Un studiu recent arata ca trimiterea unui mesaj de pe telefonul mobil în timpul traversarii unui drum este cea mai riscanta activitate, sansele fiind de patru ori mai mari ca oamenii sa ignore astfel traficul si luminile. De asemenea, din cauza sms-urilor traversarea unei intersectii aglomerate dureaza mai mult timp.
Un trecator din trei foloseste telefonul sau face ceva care îi distrage atentia atunci când travereseaza un drum.
La studiu au participat 1.000 de pietoni care au fost urmariti în mai multe intersectii aglomerate din Seattle la ore diferite. Cercetatorii au urmarit activitatile care distrag atentia cum ar fi vorbitul la telefon, trimiterea sms-urilor, ascultarea muzicii la casti si conversatiile cu alte persoane. Astfel, un pieton din 10 asculta muzica, 7% trimiteau mesaje si 6% vorbeau la telefon. Trimiterea sms-urilor este cea mai periculoasa activitate pentru ca trecatorii ignora luminile si înainte de a traversa nu se uita în ambele sensuri, putând aparea astfel accidente grave.
Conducatoarea studiului, Beth Ebel, a spus ca oamenii intra în transa atunci când folosec pe strada telefoanele mobile sau când asculta muzica la casti, aceasta stare fiind numita de psihologi "atentie divizata" sau "orbire". Mai multe studii au aratat ca accidentele în care sunt implicate persoanele care asculta muzica la casti pe strada s-au triplat.
Resembling little more than a credit card-sized scrap of exposed circuit board, the RPi is a fully programmable PC that runs a free, open-source Linux operating system, plugs into any TV, can power 3D graphics, connects to the Internet and, with a little ingenuity, be used to create your own personalized robot slave.
The computer's miniature frame is crowded with two USB ports, an SD card slot, an Ethernet connection and microchip in the middle -- all powered by a universal USB mobile charger.
Not only is it the world's smallest personal computer but, perhaps most importantly of all, at just $25 the RPi is also the world's cheapest.
Eben Upton, the UK-based University of Cambridge professor and inventor behind the wallet-friendly PC, says he set out to create a computer so affordable that every child in Britain could have one.
With its rough-around-the-edges aesthetic, however, he didn't expect it to catch on very fast and, in the early days of development, set a sales target of 10,000 units within his lifetime.
But when the RPi launched in February of this year, demand far outran supply, and all 10,000 sold out immediately -- crashing the distributing websites in the process.
It turned out there was a voracious appetite -- particularly among a growing class of DIY geeks -- for a cheap, easily-programmable, open-source piece of hardware that would allow them to let their imaginations run wild.
Now, far exceeding its inventor's original estimates, the RPi is set to sell as a million units within its first year of availability.
In a revealing interview with CNN, Upton tells all about why everyone wants a slice of Raspberry Pi.
CNN: What inspired you to invent the Raspberry Pi?
Eben Upton: A group of us here at the University of Cambridge were involved in trying to find 17, 18-year-olds to come and study computer science and what we found every year was a reduction in the numbers.
We went from 500 people in the 1990s applying for our 80 places, down to under 250 and, worse than that, the sorts of things those children knew how to do when they came in the door were much less impressive.
Really Raspberry Pi is an attempt to try and reboot some of that 1980s computer industry feel that had been responsible for giving us this stream of very talented students.
CNN: What in your view are the Pi's most distinguishing qualities?
EU: I think we really have to say the big, distinct feature about Raspberry Pi is the cost. This is a device that comes in two variants, one that cost $25 and one that costs $35.
These are designed to be the same price as a textbook; they're designed to be cheap enough that a child can buy on with their pocket money. They're designed to be cheap enough that you could equip a whole classroom for under a $1000. So, really the cheapness.
Almost everything you can do with a Raspberry Pi, you can do with a conventional PC, but you'd be doing it at 10 times the cost.
CNN: Did you have any idea what kind of response you'd get?
EU: Absolutely not, I think the response has been staggering. Even a year ago we were thinking of this shifting 10,000 units over a lifetime.
All we wanted was a few hundred more students -- or for the students we were getting to have had a little more experience when they came to the door.
CNN: What was your own reaction when you heard how many you'd sold on the first day?
EU: Terror, I guess. When you've scaled everything for a particular size and then you discover you have this enormous spike of demand, then you're always going to wonder if you can fill it. And there were big queues, there were back orders for months after that as we and our partners worked very hard to try and scale out production.
CNN: You set out to sell primarily to schools for use by children in class, who's it actually being bought by?
EU: Until September, it was being bought almost entirely by people like me -- technically literate adults who wanted to use it to do interesting projects. You know this is something you can plug your television into and play videos on; it's got stuff you can use to control a robot. For people like me this is gold dust.
From September onwards we've started to see a swing round towards what we were hoping for, which is educational engagement -- individual children buying them and schools buying classroom sets of them.
CNN: Any other surprise takers?
EU: We're also starting to see some industrial applications. We're seeing people who have been buying $300 industrial computers saying "hang on a second, why am I buying this special purpose computer when I can buy one of these. It does the same thing, it runs units. My software engineers can be very comfortable with it, why don't I just switch over to these?"
Another really interesting one that I should have anticipated was of course the developing world. These make very good entry-level productivity computers for the developing world, so we're starting to see an interest there as well.
CNN: How are you able to sell it so cheaply?
EU: One of things that allows us to hit our very low price point is that we have a very high level of integration -- there's just not that much stuff on the board. All of the main features are integrated onto the chip in the middle. It's our central processor and also our graphic processor that drives the display and does some of our peripheral functions, so that's the main chip.
CNN: Do you remember the first time you took it into a school and what kind of reaction you got?
EU: We were really surprised by the reaction we got. School kids today are used to their tablets and their mobile phones, so we thought we were going to have to put into a shiny box.
But one of the biggest reactions from the children was because they could actually see it and point to it and tell what the different bits do. Normally you don't get to see the green stuff and they really love that, there's been such a positive response.
It’s hard to believe you’d have an economy at all if you gave pink slips to more than half the labor force. But that—in slow motion—is what the industrial revolution did to the workforce of the early 19th century. Two hundred years ago, 70 percent of American workers lived on the farm. Today automation has eliminated all but 1 percent of their jobs, replacing them (and their work animals) with machines. But the displaced workers did not sit idle. Instead, automation created hundreds of millions of jobs in entirely new fields. Those who once farmed were now manning the legions of factories that churned out farm equipment, cars, and other industrial products. Since then, wave upon wave of new occupations have arrived—appliance repairman, offset printer, food chemist, photographer, web designer—each building on previous automation. Today, the vast majority of us are doing jobs that no farmer from the 1800s could have imagined.
It may be hard to believe, but before the end of this century, 70 percent of today’s occupations will likewise be replaced by automation. Yes, dear reader, even you will have your job taken away by machines. In other words, robot replacement is just a matter of time. This upheaval is being led by a second wave of automation, one that is centered on artificial cognition, cheap sensors, machine learning, and distributed smarts. This deep automation will touch all jobs, from manual labor to knowledge work.
First, machines will consolidate their gains in already-automated industries. After robots finish replacing assembly line workers, they will replace the workers in warehouses. Speedy bots able to lift 150 pounds all day long will retrieve boxes, sort them, and load them onto trucks. Fruit and vegetable picking will continue to be robotized until no humans pick outside of specialty farms. Pharmacies will feature a single pill-dispensing robot in the back while the pharmacists focus on patient consulting. Next, the more dexterous chores of cleaning in offices and schools will be taken over by late-night robots, starting with easy-to-do floors and windows and eventually getting to toilets. The highway legs of long-haul trucking routes will be driven by robots embedded in truck cabs.
All the while, robots will continue their migration into white-collar work. We already have artificial intelligence in many of our machines; we just don’t call it that. Witness one piece of software by Narrative Science (profiled in issue 20.05) that can write newspaper stories about sports games directly from the games’ stats or generate a synopsis of a company’s stock performance each day from bits of text around the web. Any job dealing with reams of paperwork will be taken over by bots, including much of medicine. Even those areas of medicine not defined by paperwork, such as surgery, are becoming increasingly robotic. The rote tasks of any information-intensive job can be automated. It doesn’t matter if you are a doctor, lawyer, architect, reporter, or even programmer: The robot takeover will be epic.
And it has already begun.
Here’s why we’re at the inflection point: Machines are acquiring smarts.
We have preconceptions about how an intelligent robot should look and act, and these can blind us to what is already happening around us. To demand that artificial intelligence be humanlike is the same flawed logic as demanding that artificial flying be birdlike, with flapping wings. Robots will think different. To see how far artificial intelligence has penetrated our lives, we need to shed the idea that they will be humanlike.
Consider Baxter, a revolutionary new workbot from Rethink Robotics. Designed by Rodney Brooks, the former MIT professor who invented the best-selling Roomba vacuum cleaner and its descendants, Baxter is an early example of a new class of industrial robots created to work alongside humans. Baxter does not look impressive. It’s got big strong arms and a flatscreen display like many industrial bots. And Baxter’s hands perform repetitive manual tasks, just as factory robots do. But it’s different in three significant ways.
First, it can look around and indicate where it is looking by shifting the cartoon eyes on its head. It can perceive humans working near it and avoid injuring them. And workers can see whether it sees them. Previous industrial robots couldn’t do this, which means that working robots have to be physically segregated from humans. The typical factory robot is imprisoned within a chain-link fence or caged in a glass case. They are simply too dangerous to be around, because they are oblivious to others. This isolation prevents such robots from working in a small shop, where isolation is not practical. Optimally, workers should be able to get materials to and from the robot or to tweak its controls by hand throughout the workday; isolation makes that difficult. Baxter, however, is aware. Using force-feedback technology to feel if it is colliding with a person or another bot, it is courteous. You can plug it into a wall socket in your garage and easily work right next to it.
Second, anyone can train Baxter. It is not as fast, strong, or precise as other industrial robots, but it is smarter. To train the bot you simply grab its arms and guide them in the correct motions and sequence. It’s a kind of “watch me do this” routine. Baxter learns the procedure and then repeats it. Any worker is capable of this show-and-tell; you don’t even have to be literate. Previous workbots required highly educated engineers and crack programmers to write thousands of lines of code (and then debug them) in order to instruct the robot in the simplest change of task. The code has to be loaded in batch mode, i.e., in large, infrequent batches, because the robot cannot be reprogrammed while it is being used. Turns out the real cost of the typical industrial robot is not its hardware but its operation. Industrial robots cost $100,000-plus to purchase but can require four times that amount over a lifespan to program, train, and maintain. The costs pile up until the average lifetime bill for an industrial robot is half a million dollars or more.
The third difference, then, is that Baxter is cheap. Priced at $22,000, it’s in a different league compared with the $500,000 total bill of its predecessors. It is as if those established robots, with their batch-mode programming, are the mainframe computers of the robot world, and Baxter is the first PC robot. It is likely to be dismissed as a hobbyist toy, missing key features like sub-millimeter precision, and not serious enough. But as with the PC, and unlike the mainframe, the user can interact with it directly, immediately, without waiting for experts to mediate—and use it for nonserious, even frivolous things. It’s cheap enough that small-time manufacturers can afford one to package up their wares or custom paint their product or run their 3-D printing machine. Or you could staff up a factory that makes iPhones.
Baxter was invented in a century-old brick building near the Charles River in Boston. In 1895 the building was a manufacturing marvel in the very center of the new manufacturing world. It even generated its own electricity. For a hundred years the factories inside its walls changed the world around us. Now the capabilities of Baxter and the approaching cascade of superior robot workers spur Brooks to speculate on how these robots will shift manufacturing in a disruption greater than the last revolution. Looking out his office window at the former industrial neighborhood, he says, “Right now we think of manufacturing as happening in China. But as manufacturing costs sink because of robots, the costs of transportation become a far greater factor than the cost of production. Nearby will be cheap. So we’ll get this network of locally franchised factories, where most things will be made within 5 miles of where they are needed.”
That may be true of making stuff, but a lot of jobs left in the world for humans are service jobs. I ask Brooks to walk with me through a local McDonald’s and point out the jobs that his kind of robots can replace. He demurs and suggests it might be 30 years before robots will cook for us. “In a fast food place you’re not doing the same task very long. You’re always changing things on the fly, so you need special solutions. We are not trying to sell a specific solution. We are building a general-purpose machine that other workers can set up themselves and work alongside.” And once we can cowork with robots right next to us, it’s inevitable that our tasks will bleed together, and soon our old work will become theirs—and our new work will become something we can hardly imagine.
To understand how robot replacement will happen, it’s useful to break down our relationship with robots into four categories, as summed up in this chart:
The rows indicate whether robots will take over existing jobs or make new ones, and the columns indicate whether these jobs seem (at first) like jobs for humans or for machines.
Let’s begin with quadrant A: jobs humans can do but robots can do even better. Humans can weave cotton cloth with great effort, but automated looms make perfect cloth, by the mile, for a few cents. The only reason to buy handmade cloth today is because you want the imperfections humans introduce. We no longer value irregularities while traveling 70 miles per hour, though—so the fewer humans who touch our car as it is being made, the better.
And yet for more complicated chores, we still tend to believe computers and robots can’t be trusted. That’s why we’ve been slow to acknowledge how they’ve mastered some conceptual routines, in some cases even surpassing their mastery of physical routines. A computerized brain known as the autopilot can fly a 787 jet unaided, but irrationally we place human pilots in the cockpit to babysit the autopilot “just in case.” In the 1990s, computerized mortgage appraisals replaced human appraisers wholesale. Much tax preparation has gone to computers, as well as routine x-ray analysis and pretrial evidence-gathering—all once done by highly paid smart people. We’ve accepted utter reliability in robot manufacturing; soon we’ll accept it in robotic intelligence and service.
Next is quadrant B: jobs that humans can’t do but robots can. A trivial example: Humans have trouble making a single brass screw unassisted, but automation can produce a thousand exact ones per hour. Without automation, we could not make a single computer chip—a job that requires degrees of precision, control, and unwavering attention that our animal bodies don’t possess. Likewise no human, indeed no group of humans, no matter their education, can quickly search through all the web pages in the world to uncover the one page revealing the price of eggs in Katmandu yesterday. Every time you click on the search button you are employing a robot to do something we as a species are unable to do alone.
While the displacement of formerly human jobs gets all the headlines, the greatest benefits bestowed by robots and automation come from their occupation of jobs we are unable to do. We don’t have the attention span to inspect every square millimeter of every CAT scan looking for cancer cells. We don’t have the millisecond reflexes needed to inflate molten glass into the shape of a bottle. We don’t have an infallible memory to keep track of every pitch in Major League Baseball and calculate the probability of the next pitch in real time.
We aren’t giving “good jobs” to robots. Most of the time we are giving them jobs we could never do. Without them, these jobs would remain undone.
Now let’s consider quadrant C, the new jobs created by automation—including the jobs that we did not know we wanted done. This is the greatest genius of the robot takeover: With the assistance of robots and computerized intelligence, we already can do things we never imagined doing 150 years ago. We can remove a tumor in our gut through our navel, make a talking-picture video of our wedding, drive a cart on Mars, print a pattern on fabric that a friend mailed to us through the air. We are doing, and are sometimes paid for doing, a million new activities that would have dazzled and shocked the farmers of 1850. These new accomplishments are not merely chores that were difficult before. Rather they are dreams that are created chiefly by the capabilities of the machines that can do them. They are jobs the machines make up.
Before we invented automobiles, air-conditioning, flatscreen video displays, and animated cartoons, no one living in ancient Rome wished they could watch cartoons while riding to Athens in climate-controlled comfort. Two hundred years ago not a single citizen of Shanghai would have told you that they would buy a tiny slab that allowed them to talk to faraway friends before they would buy indoor plumbing. Crafty AIs embedded in first-person-shooter games have given millions of teenage boys the urge, the need, to become professional game designers—a dream that no boy in Victorian times ever had. In a very real way our inventions assign us our jobs. Each successful bit of automation generates new occupations—occupations we would not have fantasized about without the prompting of the automation.
To reiterate, the bulk of new tasks created by automation are tasks only other automation can handle. Now that we have search engines like Google, we set the servant upon a thousand new errands. Google, can you tell me where my phone is? Google, can you match the people suffering depression with the doctors selling pills? Google, can you predict when the next viral epidemic will erupt? Technology is indiscriminate this way, piling up possibilities and options for both humans and machines.
It is a safe bet that the highest-earning professions in the year 2050 will depend on automations and machines that have not been invented yet. That is, we can’t see these jobs from here, because we can’t yet see the machines and technologies that will make them possible. Robots create jobs that we did not even know we wanted done.
Finally, that leaves us with quadrant D, the jobs that only humans can do—at first. The one thing humans can do that robots can’t (at least for a long while) is to decide what it is that humans want to do. This is not a trivial trick; our desires are inspired by our previous inventions, making this a circular question.
When robots and automation do our most basic work, making it relatively easy for us to be fed, clothed, and sheltered, then we are free to ask, “What are humans for?” Industrialization did more than just extend the average human lifespan. It led a greater percentage of the population to decide that humans were meant to be ballerinas, full-time musicians, mathematicians, athletes, fashion designers, yoga masters, fan-fiction authors, and folks with one-of-a kind titles on their business cards. With the help of our machines, we could take up these roles; but of course, over time, the machines will do these as well. We’ll then be empowered to dream up yet more answers to the question “What should we do?” It will be many generations before a robot can answer that.
This postindustrial economy will keep expanding, even though most of the work is done by bots, because part of your task tomorrow will be to find, make, and complete new things to do, new things that will later become repetitive jobs for the robots. In the coming years robot-driven cars and trucks will become ubiquitous; this automation will spawn the new human occupation of trip optimizer, a person who tweaks the traffic system for optimal energy and time usage. Routine robo-surgery will necessitate the new skills of keeping machines sterile. When automatic self-tracking of all your activities becomes the normal thing to do, a new breed of professional analysts will arise to help you make sense of the data. And of course we will need a whole army of robot nannies, dedicated to keeping your personal bots up and running. Each of these new vocations will in turn be taken over by robots later.
The real revolution erupts when everyone has personal workbots, the descendants of Baxter, at their beck and call. Imagine you run a small organic farm. Your fleet of worker bots do all the weeding, pest control, and harvesting of produce, as directed by an overseer bot, embodied by a mesh of probes in the soil. One day your task might be to research which variety of heirloom tomato to plant; the next day it might be to update your custom labels. The bots perform everything else that can be measured.
Right now it seems unthinkable: We can’t imagine a bot that can assemble a stack of ingredients into a gift or manufacture spare parts for our lawn mower or fabricate materials for our new kitchen. We can’t imagine our nephews and nieces running a dozen workbots in their garage, churning out inverters for their friend’s electric-vehicle startup. We can’t imagine our children becoming appliance designers, making custom batches of liquid-nitrogen dessert machines to sell to the millionaires in China. But that’s what personal robot automation will enable.
Everyone will have access to a personal robot, but simply owning one will not guarantee success. Rather, success will go to those who innovate in the organization, optimization, and customization of the process of getting work done with bots and machines. Geographical clusters of production will matter, not for any differential in labor costs but because of the differential in human expertise. It’s human-robot symbiosis. Our human assignment will be to keep making jobs for robots—and that is a task that will never be finished. So we will always have at least that one “job.”
In the coming years our relationships with robots will become ever more complex. But already a recurring pattern is emerging. No matter what your current job or your salary, you will progress through these Seven Stages of Robot Replacement, again and again:
1. A robot/computer cannot possibly do the tasks I do.
[Later.]
2. OK, it can do a lot of them, but it can’t do everything I do.
[Later.]
3. OK, it can do everything I do, except it needs me when it breaks down, which is often.
[Later.]
4. OK, it operates flawlessly on routine stuff, but I need to train it for new tasks.
[Later.]
5. OK, it can have my old boring job, because it’s obvious that was not a job that humans were meant to do.
[Later.]
6. Wow, now that robots are doing my old job, my new job is much more fun and pays more!
[Later.]
7. I am so glad a robot/computer cannot possibly do what I do now.
This is not a race against the machines. If we race against them, we lose. This is a race with the machines. You’ll be paid in the future based on how well you work with robots. Ninety percent of your coworkers will be unseen machines. Most of what you do will not be possible without them. And there will be a blurry line between what you do and what they do. You might no longer think of it as a job, at least at first, because anything that seems like drudgery will be done by robots.
We need to let robots take over. They will do jobs we have been doing, and do them much better than we can. They will do jobs we can’t do at all. They will do jobs we never imagined even needed to be done. And they will help us discover new jobs for ourselves, new tasks that expand who we are. They will let us focus on becoming more human than we were.
Let the robots take the jobs, and let them help us dream up new work that matters.
THE END.
Source: wired.com - Author: Kevin Kelly (kk.org) is senior maverick of Wired and the author, most recently, of What Technology Wants.
Canadian doctor Ghislaine Lanctôt, author of the Medical Mafia, has underscored the lawsuit recently filed by Austrian journalist Jane Bürgermeister against the WHO, the UN, and several high ranking government and corporate officials. Bürgermeister has documented how an international corporate criminal syndicate plans to unleash a deadly flu virus and institute a forced vaccination program.
“I am emerging from a long silence on the subject of vaccination, because I feel that, this time, the stakes involved are huge. The consequences may spread much further than anticipated,” writes Lanctôt, who believes the A(H1N1) virus will be used in a pandemic concocted and orchestrated by the WHO, an international organization that serves military, political and industrial interests.
Lanctôt warns that the elite and their minions will introduce a compulsory vaccination that will contain a deadly virus and this will be used specifically as a eugenics weapon for “massive and targeted reduction of the world population.” Moreover, a pandemic will also be used to further establish martial law and a police state, according to Lanctôt, and activate concentration camps “built to accommodate the rebellious” and eventually transfer power from all nations to a single United Nations government and thus fulfill the sinister plans of the New World Order.
In her book The Medical Mafia, Lanctôt writes about the ineffectiveness and dangers of vaccination. “Because of my professional status, my words weighed significantly in the public eye. The Medical Board’s reaction was immediate and strong. Its leaders demanded that I resign as a physician. I answered that I would do so as long as they could prove that what I had written was false. The Medical Board replied with a call for my expulsion,” she writes. “As I witnessed the disproportionate reaction of the Medical Board, I realized that, for the health establishment, the subject of vaccination was taboo. Unknowingly, I had opened a Pandora’s box. I discovered that, despite official claims, vaccines have nothing to do with public health. Underneath the governmental stamp of approval, there are deep military, political and industrial interests.”
During her trial in 1995, Lanctôt used an episode from the March 11th, 1979, 60 Minutes TV show covering the massive vaccination program foisted on the American public supposedly in response to the 1976 swine flu outbreak. It was later established by the CDC that the virus originated out of Fort Dix in New Jersey. “The Fort Dix outbreak may have been a zoonotic anomaly caused by introduction of an animal virus into a stressed population in close contact in crowded facilities during a cold winter,” note Joel C. Gaydos, Franklin H. Top, Jr, Richard A. Hodder, and Philip K. Russell.
It was also characterized “a rare example of an influenza virus with documented human to human transmission,” according to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. The virus is “thought to be a direct descendant of the virus that caused the pandemic of 1918,” explained Richard Krause, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the time.
“Public health experts, fearing a possible replay of the 1918 pandemic, engaged in an intense debate about how to respond. Eventually they launched a nationwide vaccination campaign, which was announced by President Gerald Ford in March. By the end of the year, 48 million people had been vaccinated,” write Robert Roos and Lisa Schnirring of the Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy. “But the feared pandemic never materialized.”
Instead, numerous people came down with Guillian-Barre syndrome, a paralyzing neurologic illness, after receiving the government-hyped vaccination.
More than 33 years later, according to Dr. Russell Blaylock, a board certified neurosurgeon, “we are hearing the same cries of alarm from a similar lineup of virology experts. The pharmaceutical companies are busy designing a vaccine for the swine flu in hope that this administration will make the vaccine mandatory before another vaccine-related disaster can ruin their party…. Like SARS and bird flu before it, this swine flu scare is a lot of nonsense. Just take your high dose vitamin D3 (5000 IU a day), eat a healthy diet and take a few immune boosting supplements (such as beta-1, 3/1, 6 glucan) and you will not have to worry about this flu.”
According to a source known to former NSA official Wayne Madsen, “A top scientist for the United Nations, who has examined the outbreak of the deadly Ebola virus in Africa, as well as HIV/AIDS victims, concluded that H1N1 possesses certain transmission “vectors” that suggest that the new flu strain has been genetically-manufactured as a military biological warfare weapon.
In April, Army criminal investigators were looking into the possibility that disease samples went missing from biolabs at Fort Detrick. “Chad Jones, spokesman for Fort Meade, said CID is investigating the possibility of missing virus samples from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases,” the Frederick News Post reported. “Obviously, in light of the current swine flu scare, and the new strain’s possible synthetic origin, the fact that virus samples may have gone missing from the same Army research lab from which the 2001 anthrax strain was released is extremely disturbing,” Paul Joseph Watson wrote at the time.
Jane Bürgermeister “charges that the entire ’swine flu’ pandemic business is premised on a massive lie that there is no natural virus out there that poses a threat to the population,” writes Barbara Minton for Natural Health News. “She presents evidence leading to the belief that the bird flu and swine flu viruses have, in fact, been bioengineered in laboratories using funding supplied by the WHO and other government agencies, among others. This ’swine flu’ is a hybrid of part swine flu, part human flu and part bird flu, something that can only come from laboratories according to many experts.”
Minton continues:
Using the “swine flu” as a pretext, the defendants [in Bürgermeister's lawsuit] have preplanned the mass murder of the U.S. population by means of forced vaccination. They have installed an extensive network of FEMA concentration camps and identified mass grave sites, and they have been involved in devising and implementing a scheme to hand power over the U.S. to an international crime syndicate that uses the UN and WHO as a front for illegal racketeering influenced organized crime activities, in violation of the laws that govern treason.
Obama’s Bilderberg Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius — and Bilderberg member — wants to make it easy for kids to get their toxin-laden eugenicist “swine flu” vaccine this fall. “Schoolchildren may be first in line for swine flu vaccine this fall — and might even be able to get the shot right at school,” the Associated Press reported on June 16.
As we noted last month, the government appears to be planning a mandatory flu vaccination program. In a recent article on the unfolding economic collapse, Rep. Ron Paul warns that the hysterically hyped H1N1 flu “pandemic” may result in the government requiring mandatory flu vaccinations. “Nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a ‘potential pandemic flu’ which could result in mandatory vaccinations for no discernible reason other than to enrich the pharmaceutical companies that make the vaccine,” writes Paul.
Considering the track record of the global elite, the government-mandated vaccination program now in the works — as Ghislaine Lanctôt and Jane Bürgermeister warn — will serve the eugenicist plan to depopulate the planet. A contrived pandemic will also set the final stage for the implementation of martial law and a high-tech surveillance and police state grid.
Would you use sodium, a caustic alkali, to season your food? Or chlorine, a poisonous gas? “Ridiculous questions,” you say. “Nobody would be foolhardy enough to do that.”
Of course not. But the shocking truth is that most people do so… because they don’t know that these powerful chemicals constitute the inorganic crystaline compound — salt.
For centuries, the expression “salt of the earth” has been used as a catch-all phrase to designate something good and essential. Nothing could be more erroneous. For that harmless product that you shake into your food every day may actually bury you. Consider these startling facts:
1. SALT IS NOT A FOOD! There is no more justification for its culinary use than there is for potassium chloride, calcium chloride, barium chloride, or any other harmful chemical to season food.
2. Salt cannot be digested, assimilated, or utilized by the body. Salt has no nutritional value! SALT HAS NO VITAMINS! NO ORGANIC MINERALS! NO NUTRIENTS OF ANY KIND! Instead, it is positively harmful and may bring on troubles in the kidneys, bladder, heart, arteries, veins, and blood vessels. Salt may waterlog the tissues, causing a dropsical condition.
3. Salt may act as a heart poison. It also increases the irritability of the nervous system.
4. Salt acts to rob calcium from the body and attacks the mucous lining throughout the entire gastrointestinal tract.
SALT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO LIFE
It is frequently claimed that salt is essential for the support of life.
However, there is no information available to substantiate this viewpoint. The truth is that entire races (primitive peoples) use absolutely no salt today and have not used it throughout their entire history. If salt were essential to life, these races would have become extinct long ago. The fact that they are not only alive but have far better health than other races, would seem to indicate that the supposed “necessity” of salt is a commercially-inspired invention or merely the product of the imagination.
WHAT SALT DOES TO YOUR STOMACH
An important objection to salt is the fact that it interferes with the normal digestion of food. Pepsin, an enzyme found in the hydrochloric acid of the stomach, is essential for the digestion of proteins. When salt is used, only 50% as much pepsin is secreted as would otherwise be the case. Obviously, under such conditions, digestion of protein foods is incomplete or too slow. The result is excessive putrefaction of protein and, in some instances, gas and digestive distress.
THE SALT HABIT IS A DEADLY HABIT — BREAK IT!
People undoubtedly would not add inorganic salt to their food if they were never taught to do so in the first place. The taste for salt is an acquired one. When salt is eliminated from the diet for a short time, the craving for it ceases. It is only during the first few weeks after table salt is discontinued that it is really missed… after that, abstinence is of little difficulty. In fact, many of my health students… who have broken the deadly salt habit… write me that NOW they cannot stand salted foods! When someone serves them salted food, it gives them an abnormal thirst for liquids.
Harvey Diamond “Fit For Life”
Q. Just how harmful is table salt?
A. The Egyptians used salt for embalming. Let’s take the hint! This year Americans will consume five hundred million pounds of salt. That’s a lot of embalming. Salt is everywhere and in everything from pet food to baby food. Salt is a major contributing factor to the increasing incidence of hypertension, or high blood pressure, in this country. It is so caustic to the sensitive inner tissues of the body that water is retained to neutralize its acidic effect. This adds weight to the body. Overuse of salt can contribute to a severe affliction of the kidneys called nephritis.
SALT EATING PERNICIOUS Herbert M. Shelton
In their effort to supply a basis for the salt eating habit men who call themselves scientists uncritically repeat the popular folklore that wild animals seek out “salt licks” to obtain salt. Salt eating is an acquired habit and serves no useful purpose. The practice of eating salt has never been universal.
Thoreau says he gave up salt eating when he found that the Indians did not use it. It is highly probable that he was influenced in this as much by Graham as by the Indians.
In his Eskimo Life, Stefansson, the famous arctic explorer, says: “After you have been a month or so without salt you cease to long for it, and after six months I have found the taste of meat boiled in salt water distinctly disagreeable. No Eskimo will touch salt if he can help doing so. Many other people have existed for ages without taking salt. One who has been accustomed to adding salt to his food finds unsalted food dull, flat, insipid and tasteless until his sense of taste has regained its normal tone. Robinson Crusoe had no salt and, at first, he found food unappetizing. The giant crawfish which he caught were unpalatable.
Naturalists inform us that in some parts of the earth, certain animals, such as the elephant, African antelopes, etc., do frequent and lick certain places.
Analyses of these “licks” show that sodium chloride (common table salt) is frequently lacking in them. The different “licks” contain different minerals, such as phosphorus, manganese, copper, sulphate, magnesium, nickel and iron. As the “licking” process is not universal, but is confined to a few restricted places in the earth, and as the animals can make no constructive use of the elements existing in the “licks”, the licking habit, where observed, is probably in the nature of a perversion. I have been assured that deer sometimes lick the salt flats of Utah, but here, also, the salt in these flats is not all sodium chloride. As the flats are certainly not within reach of all the animal population of America and, as “licks” are not found elsewhere, we need not take seriously the myth that animals supply their alleged need for salt by visiting “salt licks”. We cannot determine the normal needs of animal life by recourse to the rare practices of a few animals in those extremely infrequent places where mineral outcroppings exist. We know that animals do not mine Salt and do not ship it great distances to supply their alleged needs, as we do. Science is the ever-subservient handmaiden of commercialism and we should not be surprised by the fact that the scientists can find and have found jurisdiction, even if only fictional, for all the practices that are fostered by the commercial world for profit.
Before the coming of the white man to this continent most Indians knew not the taste of salt, and the few that had and employed salt, did not add it to their foods. Even today in parts of Alaska, Canada, Mexico and South America, the Indians still manifest a distaste for this substance. It is also well known among students of the subject that the Bedouin people regard the use of salt as ridiculous. Great numbers of instances of this kind, some of them reaching back into prehistory and involving great numbers of generations, prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that man does not require the addition of salt (sodium chloride) to his food or to be taken in drink or as pills. Great numbers of tribes in tropical and desert regions have existed for ages without taking salt, proving that we do not require it to resist heat. Indeed, the supposed need for salt in hot weather and in hot climates is a very recent modern notion.
Among the Indians there were a few tribes along our western coast that had and employed salt. They administered it as a magic potion, not as a part of their daily diet. Their medicine men employed it in their sorcery to drive out devils from the bodies of the sick. It was not administered internally. Could its “use” by other parts of the world and at other periods of man’s existence have originated in the same way? This is most likely. I cannot offer any strong support of this view. In view of the most probable origin of the “use” of all other condiments, there is reason to believe that the Indian medicine man was not the first to introduce salt in his sorcery. Its “use” antedates recorded history, but, it is a fact that whole tribes and even whole nations of men during this vast period of time, have not known the taste of salt. This is due more to the fact that the medicine men of these tribes had not discovered it than to any credit that belongs to them for not introducing it to man. I once thought that it may have come into general “use” among those people who do take it, as a result of eating foods that had been salted to preserve them, man having, by some accident, discovered that the addition of quantities of salt to flesh and certain other foods would preserve these. At present it seems more likely that salt was added to these foods, originally, not as a preservative, but to impart its magical virtues to these foods. Its antibiotic (preservative) qualities were thus made known. The mountains of facts of contemporary animal life and of the history of man, which prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that salt eating is not essential to life, even that the eating of this inorganic mineral is definitely injurious, are ignored by our so-called scientists who continue to urge us to take this substance with our foods. Only in a few states of disease are “salt-free” diets advised by physicians and not all physicians are agreed that such diets are beneficial. Once a mistake becomes a part of established science, it is next to impossible to weed it out. Science does not like to admit its mistakes; it does not like to surrender its pet illusions. It is as cock-sure that we need sodium chloride in the form of ordinary table salt as it is that we must have flesh foods. People who desire to live rationally will simply have to ignore the decrepit old hag and go on ahead of her.
Trall gave it as his opinion of salt as a “dietetic” article that “it is worse than useless-common opinion, and the frequent assertions of medical books to the contrary notwithstanding. ” He pointed out that the “free use of salt irritates the mouth, throat, and stomach, causing thirst and fever, and provoking unnatural appetite, while it loads the circulating fluids with a foreign ingredient, which the excretory organs must labor inordinately to get rid of. ”
In his day the antiseptic quality of salt was much to the fore and this quality was often adduced as evidence in favor of its use. Trall declared that “this is precisely the quality that renders it most unfit for nutritive purposes.”
There is no doubt of the need for various salts by the animal organism, but these must be taken as organic salts, as synthesized by fruits and vegetables; not as inorganic, as taken from the sea or salt mines. Sodium chloride, formerly called muriate of soda (this term was particularly applied to sea salt, the word muria meaning brine) is but one salt; we need several. Why do we make so much ado about our supposed need for one salt and ignore all the others? The salts of calcium, phosphorus, silica, iodine, magnesium, etc. are removed from our foods by the milling and processing of foods and by various cooking processes.
Were the organic salts left in our foods, and these are the only salts that are usable by the animal body, we would not feel the “need” to add sodium chloride to our foods to make them palatable. Certainly the addition of this salt to our foodstuffs does not compensate for the deficiency of the other salts that our regular diets present. The use of salt imposes considerable exertion upon the body in eliminating it, for it is not readily excreted. It tends to accumulate in the body so that the organism finds it necessary to retain within itself a superfluous quantity of water to dilute the retained salt and thus defend itself against this substance.
A hidden edema (one that is often not so hidden) is the result of salt intake, giving one a body-weight that is composed of a considerable amount of water rather than healthy flesh.
The increased flow of saliva, gastric juice and mucus that follows the; taking of salt, as well as of other condiments, is due to the effort to dilute and wash away the irritant substance, the juices containing no digestive enzymes. Instead of accelerating the digestive processes, as is commonly believed, the use of such substances retards digestion. Their use, under any and all circumstances and conditions, is always an evil. All fruits and vegetables in their natural state abound in organic salts of various kinds, and a diet composed of these substances will amply supply the body with all needed salt. No deficiency of mineral salts can arise if one eats freely of uncooked fruits and vegetables, nor will one ‘feel” the “need” for the addition of table salt to his food. These salts of fruits and vegetables are in forms that may be utilized by the animal organism in the building of tissue.
Cannabis – whether Sativa, Indica, Ruderalis, male, female, hermaphrodite, wild, bred for fiber, seeds or medicinal resin – is a vegetable with every dietary essential we can’t synthesize: Essential Amino Acids, Essential Fatty Acids, Essential Cannabinoid acids and hundreds of anti-Cancer compounds.
Cannabis clinician Dr. William Courtney recommends drinking 4 – 8 ounces of bud and leaf juice of any Hemp plant, 5 mg of CBD per kg of body weight, a salad of Hemp seed sprouts and 50 mg of THC daily, divided into 5 doses with an Arachadonic acid source, such as Hemp seed oil.
“If you heat the plant, you will decarboxylate THC-acid and you will get high, you”ll get your 10 mg. If you don’t heat it, you can go up to five or six hundred milligrams & use it as a Dietary Cannabis. . . and push it up to the Anti-oxidant and Neuro-protective levels which come into play at hundreds of milligrams,” stated Dr. William Courtney.
“The amount of Cannabinoids we need would be difficult to get through smoked Cannabis without feeling the intoxicating effects,” said Kristen Courtney.
The Endocannabinoid System (ECS) maintains our biological systems by regulating each cell tissue. It uses Arachadonic acid/Omega 6 to make Endo-Cannabinoids: fatty molecules that communicate harm between cells. Dietary Cannabis mimics the ECS by providing Cannabinoids when there is an Arachadonic acid deficiency or Clinical Cannabinoid Deficiency.
The body regenerates best when it’s saturated with Phyto-Cannabinoids, which takes 3 months of Dietary Cannabis use. Patients exceeding 4 decades need Dietary Cannabis daily.
Patients using blood pressure, birth control, Epilepsy, Anti-psychotic or any Cardiac medicines need more Dietary Cannabis to elevate their serum Cannabinoid levels.
Oxidative diseases and Amphetamine, radiation or Alcohol damage can be prevented or treated with Cannabinoid therapy.
Cannabinoids are particularly effective in the treatment of oxidative associated diseases of the CNS because they cross the Blood Brain Barrier and exert their anti-oxidant effects.
Hemp juice has lowered blood pressure an average of 10 points within 2 hours.
Patients suffering from end stage Cancer need to eat buds whole.
Plants sprayed with anything shouldn’t be juiced, but some pests are edible, such as Spider mites.
To prepare leaves for a juicer, avoid rinsing – soak them in water for 5 minutes.
Masticating juicers are efficient for leaves, buds and sprouts; a centrifugal juicer may need additional vegetables to chop fibers. To preserve juice fill containers so that air is minimized; a dose of juice frozen in an ice cube tray retains medicinal value.
A sprout’s prophylactic, analgesic, anxiolytic, anti-oxidant and activities peak within 1-2 weeks.
For CBD without dysphoria from THC psycho-toxicity, heat bud to 166 degrees with a heat gun – the longer a bud is boiled, the less THC remains.
D9THC boils at 157C, D8THC boils at 175C, CBD boils at 188C.
Drinking heated juice for THC is more potent because there is less vaporization, adhesion and degradation to decrease potency. When calculating a dose of heated juice from a new strain make sure to begin with smaller doses: the amount of THC in a cup of juice can exceed 100 joints worth – which could leave one unconscious for a number of days – and even heated leaves can be psycho-active.
A 20 mg dose of THC causes most patients to stagger, after 30 mg THC most are unable or unwilling to stand.
“The Hemp plant is actually an excellent plant because the THC content can be low, that’s if you’re treating a condition for which appears CBD food supplement is in order. . . The plants we’re using in Luxembourg have only 1% CBD, a 1% CBD plant is providing you with 19 times more CBD per pound than Oranges provide you of vitamin C. A 1% is an excellent source, you can make tremendous concentrates you can eat the plant raw – and the absence of the THC – you can heat Hemp, which you can’t do with other strains because the THC acid comes out and you end up with a psycho-toxic substance,” says Dr. William Courtney
Viable Hemp seed from the detoxyourworld, happilyraw and gojiking.co.uk websites approach pure CBD.
Steam or UV sterilized Hemp seeds sprout at a lower germination rate; such as seeds from Nuts dot com, Avian Organics and Persnickety Parrot websites.
Canadian Hemp seed oil contains 10 mg per kg of CBD; Swiss and Finland sourced Hemp seed oil can contain up to 50 mg of THC per kg.
Swiss Hemp “essential” oil contains 540 mg of CBD and 3 mg each CBD, CBG and CBN per kg with no acids.
Raw Cannabis produces non-psychoactive acidic Cannabinoids. It’s medicinal at lower doses than heated preparations because constituents have an Entourage effect when they act synergistically. 90% of the medicinal constituents are destroyed with heat – such as terpenoids, which can greatly prolong the amount of time a Cannabinoid affects our body.
“It’s the poster-child for raw food.”
Acidic Cannabinoids are absorbed by our body 400% better than neutral Cannabinoids and do not require a Cannabiniod receptor to produce medicinal activity.
Neutral Cannabinoids are the product of aging, heat or light. THC – the only psycho-active group of Cannabinoids – and all other neutral Cannabinoids are barely present in raw Cannabis.
There 16 possible classes of Cannabinoids and over one hundred Cannabinoids in each trichome; in a ratio that changes throughout development with variations between cultivars. Each act differently: CBD-acid has anti-biotic activity but CBD doesn’t.
Contact The Humboldt Patient Resource Center, Canna Culture Collective, Leonard Moore Co-op or ask local growers in a Cannabis forum for fresh Cannabis leaves.
Source: PreventDisease.com via: myscienceacademy.org - Author: Alyx S. Kerr; he is a 24 year old Cannabis enthusiast who has no doubt that Cannabis is the most important biomass for Biological, Ethical and Environmental systems. Visit his website at www.RawHemp.tk
Thirty-five years ago, middle school-age Mike Brucks realized he wanted to be a police officer. After graduating from high school he joined the army and became a military traffic cop on the million-acre Fort Bliss in western Texas and New Mexico. "It was a small-scale community, with slow speeds, and we would investigate accidents on- and off-post, in Colorado, New Mexico, and as far as Corpus Christi, anywhere a serviceman was injured or killed," Brucks says. After six years in the Army he joined the El Paso Police Department as a traffic cop. He retired last May after 22 years and almost 40,000 tickets, by his estimation, most of which he issued while riding Kawasaki and Harley-Davidson big-motor touring bikes. Here are some of his stories from the road and tips for motorists looking to avoid a ticket.
Besides speeding, which is the reason for most tickets, what's most likely to get a traffic cop's attention?
Seatbelts, cell phones, red lights, and stop signs. I concentrate on all the things that can cause an accident. There are some cops who write tickets for expired plates, for having no insurance or registration, but you're not going to crash because of any of that. I focused on safety issues—that's what I like to do.
Motorcycle or car—which is better for catching speeders?
Motorcycles accelerate so much faster and can maneuver around traffic better. When I'm in a car, it's harder to get it turned around. I grew up riding dirt bikes as a kid. I've always been riding. I teach riding with the Motorcycle Safety Foundation; I have a BMW RT1150 as a personal bike.
Do traffic cops think it's cheating to hide behind billboards?
No. You've got a radar detector; you know where we hide. If you are thinking we are hiding somewhere, it's because you're speeding.
Do you have favorite hiding places?
I stay on the freeway mostly. That's where there are more speeders. I'll park under overpasses, on bridges. I need to be able to start the bike and accelerate to go after someone. If there are a lot of exits, I can miss [a speeder] who can maybe get off at an exit, and then it's too late to catch him.
How much leeway do you give someone before writing them a speeding ticket?
The speed limit in Texas used to be 60 mph, [and] well, out on the clear road where there's a lot of visibility I give people leeway. I wouldn't write tickets until they got to 80 mph. I've never worked an area where the speed limit drops a lot without warning, what I call a trap. If there's a new speed limit that's lower, it [takes] time for people to get used to it and I don't write tickets there.
What can a driver say to get out of a ticket?
When someone tells me that a family member has just been sent to the hospital and they're on their way, how can I ticket them for that? I tell them that they're not being safe, that they need to slow down and stay safe. That's about it.
I think now it's much more of a rat-race world than it was 30 years ago. The workforce has generated that. People have to be at work on time or risk getting fired, kids have to be picked up and taken places—it's just citizens in a hurry. Ninety-eight percent of the people I stop are law-abiding good citizens, and they say they have no reason to speed. That's an easy ticket. They're not happy, but I could go months without any problems, without anyone cussing me out. I wrote a lot of warnings, too, but it all depends on the situation, if they were being safe.
What different kinds of speeders do you find?
Monday through Friday, they're all trying to get to work; they go 70 to 75 mph in a 60 mph zone. On Saturdays and Sundays, there is less traffic, no rush hour, and they go 85 to 90 mph. On the [Woodrow Bean] Transmountain Road, there is a "100 Miles per Hour" club, and a lot of motorcyclists run it on the weekends. When I first started, I worked night shifts, and there are a lot of bad people out there at night. So I liked days, and I would try to work as early as possible before it got hot, because I was on a motorcycle.
Are speed limits too low?
No, the traffic engineers, at least in Texas, are pretty good. It's not that some parts of the highway are safer for speeding, it's that drivers aren't always paying attention. People die on lonely deserted stretches of road too. There are a lot of times drivers aren't concentrating. They need to understand you're going 100 feet per second on the highway. Above 75 mph things just happen so fast, [whether it's] a flat tire, a coyote, wind, dirt, or rocks. It's not that much better now that cars are safer; reaction times are still the same.
What's the toughest ticket you've had to write?
I clocked a woman coming down from New Mexico on Highway 54 at 111 mph. She had just been stopped for going 90 mph 15 minutes [earlier] in New Mexico. Everybody has a reason, and I want to know it. I always ask why someone was speeding, and that's just to open things up. I want to know what they're thinking, if they need my help for something. She had been crying, and the tears didn't just start—they'd been going on a long time, you can tell. She was on her way to a motel in El Paso to catch her husband who was shacked up with another woman there, cheating. How do you write a ticket for that?
Who's the craziest speeder you've seen?
I stopped a guy going 136 mph. I caught him mostly because he thought he lost me. I came up beside him and blocked his front wheel on the curb. The hardest part after that was now I have to be courteous and respectful, although he could have killed someone, and that makes me angry. It's really too bad, he was a good kid, never been in trouble, but now he had to go to jail for felonious evading, and that's really going to wreck his life.
When do you not chase a speeder?
I clocked a guy on a crotch-rocket bike doing 189 mph. Just let him go. Since police departments began to get sued for chasing speeders, around 1995, there's a fine line. You have to determine if you can catch him, if chasing him will cause an accident for him, for you, for the public. There's no way to catch anyone like that.
It is no secret that our world is seeing a huge increase in poor health and cancer cases. It should come as no surprise when we look at what we eat daily, the condition of our environment and the types of body care products we use daily that contain a ton of cancer causing agents. Mainstream medicine suggests that chemotherapy and radiation are the best means to go about treating cancer, but there is a growing body of evidence to suggest there exist much better cures.
Cannabinoids may very well be one of the best disease and cancer fighting treatments out there. If you have heard of Rick Simpson you have heard of his methods of preparing cannabis or hemp in such a way where he is able to extract the oil from it and use that oil to treat cancer. Rick has been very successful in his work and his popularity is growing as a result. At the same time, he has received a great deal of flack for his methods as they pose a serious threat to the business that is cancer.
What are cannabinoids?
Cannabinoids refer to any of a group of related compounds that include cannabinol and the active constituents of cannabis. They activate canbinoid receptors in the body. The body itself produces compounds called endocannabinoids and they play a role in many processes within the body that help to create a healthy environment. Cannabinoids also play a role in immune system generation and re-generation. The body regenerates best when it’s saturated with Phyto-Cannabinoids. Cannabinoids can also be found in Cannabis. It is important to note that the cannabinoids are plentiful in both hemp and cannabis. The differentiation between hemp and cannabis is simply that hemp only contains 0.3% THC while cannabis is 0.4% THC or higher. (Technically they are both strains of Cannabis Sativa.)
Cannabinoids have been proven to reduce cancer cells as they have a great impact on the rebuilding of the immune system. While not every strain of cannabis has the same effect, more and more patients are seeing success in cancer reduction in a short period of time by using cannabis. Contrary to popular thought and belief, smoking the cannabis does not assist a great deal in treating disease within the body as therapeutic levels cannot be reached through smoking. Creating oil from the plant or eating the plant is the best way to go about getting the necessary ingredients which are the cannabinoids. Another aspect of smoking the cannabis that must be looked at is the fact that when the cannabis is heated and burnt it changes the chemical structure and acidity of the THC which changes its ability to be therapeutic. Further, anytime you burn something and inhale it, you create oxidation within the body. That oxidation is not healthy for the body and can lead to health issues itself.
Cannabinoids can prevent cancer, reduce heart attacks by 66% and insulin dependent diabetes by 58%. Cannabis clinician Dr. William Courtney recommends drinking 4 – 8 ounces of raw flower and leaf juice from any Hemp plant.
Cannabis – whether Sativa, Indica, Ruderalis, male, female, hermaphrodite, wild, bred for fiber, seeds or medicinal resin – is a vegetable with every dietary essential we can’t synthesize: Essential Amino Acids, Essential Fatty Acids, Essential Cannabinoid acids and hundreds of anti-Cancer compounds. It is important to note that when we isolate to important compounds of cannabis and take them in supplement we miss out of the bio-synergistic compounds that go along with it in full plant form. This makes it more difficult for the body to determine what exactly it is taking in.
“If you heat the plant, you will decarboxylate THC-acid and you will get high, you”ll get your 10 mg. If you don’t heat it, you can go up to five or six hundred milligrams & use it as a Dietary Cannabis. . . and push it up to the Anti-oxidant and Neuro-protective levels which come into play at hundreds of milligrams,” stated Dr. William Courtney.
The Endocannabinoid System (ECS) maintains our biological systems by regulating each cell tissue. It uses Arachadonic acid/Omega 6 to make Endo-Cannabinoids: fatty molecules that communicate harm between cells. Dietary Cannabis mimics the ECS by providing Cannabinoids when there is an Arachadonic acid deficiency or Clinical Cannabinoid Deficiency.
Doctors who have been researching cannabis and it’s benefits in diet for some time have recommended that people make cannabis a part of their everyday diet. To reiterate, the plant does not need to contain high levels of THC and it can simply be hemp. Eating Cannabis that does contain THC will not get you high. Also, smoking it does not give the same results as eating or juicing the plant. If we view the plant simple as a vegetable like all other vegetables we eat, it makes sense that we wouldn’t put it inside rolling papers and smoke it to get the nutritional benefits.
(p)Link
Commenti
Storico
Stampa
Feed RSS 0.91
Feed Atom 0.3
