Toms Blog on Life and Livingness
This is a 40 minute videothat details a pretty strong picture of why we should be rejecting 5G. It does not give the full story of how the 5G technology can be used to manipulate human emotions and is quite destructive to birds and insects too.
It only takes one day for several common sunscreen ingredients to enter the bloodstream, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration study shows. In the study, the FDA completed research on a dozen chemical sunscreens and found four of the chemicals — avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene and ecamsule — remain in the body for at least 24 hours after sunscreen use stopped. Yet despite this, the article still recommends we keep slathering it on! https://abc7.com/health/sunscreen-chemicals-seep-into-your-bloodstream-in-1-day-fda/5287720/
And there are quite a few more the artist does not have room to include. GMOs, excitotoxins, preservatives, pesticides, herbicides, artificial flavours and colours… …the list of toxins to which our bodies are daily assaulted is astounding.
When a study revealed that mercury in childhood vaccines may have caused autism in thousands of kids, the government rushed to conceal the data – and to prevent parents from suing drug companies for their role in the epidemic.
In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Ga. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session-only private invitations to 52 attendees.
There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva, and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly “embargoed.” There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left.
The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency’s massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines-thimerosal-appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. “I was actually stunned by what I saw,” Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism.
Full article here:
http://www.sharpermindcenters.com/articles/deadly_immunity.htm
DISGRUNTLED PASSENGER’S REVENGE
A Canadian musician from Halifax named Dave Carroll recently had difficulty with United Airlines.
Dave spent over 9 months trying to get United to pay for damages caused by baggage handlers to his custom Taylor guitar. During his final exchange with the United Customer Relations Manager, he stated that he was left with no choice other than to create a music video for YouTube exposing their lack of cooperation. The Manager responded: “Good luck with that one, pal.” So he posted a retaliatory video on YouTube. The video has since received over 6 million hits. United Airlines contacted the musician and attempted settlement in exchange for pulling the video. Naturally his response was: “Good luck with that one, pal.” Taylor Guitars sent the musician 2 new custom guitars in appreciation for the product recognition from the video that has led to a sharp increase in orders.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/5YGc4zOqozo
Australians and New Zealanders alike should be very concerned about what’s happening in NZ’s banks, which are owned by Australia’s.
In a special episode of the CEC Report, Robert Barwick has interviewed real estate and financial expert Joe Wilkes, a veteran of the 2008 financial crisis in London now living in NZ, who is sounding the alarm about the NZ property market and banks. Click here to watch: What the hell is going on in Kiwi banks?
The New Zealand government has suddenly announced it will establish a guarantee for retail bank deposits, up to a limit of between NZ$30,000 and NZ$50,000. New Zealand has never had a deposit guarantee, except for a temporary one during the 2008 global financial crisis. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) has always taken a hard line against a guarantee due to fears of “moral hazard”—that guaranteed banks would take more risks.
So why implement a guarantee now? Is it for the same reason the Reserve Bank of Australia slashed interest rates twice in two months to a new all-time low of 1 per cent? Is it an emergency response to a crisis they don’t want to publicly acknowledge?
Bail-in capital of the world
The guarantee is especially significant, as NZ is the bail-in capital of the world. It has the most explicit bail-in scheme to confiscate deposits to prop up failing banks, called Open Bank Resolution (OBR).
The RBNZ prides itself on its hard-line insistence on strict “market” discipline for the banks. It justifies the OBR bail-in system, for instance, by defining a depositor not as someone who has entrusted their money to the bank for safekeeping, but as an “investor” who has “freely invested in a private institution and has enjoyed a return on that investment whilst accepting the risks associated with the investment”.
This definition does not reflect how bank customers understand the relationship, which is one based on trust; moreover, it is a joke when assessing the “return” the “investors” have supposedly “enjoyed”: miserly deposit interest rates in no way compensate for the risk of bail-in. Worse, most Kiwis have no idea that their deposits can be bailed in (just as they had no idea that their deposits weren’t guaranteed), so how can they be expected to make a proper assessment of risk?
Unfortunately, Kiwis should not assume that the new guarantee will protect their deposits from bail-in. Unless it states so explicitly in legislation, the guarantee is only for paying out depositors when a bank fails, whereas bail-in is imposed before a bank fails.
Once-in-200-year event!
While the OBR bail-in system has been in place for several years, the RBNZ has also recently taken emergency measures to shore up the banks.
Earlier this year the RBNZ announced it wants the banks to dramatically increase their tier-1 capital—their buffer against losses—from 8.5 per cent, to 16 per cent. RBNZ governor Adrian Orr justified this steep increase by saying he wants the banks to be able to survive a once-in-200-year event.
The question is, just what sort of event does Orr anticipate?
The NZ banks and their Australian parents aren’t happy. In a submission to RBNZ against the higher capital requirement, the NZ Banking Association (NZBA) decided to side with their depositors, and say that they shouldn’t be required to have more capital for the same reason depositors shouldn’t be bailed in—that the RBNZ is responsible for anticipating crises, and therefore should bail the banks out.
It’s a bit rich that the banks are only defending their depositors against OBR bail-in now that they are being required to raise more capital. After all, OBR has been discussed since 2011 and has been in place for a number of years. Their argument against bail-in, however, is right.
Here’s what the NZBA submitted, in the form of an analysis by the Sapere Research Group:
“We have some concerns that the OBR is being assumed to provide a ‘bail-in’, whereas it seems to us highly unlikely that any government would allow all depositors in a major bank to take a haircut. Depositors would have a right to argue that the Reserve Bank should have seen this coming and that as the government’s designated regulator of the banks, the government should take the hit rather than the depositors. Depositors are poorly placed to monitor the performance of their banks in contrast to the regulators who have better information and a duty of care to the depositors. Requiring banks to hold additional Tier 1 capital would seem unlikely to be the most efficient method for managing these risks.” (Emphasis added.)
While the specific argument against bail-in is spot on, using it to argue against more capital didn’t wash. At a press conference on 29 May, Governor Orr ridiculed this submission as “astounding” and reiterated RBNZ’s insistence on more capital. The bottom line for NZ depositors is: expect to be bailed in, because the NZ authorities are going to need all the money they can get to prop up their banks!
The “once-in-200-year” event that Orr fears could come from multiple sources, or a combination of all of them. New Zealand like Australia is at the mercy of the global financial system, which is threatened by the crisis in Deutsche Bank, the fallout from the US-China trade war, and the US$1.2 quadrillion global derivatives bubble. As of the last time NZ’s bank derivatives were reported, in 2015, the country’s exposure was NZ$2.77 trillion.
New Zealand’s banks are also at the mercy of their Australian parents, which are staring down the barrel of a collapsing housing bubble that will likely bankrupt them; in the event of a crisis in the Australian banks, they are able to raid their NZ subsidiaries for capital, which could trigger a NZ crisis.
And NZ is capable of causing its own crisis, which, as in Australia, is likely to come from the deflating housing bubble that is as big in NZ as in Australia. As Joe Wilkes has often reported on Martin North’s Digital Finance Analytics YouTube channel, Auckland and Wellington had some of the highest prices in the world, but are now falling, and many large developments have ground to a halt. This is as much a crisis for the over-exposed banks as the over-extended borrowers trapped in negative equity. And the signs are especially bad for the largest bank, ANZ, which has most fiercely resisted the higher capital requirements; like its Australian parent it is hiding its derivatives exposure, and has suddenly lost its chief executive in the sort of scandal that seems to happen when a bank is covering up deeper problems.
Like Australia, NZ needs bank reform, starting with a Glass-Steagall separation of deposit-taking banks from speculation. Kiwis should join the Australian campaign for bank separation and contact their NZ MPs to demand they scrap bail-in and instead adopt Glass-Steagall to make the banks safe.
Click here to watch: What the hell is going on in Kiwi banks? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLIaKiysPrQ&feature=youtu.be
A new study, published in Psychiatry Research, has concluded that psychiatric diagnoses are scientifically worthless as tools to identify discrete mental health disorders.
The study, led by researchers from the University of Liverpool, involved a detailed analysis of five key chapters of the latest edition of the widely used Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), on ‘schizophrenia’, ‘bipolar disorder’, ‘depressive disorders’, ‘anxiety disorders’ and ‘trauma-related disorders’.
Diagnostic manuals such as the DSM were created to provide a common diagnostic language for mental health professionals and attempt to provide a definitive list of mental health problems, including their symptoms.
The main findings of the research were:
Psychiatric diagnoses all use different decision-making rules
There is a huge amount of overlap in symptoms between diagnoses
Almost all diagnoses mask the role of trauma and adverse events
Diagnoses tell us little about the individual patient and what treatment they need
The authors conclude that diagnostic labelling represents ‘a disingenuous categorical system’.
Lead researcher Dr. Kate Allsopp, University of Liverpool, said: “Although diagnostic labels create the illusion of an explanation they are scientifically meaningless and can create stigma and prejudice. I hope these findings will encourage mental health professionals to think beyond diagnoses and consider other explanations of mental distress, such as trauma and other adverse life experiences.”
Professor Peter Kinderman, University of Liverpool, said: “This study provides yet more evidence that the biomedical diagnostic approach in psychiatry is not fit for purpose. Diagnoses frequently and uncritically reported as ‘real illnesses’ are in fact made on the basis of internally inconsistent, confused and contradictory patterns of largely arbitrary criteria. The diagnostic system wrongly assumes that all distress results from disorder, and relies heavily on subjective judgments about what is normal.”
Professor John Read, University of East London, said: “Perhaps it is time we stopped pretending that medical-sounding labels contribute anything to our understanding of the complex causes of human distress or of what kind of help we need when distressed.”
Found here: https://tinyurl.com/worthlesspsychiatricdiagnoses