no confusion, apathy but no confusion. The message was growing that the 1% were the source of all the problems. Since then the 1% have increasingly funded the power of confusion.

Brexit cannot be resolved – confusion. Huge money was invested in Brexit and is still invested so there is no resolution as evidenced by Tories fighting amongst each other. There will be at least 4 years of this confusion whilst the 1% exploit behind the scenes.

Trump is just about division and confusion. Try to define what he is about, and you only come up with a political and power-hungry ego. He decries the 1% yet he is one of them. He talks about helping white people but gives tax breaks to the superrich. Everything he says, the way he tweets is just to cause confusion, and whilst there is confusion his special people can work behind the scenes for the 1%.

The new Divide-and-Rule colonialism is 1%-confusion.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Investigating cancer


I am going to start investigating two internet series produced by similar groups – one on vaccines and one on cancer.

Before I examine these series I must point out the following:-

These are medical matters. Unbiassed medicine and science can be the only sources of truth on these matters. But that is not the same as saying if medicine and science say it it is true. What makes one scientist say one thing etc., and the answer is quite simply bias due to funding.

In this day and age medical and scientific research costs a huge amount of money. When it comes to cancer there are huge profits earned by BigPharma through chemotherapy. BigPharma pays for their own research to find drugs but they also exert pressure on government funding agencies who might want to investigate alternative therapies. A sensible compromise for me would be BigPharma invests their money in drug research, and the public contributions to cancer research examine alternatives such as Gerson and so on.

Here is a story given to me by a person who has faith in science. In Holland there was a famous singer who was diagnosed with breast cancer. She chose to ignore medical advice which said at that stage her cancer was curable, and went to a faith healer. She died and the medical establishment (of one form or another) sued the faith healer. This was supposed to persuade me against alternatives. Firstly I do not dismiss faith healing but it was not this that I ask funding for scientific investigation – I wonder if faith healing can be investigated scientifically. Although I am a Buddhist I do not believe in Buddhism, I require experience of any Buddhist dogma before I say it is true. But why was the faith healer sued? Because the medical established backed by BigPharma profits were trying to deter people from going to alternatives. Can we sue BigPharma if we die from cancer? Maybe but the legal system is so biassed against ordinary people because they are financed out of court. BigPharma pays a huge amount for a legal department to make such cases go away.

When investigating cancer we have to be unbiassed. Science is not neutral in this because science is based on funding. This does not mean that science is lying, it means that science can only tell the truth of what it has investigated. What is very clear is that science has not investigated all avenues concerning cancer.

Some would argue that doctors and oncologists should be current on all the scientific research, I do not accept this. It is quite reasonable for hard-working doctors and oncologists to accept what medical schools and professional conferences say about cancer. Their job is to treat patients and not do medical research. However they are also the people with the medical knowledge of how treatment is working so as a resource base their knowledge needs to be evaluated. I question whether this is done – but I do not know.

In this blog I questioned cancer research and asked “With regards to the existing practices I have many questions, and these revolve around the current cancer treatment practices. I have the feeling that many oncologists accept chemotherapy because there is nothing better. But what about research into this decision? Are the side effects more harmful than the benefits of the treatment?

As far as I know there are different chemotherapy drugs used for different types of cancer, are these known and established? Is it known that such a drug will work on such a cancer for all the various stages? When does such a drug not work?

Are there cancers in which there is no treatment?”

Again in Holland I was advised that if you visited a doctor and were diagnosed with cancer you would be told what success rates different doctors have had in different locations with different types of cancer. This appears to answer my questions, and I don’t take that lightly. But if that is the case why are the scientists who work on alternative therapies so critical of the chemo treatments. “They have a vested interest” would be the system response – and they do have. But BigPharma medicine is also biassed. So the issue comes down to trust.

And that trust is primarily based on the system ignoring evidence that appears to have been scientifically gathered that some alternative therapies such as Gerson work on cancer. As a sceptic I want them investigated before I can trust a treatment that tells me that I have to destroy healthy tissue in order to destroy unhealthy tissue. I also cannot trust a system that says Farrah Fawcett’s death is the only way to go for some people. If her oncologists were telling her that had to happen, then why weren’t they recommending healthy eating and therapy that would at least have made her dying more comfortable?

None of this makes sense to me as a sceptic, and as a person who has some understanding of the control and power of 1%-influence in our political system I am deeply suspicious.

So I am going to consider two internet series “The Truth About Cancer” and “The Quest for the Cure”. From what I know I am sympathetic to their objectives but the level of independent funding they have makes me highly suspicious. I am sceptical of their purpose.

People like the Health Ranger, Mike Adams, have dismissed MSM (as in many cases I do). They dismiss them as having liberal bias as I do – the Republican/Trump division of “Fake News”, and they seek solutions on the right through politics such as libertarianism. In the US this is just promotion of the 1% because it promotes Republicanism. If Trump is not a demonstration of such misguided politics, then I don’t know what is.

When I see politics on the right wing I again have doubts. However the funding reaches these alternative advocates, why does money want to support their analyses? I believe there is a conspiracy – the 1%-system. The 1%-system is that wealth accumulates to the 1%, that they control governments, and war and wage-slavery are their main means of profit-making and control.

But right-wing conspiracies muddy the waters as they primarily attack government as the source of the problem, and then attack collectivisation as well because they are fiercely individualistic. The internet has fostered this fierce individualism through right-wing funding because the intended consequence, as illustrated by Trump, creates confusion. These individualists often support libertarianism, and libertarianism asks many good questions, but libertarianism supports a free and unregulated market but ignores the consequence that such a market will be controlled by cartels and other regulated mechanisms in the interest of the 1%. So whilst libertarians do not support the 1% their platform does and this is why they continue to receive funding – directly or indirectly from the 1%.

I have just started listening to the cancer stuff and it is full of these right-wing undertones – hence their funding. I have no doubts at all that these people are genuine (OK some minor doubts) – I do not believe they are in it because they are paid puppets, they believe what they say.

Just because they are right-wing does not make them wrong – or right. Just because I am left-wing does not make me right but I have a good start – my concerns start with compassion for all – not compassion for the individual.

For example one of the key underlying themes is that BigPharma makes huge profits from the cancer industry. This is an indisputable fact. Does BigPharma control government? In my view this is equally true although not so easily proveable. Equally BigFood is a significant player in this because of the way these right-wing individualists see cancer, and BigFood has a vested interest in maintaining the current mainstream understanding. This is equally evident.

Before examining the materials let us be clear about perceptions of these apparent conspiracies. When I first learned my Marxism we were expected to analyse. We could never analyse based on all the facts because governments don’t give you all the facts since those governments are puppets of the bourgeoisie (1%). How do we know such analyses are true? We don’t. So we took such analyses to the comrades and we analysed together. Together, did it make sense? Do we know the analysis is true? Of course not. Do we know that what we are told is true? Definitely false, but where? False if the truth does not benefit the 1%. We sought comrades globally whose understanding was like-minded and that is where our knowledge came from. What we did was correct but is also the problem with the alt-right now, we only listened to our comrades. So do they but their comrades are Breitbart, 1%-funded propaganda to confuse and divide. There are right-wingers who criticise collectivisation, why? Collectivisation just means for all the people. This is their individualism, their problem as individualists, they feel they have rights over the collective. It is my view that the collective needs to be tolerant and helpful towards individual needs but compassion for all people comes first – there has to be a balance.

In summary a conspiracy must not be dismissed simply because it is a conspiracy, it could be sound analysis. And soundness is the benchmark – not conspiracy.

Before I start I return to science. Science is not appropriately sceptical because through analysis I see a pattern that much scepticism is one-way and supports BigPharma (indirectly for funding purposes). However sound science must be the benchmark. Andrew Wakefield’s studies on the vaccine link to autism has been scientifically debunked (I trust John Oliver’s research as he would lose too much credibility if his researchers were wrong). So to my mind Wakefield’s name should be eschewed, and yet Vaccines Revealed touts Wakefield as one of its teams of experts (scroll down). This makes me extremely sceptical of anything that is said about vaccines, and by association about cancer – as the two series appear connected (Ty Bollinger).

There is a human side to all of this – fear. There is a culture and climate of fear that is especially used to gear up support on the right. Amongst the right there is an unspoken understanding of Marxism, the system is fundamentally corrupt, that the economy is built on confidence, and can be toppled through a breaking of that confidence. They will personally lose, so middle-class whites vote for self-protection and conservatism (Republicanism). Of course they turn their back on war and wage-slavery, ignore the repeated revelations concerning the wealthy and offshore accounts (Panama and Paradise), and are unable to give any deep analysis. Right wing populism appeals to that fear, does not have to have a deep analysis so long as fear is enhanced, and must be questioned because that fear benefits the 1%. But it cannot be ignored

I have determined there is a chronology on these cancer videos, Quest for Cures, Quest for Cures Continues (1 and 2), Truth About (1 and 2) even though there are supposed to be 9 (more?). That is the order I will try to work through, but my benchmark is legitimate scepticism and not scientific rigour so I might not review the lot if it is repetitive.

In the first clip we can hear G Edward Griffin, listen to this. Isn’t this simply holistic medicine? Seeking the root cause of the problem and dealing with it? As opposed to cutting, burning or poisoning a symptom? The clip then interviews a mainstream doctor who expertly describes the mainstream view of cancer in line with G Edward Griffin’s description. What Griffin is saying has sufficient scientific plausibility to be answered – not dismissed as conspiratorial lunacy? For me dismissal out-of-hand of what is described here condemns mainstream medicine as ignorant – as closed because it is not willing to investigate, but …. BUT there is no formal scientific evidence to satisfactorily support G Edward Griffin; he does say that the “statistics show cancer comes back”, that needs investigation. Can G Edward Griffin be faulted on that and other statements? This legitimate doubt is what needs to be remedied – either way, analysis and research based on the consequences of what G Edward Griffin and others say needs to be carried out. But that requires funding, and who controls the funding?

Consider my questions on cancer above, the cancer is not cured if a lump is removed and later comes back. Holistically the underlying conditions of the cause have not been dealt with, so the cure is not a cure. Cut burn and poison might be appropriate, but when? Should more be done such as diet and lifestyle after cut burn and poison? If there are natural treatments (as touted in this series of clips) that have any possible legitimacy, then they should be researched. In all of this I am appealing to science, I am asking that respected scientific methodology be applied in toto as a genuine search for knowledge. G Edward Griffin makes a strong case that I am saying interprets it as not searching, and it fits with an understanding of the power and influence of the 1% as Big Pharma and BigFood.

Perhaps the most telling issue that needs to be examined with regards to cancer is historical change (discussed in the clip here). Science argues that allopathic medical treatments (drugs) have cured disease yet cancer is on the increase. Isn’t there a question to be asked scientifically, why is it on the increase? There could be sound reasons for this increase; curing other diseases only leaves degenerative diseases – cancer, diabetes and heart disease. This explanation might be appropriate but then lifestyle changes, stress, lack of exercise and poor diet, could also legitimately explain. Why isn’t there an answer to this question?

Then there is an interview with a homeopath Dr Bell (who should be euthanised for his political views ). He describes the way in which medical education has been hijacked by BigPharma through Rockefeller (oil-based patented medicines) and Carnegie Foundation; it should be noted that as a right-winger he attacks the government as FDA rather than attacking the 1% who manipulate government. Place this hijack in context. When do doctors decide on how they will treat cancer? At medical school. Once they are in practice, they do not have the time to research how they are treating patients. Perhaps they attend medical conferences that support their treatment approaches, but they do not have the time to question what they learned in medical college. Why should they? In one sense they shouldn’t, but given the control that BigPharma has upon their medical practice there ought to be more healthy scepticism. Listen to this BigPharma sales rep discuss her job. If you control the education and the drugs the doctors prescribe, what else is there?

Dr Bell also describes, in a very Eurocentric manner, the breadth of medicine at the turn of the 20th century as homeopathy, naturopathy and eclectic herbal medicine, being replaced by allopathy (the drugs of BigPharma) he describes as poisons. In my view it is no coincidence that these non-allopathic treatments are attacked by SBM (science-based medicine) – along with acupuncture.

This approach is promoting privatised medicine. Dr Ball became a homeopath – private practice, for most of my life I have sought solutions through privatised medicine – primarily acupuncture. This was not by choice because outside of Botswana, China and Thailand it was very expensive. I would have been much happier if homeopathy, naturopathy, herbal medicine and acupuncture were part of the NHS, and I would have sought solutions there. I don’t understand in the US why the 1% would promote private practice because state hospitals are controlled by the finance industry. In the UK however it is different, and support of alternative (natural) treatments would effectively be an attack on the NHS. So it is important to note that this scepticism is contributing to right-wing culture through privatisation, if I understood the US medical culture better I might understand more why there is such abundant funding.

What about this question? Does it have validity? Here is the same question posed with some different details.

This doctor describes an Australian study (University of Sydney) which according to her demonstrates cutting burning and poisoning an already-sick body is not working. Is this scientifically-sound evidence? If so, why is it ignored?

Webster Kehr “5-year cure rate for chemo is 2.1%”. Is this understood and accepted? When chemo cure rates are recorded such as described above for Holland, is this 2.1% part of the patient’s information? “Most of the major kinds of cancer do not respond to chemotherapy well” Webster Kehr, is this true? Webster Kehr is the founder of the Cancer Tutor promoting alternative treatments so there is bias although scientific studies are quoted – including for the 2.1% figure. It is part of the “Independent Cancer Research Foundation”. So their research is supposedly scientific, does mainstream science accept their results? You can find natural alternative treatments through cancer tutor. I knew that Gerson had a clinic in Mexico, when I searched Mexico I found 2 clinics run by Dr Antonio Jiminez. There is an article about the Gerson therapy, maybe Jiminez’s Hope4Cancer and Gerson are connected. This possible anomaly concerns me. Cancer Tutor definitely has money, appears professional, but that is not enough.

I am about to give up because I have reached an impasse. I am saying nothing new, and all these people have spent far more time looking into the problem. There is money in “natural treatment” as well as in BigPharma’s cancer industry. From what little I know Gerson is well worth $6000 a week – far above my income bracket. Big money. Probably far less than medical insurance payouts but of course insurance will not pay for Gerson. Why is there an impasse? My scepticism demands appropriate research but the will is not there. I want a magic tool that says science and alternative treatments work together to establish a bank of knowledge that is independent verifiable and scientific. I am at an impasse because I conclude this cannot happen, it matters not the effectiveness of treatments nor the scientific evidence already available. In my view the failure to establish this independent scientific research is because of the mainstream, but that is only an opinion. The questions asked in this clip and the scientific evidence they quote is enough to demand that an unbiassed desire for knowledge would be asking the questions I have posed, but the situation has its bias. BigPharma and BigFood, and their control of government.

And of course there is the blind acceptance of what conditioning dishes out in terms of reverence for mainstream science and whatever else in the mainstream backs it up. The world is educated for blindness and people respond that way even when confronted with evidence. They prefer to call people liars than examine their own conditioning.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Graham Hancock – TED

I have just watched an excellent TED talk by Graham Hancock, it is worth a note even if I take it no further.

He began with a transformation of man’s consciousness by taking psychedelics implying that this was a natural role for these naturally occurring drugs. Transform consciousness through these natural drugs giving cave paintings that depict the transformations.

Then he spoke about Ayahuaca, Amazonian Mother Goddess. She appears as part of the Shaman taking of the drugs and she works in a corrective way to bring people back to the Path of Nature. Fascinating.

He ended with an excellent impassioned tirade against the 1% – spot on.

TED talk saved on Drive

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Do we have a choice about conditioning?

This is an important question that is not asked because our 1%-system benefits from people not being aware that they are conditioned. This system promotes greed, valuing accumulation as prestige or status. Whilst there are some good people who reject this attachment to greed and the damage it causes to the planet and humanity, most just accept the conditioning that greed is acceptable and join in with it.

Once this greed is accepted there is much damage against Natural Law. This acceptance of personal accumulation is leading to economic catastrophe as discussed here. We already have environmental devastation through exploitation by the accumulators, and to top that off the accumulators, Koch Brothers, pay for climate denial to further promote their greed. How senseless is this. Even less sensible is the way this need for accumulation causes global war and suffering, and on a personal level leads to wage-slavery.

Whilst accepting greed is the worst aspect of the conditioning it is not the only aspect of conditioning that is damaging. In this post scepticism leads people like Rupert Sheldrake to question fundamental scientific dogma. When our scientific establishment fails to examine its own conditioning and presents us with limited knowledge of who we are as humans, how we interact together, how we act together as ONE planet then we have to question science and its education – we have to question the basis of education as a whole, but we don’t.

Failure to examine our conditioning is against Natural Law. So it is necessary to understand what conditioning is and how it arises. Above I have described the worst aspects of conditioning, and whilst much of this conditioning benefits the 1% and their political system it is far from being the only conditioning that is happening. Conditioning is happening all the time from the smallest and least important to the drastic acceptance of accumulation and its global impact.

Here is a limited version of the important teaching of paticcasamuppada (law of dependent origination) or as Buddhadasa describes it Idappaccayata-paticcasamuppada in order to stress that it is Natural Law:-

This is discussed in detail by Matriellez in mindfulness meditation and mindfulness generally.

But let us consider it here. We experience something through our sense – this can include a thought or idea. We react emotionally to this thought or idea, we desire or are averse to this experience, we feel strongly about it – one way or the other, and as a result it becomes added to our modular mind. Once added to our modular mind we have been conditioned.

Let us consider this notion of modular mind. Science is not willing to reach agreement as to the nature of mind preferring to accept different views; one such view is that of modular mind. This view says that mind aggregates various “selves” as part of a modular mind, and dependent origination is a description of the way such selves could arise. These aggregated selves are created through sense experiences that are clung to as a self – this is conditioning through sense experience. Personally this is how I understand mind to work but for science/academia I present this in an observational way – a forced “deception”.

This is a natural process of conditioning but because we don’t examine this conditioning process through education it becomes an oppressive process as we have no control of it. Desire as greed is natural but it needs to be curbed. Some religions will tell you greed is bad but mostly as humans we are subject to propaganda that enforces the acceptability of such greed by glamourising the lives of the rich and famous. Because of this repetitive clinging greed becomes more and more entrenched as part of our selves – our modular mind. We accept that we are greedy.

In examining this process of conditioning in which selves are added to the modular mind we can see a way through the problem. There is the experience that becomes part of the modular mind. If we are clinging to the experience that is hard to fight, once the desire arises it is also hard to fight, even just liking or disliking is difficult to work through, so if we want to control our conditioning then we need to intercept any formation of emotion, desire or clinging. Matriellez was discussing this in regards to mindfulness meditation, and suggested using watchfulness in meditation to intercept the forming of selves through emotion, desire and clinging.

There is a conditioning moment – phassa (discussed here) in which we can intercept the self from forming. We can stop the conditioning. Education could choose to stop the conditioning (Matriellez discusses it on this page). Science could choose to be sceptical of its 10 dogmas. Our system could choose to be wary of what are real and imaginary economic transactions and control them. There is a choice, there is a conditioning moment that we can choose to control or not; BUT we don’t.

Once we become aware that we are conditioned then we can begin to intercept the formation of new conditioned selves. But by that time of life the problem is that our minds are conditioned through upbringing and education. So the problem is similar but different, how do we remove the conditioning? The process is similar in the sense that we use meditation to examine the modular mind for selves that have aggregated there, and once we recognise these aggregations we can examine see them for the conditioning they are and remove the clinging, desire and emotion that put them there in the first place.

At this point we have recognised conditioning, we can choose to prevent that conditioning from arising, and also work on the conditioning that has arisen. So that leaves the question, what happens to us if there is no conditioning? Do we stop functioning if all there is is conditioned selves?

Buddhadasa described us as having 4 systems; according to Santikharo, who is generally recognised as Buddhadasa’s conduit to the West, this was what he was working on towards his death. These systems are described as body, psyche, self and emptiness, and I have summarised these 4 systems in this meme:-

Through our conditioning we aggregate selves to the self-system. In a sense this self system blocks access to “emptiness”, I choose the Pali word Sunnata for this emptiness; Buddhadasa described it as Void mind, void of self. So through our deconditioning we remove selves leaving access to sunnata, and this sunnata is what enables us to function.

Well almost completely. If there is only sunnata we are not alive. For the optimum state of life we need human functioning but without conditioning – no selves, so that within that optimum state we are functioning through sunnata. But our humanity is maintained through the 5 khandas, body -rupa, vedana – feeling, sanna – memories and perceptions, sankhara – mental operations and vinnana – consciousness; Buddhadasa divided these as body and psyche. How does this work? These khandas are the basic arena of sense experience (as described in dependent origination). And humans need sense experience. But what happens to that sense experience, is it just left as is? No, we allow it to become selves through the process of emotions, desire and clinging, so that these sense experiences become my sense experience (having accumulated in the modular mind). But if we do not allow these sense experiences to form as selves (attach) in the modular mind, then we can experience life as it is meant to be experienced – through sunnata.

This is the Natural Law. Within this law there is the conditioning of selves as a natural process, there is the point at which we choose whether to allow conditioning, and there are the ways we can remove the conditioning (meditation or otherwise) that allow us to live naturally – through sunnata.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.