Category: Science

Bullfight Picasso

SEEING RED?: Bulls can’t actually see the red of the cape, but its meaning is clear to the matador and spectators.Bullfight, the death of the torero by Pablo Picasso

The innate meanings of color and intensity.

You don’t have to look very hard to see that our culture has some pretty powerful associations between colors and feelings. As a recent example, the new Pixar film Inside Out has characters representing emotions, and the color choices for these characters—red for anger, and blue for sadness—feel right.

Red, specifically, is one of the most powerful colors in terms of its associations and the feelings it generates. Soccer players perceive red-shirted opponents to be better players, and one study indeed found that players wearing red shirts won sports games more often. Looking at red also seems to help people focus. Red enhances performance on detail-oriented tasks, whereas blue and greenimprove the results of creative tasks. Red is also sexual—men find women wearing red to be more attractive, and women think the same of men.

Why might this be? Although these associations are a part of our culture, are they arbitrary, or did they come about for reasons outside of culture, perhaps having to do with our biology or the environment we all live in?

Color is not distributed randomly in the world around us, and as we experience the world, we build up associations between colors and the things they represent. Yet red is a relatively rare color in the natural environment. Certain fruits, small parts of the sky at times, and blood are all red. When we get angry or embarrassed, our faces get redder (though the effect is less obvious in dark-skinned people).

But these appearances of red in our environment don’t seem to be enough to explain the breadth of red’s various connotations. And there is reason to think the meanings might be inherent to our biology: Red connotes high arousal, passion, and violence even for some non-human animals. When male mandrills face off, for instance, the paler (less red) male stands down. And macaques use red in sexual displays. Yet while poison dart frogs are brightly colored, they don’t skew toward red—many are green, yellow, and blue. This suggests that the general association with red is specific to primates, evolving before mandrills and humans differentiated. If it had been learned, as a result of being associated with passion and danger in the environment, we would expect broader cross-species associations; for instance, we might see that all poison animals were red. (Red does serve as a warning in some other animals, such as venomous snakes, but it’s not at all universal.) If red is indeed a warning color used to communicate among primates, specifically, then the associations with red might be innate yet arbitrary, meaning that it might just as easily have been another color that took on that role.

The difference between light and darkness is the most primitive and most visually and emotionally powerful aspect of color, and the associations in our environment for darkness and light seem clearer. This suggests that the implications of light and dark might be learned as well as evolved—that is, we might be born with certain reactions to light and dark that get reinforced through experience with the natural world and through culture. Darkness is scary because it prevents us from using our dominant sense: vision (pdf). So in that sense, the common negative associations with darkness are not arbitrary, as is primates’ use of red as a warning color. If a language has only two words for colors, those two words are invariably light and dark. In one experiment, people were supposed to speak aloud the words they saw flashed on the screen. People were faster at saying the words associated with immorality (such as “greed”) when they were in black, and faster at saying the “moral words” (such as “honesty) when they were in white—and this happened too quickly for them to deliberate about it. This shows that it was subconsciously easier for them to associate morality with lightness…




Chemical compasses may rely on quantum spin (Credit: Andrey Volodin/Alamy)

Few of us really understand the weird world of quantum physics – but our bodies might take advantage of quantum properties

By Martha Henriques

If there’s any subject that perfectly encapsulates the idea that science is hard to understand, it’s quantum physics. Scientists tell us that the miniature denizens of the quantum realm behave in seemingly impossible ways: they can exist in two places at once, or disappear and reappear somewhere else instantly.

The one saving grace is that these truly bizarre quantum behaviours don’t seem to have much of an impact on the macroscopic world as we know it, where “classical” physics rules the roost.

Or, at least, that’s what scientists thought until a few years ago.

Quantum processes might be at work behind some very familiar processes

Now that reassuring wisdom is starting to fall apart. Quantum processes may occur not quite so far from our ordinary world as we once thought. Quite the opposite: they might be at work behind some very familiar processes, from the photosynthesis that powers plants – and ultimately feeds us all – to the familiar sight of birds on their seasonal migrations. Quantum physics might even play a role in our sense of smell.

In fact, quantum effects could be something that nature has recruited into its battery of tools to make life work better, and to make our bodies into smoother machines. It’s even possible that we can do more with help from the strange quantum world than we could without it.

Photosynthesis looks easy (Credit: Morley Read/Alamy)

Photosynthesis looks easy (Credit: Morley Read/Alamy)

At one level, photosynthesis looks very simple. Plants, green algae and some bacteria take in sunlight and carbon dioxide, and turn them into energy. What niggles in the back of biologists minds, though, is that photosynthetic organisms make the process look just a little bit too easy.

It’s one part of photosynthesis in particular that puzzles scientists. A photon – a particle of light – after a journey of billions of kilometres hurtling through space, collides with an electron in a leaf outside your window. The electron, given a serious kick by this energy boost, starts to bounce around, a little like a pinball. It makes its way through a tiny part of the leaf’s cell, and passes on its extra energy to a molecule that can act as an energy currency to fuel the plant.

Photosynthetic organisms make the process look just a little bit too easy

The trouble is, this tiny pinball machine works suspiciously well. Classical physics suggests the excited electron should take a certain amount of time to career around inside the photosynthetic machinery in the cell before emerging on the other side. In reality, the electron makes the journey far more quickly.

What’s more, the excited electron barely loses any energy at all in the process. Classical physics would predict some wastage of energy in the noisy business of being batted around the molecular pinball machine. The process is too fast, too smooth and too efficient. It just seems too good to be true.

Then, in 2007, photosynthesis researchers began to see the light. Scientists spotted signs of quantum effects in the molecular centres for photosynthesis. Tell-tale signs in the way the electrons were behaving opened the door to the idea that quantum effects could even be playing an important biological role.

This could be part of the answer to how the excited electrons pass through the photosynthetic pinball machine so quickly and efficiently. One quantum effect is the ability to exist in many places at the same time – a property known as quantum superposition. Using this property, the electron could potentially explore many routes around the biological pinball machine at once. In this way it could almost instantly select the shortest, most efficient route, involving the least amount of bouncing about.

Quantum physics had the potential to explain why photosynthesis was suspiciously efficient – a shocking revelation for biologists…




by Nathaniel Mauka, Staff Writer Waking Times 

Neuroscientists have argued whether we even have free will, but now they want to turn it off.

The Libet Experiment

In the 1980s scientist Benjamin Libet conducted an experiment. He ‘discovered’ that what seems to be free will or the conscious choice to do or not do something is really just the observance of something that has already happened. This completely rocked the foundations of what most thought of as a prerequisite for being human, and the long-held religious view that free-will must always be honored.

Libet recorded people’s brainwaves as they made spontaneous finger movements while looking at a clock. The participants in the study were to tell researchers the time at which they decided to wave their fingers. Libet found that there were several milliseconds of preparatory brain activity prior to the time that people reported the conscious act of waving their fingers. His findings were taken as gospel that free will did not exist. Now we call this preparatory action of the brain the ‘readiness potential.’

What Libet’s experiment failed to consider though, was manifold. It is possible that people were only conscious of an action milliseconds after a subconscious realization. It is possible that they could not indicate their intent as fast as their physical bodies could carry it out – a delay in physical vs. mental activity that has been well documented, and it is also possible that the cognition of an anticipated event is cognized well before the actual event, because the entire causal field is changed by our consciousness, as evidenced by recent experiments in physics. This is called the observer effect as it refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed.

Libet implies that the conscious decision act is divorced from fee will, in that it is acted out nonconsciously, and that the subjective feeling of having made this decision is tagged on afterward – however – we already know from vast amounts of research from Jung and others, that we know a lot more than we consciously allow ourselves to honor.

Nonetheless, Libet’s experiment has weathered such criticism and the implications have been replicated with even more advanced equipment including the use of FMRI technology and the direct recording of neuronal activity using implanted electrodes.

How to Reprogram Or Eliminate Free Will

These studies all seem to point in the same, troubling conclusion: We don’t really have free will. So why then are neuroscientists trying to remove our free will?

A study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers in Germany, has scientists backtracking on their original assumption that we have no free will.

The German researchers worked backwards in a way, from Libet’s experimental protocol, using a form of brain-computer integration to see whether participants could cancel a movement after the onset of the unconscious preparatory brain activity identified by Libet.

If they could, it would be a sign that humans can consciously intervene and “veto” processes that neuroscience has previously considered automatic and beyond willful control. There were more complex methods utilized including the use of colored lights, but in short, they found we could easily undo actions and “veto” them – a sign of undeniable free will.

A quote from the lead researcher, Dr. John-Dylan Haynes of Charité – Universitätsmedizin in Berlin, becomes telling in order to discover how neuroscientists working for the deep state could override our own free will,

“A person’s decisions are not at the mercy of unconscious and early brain waves. They are able to actively intervene in the decision-making process and interrupt a movement. Previously people have used the preparatory brain signals to argue against free will. Our study now shows that the freedom is much less limited than previously thought.”

These findings were supported by a French study which found that “nonconscious” preparatory brain activity identified by Libet is really just part of a fairly random ebb and flow of background neural activity, and that movements occur when this activity crosses a certain threshold.

And even more studies confirm what we all suspected regardless of early scientific findings – that we all act consciously, perhaps to different degrees, but certainly with free will.

When we form a vague intention to move, they explain, this mind-set feeds into the background ebb and flow of neural activity, but the specific decision to act only occurs when the neural activity passes a key threshold — and our all-important subjective feeling of deciding happens at this point or a brief instant afterward.

“All this leaves our common sense picture largely intact,” they write, meaning we can break a chain of events (determinism), but that also implies a certain responsibility for our actions.

The Cooperation of Subconscious and Conscious Awareness

All these studies do suggest, though, that our free will requires healthy partnerships between conscious and unconscious systems. In special circumstances like playing musical instruments, engaging in sports, or driving a car, we apparently recruit specialized unconscious agents with the ability to carry out certain acts quickly without conscious “permission.”

If these “unconscious” agents can be reprogrammed, then we can be controlled, essentially by “disabling” our free will – at least according to pedantic science.

Attempts to Destruct Free Will

Aside from using drugs like scopolamine, known to wipe our subconscious plates clean, so that new, possibly nefarious programming can be installed, and obvious mind control techniques admittedly researched by the CIA (with the help of Stanford Neuroscientists, and others) along with additional intelligence agencies of our government, there are subtle programming methods used every day in the form of subconscious messages in advertising. There are even cell phone apps meant to control the free will of the user. You can imagine what other technologies have been employed.

My advice? Use your free will to override unwanted subconscious programming. If it requires both conscious and ‘non’ conscious compliance, to remove free will, then we can at least interfere by utilizing our conscious awareness and removing tacit consent. That ought to keep the physicist busy for a while, at any rate, and the deep state wasting our tax dollars on more Mind Kontrol experiments.

About the Author
Nathaniel Mauka is a researcher of the dark side of government and exopolitics, and a staff writer for Waking Times.
This article (Deep State Neuroscientists Believe They Can Turn Off Free Will) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Nathaniel MaukaIt may be re-posted freely with proper attribution and author bio.


If you’ve experienced hallucinations, you’re not alone.


New research has found that hallucinations are far more common among the general population than most people realise – and they aren’t limited to disorders commonly associated with psychosis, such as schizophrenia or borderline personality disorder.

A study looking at more than 7,400 people in the UK found that 4.3 percent of participants had experienced either visual or auditory hallucinations in the past year – this included people with and without mental health issues, and showed that the phenomenon wasn’t limited to those with psychosis.

“There is a general idea in psychiatry that hallucinations are a feature of psychosis,” lead researcher Ian Kelleher from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland told Léa Surugue at the International Business Times.

“But when we looked at a whole range of mental health diseases we found that hallucinations are symptoms that occur in a wide range of mental health disorders such as depression or anxiety.”

Generally, when we talk about mental health issues, there’s a divide between the psychotic disorders, such as borderline personality disorder and schizophrenia, and non-psychotic disorders, including depression and anxiety.

For this study, the researchers used borderline personality disorder as an example of a psychotic disorder.

There’s plenty of unnecessary stigma surrounding all of those conditions, but in particular, people with psychotic disorders are usually considered unique in that they see and hear things that aren’t there.

But the new study suggests that this divide might not actually exist.

The team looked at data from the 2007 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity survey, which included surveys over the space of a year on the mental health of 7,403 people in England aged over 16.

As you’d expect, many of these participants had been diagnosed with a mental health condition – in England, it’s estimated that one in six people suffer from mental health problems in any given week.

But the team wanted to narrow down whether hallucinations were any more common among people with psychotic disorders compared to those with non-psychotic ones.

To do this, the researchers looked at how many people with borderline personality disorder (which is associated with psychosis) reported seeing or hearing things that other people couldn’t in the past year, compared with the number of participants with non-psychotic depression or anxiety.

The results showed that hallucinations weren’t significantly more prevalent in individuals with borderline personality disorder (13.7 percent) than those with a non-psychotic mental disorder (12.6 percent).

Not only that, but more than 4 percent of all respondents reported hearing or seeing things that others couldn’t – including those who’d never been diagnosed with mental health issues.

Based on the results, the team suggests that hallucinations aren’t exclusively symptoms of psychosis, and shouldn’t be stigmatised.

“Hallucinations are more common than people realise. They can be frightening experiences, and few people openly talk about it,” Kelleher told Surugue.

“Our research is valuable because it can show them they are not alone and that having these symptoms is not necessarily associated with having a mental health disorder. It breaks the taboo.”

But this is just one study and it has its limitations – for starters, the team relied on participants to self-report whether or not they’d experienced hallucinations, which isn’t the most accurate technique.

And although it was a decent sample size, the researchers only looked at people in England, which is not a diverse enough demographic to draw any far-reaching conclusions about hallucinations in general.

But the findings echo the results of a much larger study published in 2015, which looked at data on more than 31,000 people from 19 countries…




Alan Turing and Christopher Morcom. Art by Keith Hegley from The Who, the What, and the When, an illustrated celebration of the little-known inspirations behind geniuses.

“The body provides something for the spirit to look after and use.”

“The void horrifies: so we are all immortal,” Simone de Beauvoir scoffed at the religious escapism of immortality in explaining why she is an atheist, adding: “Faith allows an evasion of those difficulties which the atheist confronts honestly.” But there exists a certain orientation of spirit that is both unreligious and lucid in contemplating mortality. Einstein touched on it in his beautiful letter to the Queen of Belgium, in which he wrote: “There is, after all, something eternal that lies beyond the hand of fate and of all human delusions.”And yet he conceded that such an orientation toward mortality is reserved for those “who have been privileged to accomplish in full measure their task in life.”

To make sense of the untimely loss of a young and unrealized life is a wholly different matter, one which haunted computing pioneer Alan Turing (June 23, 1912–June 7, 1954).

Turing’s decryption of Nazi communication code is estimated to have shortened WWII by two to four years, consequently saving anywhere between 14 and 21 million lives. But despite his wartime heroism, Turing was driven to suicide after being chemically castrated by the U.K. government for being homosexual. More than half a century after his disquieting death, Queen Elizabeth II issued royal pardon — a formal posthumous apology that somehow only amplifies the tragedy of Turing’s life and death.

Tragedy had been with Turing from a young age. At fifteen, while attending the Sherborne School, he fell deeply in love with a classmate named Christopher Morcom. For the awkward and ostracized young Alan, who was bullied so severely that a group of boys once trapped him under the floorboards of a dorm dayroom and kept him there until he nearly suffocated, Christopher was everything he was not — dashing, polished, well versed in both science and art, and aglow with winsome charisma. Alan’s love was profound and pure and unrequited in the dimensions he most longed for, but Christopher did take to him with great warmth and became his most beloved, in fact his only, friend. They spent long nights discussing science and philosophy, trading astronomical acumen, and speculating about the laws of physics.

When Christopher died of bovine tuberculosis in 1930 — a disease he had contracted from infected milk, for which there was no common vaccine until after WWII — Alan fell to pieces. He was able to collect himself only through work, by burrowing so deep into the underbelly of mathematics that he emerged almost on the other side, where science and metaphysics meet. Sorrow had taken him on a crusade to make sense of reality, of this senseless ruin, and he spared no modality of thought. Most of all, he wanted to understand how he could remain so attached to someone who no longer existed materially but who felt so overwhelmingly alive in his spirit.

All the while, young Turing remained in touch with Christopher’s mother, who had taken a sympathetic liking to her son’s awkward friend. After Christopher’s death, he visited the Morcoms at their country home, Clock House, and corresponded with Mrs. Morcom about the grief they shared, about the perplexity of how a nonentity — for Christopher had ceased to exist in physical terms — could color each of their worlds so completely.

That sorrowful puzzlement is what Turing explored in a series of letters to Christopher’s mother, originally included in his first serious biography and brought to new life in astrophysicist Janna Levin’s exquisite novel A Mad Man Dreams of Turing Machines (public library) — a masterwork of fiction that swirls philosophical poetics around the facts of Turing’s life…




Web-Based Brain Damage and Mindless Data Consumption | Global Freedom Movement

By Brendan D. Murphy, co-founder Global Freedom Movement, author The Grand Illusion

Even though we think we’re getting a lot done, ironically, multitasking makes us demonstrably less efficient.
Daniel J. Levitin, neuroscientist

Evidence is mounting that our haphazard info-consuming ways on the web are adversely affecting our neurological and cognitive functioning – as well as wasting time by making us far less efficient – and far more distracted – than we think we are.  The internet is a wonderful (read: essential) thing for humanity, but the way we use it seems to need some tweaking.

According to a study in the Journal of Digital Information, people who read documents online containing hypertext didn’t retain as much information as people reading without hypertext. The temptation to click on hyperlinks caused breaks in focus and attention, interrupting the flow of the material, thus compromising memory retention.[i]

Long-term memory is essential for building models, maps, or schemas – a.k.a. context. When we are poor in context, our ability to make informed assessments of incoming information is crippled. New information may be rejected simply because no groundwork (context) has been laid within which to assimilate it. Learning is stifled.

There is also the issue of “multi-tasking.” MIT neuroscientist Earl Miller states that our brains are “not wired to multitask well…When people think they’re multitasking, they’re actually just switching from one task to another very rapidly. And every time they do, there’s a cognitive cost in doing so.”[ii]

We pay for our broken attention span in mitigated comprehension and recall. Scattered attention on the internet does not conduce to contemplation and the formation of deeper meaning, or broader understanding through dot connecting, a.k.a. context building. The ultimate example, of course, is aimless scrolling through social media feeds, “witnessing” lots of information while learning virtually nothing from it.

Daniel J. Levitin, neuroscientist, warns us that “Multitasking creates a dopamine-addiction feedback loop, effectively rewarding the brain for losing focus and for constantly searching for stimulation,” adding that this rapid switching from one task to another “tweaks the novelty-seeking, reward-seeking centres of the brain, causing a burst of endogenous opioids (no wonder it feels so good!), all to the detriment of our staying on task. It is the ultimate empty-caloried brain candy. Instead of reaping the big rewards that come from sustained, focused effort, we instead reap empty rewards from completing a thousand little sugar-coated tasks.”[iii]

If you’ve ever tried to prise an iPad or similar device away from a small child after they’ve settled into “zombie mode” and mindless scanning, you’ll know that they often do react like crack addicts having their drug confiscated just when they need their next hit. The endogenous opioid findings make sense of this disturbing phenomenon.

More broadly, the case can clearly be made that the way we’re currently using technology is fostering an intellectual decay and poorer cognitive performance. As author Nicholas Carr puts it, “We become mindless consumers of data.” That must be one reason why John Vallance, former headmaster at Sydney Grammar School – one of Australia’s top performing mainstream schools – had not long ago banned students from bringing laptops to school, requiring handwritten essays and assignments until year 10. No doubt that genius educator Rudolf Steiner would approve if he were here today. Vallance describes Australia’s billions of dollars invested in school computers as a “scandalous waste of money.[iv].

We may be far more vulnerable to subtle sources of distraction than we’d like to believe. Glenn Wilson, former visiting professor of psychology at Gresham College, London, found in his research that “being in a situation where you are trying to concentrate on a task, and an email is sitting unread in your inbox, can reduce your effective IQ by 10 points.”[v]

Ouch. Some people may not have 10 points to spare!

Russ Poldrack, a neuroscientist at Stanford, found that learning information while multitasking causes the new information to go to the wrong part of the brain. If students study and watch TV at the same time, for example, the information from their schoolwork goes into the striatum, a region specialised for storing new procedures and skills, not facts and ideas. Without the distraction of TV, the information goes into the hippocampus, where it is organised and categorised in a variety of ways, making it easier to retrieve.[vi]

This finding speaks volumes about the value of focused attention and sustained effort. In yogic terms, such one-pointedness is called dharana. Evidently it’s good for our brains!




by Paul Philips, Guest, Waking Times

Like many things — the food industry, the medical-pharmaceutical establishment, the mainstream media – the hidden corporate/bankers who control our governments have also standardized the education system through funding.

Many years ago in the USA, for example, much money was poured into education by the Rockefeller-created National Education Association, with the help of the Carnegie Foundation and later on the Ford Foundation. The result of the efforts of such organisations can be seen worldwide today in the real purpose of the education system which is to teach children and young people: 1) Reward comes from accurate memory recall from heavy repetition. 2) Non-compliance will be punished. 3) Acceptance that ‘truth’ and what is ‘real’ comes from authority.

Thus, the real purpose of the education system is to cultivate conformity and prohibit critical thinking about anything of real importance.

Starting at 4 years old (and what could be a better age to start a mass indoctrination?) and finishing by the time an individual comes out of the education system, some 12 years plus on, children have had more than their fair share of programming and brainwashing, and as a result are unable to really think for themselves. Moreover, any genuine outside-of-the-box thinking with significant potential humanitarian or Mother Earth-friendly benefit is ignored, quashed, ridiculed or suppressed by the influence of those hidden controllers if it is perceived as a threat to any of their businesses.

But, as Einstein said, ‘real thinking is to think the unthinkable…’

Introducing the ‘Unsung Heroes’

The following is a list of just some of history’s truly great humanitarian outside-of-the-box thinkers, with their innovative ideas/products that have never been able to see the light of day (due to the above reasons.)

Raymond Rife

Raymond Rife (1888-1971) and his Universal Microscope for curing cancer.

After successfully curing a number of cancer patients the Rockefeller owned American Medical Association (AMA) later had this work laid down to rest by closing down Rife’s set ups and seizing his equipment:

Essentially Rife refused to hand over the rights of his work to the AMA because he saw moneyed interests as hidden ulterior motives – that his the cancer curing machine would not be allowed to the world at large because the AMA and the medical/pharmaceutical establishment did not want patients’ cured.

That would mean customers lost and no more revenue for the cancer industry, so instead they push out real cures, and keep coming up with toxic treatments that never cure, instead create further symptoms (side effects) guaranteeing the cancer returns and thus repeat business until the patient eventually dies an unnecessarily harsh death.

After years of ensuing court cases with the ‘big boys’ of the cancer establishment, with little money to exist on, Rife exiled in Mexico to avoid imprisonment in the USA. He later died of alcoholism, a brilliant, but defeated man. The pressures of harassment related to the legal battles and constant threat of imprisonment had been too much for him.

The Associated Press: Apparatus of San Diegan Seen as Boon to Medical World

Linus Pauling

Pauling had worked with Matthias Rath and they came up with a unified approach to curing heart disease. (1901-1994) – ‘Unified Theory’ cure for heart disease.

Essentially, they found that heart disease is the result of a long-term vitamin C deficiency. The solution is to treat patients with frequent high doses (e.g. 6g/day) of vitamin C while using the amino acids lysine and proline to remove the atherosclerotic plaque lining the inner walls of the blood vessels that cause a narrowing or blocking of the lumen (space) of the blood vessels which is responsible for restricting blood flow and cardiovascular disease.

However, due to greater interests in corporate profitability and perceived financial threat, this highly successful cheap alternative therapy has not been allowed that much attention.



Nikola Tesla

Multi-talented Tesla cut across many disciplinary boundaries. His genius gave rise to a number of world-changing inventions. Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) – Wardenclyffe Tower Project free energy.

One of his most famous experiments /inventions was the Wardenclyffe Tower Project. It was Tesla’s attempt to provide everyone on the globe with free energy through harnessing electricity from the Earth’s ionosphere by means of the towers. Without wires the towers could transmit the harnessed electricity to ground-level areas requiring it…

However, Tesla’s funding was stopped. His equipment and lab was burned down together with the related intellectual property because it posed a threat to undercutting the cost of the conventional electricity grid system. If Tesla’s Wardenclyffe Tower Project had been allowed to flourish and not be destroyed then today we could well be living in a utopia.  Tesla died a poverty-stricken lonely and forgotten man in New York City.

TIME Magazine Cover: Nikola Tesla – July 20, 1931

Wilhelm Reich

Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) – Drought-breaking weather control.

Wilhelm Reich built an instrument he called the cloudbuster which successfully induced weather change. It has been used to break many droughts by producing clouds that make rain.

This workable mechanism for making rainclouds for crop irrigation in drought areas was stopped by those ever watchful lackeys for the ruling elite.


Allowing something like this could lead to food abundance and greatly contribute to ending world hunger. However, the controllers don’t want world hunger to end. If this happened it would make it more difficult to control people in what would no longer be third world countries. .. Don’t forget, their hidden enslavement agenda

Consequentially Reich was hounded by the likes of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) having accused him of fraud and deception with his cloudbuster instrument. His equipment was seized and destroyed. His last days were spent in prison where it was claimed that he died of a heart attack





Rats implanted with human kidneys from aborted fetuses lived up to four months after transplant.

Credit: Eugene Gu et al

By Tanya Lewis, Staff Writer

Researchers say they have developed a new technique that will get more kidneys to people who need transplants, but the method is sure to be controversial: The research shows that it is feasible to remove a kidney from an aborted human fetus, and implant the organ into a rat, where the kidney can grow to a larger size.

It’s possible that further work could find a way to grow kidneys large enough that they could be transplanted into a person, the researchers said, although much more research is needed to determine whether this could be done.

“Our long-term goal is to grow human organs in animals, to end the human donor shortage,” said study co-author Eugene Gu, a medical student at Duke University and the founder and CEO of Ganogen, Inc., a biotech company in Redwood City, California. [The 9 Most Interesting Transplants]

Such organs could also be used to test drugs before human trials are started, which would help avoid the risks associated with using untested compounds in people, Gu added.

The new findings will be published tomorrow (Jan. 22) in the American Journal of Transplantation.

But the research raises a number of ethical questions, including whether it is acceptable to use human fetal organs in research, or to transplant human organs into animals. If the research moves forward, it must be determined that the organs were obtained with proper consent, and that the research was conducted with adequate oversight, experts said.

Human-rat transplants

More than 123,000 people in the United States currently need an organ transplant, and about 21 people die each day waiting for one, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Previously, other scientists had attempted to grow immature human kidneys in the abdomens of mice, but the new research “is definitely the first time an actual whole human organ has been grown in an animal, and has sustained the life of that animal,” Gu told Live Science.

In the new study, Gu and his colleagues obtained human fetal kidneys from Stem Express, a Placerville, California-based company that supplies researchers with tissue from deceased adults and fetuses. The people who donated the fetal tissues gave consent for the kidneys to be used in research, and the scientists were completely separated from the donation process, Gu said.

The researchers transplanted the fetal kidneys into adult rats that lacked an immune system (so as to avoid tissue rejection), and connected the animals’ blood vessels to the organs using a challenging procedure that involved tiny stitches, about three to four times smaller than the width of a human hair.

One of the main reasons that previous attempts to transplant fetal organs into animals have failed is due to a difference in the blood pressure between human fetuses and adult animals. In most adult animals, including rats, the average blood pressure is about three times higher than it is in human fetuses. If a fetal organ is transplanted without adjusting the pressure, “the organ basically hemorrhages everywhere,” Gu said.

To get around that problem, Gu’s team developed a device, called an arterial flow regulator, which they fitted around the rats’ blood vessels to decrease the pressure of the blood flowing into the fetal kidneys.

About a month after the researchers transplanted the fetal kidneys into the rats, the scientists surgically removed the animals’ own kidneys. The rats that received the transplanted kidneys survived an average of four months after transplant, and one even survived for 10 months, Gu said. By comparison, a control group of rats that did not receive a transplanted kidney lived for only three to four days after having their kidneys removed, the researchers said.

Kidney growth in a rat host

Kidney growth in a rat host

Credit: Eugene Gu et al

In addition to kidneys, the researchers have also transplanted human fetal hearts into rats, Gu said. The work is still in progress, but the researchers said it may also be possible to use the method with other organs. “This technology is applicable not just to the kidney, but to every kind of [blood-supplied] organ in the body,” Gu said.





Retired NBA player Shaquille O’Neal had surgery on a big toe to treat osteoarthritis in 2002.

A degenerative joint disease or ‘wear and tear’ arthritis, osteoarthritis can be largely asymptomatic until it’s too late. Wren Greene explains.

When I was 28 years old, I was diagnosed with advanced stage osteoarthritis in my knee. I had injured it playing soccer as a teenager but, after surgery, it felt fine for years. The pain was hardly noticeable at first, just a little tenderness after a run or a long hike. But within a year or two, my knee was swelling up just from standing too long.

And I’m not alone. According to the Arthritis Foundation, about one in two people are affected by osteoarthritis at some point in life.

What has always surprised me – and what started me down the road to researching joint lubrication and arthritis – was how rapidly my condition progressed and how few treatment options were available.

For all intents and purposes, osteoarthritis is the end result of a complete breakdown of cartilage’s natural lubrication system, which ameliorates friction and protects surfaces from damage. Although cartilage uses a number of different easing processes, one of the most important is known as ‘weeping’ or ‘biphasic’ lubrication.

The structure of cartilage is rather like a water-swollen sponge made up of a dense collection of collagen micro-fibres linked into one continuous network. This three-dimensional net of fibres forms pores so small that the fluid inside cannot easily flow between them.

Every time you take a step, cartilages on opposing bones press together. The fluid trapped in the collagen fibre network becomes pressurised.

In healthy cartilage, the fluid pressure can equal as much as 99% of the pressure pushing the surfaces together, so supports 99% of the weight. The collagen fibril network, therefore, only ‘feels’ 1% of the weight. In other words, the trapped fluid takes the burden off the tissue surface and so prevents damage.

Osteoarthritis is a disease of wear of the collagen fibril network – but not all types wear are the same. Most people are familiar with abrasive wear – the sort of damage done to wood when it’s rubbed with sandpaper. This is the kind of wear associated with a related disease known as gout, the main symptoms of which, pain and inflammation, are caused by the precipitation of crystals in the joint fluid and become obvious early on.

The kind of wear associated with osteoarthritis is different and less obvious. It has the characteristics of fatigue wear, a process in which repeated compression and shear of a material produces tiny defects below the surface. In cartilage, these take the form of breakages in the links between collagen fibres and result in small ‘holes’ in the interconnected network.

When these defects are few in number, there is no obvious change in the cartilage’s properties, and the damage cannot be assessed non-invasively by a doctor. Stiffness, thickness, density and how rapidly water diffuses inside are not affected by just a few breakages. Think of a fishing net: cutting a small number of links is not going to alter its strength, nor significantly change its ability to catch fish.

But these tiny anomalies concentrate stresses in the collagen fibre network every time it’s compressed, and this gradually creates more defects in the material. Eventually, as the damage accumulates, the breakages start to merge into larger tears – a process scientists call ‘percolation.’

At this point, the now large defects begin to radically change the properties of the tissue. The cartilage softens, its surface roughens and cracks, and most importantly, the collagen fibre network no longer retains water – just like a badly torn net can no longer trap any fish.

Since the water in the tissues flows more easily, the pressure in the fluid drops significantly when you take a step and cartilage is compressed. The reduced fluid pressure shifts more of the burden onto the compromised collagen network. So instead of supporting 99% of the weight, the fluid might only support 50% – or nearly none at all in severely damaged tissue – which in turn accelerates the rate of wear.

A coronal section MRI of a patient suffering osteoarthritis of the right knee. When the articular cartilage of the femur and tibia wear away, the bones begin to rub together. This bone-on-bone contact results in pain, impaired mobility or joint deformity. In this image, the cartilage of the joint on the medial side (right side of image) has worn away, damaging the ends of the femur and tibia.

In essence, cartilage’s main mechanism for lubrication and wear protection no longer functions effectively. Equally unfortunate is that it is typically at this point that an osteoarthritis sufferer will begin noticing pain and swelling in their joints, and treatment options are limited because the damage is already too severe







Some psychologists believe suicide and depression can be strategic.

%d bloggers like this: