connect the DOTS, do the MATH and smell the COFFEE

An excerpt: "A gene drive could have unintended effects on the environment if it is unleashed in wild populations ...[A]s molecular biology research on gene drives has surged forward, it has outpaced our understanding of their ecological consequences, says Heitman. Even a small, accidental release from a laboratory holds the potential to spread around the globe: “After release into the environment, a gene drive knows no political boundaries,” the committee wrote."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-m-a-bayer-idUSKCN0YA054

Which company produced the Zyklon B for the gas showers in Nazi Germany? IG Farben aka Bayer.

Which company produced Agent Orange for the Vietnam war? You guessed right, MONSANTO.

Now Bayer may buy Monsanto and the world may enjoy their consolidated power.

For lack of knowledge people are destroyed.

Hippocrates stated that all disease begins in the gut, an exaggeration but he had a point. Inversely recovery can begin there too depending on the presence of 'good' bacteria. Homeopaths and other types of natural healers have known all along but it is only now that main stream 'scientists' are 'discovering' this.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-14/how-gut-bacteria-are-shaking-up-cancer-research

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/zika-outbreak-caused-release-genetically-7281671

Expect a backlash when meddling with nature. Giving companies and or the government the 'authority' and trust to perform such interference means being bound by its consequences, terms and conditions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/02/technology/at-cdc-a-debate-behind-recommendations-on-cellphone-risk.html

The article features the following paragraph:

"Radiation released by nuclear bombs is obviously harmful. Known as ionizing radiation, it is powerful enough to remove electrons from atoms. By contrast, radio-frequency energy is a form of non-ionizing radiation given off by cellular and portable phones, Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors and countless other devices."

So now I am suppose to believe that all non-ionizing radiation is harmless. Poor thinking. How about ultraviolet, infrared or microwaves? The latter, by the way, is emitted and received by your mobile phone and widely used to heat up food. Go sit in the Australian summer sun without protection and report back to me how THAT works for you. Or a well known classic: put your pet in a microwave oven and observe how the non-ionizing radiation 'transforms' him.

Just do some research how the level microwaves from your mobile gets approved, you'll be stunned and realize something fishy is going on and don't forget to look into the work of Barry Trower, you can find him on Youtube.

I mean: Why do you think that 4G network is forbidden in Bruxelles, the EU capital? Why do you think the Scientific Council in The Netherlands sued the Health Council regarding mobile device radiation levels? Why do you think a UMTS antenna mechanic is only allowed to work less than 5 hours in proximity of such an antenna? Why do you think dutch Prof. Michiel Haas wrote a book called 'Electrostress & Health'? Why did Italy's Supreme Court rule that there is a causal link between mobile phone use and cancer? Why are there multiple publications which conclude that living closer than 450 meters from a UMTS antenna increases the chance of cancer with a factor 3.5? etc etc.

Remember that BEFORE 1920 it was known that asbestos is a carcinogen but it took well over 70 years before it was forbidden by law to use that material for construction in The Netherlands, not sure about other countries on earth, but the denial and/or deliberate cover-up about the hazards of that material has certainly caused a lot of unnecessary suffering.

One more excerpt from the above NY Times article: “Scientific opinion is split on the issue — many different studies have reached different conclusions based on the same evidence,”

Ask yourself how an opinion is even scientific. Define opinion:

opinion

Get it? Scientific opinion is a contradictio in terminis for true science is factual and based on knowledge.

Anyway, I am not afraid of a phone call or WiFi here and there but I do promote awareness about the instruments we use on a daily basis and the possible risks thereof. The latter are of course obfuscated by the parties who want to make a buck out of greed and that bothers me more than sitting in a WiFi area for a while. What bothers me even more is the guileless, docile and even indulgent attitude of the masses/consumers towards the sellers and 'authorities'; their lack of awareness and care, not to mention knowledge.

It is true that a 'cold'  is not caused by low temperature and yet there IS a correlation between the flu season and colder months. Why? Because 'science' says so.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12808-cold-weather-really-does-spread-flu/

Interested in an annual flu shot?

Consider that the flu shot is redundant since it only works on people with strong immune systems and thus do not need that vaccine to begin with.

A lot of TTIP protesters were on the streets today to save democracy but THAT presupposes that there IS democracy. Furthermore they demand to know what the advantage is for 'the people' which again falsely presumes it was ever designed to serve the people.

You see, with a hopelessly naive attitude like that the baddies surely will win. Forget fighting them legally just SIMPLY boycot specific products.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-10/biggest-protest-country-has-seen-years-quarter-million-germans-protest-obama-free-tr

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/italy-tells-eu-opt-growing-gmo-crops-statement-113420284--sector.html

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/23/hawaii-birth-defects-pesticides-gmo