Recent Comments

  • Reply to: Turmeric Extract May Prevent, Even Reverse Diabetes (Type 1 and 2)   6 hours 30 min ago

    We appreciate the powerful biological effects of Curcumin. But, the studies cited were using an unnatural and patended "novel curcumin derivative" that is bound to Bovine Serum Albumin at a very high and expensive dose. Few people would be able to obtain this compound, let alone be able to afford the cost of the massive doses that are needed.

    "The novel derivative, with 53.21% curcumin content is registered as international patent protected by the rights of “The Patent Cooperation Treaty” and are the personal property of their inventors (PCT/EG2008/000044, WO 2010/057503, Regional phase European Patent Application No. 08878223) [20]. The novel water-soluble curcumin derivative with conserved natural functional groups is [1,7-bis (5-carboxyphenylazo-4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenyl)1,6-heptadiene-3,5-dione]. This novel water-soluble curcumin derivative with conserved natural functional groups was developed in our laboratories through covalent modification of the curcumin molecule on sites remote from its natural functional groups."


  • Reply to: Why the "Chemtrail Conspiracy" Is Real   2 days 16 hours ago

    Hello, SayerJi. 

    First of all, I want to say that, human stupidity being what it is, I find it entirely plausible that some people may be contemplating geoengineering by spraying something into the atmosphere.

    HOWEVER: I find NO actual evidence that "chemtrails" exist or that geoengineering is being attempted by this method.

    We DO find all sorts of nasty things in our soil and water that do not belong there, including fly ash, but these things have been industrial effluents for decades longer than we have had jet aircraft. So there are totally conventional explanations for the presence of these things in soil and water samples.

    There is no "case" for the existence of chemtrails. In order to have a "case" that will stand up in a court of law, there must be one or both of these two things:

    * A responsible official must state, "Yes, we are spraying substances into the atmosphere." 
    * There must be a chemical analysis of something emitted by aircraft, captured before it hits the ground. The analysis must be done by an independent and credible laboratory using documented and accepted methods of analysis, and the details of this analysis must be part of the "testimony."

    If you don't have one or both of these things, there is no "case" and it's all speculation. 

    Given that very sophisticated digital image manipulation can be done on a home computer, I do not accept digital photographs as proof of anything. And many of the images proposing to be "chemtrails" crisscrossing the sky show clear signs of digital manipulation and enhancement.

    Additionally: ALL aircraft engines, including of propeller-driven aircraft, produce condensation trails under certain conditions of altitude and temperature. The shape of condensation trails and the length of time for them to dissipate is dependent on these conditions, not so much on the composition. This is basic science, and the proponents of the chemtrail conspiracy theory seem extremely weak in both basic science and basic logic.

    So this article is extremely unhelpful — and IMO does not belong in a credible site such as this one. The logical chain is faulty at several points, and the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence."

    I am open to new information in this regard, IF someone can produce actual evidence that will give us leverage in a court of law as well as the court of public opinion.

    It's telling that neither Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, nor Union of Concerned Scientists has chosen to take up the question of chemtrails. If at some point one of these organizations chooses to address "chemtrails" as a plausible issue, I'll be all over it.

    Thank you for reading this far.

  • Reply to: Are You Trading Heartburn for a Heart Attack?   1 week 16 hours ago
    Subject: PPI

    I am a pharmacist and I don't agree with the use of PPI's unless there is a really big need for one like a GI bleed. I would never recommend any of them to my patient's. There are way too many adverse effects with all of them. However, there are some limitations to this study. Also, I have been told the number needed to harm is around 4300 which is really big. Here are some of the limitations:


     Mining data cannot judge causality, only associations.

    No account for over-the-counter PPI usage, or usage of an H2 blocker before the use of PPI, or differences by drug dosage.

    Lack of reliability of ICD-9 or UMLS codes for identifying an exposure/outcome

     PPI usage may be a marker of sicker patient population

    Lack of clarity in the methods and analysis of data in the research

  • Reply to: Why Cannabis Is the Future of Medicine   1 week 21 hours ago


    In fact, as far back as 2727 B.C., cannabis was recorded in the Chinese pharmacopoeia as an effective medicine, and evidence for its use as a food, textile and presumably as a healing agent stretch back even further, to 12 BC.[1]  

    // 12 BC is not further back from 2727 BC. 

    Please make a correction to the article.  Little errors are trumpeted by detractors.  Sayer, I honor your work.  And I must say, this article has respectable breadth.  It is indeed up to us to move Medicine from its prevailing dark age, that of poisons and profits. 

  • Reply to: How The Microbiome Destroyed the Ego, Vaccine Policy, and Patriarchy   3 weeks 3 days ago
    Subject: Procreation

    Sayer, I think your comments on the microbiome are bang on. But the feminist stuff is as old and tiresome as the modern medical paradigm. We still need men to make a baby, unless you want to submit to the Gates-style Orwellian test tubes, artificial sperm and wombs, etc that have been spawned by that old philosophy that birthed radical feminism and sought to control women's unique capabilities through eugenic drug-controlled conception: medical childbirthing, abortion, population control, and so on. You can't fairly condemn one without seeing the flaws in the other. Why do we seem to miss that the modern pharmaceutical children-as-controlled-and-perfect-commodities paradigm is so different from that of the vaccine paradigm?

    Men and women are complementary and should live in peace and harmony. Procreation is a gift  -- a radical gift of participation in the Divine creation that includes the fabulous  --and diverse -- microbiome.

  • Reply to: Fukushima Daiichi Decommissioning: Follow The Money   4 weeks 3 days ago

    Dear Arnie, thank you for simply speaking the truth. Godspeed.

  • Reply to: California Drought: A Surprising Cause?   5 weeks 1 day ago

       At least the title had a question mark.  Interesting concept and could have some validity in the midwest.   But California's problem is due to lack of clouds, not lack of bacteria in the clouds.   Also, most of California's clouds ride the jet stream from the Pacific Ocean where contamination will be nil.  So as Stephanie Seneff said, "These ideas are speculative,"

  • Reply to: Casualties in the War: New Research Confirms Vaccines Do Have a Dark Side   5 weeks 6 days ago
  • Reply to: For the first time in a higher plant, two concurrent pathways capable of degrading glyphosate to AMPA, Pi, glyoxylate, sarcosine and formaldehyde as end products were identified.   6 weeks 1 day ago

    I am working with a small circle of people in Uruguay, seeking solutions to the problems that impel agricultural producers and cattle ranchers to use glyphosate in the first place.

    In addition, we are interested in soil remediation. This article is quite interesting, and we will look forward to seeing how the velvet bean findings might lead to practical applications that shorten the normal half-life of glyphosate.

    Meanwhile, do you know of any soil bacteria that have been shown to degrade glyphosate in situ? Many thanks for your excellent work.


  • Reply to: Measles and Measles Vaccines: 14 Things To Consider   8 weeks 2 days ago
    Subject: Guest

    Re: "Guest" This is a drug company troll, pure and simple. I suggest that everyone ignore or soundly discount the obnoxious, provocative, bejabberings of this disinfo machine. It cannot argue facts with integrity... it argues and ridicules "perceptions" from the false altar of presumed superiority. Those of us who have struggled with this issue as the loving parent of a precious, god-given child (as are they ALL) know that the drug companies have been given legal immunity from the effects of their toxic innoculants while parents are being commanded to allow them to inject this filth into our children's blood streams or be tried as criminals. The drug companies and doctors even want us to SIGN complicity that we "accept" all possible consequences, all the while we are threatened legally, and economically for defending our children with the best knowledge we often spend YEARS to learn. The assumption we are being strong-armed into acquiescing to - is that OFFICIALS of any stripe - are on a higher order of knowledge than rank and file humans can ever hope to aspire to - and we should not interfere with any contrivance they wish to impose on OUR children. Yes they are OUR children and not the property of the state, the government, ANY - GODLESS!!! - corporation and when the sum of a parent's actions and choices regarding their children demonstrate love and appropriate parental personal sacrifice (of time spent educating oneself and choosing what has the greatest probability of protecting the life and wellbeing of their children) that parent's decision trumps the presumptions of drug companies that won't even be accountable for the death and destruction they refuse to even admit to causing.