Deliberately misrepresenting your views is a standard form of attack that will be leveled against you when you express the heretical belief that maybe the world’s not a ball. If you cite the lack of curvature they will point out that there’s no way it’s flat because the water would flow over the edge.
Confronted with the eminent falsifiability of their beloved globe, they often retreat into denial, ignoring your facts and focusing instead upon some ridiculous facet of a Flat Earth model nobody takes seriously. This is a deliberate form of deflection which allows them to censor your message by conflating it with nonsense. You will never hear Joe Rogan (a controversial American talkshow host. ed ) say, “Someone please explain to me how the curvature is determined.” Nope. He’ll rant and rave about how the evil Flat Earthers need to be tied to stakes and burned. This is an intentional act of sabotage. Straw man arguments are meant to claim victory in a debate and change the subject.
However, most of the time people employ this method unintentionally. It comes from a lack knowledge about the topic which, to be fair, is totally understandable. This article is intended to assist the Flat Earth Reformer in this regard. So usually when they come at you with strawman attacks it is because they are ignorant about the Flat Earth model and therefore they don’t actually know what they are arguing against. They don’t know the claims you make and so they can’t argue against those.
Use strawman arguments as a chance to correct the record. Sometimes people are just responding to their conditioning. All of us went through the indoctrination process. We all went to elementary school where we were shown a globe and we were told people used to believe that if you kept sailing the same direction you would go over the edge, and then the kids would all laugh because that’s a laugh line. It’s a straw man mischaracterization of the Flat Earth that was handed to us when we were little, so obviously the first time someone encounters this topic as an adult they’re going to revert to what they know.
“Wait a minute,” they’ll say, “everybody knows the world’s a ball. We figured that out five-thousand years ago. I was told about this in the second grade, so if you think the world is flat, then why hasn’t anyone gone over the edge?” Debate won. At least that’s how they see it.
What you have to do is deconstruct the strawman argument because when people first hear of Flat Earth they imagine a frisbee floating in space and they ask, “…if Earth is flat then why isn’t the sun lighting up the entire surface at once. Wouldn’t we have night and day uniformly? Because a sphere, obviously shields half the surface.”
So that’s a fairly straightforward and logical comment, but what they miss here is that this is not what we think the Flat Earth looks like. We reject heliocentrism altogether so these distant stars you see, and the distant sun 93 million miles away, does not apply to any Flat Earth model. And to be clear, there are several competing models. There isn’t a consensus yet.
Perhaps the enforcers of the globe-matrix have the ideal, accurately represented map of the Flat Earth but we certainly don’t. We do have common points of agreement, namely the lack of curvature and the eminent falsifiability of the globe, but we’re still seeking the best explanations. Unlike globers, we don’t pretend to know everything.
The absence of consensus doesn’t invalidate it. Consensus has nothing to do with science. A new discovery by an individual may actually change what the majority believes. It’s not as though all discoveries are made by every scientist at the same time. New information by individual or minority opinion is always what upsets the status quo.
Because there isn’t a fully agreed upon model, strawman arguments tend to fail anyway. They should always be met with some facet of the debate that is agreed upon, like the fact that there is no stellar parallax. Or that lakes are flat.
It should also be mentioned that none of us believe in outer space and that the only time we have ever seen it is in the movies and in NASA computer animations. The crew on the International Space Station NEVER EVER EVER take a handheld camera and look around outside the window. We have to rely on their testimony that it’s “oh so beautiful.” Well, the reason why they can’t show us space is because it doesn’t exist, or at least not in the way it’s been described.
The Flat Earth model rejects SPACE itself, which is what many people who are deeply indoctrinated into the spherical Earth model don’t get. They can’t think outside the Globe. We reject orbiting spheres, the vastly overstated distances to the stars, the moon, and the so called planets. We see the heliocentric system as a farcical model and recognize that “space” is as real and as provable as “Heaven.” We have to rely on priests and true believers who have crossed over to the other side.
Another straw man argument that was leveled against me recently went like this “Hey, wait a minute, if the world was flat , then the same constellations would be visible from any point on the surface, at all times. Yet, if you’re on the southern hemisphere, there are constellations you can’t see that you can see from the northern hemisphere. How do you explain that?”
Of course this means that the curvature of the globe is occluding the view of those constellations on the other side of the hump. That explanation only makes sense if you’re looking at the stars and their distances through the lens of the heliocentric model. It’s a straw man argument because Flat Earth rejects the distances involved in the heliocentric model.
If the stars are not trillions of miles away, but are instead just a few thousand miles away, than any constellation that you see from the northern “hemisphere” will not be visible a few thousand miles to the south because it will be over the visible horizon from the distant observer.
Besides, It hasn’t even been established that light itself can been seen from 25 trillion light-years away. The existence of light-years and the entire cosmology predicated upon the existence of light-years has been called into question.
Also note that the straw man argument also applies to the stereotype used to attack Flat Earthers when there aren’t any around. In the absence of a visible Flat Earth movement, the enemy will have free reign over the narrative. This is why people generalize about Flat Earthers. We’re described as a bunch of trolls who aren’t serious. Or we’re nutcase homeschoolers, dinosaur deniers, global warming deniers, who inhabit the shallow ends of our gene pools.
The way we deconstruct that particular strawman, the misrepresentation of who and what Flat Earthers are, we have to be seen and heard. When a creep like Joe Rogan launches a strawman attack against all Flat Earthers, you can rest assured that we’re in the process of witnessing the gradual acceptance of a self-evident truth. First they ignore it, then they attack it, then they pretend to have known it all along.
So this tactic boils down to these two approaches to deconstructing their strawman arguments:
Call them out for “getting everything wrong,” and correct the misrepresentations of Flat Earth.
Advocate for the truth. Be an agent of change as we deconstruct the Globe Paradigm. Become the visible vanguard of the Flat Earth Reformation. This will negate their attempts to define us.
A little light relief for children of all ages.
The review examines scientific evidence about the impact of organic food on human health.
Laura Donnelly, health editor – Daily Telegraph
2 JUNE 2017 • 9:30PM
Consumers should consider going organic because pesticides on foods are far more dangerous than was thought, causing damage to the human brain, a major study suggests.
The research, published by the European Parliament, warns of the “very high costs” of current levels of exposure to pesticides – especially for children and pregnant women.
It could result in new limits on pesticide levels or changes to labelling of foodstuffs, under EU laws which require the UK to review its policies by next year.
The report says low level exposure to pesticides could harm children’s brain development CREDIT: ALAMY
The landmark study suggests that the damage caused by pesticides across the EU amounts to at least £125bn a year, based on the loss of lifetime income from such damage.
The report warns of increasing evidence that residues from insecticides are damaging the brain, and reducing the IQ of the population. And it raises concerns that the chemicals could also cause cancer and damage to the reproductive system.
The research, commissioned by the European Parliament, is a review of existing scientific evidence about the impact of organic food on human health.
At least 100 different pesticides are known to cause adverse neurological effects in adults
European Parliament report
It says previous attempts to assess the impact of pesticides have disregarded too much of the research, raising concerns that regulation of insecticides has been inadequate.
The study was carried out by the parliament’s Scientific Foresight Unit, led by the Swedish University of Agricultural Scientists.
“At least 100 different pesticides are known to cause adverse neurological effects in adults, and all of these substances must therefore be suspected of being capable of damaging developing brains as well,” the report states.
“Such adverse effects are likely to be lasting and one main outcome is cognitive deficits, often expressed in terms of losses of IQ points. The combined evidence suggests that current exposures to certain pesticides in the EU may cost at least € 125 billion per year, as calculated from the loss of lifetime income due to the lower IQs associated with prenatal exposure.”
It goes on to describe the calculation as “almost certainly” an underestimate as it does not consider the possible contribution made by pesticides to conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer.
The researchers recommend limiting exposure to non-organic fruit and vegetables – and say particular care should be taken by pregnant women and children.
Several practices in organic agriculture, in particular the low use of pesticides and antibiotics, offer benefits for human health
Professor Axel Mie
“The evidence reviewed in this report shows that a decreased exposure from the general population is desirable from a human health perspective in light of the findings from epidemiological studies that indicate very high costs of current levels of pesticide exposures,” the report says.
Previous attempts to assess the risks have not taken proper account of epidemiological studies, which look at the health of whole populations, instead of just limiting themselves to scientific trials, it suggests.
“Of major concern, these risk assessments disregard evidence from epidemiological studies that show negative effects of low-level exposure to organophosphate insecticides on children’s cognitive development, despite the high costs of IQ losses to society,” it states.
And it raises concerns that risk assessment of pesticides is inadequate, failing to properly examine any increased risk of cancer, as well as impacts on the body’s hormones and nervous system.
Milk from organic cows could be nutritionally better CREDIT: CHRISTOPHER FURLONG /GETTY IMAGES
“There are concerns that this risk assessment is inadequate at addressing mixed exposures, specifically for carcinogenic effects as well as endocrine-disrupting effects and neurotoxicity. Furthermore, there are concerns that test protocols lag behind independent science studies from independent science, are not fully considered and data gaps are accepted too readily,” the authors warn.
Lead author, Assistant Professor Axel Mie said: “Several practices in organic agriculture, in particular the low use of pesticides and antibiotics, offer benefits for human health”.
“Policymakers should support the use of such practices and their introduction in conventional agriculture, and make sure that organic agriculture continues to serve as a laboratory for the development of future healthy food systems.”
Under an EU Directive on the sustainable use of pesticides, member states are required to public a national plan to reduce risks from pesticides every five years, with the UK required to update its restrictions by 2018.
US studies have shown women’s exposure to pesticides during pregnancy, measured through urine samples, were associated with negative impacts on their children’s IQ and neurobehavioral development. A study looking at structural brain growth found the grey matter was thinner in children whose mothers had high exposure to organophosphates, which are used widely in pesticides.
Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director said: “This report is great for organic farmers and everyone who eats organic food. Organic food sales have been growing strongly for five years, and a key reason that people buy organic food sales is that they feel it is better for them and their family – that is why more than half the baby food sold in the UK is organic. This new, independent, scientific review confirms people are right.”
Dr Chris Hartfield, senior regulatory affairs adviser at the National Farmers Union, said: “ Pesticides are among the most stringently regulated products in the world, with rigorous independent safety assessments and scientific studies carried out to ensure that any residues that remain on food pose no risk to people. It is important to point out that this European Parliament report makes it quite clear that our understanding in these areas is limited, the evidence is not conclusive, and the significance of the findings for public safety is unclear.”
|An up-date to this mornings post. (ed)
Break out the CO2 bubbly; Al Gore is crying in his beer
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
By Jon Rappoport
“All right, contestants, listen carefully. Here’s the final question. The winner will be awarded three years living in a hut with no electricity or heat and he’ll dig for tubers and roots so he can eat—thus contributing to a decrease in global warming. All right, here is the question: Whose private jet spews more CO2? Al Gore’s or Leo DiCaprio’s?”
With Trump’s historic rejection of the Paris climate treaty, Al Gore is deep in a funk.
But don’t weep for Al. He can still amuse himself counting his money. Yes, Al’s done very well for himself hustling the “settled science” all these years, shilling for an energy-depleted Globalist utopia.
Al knows actual science the way a June bug knows how to pilot a spaceship.
Every movement needs such men.
Consider facts laid out in an uncritical Washington Post story (October 10, 2012, “Al Gore has thrived as a green-tech investor”):
In 2001, Al was worth less than $2 million. By 2012, it was estimated he’d piled up a nice neat $100 million in his lock box.
How did he do it? Well, he invested in 14 green companies, who inhaled—via loans, grants and tax relief—somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion from the federal government to go greener.
Therefore, Gore’s investments paid off, because the federal government was providing massive cash backup to those companies. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
For example, Gore’s investment firm at one point held 4.2 million shares of an outfit called Iberdrola Renovables, which was building 20 wind farms across the United States.
Iberdrola was blessed with $1.5 billion from the Federal government for the work which, by its own admission, saved its corporate financial bacon. Every little bit helps.
Then there was a company called Johnson Controls. It made batteries, including those for electric cars. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management (GIM), doubled its holdings in Johnson Controls in 2008, when shares cost as little $9 a share. Gore sold when shares cost $21 to $26—before the market for electric-car batteries fell on its head.
Johnson Controls had been bolstered by $299 million dropped at its doorstep by the administration of President Barack Obama.
On the side, Gore had been giving speeches on the end of life as we know it on Earth, for as much as $175,000 a pop. (Gore was constantly on the move from conference to conference, spewing jet fumes in his wake.) Those lecture fees can add up.
So Gore, as of 2012, had $100 million.
The man worked every angle to parlay fear of global-warming catastrophes into a humdinger of a personal fortune. And he didn’t achieve his new status in the free market. The federal government helped out with major, major bucks.
This wasn’t an entrepreneur relying exclusively on his own smarts and hard work. Far from it.
—How many scientists and other PhDs have been just saying no to the theory of manmade global warming?
2012: A letter to The Wall Street Journal signed by 16 scientists said no. Among the luminaries: William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
And then there was the Global Warming Petition Project, or the Oregon Petition, that said no. According to Petitionproject.org, the petition has the signatures of “31,487 American scientists,” of which 9,029 stated they had Ph.Ds.
Global warming is one of the Rockefeller Globalists’ chief issues. Manipulating it entails convincing populations that a massive intervention is necessary to stave off the imminent collapse of life on Earth. Therefore, sovereign nations must be eradicated. Political power and decision-making must flow from above, from “those who are wiser.”
Globalists want all national governments on the planet to commit to lowering energy production by a significant and destructive percentage in the next 15 years—“to save us from a horrible fate.”
Their real agenda is clear: “The only solution to climate change is a global energy-management network. We (the Globalist leaders) are in the best position to manage such a system. We will allocate mandated energy-use levels throughout the world, region by region, nation by nation, and eventually, citizen by citizen.”
This is the long-term goal. This is the Globalists’ Holy Grail.
Slavery imposed through energy.
Al Gore has done admirable work for his bosses. And for himself. As a past politician with large name recognition, he’s promoted fake science, tried to scare the population of Earth, and financially leveraged himself to the hilt in the fear-crevice he helped create.
Ask not for whom the bells toll. They toll with delight. They’re attached to cash registers. And Al has stuck his hands in and removed the cash.
He might be crying in his beer today, after Trump rejected the Paris climate treaty, but Al’s also thinking about how he can play to the Left that’s so outraged at Trump’s decision. More speeches, more “inconvenient truth” films, maybe a summit with Leo DiCaprio and Obama.
Yes, there’s still money in those hills…quite possibly more money than ever.
Sometimes, somewhere on this planet a politician makes a wise decision! The climate change/warming nonsense/hoax/scam is a dangerous distraction from real environmental issues. The perpetrators have taken a serious body blow and about time too!
By Jon Rappoport
June 1, 2017, a day that will live in infamy for the liar, thieves, and killers of the new international economic order. They will see it as infamy, because their plan to sink the economy of America into a final death rattle has been rejected by Trump.
Fake climate science has been the lynchpin, justifying orders to cut CO2 emissions—but make no mistake about it, cutting emissions means cutting energy production in almost all countries of the world. THAT’S THE GLOBALIST TARGET. ENERGY PRODUCTION.
Get that one straight. The Globalist “utopia” isn’t a trillion solar collectors or a trillion windmills—it’s lights going out all over the world.
It’s LOWER ENERGY PRODUCTION.
That’s the monster hiding in the closet. That’s the outcome arch-Globalists are determined to foist on the planet, because that’s the society they want to control—poverty-stricken, abject, shuffling along a bleak path to nowhere.
Trump just stuck a knife in that scheme.
Yes, I fully understand the devil is in the details, but it is up to people everywhere, who have active brain cells and can see through the climate hoax, to take this opportunity to reject, publicly, the whole climate agenda.
CO2 is not the enemy.
Do the research yourself and see if there is any way these so-called scientists can assess, now or in the past, THE TRMPERATURE OF THE WHOLE PLANET.
The science is settled? There is no room for argument?
Dyson, physicist and mathematician, professor emeritus at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, Fellow of the Royal Society, winner of the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, the Fermi Award: “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies [in climate change models] between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the [climate change] models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago… I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this [climate change] issue, and the Republicans took the right side…” (The Register, October 11, 2015)
Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel-prize winner in Physics (1973), reported by Climate Depot, July 8, 2015: “Global warming is a non-problem…I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.”
Green Guru James Lovelock, who once predicted imminent destruction of the planet via global warming: “The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact, I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change.” (The Guardian, September 30, 2016)
And these are but a tiny fraction of the statements made by dissident scientists who reject manmade global warming.
But regardless, never lose sight of agenda based on this “settled science.”
VASTLY LOWER ENERGY PRODUCTION FOR PLANET EARTH.
And at the same time, truly viable forms of energy production (e.g., water turbines, hydrogen), that could be brought online with but a fraction of previously chiseled government subsidies for oil and nuclear, are sitting on the shelf gathering dust—BECAUSE THE MODEL OF SCARCITY FOR THE PLANET IS WHAT THE GLOBALIST EMPIRE DESIRES.
Until such time as that model is destroyed, Earth needs energy, all the energy it can produce.
The climate criminals, working for Globalism Central, staged their Paris “Treaty” to try to torpedo that production. Obama signed on in Paris, knowing full well he was committing a criminally unconstitutional act by disregarding the vote of the US senate, a vote that was needed to confer legitimacy to the agreement.
There is nothing binding about the Paris “Treaty.” Nothing.
And today, Trump squashed it.
Might he re-enter negotiations and give away some of what he’s just taken back for America? Anything’s possible. But for now, the Paris Accord is a dead duck here in the US.
Trump is going to catch a new version of Hell for what he’s just done. But if enough Americans, and people around the world, realize the true implication of this historic day, and proclaim it, they’ll win. We’ll win. Each one of us.
Don’t give up. Don’t give in.
Use this link to order Jon’s Matrix Collections.
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
You can find this article and more at NoMoreFakeNews.com.
No More Fake News, Encinitas, Encinitas, CA 92024
Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider
Sent by email@example.com in collaboration with
Try it free today
The French government is about to make some drastic changes to the enforcement of cannabis use laws. A government spokesperson revealed that by the end of 2017, France will end all prison terms for cannabis users.
Current French law states that cannabis use is a criminal offense. It is punishable by up to one year in prison and up to an EUR 3,750 fine. Regardless, officials plan to end prison terms for cannabis users, even though cannabis use will remain a criminal offense until further legislative changes take place.
One can expect that these changes the government will modify existing law in some way or another. Many expect further cannabis law reform by French President Emmanuel Macron considering his election campaign platform.
Although decriminalization of cannabis use is unlikely in France, an initiative exists to reform the judicial procedure when prosecuting cannabis users. Government spokesperson Christophe Casaner stated:
“Last year, 180,000 people were found to be in violation of drug laws. On average these cases take up six hours of police time and the same amount for the presiding magistrate.”
“What is important today is to be effective, and above all to free up time for our police so they can focus more on essential matters.”
Is Policing Cannabis Use Essential?
Consequently, what the French government is saying is that policing cannabis users is not essential. What is happening more frequently are scenarios where police officers are turning a blind eye when it comes to recreational cannabis use. Patrice Ribeiro of the French police officers’ union, stated:
“Most policemen who arrest a user tell him to throw the joint away and then let them move on”.
Although these changes in the enforcement of cannabis use laws in France may seem small, they are likely to free up some of the country’s judicial resources. The French Observatory for Drug Use and Addiction reported that in 2014, 17 million French citizens said they had taken cannabis at some point in their lives. There are estimated 700,000 daily cannabis users in France.
Everyone on Earth has been irradiated by Fukushima — “Shocking new study reveals true extent of global impact” — “Scientists are only just now confirming far-reaching effects” of nuclear disaster
Alarming mass die-off on California beaches — “Extremely high” number of sick and dead animals — Seabirds, sea lions, dolphins affected — Experts: Never seen this many sick birds — “How many have to die before somebody cares?”
TV: Millions of dead sea creatures wash ashore in Hawaii — Carcasses found along miles of beach — “That should trigger some alarm” — “I don’t know what’s going on over there… I’ve never seen anything like this”
This is a wonderful story that I have been following for several years now – Some of the story has been changed but one fact hardly mentioned in the MSM is their survival was greatly assisted by the few seeds and tubers they escaped with – Hemp and Potatoes. It was their Hemp crop that was spotted by the geologists from their helicopter and all their clothes, rope, etc were made from Hemp.
My current update from early this year was that Agarfin came into the hospital for a hip operation and as soon as possible she requested to be taken back to her hut in the wilderness – she’s 73 now!
Claire Bernish, The Free Thought Project
Waking Times Media
Obliterating the war on drugs in one decisively earth-shattering move, an unprecedented new survey cited by the corporate press found that — of all recreational drugs available — magic mushrooms can be considered safest.
Of an astonishing 120,000 participants from 50 nations, researchers for the Global Drug Survey found the percentage of those seeking emergency treatment for ingesting psilocybin-containing hallucinogenic mushrooms to comprise just 0.2 percent per 10,000 individuals.
Rates of hospitalization for MDMA, alcohol, LSD, and cocaine were an astounding five times higher.
“Magic mushrooms are one of the safest drugs in the world,” Global Drug Survey founder and consultant addiction psychiatrist, Adam Winstock, told the Guardian, noting the biggest risk users face is misidentification — ingesting the wrong mushroom — not from the psychedelic fungus, itself.
“Death from toxicity is almost unheard of with poisoning with more dangerous fungi being a much greater risk in terms of serious harms,” he asserted.
Annually, the Global Drug Survey queries the planet about its drug habits — covering type of substances used and in what quantity, patterns of drug use, and whether they experienced negative effects.
Reports the Guardian, “Overall, 28,000 people said they had taken magic mushrooms at some point in their lives, with 81.7% seeking a ‘moderate psychedelic experience’ and the ‘enhancement of environment and social interactions.’”
Winstock noted the greatest risk posed by magic mushrooms comes from combining psilocybin with other substances — or careless disregard for the drug as a powerful hallucinogen — as he explained,
“Combined use with alcohol and use within risky or unfamiliar settings increase the risks of harm most commonly accidental injury, panic and short lived confusion, disorientation and fears of losing one’s mind.”
Indeed, because ‘shrooms’ can induce flashbacks and panic attacks, Winstock advised those considering experimentation to plan “your trip carefully with trusted company in a safe place and always know what mushrooms you are using.”
Just because a trip devolves into a negative experience doesn’t guarantee the user will come away reeling with long-term psychological consequences, as Roland Griffiths and Robert Jesse of Johns Hopkins discovered in a 2016 survey of 2,000 people.
Quizzed about challenging or difficult magic mushroom experiences, just 2.7 percent of users reported having sought medical attention, while 7.6 percent were treated from enduring psychological symptoms — mere fractions of the 84 percent reporting beneficial effects from the psychedelic.
That finding concurs with two additional studies deeming magic mushrooms palliative for severe depression and anxiety.
Unintentionally lambasting the U.S. farcical war on drugs, Winstock pointed out that LSD — whose users, the 2017 GDS found, were hospitalized at a rate of 1 percent — came with problems due to variance in quality.
“LSD is such a potent drug,” he told the Guardian. “It’s so difficult to dose accurately when tabs you buy vary so widely. It’s easy to take too much and have an experience beyond the one you were expecting.”
When partakers practice moderation, ingesting small amounts until one becomes well-acquainted with their effects; procure shrooms only from a “reliable, trustworthy supply”; and taking only “a tiny dose to start,” the ingestion of mushrooms can be made exponentially safer.
Brad Burge, of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), pointed out the self-reporting by users upon which the Global Drug Survey relies should not be taken as documented medical data — particularly as users sometimes ingest multiple substances, thus making the determination of cause and effect murky, at best.
Additionally, what someone could cite as the need to seek emergency treatment vastly differs according to the substance, as Burge explained,
“With a drug such as heroin, a trip to the emergency room is a life-or-death situation requiring resuscitation and medication. With LSD or mushrooms, there is no toxicity and the effects wear after a few hours.”
However, he added, “There is no known lethal dose for LSD or pure psilocybin.”
“People don’t tend to abuse psychedelics,” Winstock asserted, “they don’t get dependent, they don’t rot every organ from head to toe, and many would cite their impact upon their life as profound and positive. But you need to know how to use them.”
“Drug laws,” he added, “need to balance the positives and problems they can create in society and well crafted laws should nudge people to find the right balance for themselves.”
By Nick Polizzi
Sacred Science Team
Why do so many humans equate relaxation and pleasure with walking barefoot along the beach as the waves roll in? How come my son River’s first instinct is to take his shoes off when he sees a field of green grass?
Is it kooky human behavior that is simply hard-wired into our genetic makeup, or is there something more to this urge to remove footwear?
Historically speaking, it seems like we’re right in step with our forebearers. Long before we had cushiony sneakers, our distant ancestors tended to walk barefoot over rock, rubble, dirt, stick, and thorn. Their feet were strong and nimble, able to sense and react to any surface they encountered. More recent native cultures often chose to walk through nature on their naked soles as well, instead of wearing moccasins or similar leather footwear.
Commonalities like “barefootedness”, that we see repeated among ancient groups, beg for further investigation as to “why?” – especially in cultures where simple foot gear was already an option.
Thankfully, there is good science behind shoelessness and the findings are fascinating.
It turns out that the sensation we feel when our feet make contact with moist sand is more than just a feeling. This therapeutic touch of mother earth is laden with remarkable health benefits, such as reducing inflammation, boosting antioxidants in our body, improving sleep, and perhaps most importantly, promoting healthy blood flow.
The primordial practice of walking barefoot, sometimes referred to as “grounding”, is only just beginning to be studied by modern science, but there have already been a few groundbreaking findings. One of the most promising of these points to the effect that the contact of earth on skin can have on our heart health.
According to a 2013 study published in the Journal of Alternative And Complimentary Medicine, walking barefoot “reduces blood viscosity, which is a major factor in cardiovascular disease”.
Blood viscosity is a term used to describe the “thickness and stickiness of your blood.” The lower the viscosity, the easier your blood flows through your blood vessels, and circulates throughout your body. The higher your blood’s viscosity, or thickness, the slower it moves.
To test the effects of grounding on blood viscosity, a group of subjects had their red blood cells (RBCs) examined under a microscope to determine the number of clumped groups of RBCs in each sample. High instances of aggregation (or clumping) in human blood increases your blood viscosity and can result in cardiovascular disease. This experiment was intended to measure whether grounding the body to the earth’s innate electrical charge would have a positive effect on this blood condition and perhaps help to prevent the deadly disease that is linked to it.
Long story short, walking barefoot substantially lowered the instance of unwanted blood cell clumping in every one of the subjects and promoted healthier circulation.
*A later study in the same journal found that “grounding” or “earthing” may help regulate both the endocrine and nervous systems as well.
We present-day humans live in a sea of electromagnetic waves radiated by mobile phone signals, Wi-Fi, automatic doors etc. This is referred to as “dirty electricity” or “electromagnetic pollution”. Luckily for us, the earth’s surface is rich with electrons that can neutralize this dirty electricity and bring the currents within us back into healthy balance.
This can boost our energy, balance our mood, clarify our thinking, and perhaps even save our lives.
A Sacred Science spring challenge for you:
It’s warming up across the northern hemisphere as the planetary tilt swings us closer to the summer sun. So this should be easy…
Next time you’re in front of an appealing patch of earth, remove your shoes and socks and do the unthinkable… step forth onto said terra firma and feel the sensation that runs through your body. Envision the cells in your bloodstream recalibrating as you do so, because well, they are.
That’s it. I’d recommend you do this at least a few times a week for better heart health and overall happiness. We’re earth dwellers, why separate ourselves from her with rubber soles?
(I find it’s fun to go foot-naked in odd places in the midst of shoe-wearers who scratch their heads in confusion as they watch… BUT it’s also nice to do in the comfort of your own backyard or the middle of the forest)