Whither the dollar?

I heard an economist on NPR last night, a former Federal Reserve governor, who spoke of the latest quantitative easing as if it poses absolutely no threat. He said something to the effect that "We are faced with, at best, 1% inflation; the Federal Reserve would prefer at least 2% if we are to have a healthy economy."

For some reason, I have a feeling he and Mr. Bernanke, and the federal government of the United States are all in serious denial.

I just wrote a letter to our CPA:

A couple of days ago, I purchased a copy of The Hyperinflation Survival Guide, a compendium of insights from businesspeople in Argentina, Brazil and Bolivia who survived the hyperinflations those countries experienced in the mid to late '80s. It was published at the behest of Harry E Figgie, Jr, the CEO of Figgie International, Inc., back in the late '80s. Interesting: the cover illustration is primarily composed of a graph of US government debt from 1780-2000.

Of course, since the book was written in 1988, the debt for the last 12 years on this chart was merely a prediction. In essence, the debt line went virtually straight up. In 1988, the debt was at $2.5 trillion, more or less (working solely from the chart). They predicted the total debt to be $13 trillion in 2000. Mr. Figgie wrote in the preface: "At that point, our annual deficit would be as much as $2 trillion, and $1.6 trillion of that would simply be interest on the debt!"

Obviously, Figgie and company missed the mark by about 10 years. But considering how alarmist such talk would have sounded back in 1988, I'm astonished how prescient he sounds. And as for that graph line: The angle of the line hardly shifts if you account for those extra 10 years. It is still almost straight up.

I'm finding the book quite eye-opening. Especially as our government, in the form of, or by means of, the (yes, non-governmental) Federal Reserve, keeps inflating the currency, I think we need to be on our toes.

I have long been aware of the hyperinflation of Germany in the early 1920s. I have heard anecdotes of what that inflation meant for private citizens. But it is hard to imagine oneself in those circumstances. And I have never read any real practical advice.

What I like about The Hyperinflation Survival Guide is the very nuts-and-bolts illustrations of what 20% to 25% monthly inflation (experienced by Argentina and Brazil) or 50% average monthly inflation (experienced by Bolivia in 1985) does to the value of money and/or the prices of goods. But even more valuable, I think, are the strategies the book offers for what a business needs to do to survive under such circumstances.

I'm writing you today partially to get your take on a couple of the strategies mentioned. They sound very reasonable in hyperinflationary times, but I am wondering what the legal limitations may be for us to implement them.

1. "Base your inventory valuation on NIFO rather than LIFO."
   
   I had never heard of NIFO. It stands for Next In First Out.
   

   NIFO valuation is, in effect, a company's best guess as to the impact of the future rate of inflation on the cost of the materials it uses.
   
   If a company were to use LIFO during high inflationary periods, it would be greatly underpricing the value of its inventory and therefore eroding its profit margin. At Brazil's [then] current 20% monthly inflation rate, and inventory evaluated at $1 million with LIFO would have an actual replacement cost of $1.2 million after just one month. In such a case, NIFO would have avoided a potential $200,000 undervaluation of inventory.

   --p. 30

    
2. "Develop an appropriate inflationary adjustment for capital replacement."
   

   Taxed appreciation deductions are normally based on original purchase costs rather than replacement costs. However, high inflation has a major impact on a firm's capital replacement costs and failure to take this into account during such times can be suicidal, because it can cause the firm's capital base to disappear.
   
   For example, if a Brazilian company purchases a piece of equipment for 300,000 cruzados, it might be allowed to deduct 100,000 per year from its taxable income for three years. But at 400 percent per year inflation, the replacement cost three years later would be more in the neighborhood of 37,500,000 cruzados. Unless the company increases its annual depreciation to account for this inflationary effect, the value of its capital stock for tax purposes will decline to virtually zero.
   
   Under such circumstances, inflation will not only eliminate a company's ability to recapture its capital base, but will also cause the firm to have virtually no depreciation deductions for tax purposes.
   
   The inability of a country's businesses to recapture the true cost of the capital will obviously have a very negative impact on capital formation within the country as a whole.

   --pp. 30-31

So, ________: I wrote in the margin concerning the second item: "Can one do this unilaterally? Is there a good legal basis [for developing an inflationary adjustment for capital replacement]?" But I would say the same question can be asked about NIFO, too: Is there anything standing in our way of using NIFO when that becomes necessary?

. . . [T]here's a whole lot more in this book and I intend to pass it along to [our company's staff]. I think we need to begin flexing our mental muscles to be prepared for the hyperinflation just around the corner.

Lest you think I am being alarmist, . . . let me note the input I have seen in just the last few hours:

• From Mike Larson of Weiss Research's Safe Money Report (November 2010 issue):
  
  

  The Dollar Index has plunged as much as 14 percent since June. Meanwhile, crude oil has surged as much as 31 percent ... soybeans have climbed up to 32 percent ... cotton has skyrocketed 72 percent ... corn has jumped 75 percent ... and wheat has shot up 85 percent. Gold, silver, copper, and other metals are flying higher, too.

  That doesn't sound like 1% inflation to me.
   
• From The Hyperinflation Survival Guide:
  
  "A . . . sobering discovery the team made in South America was that inflation can accelerate without warning into hyperinflation--or severe, debilitating inflation--in a period as short as a few days. (p. iii)
  
  "The problem with hyperinflation is that it happened so fast. We never realized what was happening until it was too late." --South American bank director (p. 1)
  

Unfinished business: Some photos from a funeral

Jonelle and Dave brought over photos from Gracie Lou's funeral. They came in sometime last week. Jonelle and Dave asked me to post some for everyone who went through the trauma of Gracie Lou's brief time on earth with us this past spring.

So in case you wondered about how that went: Here are some photos from our family's very private funeral held in Virginia on the Lykosh family (Jonelle's older sister's family) farm back on September 12th. And a few comments from Dad/Grandpa John.

*******

Before I get to the funeral photos themselves, I'd like to show you the general location.

The first photo, below was taken from about where the "1" is on the aerial shot above and shooting toward the southeast. The second photo was shot about where the number "2" is in the aerial photo, and shot facing northwest. The gravesite is about at the "x" in the aerial photo. I took the photos below when I visited Amy and Phil in late July.

And with the location down . . . welcome to the funeral.

First, all participants were greeted by Cousin Isaiah, who handed out the program card at the gate just before we got to the tree line, heading down to the grave site.

Considering the mood, you might have wondered what we were doing.

I think there was a foreboding, however.

Phil had dug the grave a couple of days before the funeral and had brought down the gravestone a short while before the service--after Grandma and Grandpa Lilly arrived with Gracie Lou's body and the gravestone.

Those of us from Colorado--the ones who had been present through the entire trauma of Gracie Lou's birth, life and death, were so grateful that Amy and Phil had made the arrangements. I can't tell you what a great relief that was, that they had taken care of these things for us!

Doug Bush, an elder in the Lykoshes' church and an old friend of theirs, graciously agreed to lead us through the funeral service.

Again, a mercy. As you will see shortly, I think the rest of us were too close to shell-shock to have had to lead the service. (Oh, yes. I'm sure if we had been forced to do it, we would have pulled ourselves together. But I am extremely grateful that we were not called upon in that way!)

This photo illustrates the basic set up of the service, even though it was taken relatively late, when the service was almost over.

Doug had invited anyone who wanted to say something to do so. Dave's Mom/Gracie Lou's Grandma Bev shared a number of intimate memories from the few days Gracie Lou was with us. Here I was reading a passage of Scripture--Lamentations 3:4ff (through v. 23). --It seemed to express the bitterness of soul I--and I believe several of us--had been feeling . . . yet it expressed, too, an amazing change of heart and faith that, despite the hardships, I will "call to mind" and I will "hope": "The steadfast love of [YHWH] never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning" (vv. 22-23).

[Side comment: I have never felt comfortable singing the lyrics to "Great Is Thy Faithfulness" as they are written: "Morning by morning, new mercies I see." --Frankly, I don't usually see God's mercies. I have to ask Him to show them to me, because mostly I'm blind. And so if I am to say anything about God's mercies being new every morning, I have to say it strictly on the basis of hope and faith and most definitely not by way of sight!]

Doug pretty well followed the funeral service outline from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. After that: comments . . . and then the reading of a number of Scriptures by members of the family.

The photographer shot photos of most of us as we stood during the service. I am stunned at what they tell of the impact this event was having in our minds and hearts and bodies at that time. Even the littlest ones.

Sister Natalia.

Cousin Abraham.

Grandma and Grandpa Lilly--Bev and Tom.

Aunt Amy (and Cousin Joe)

I find myself tearing up every time I see this photo. I told Jonelle I thought it was too personal.

"No, it's not," said Jonelle. "It is what happened. And people need to know it happened. But yet, in the midst of the sadness, there was great joy. . . ."

And so I share the photo here. Mommy Jonelle and Daddy Dave, Sister Natalia, with Uncle Justin and Aunt Mary in the background.

Something about this photo . . . the sag, the need for comfort, for support . . . we all needed it.

I was stunned to see how haggard I looked. . . . And I was only a grandpa.

. . . Yet, in the midst of all the devastation . . . (indeed, just before the interment) . . . I don't know how this happened, but, somehow, there was an emotional break. . . .

. . . And then, shortly after: the most solemn part. Entrusting Gracie Lou's body into the bowels of the earth. . . .

And the final acts of goodbye. . . .

Phil waited until we had all left before he finished the job.

"It really was a beautiful day," said Jonelle. "In the midst of the pain, there was great joy. . . . And who could ask for a more beautiful spot for a final resting place of someone's earthly remains?"

Prior to the funeral, we had spent an hour or two with a photographer taking family pictures on the farm. And afterward, the Holzmann side of the family enjoyed a scrumptious banquet at the Bushes' house, catered by a local chef who, I am told, has won some awards that hold international distinction.

Yes. All in all, a beautiful day. But, oh! So piquant.

Web 2.0 suicide

I guess it had to come to this. Too many people have gone overboard with virtual reality.

My friend Ryan Healy sent me a heads up about the Web 2.0 Suicide Machine: "Meet your real neighbors again. Sign out forever!"

Tired of your Social Network?

Liberate your newbie friends with a Web2.0 suicide! This machine lets you delete all your energy sucking social-networking profiles, kill your fake virtual friends, and completely do away with your Web2.0 alter-ego. The machine is just a metaphor for the website . . . where the Web2.0 suicide scripts are maintained. Our service currently runs with Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and LinkedIn! Commit NOW!

Feel free like a real bird again and unTwitter yourself.

The FAQs for the site are interesting:

What exactly is happening or how does the suicide machine delete my account in detail?

. . . Please note, that we are not deleting your account! Our aim is rather to remove your private content and friend relationships . . .! Our current achievements are so far:

Facebook

# logging into your account
# changing your password and your profile picture
# excluding your account from public search
# removing all email notifications
# removing all your friends
# removing all groups you were member of
# removing all your wall posts (beta)
# joining the group "Social Network Suiciders"
# logging out

Myspace

# logging into your account
# removing all your friends
# leaving a status message that you've comitted suicide
# logging out

LinkedIn

# logging into your account
# changing your password and your profile picture
# removing all your business connections
# logging out

Twitter

# logging into your account
# changing your password and your profile picture
# removing all people you follow
# removing all your followers
# removing all your tweets
# logging out

Why don't you just delete the account?

Please read the following question and answer!

Why do we think the web2.0 suicide machine is not unethical?

Everyone should have the right to disconnect. Seamless connectivity and rich social experience offered by web2.0 companies are the very antithesis of human freedom. Users are entrapped in a high resolution panoptic prison without walls, accessible from anywhere in the world. We do have an healthy amount of paranoia to think that everyone should have the right to quit her 2.0-ified life by the help of automatized machines. Facebook and Co. are going to hold all your information and pictures on their servers forever! We still hope that by removing your contact details and friend connections one-by-one, your data is being cached out from their backup servers. This can happen after days, weeks, months or even years. So merely deactivating the account is just not enough!

If I kill my online friends, does it mean they're also dead in real life?

No!

What do I need to commit suicide with the Web 2.0 Suicide Machine?

A standard web browser with Adobe Flash plugin and Javascript enabled. So, it runs on Windows, Linux and Mac with most of browsers available.

If I start killing my 2.0-self, can I stop the process?

No!

If I start killing my 2.0-self, can YOU stop the process?

No!

What shall I do after I've killed myself with the web2.0 suicide machine?

Try calling some friends, take a walk in a park or buy a bottle of wine and start enjoying your real life again. Some Social Suiciders reported that their lives have improved by an approximate average of 25%. Don't worry if you feel empty right after you committed suicide. This is a normal reaction which will slowly fade away within the first 24-72 hours.

Will the 2.0 suicide machine be available for other networks such as Flickr, Orkut and Plaxo?

We are currently working on improving our products! Currently we are working on Flickr and Hyves, but of course we are eagerly thinking of ways to get rid of our "Google Lifes." . . .

How much does it cost to kill myself?

Usage of Web 2.0 Suicide machine is for free at the moment. If you want to donate money for hosting, don't hesitate to get in contact with us!

I'm not ready to do that. I still feel in control. But if you're finding yourself completely consumed by the virtual world so that you are missing the real world, maybe you should seriously consider letting your online persona check out.

Before taking that step, however, consider the implications. Time magazine featured a relatively thoughtful article on the subject last January.

"Weird" Science #4: Symbiosis, Part 1

I'm writing this as if it is its own separate subject, even though, in my mind, it's not. (It's closely related to what I began to touch on in my preceding post about Soil.)

My friend Perry Marshall encouraged me to read some books by Lynn Margulis, former wife of Carl Sagan. He mentioned her books in his article The New Atheism, Genesis 2 & Symbiogenesis. What he said there intrigued me. But then I wrote to him and he made some stronger recommendations. So I picked up a number of Margulis' books and was promptly impressed.

EXCURSUS

If you have any training in modern biology, you will, I'm sure, find me hopelessly behind the times. But I might as well reveal my inadequate training--or, perhaps, my failure as a student in high school.

Until I had begun looking at Margulis' Kingdoms & Domains, I was still working largely under a two-kingdom model of biology: there are plants and there are animals. Of course I knew there were bacteria and other microbes. But I don't think I ever placed them into a hierarchy of biological kingdoms. I think I considered them as a kind of cross between or not fully within either the plant or animal kingdom.

So it came as quite a shock when I discovered there are at least five biological kingdoms now recognized in the profession: prokaryotic (non-nucleated) Bacteria, eukaryotic (nucleated--i.e., having a nucleus) Protoctista (unicellular microorganisms), and the three eukaryotic multicellular kingdoms of Plants, Animals, and Fungi.

And then, upon a little further study, I found that even Margulis' taxonomy is . . . well . . . a little parochial. I found that many biologists actually prefer to speak of six kingdoms: the prokaryotic Bacteria (now identified as Eubacteria), and the eukaryotic Protoctista (or Protists), Plantae, Animalia and Fungi--as Margulis acknowledges, plus another kingdom of prokaryotes (non-nucleated organisms), the Archae or Archaebacteria, which are distinguished from the Eubacteria primarily by genetic differences.

As Wikipedia says,

Based on such RNA studies, Carl Woese divided the prokaryotes (Kingdom Monera) into two groups, called Eubacteria and Archaebacteria, stressing that there was as much genetic difference between these two groups as between either of them and all eukaryotes. Eukaryote groups, such as plants, fungi and animals may look different, but are more similar to each other in their genetic makeup at the molecular level than they are to either the Eubacteria or Archaebacteria.

Well, it turns out there are other ways of dividing the kingdoms. The Wikipedia article actually concludes with a kind of throw-up-your-hands-in-despair gesture when it says, "[R]esearch in the 21st century does not support the classification of the eukaryotes into any of these systems."

But back to my notes about Margulis.

Margulis' prime thesis in Microcosmos, Symbiotic Planet, and Acquiring Genomes, is that random mutation is a minor contributor at best to genomic drift (and, therefore, evolutionary change-through-time). Far more significant, she urges, is the acquisition and integration of genomic information through symbiotic merger of organisms, . . . most especially at the level of bacteria.

Indeed, she suggests that the nuclear contents of all eukaryotes come from bacteria: the chloroplasts from cyanobacteria and the mitochondria from oxygen-respiring proteobacteria. The basic cell itself, she suggests, comes from a merger of motile eubacteria and protein-synthesizing archaebacteria.

Perry Marshall provides a simple, graphically-engaging presentation of the basic ideas on his Cosmic Fingerprints website.

But he does more than that. A lot more. He proposes that

over the last 3.5 billion years . . . [DNA] has efficiently adapted and evolved from a single cell to occupy every ecological niche imaginable.

From the frozen ice sheets of the Antarctic to the punishing heat of the Sahara. From the ants under your kitchen sink to glorious singing birds in the Amazon rain forest.

Moreover,

This did not happen through accidental random mutation, . . . [but] through an ingenious algorithm that engineers its own beneficial mutations.

In essence, he says, God engineered into DNA (and all the carriers of genetic information--i.e., viruses, bacteria, and all the eukaryotic organelles that bear genetic information) . . . --God engineered these things to work together (through symbiosis) and intermingle (symbiogenesis) and self-adapt and "upgrade" to survive and thrive in virtually all future circumstances.

I encourage you to read Perry's paper. It's quite easy to read and rather inspiring, actually! Even if you're a committed anti-evolutionist. I hope you'll engage in the thought-experiment Perry suggests.

But what I have just written about: That, too, was not really where I wanted to go with this post.

But I think it's as far as I'm going to get.

So next time I'll try to bring Weird Science #3 (Soil, Part 1) together with Weird Science #4 (Symbiosis, Part 1) to generate . . . well . . . you'll see.

Maybe I'll call it Soil Symbiosis. Or something like that.

"Weird" Science #3: Soil, Part 1

I've been reading Allan Savory's Holistic Management: A New Framework for Decision Making.

I'm bummed that Savory and/or his publisher try to palm it off as a general management textbook. I'm afraid those who are looking for general management principles and insights will tend to ignore it, because it has a very strong (95% plus) focus on land or soil management. And, I'm afraid, those who should be most interested in it--the students of soil science and/or land management--will ignore it because it won't come up on their radar: "I'm not interested in a generic book about decision-making! I want something about land use, soil conservation, food production, and so forth!"

Well, it is a most worthwhile and interesting book for anyone concerned about these latter subjects. Most worthwhile and interesting, indeed.

Savory teaches--and demonstrates--so many principles that seem counter-intuitive, and go completely opposite standard land management practices.I won't get into too many details, here, but let me point out this one "lesson" I gathered from him. It has to do with letting land "rest." It is a truism amongst most conservationists that a major cause of land degradation and erosion has to do with overgrazing: too much animal and/or human impact. "We need to cordon this area off, so the vegetation can recover. Let's keep animals and people off this land for a few years. Maybe it will recover."

Savory says such a policy is exactly not what is called for. It is a very bad idea.

Oh, yes, land and vegetation need periods of rest, but not for years on end. He provides multiple illustrations of what he is talking about. Two photos, on pages 21 and 22 in his book, are almost all one needs to demonstrate the point:

Why is this?

There are several interlinked phenomena at work, here. I will just mention a couple.

1. "[E]nvironments may be classified on a continuum from non-Bristol's a very brittle according to how well humidity is distributed throughout the year and how quickly dead vegetation breaks down" (p. 28).
    
2. In areas where moisture is less than abundant (i.e., in "brittle" environments), when grasses are permitted to grow without being cut--either by animals who would feed upon them or by humans who may use them for fuel, for thatch, or, for any number of other reasons--the tall, mature growth tends to keep new plants from taking root or flourishing. After a year, the old growth will block new growth. Tall grasses will oxidize standing up. When they eventually fall over, they then create a kind of thatch cover for the soil beneath, providing an effective barrier for any light to hit the soil surface, preventing seeds from germinating, and shedding rainwater before it can soak into the soil. . . .
    
3. By the time the old growth has finally oxidized or decayed away, the soil beneath has become hardened, the crumb structure destroyed. (Savory says soil in this condition is "capped.")
   

   Crumb structure refers to presence of aggregated soil particles held together with "glue" provided by decomposing organic matter. The space around each crumb provides room for water and air, and this in turn promotes plant growth.
   

   --Footnote, p. 108.

   When raindrop impact breaks down the surface crumb structure, it frees the organic and lightweight material to wash away while heavier fine particles settle and seal, or cap, the soil. The importance of surface crumb structure to water penetration is easily demonstrated by comparing a bowl of wheat grains and one of flour. Neither has a hard cap at the outset, but one has large particles, and the other has lost that structure. Pour a jug of water on each bowl and watch. Most of the water soaks into the grains, but it seals the surface of the flower immediately and runs off.
   

   --p. 108.

And the solutions to these problems?

In more brittle environments, the only tool that can provide adequate soil cover over large areas is animal impact. On both range lands and croplands animals can be used to trample down old standing vegetation or crop residues to provide letter. Their hooves can be used to break up there, Soil surfaces, preparing a seed bed in which new plants can germinate. On the very hard-capped soils in the tropics, . . . large hoofed animals are only able to break up soil surface capping progressively or when concentrated in large numbers at very high densities.

--p. 110.

The key, says Savory, is "[r]elatively high numbers of heavy, herding animals, concentrated and moving as they once did naturally in the presence of predators" (p. 37). The disturbance of the soil surface and the removal of excess plant cover actually increases the fertility of the soil.

--I'll call that unexpected and pretty "weird" science. And that's enough of a post for one day!

"Weird" science #2: Louis Pasteur

This is one of those posts I have been tied up in knots over because I have simply not had enough time to study it out to the final degree I want to. But I think I have gone far enough to share it with you so, if you are intrigued, you can study it far enough to feel comfortable yourself either to affirm or deny its veracity.

If you think I may be following a primrose path to error, please feel free to correct me!

******
I had always been led to believe that Louis Pasteur was a great person, worthy of great honors. After all, it is he who developed the germ theory that led to most of the tremendous advances in late 19th and early 20th century medicine and, of course, to the process that bears his name: pasteurization, "a process of gently heating foodstuffs like milks to kill these organisms without changing the flavor or nutritional value." I have even found him held out by many conservative Christians as a model of religious rectitude.

This is what I have been taught.

Except now I am finding that nearly everything I was taught about Pasteur's science and discoveries, not to mention the value of pasteurization, may be wrong.

More specifically, I'm learning, there is quite a number of historians who claim,

• Pasteur didn't "discover" what is credited to his name. All of those "discoveries" were known before he came along. --It appears the case for this is quite strong. (See Chapter 1 of The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur for one source.)
   
  • Question, however: Could it be said that Pasteur "discovered" the germ theory in the same way that it can be said legitimately that Columbus "discovered" America (even though we have definitive evidence Columbus was not the first European to make it to the Americas and back)? No, Columbus was not first in the sense of absolutely no one having done it before. But, yes, he was first in the sense that it was only after Columbus went and returned that "America" came to be generally recognized for what it was. I.e., he was first in somewhat the same sense that George Washington was "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen." . . .
    
    My point: Is it possible that, while, as R. B. Pearson notes, it was proposed by many people even centuries before Pasteur that diseases are transferred by microscopic "seminaria contagionum" (Geronimo Fracastorio (1483-1553)) or "animalcula" (described in 1683 by Antonius van Leeuwenhoek) or "germs" (proposed in 1762 by M. A. Plenciz), the world really needed a Pasteur to popularize the concept and make it stick?
     
• I lack the capacity to judge one way or another on this matter, but several credible sources suggest that bacteria are not so much the causes of disease as they are the consequences. Microorganisms are, as it were, the "cleanup crew." When a macroorganism is weak, the microorganisms will come in to put it out of its misery and/or digest (and, thus, remove) the diseased parts. They say that the germ theory of disease--the theory that germs cause disease--is ill-conceived.

It was/is this latter point, really, that has put much of my blog writing on hold over the last few weeks. I have had this post semi-written (up to the words "ill-conceived") for the last month. But/and I have not been able to get far enough into the underlying literature to feel satisfied about the truth or error of the claim.

So let me share some of the sources I have perused:

The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur. --That, actually, was my first introduction to this set of weird ideas. It focuses primarily upon Bechamp and Pasteur. I received the link from a friend who has bought into the theory that "the [physical] terrain [of the host body] is everything; the germ is nothing."

The Lost History of Medicine. A development of the terrain/germ dichotomy with lots of links.

. . . I would like to develop this more, but I think the development will come in subsequent posts. (Be glad! 1--I'm getting this stuff published. And, 2--maybe my posts will be shorter than they used to be when I would get into this kind of stuff!)

For those who think I have jumped off the deep end, that I would even "listen" to this kind of stuff, let me acknowledge that I am finding myself extremely skeptical about the claims. But I am intrigued that, even if (as I expect), the authors of these articles--and the books and articles that they reference--are mistaken in some fundamental ways, they are probably more right than conventional medical advocates are willing to acknowledge. Put another way: Conventional medicine has some insights (but claims far more knowledge and competency than it has a right to claim), and these possible "quacks" are onto some keen insights that most of us ought to know about and utilize to our benefit. At the same time, I expect, they also claim far too much for their theories than they have a right to claim. --Just for example, "The terrain is everything," I imagine, is way overblown. So, too, I'm sure, is "the germ is nothing." But it would be extremely valuable to notice the terrain, and pay attention to the terrain, and to work on the terrain--something that conventional medicine, by and large, refuses to do; and something that the U.S. government, through its subsidies, actively undermines (a subject we will return to in subsequent posts).

So. Onward!

I hope you'll join me as we see where this leads. . . .

The Curse of Untrained Employees . . .

Or maybe not. Check out Denny Hatch's article titled The Curse of Untrained Employees.

My opinion: the Apple example is, most definitely, an illustration of lack of training and, in general, atypical of Apple stores. I can imagine the illustration from Simon & Schuster may be an example of lack of training--or of a really stupid policy. But I don't know about the BA (British Airways) illustration, nor the Sanofi Aventis and Amazon illustrations. I imagine the BA situation must arise from some strange government regulation, and the latter two merely identify mistakes and incompetencies that even well-trained people--and business owners!--will engage in from time to time.

And the royal palace? I am quite sure that has nothing to do with lack of training. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me to find that the Queen herself initiated the attempt to acquire public assistance.

Anyway.

Enjoy.

And any math heads who can figure this out, I'd be much obliged: How do you think BA came up with a 46% APR . . . even if and as they roll their membership fee into a percentage rate? I mean, to hit 46%, even including the £150 fee, the "typical" Premium customer would have to charge, say, an average of only about £600 per year on their card, wouldn't they? £150 on £600 is 25%. Add the 19.9% "real" interest, and you're getting into the 45% range. I would imagine.

But that hardly seems "typical" of a Premium class BA customer! Does it?

(By the way, you can still find this offer today on the BA website.)

Object v. domain of study . . .

I just started reading Science Held Hostage: What's Wrong with Creation Science AND Evolutionism by Howard J Van Till, Davis A Young, and Clarence Menninga.

In the first few pages they make an interesting observation. Actually, they make the observation in their very first sentence, but it took a couple of pages before I understood its significance:

Although the entire physical universe may be the object of investigation by the natural sciences, not all of its attributes fall within the domain of scientific inquiry.

What does this mean?

The authors attempt to illustrate the distinction by suggesting how we might study a page in a book.

Suppose we were able to describe every aspect of the page from the perspective of a natural scientist. Suppose we analyzed its chemical and physical characteristics, the distribution of atoms, the specific locations of different compounds, the proportions and dimensions and spatial relations of all the physical components. . . .

At the end of such an analysis, would we have missed anything of significance?

Absolutely!

No amount of scientific investigation--at least no amount of scientific inquiry of the type described here--could possibly reveal, 1) that the object of our study [what we--as observers--know is a page of the book] actually is intended to convey meaning, or 2) what that meaning really is.

And, thus, "to say that this page is nothing but a particular assembly of atoms and molecules, or to assert that the physical universe is 'all that is or ever was or ever will be' (as Carl Sagan does in Cosmos, p. 1) is to speak nonsense."

Frustrated! Need to change my methodology . . .

I keep reading books and articles and tell myself I need to blog what I'm reading and studying and thinking. I feel the need partially because I find I really "master" something when I am able adequately to explain it. But I rarely get around to blogging . . . perhaps because I keep wanting to ensure I've done a thorough job of hitting every fine point.

So I've decided I need to change my mentality. "Just get the basic points out on the blog. Let your readers get a glimpse of what you're thinking about and, if they are interested, let them do their own research. Give a few clues, maybe a few links, but don't worry about being completely thorough."

So that's what I hope to do . . . and hope, thereby, to break up the ice and the backlog of posts I've been wanting to write but have never gotten around to.

Sorry.

And thanks.

Self-healing DNA . . .

My friend Perry Marshall just sent me a link to his latest article titled The Mathematics of DNA.

I have to confess, I can't follow all the math. (Or, perhaps more accurately: I have been unwilling to invest the time to figure out exactly what he is saying when he speaks about the implications of certain ratios.)

But ignore the more technical aspects and--as long as he isn't blowing smoke--the article is filled with some very intriguing ideas, indeed!

I'll quote the introduction just to whet your appetite:

Imagine that someone gives you a mystery novel with an entire page ripped out.

And let’s suppose someone else comes up with a computer program that reconstructs the missing page, by assembling sentences and paragraphs lifted from other places in the book.

Imagine that this computer program does such a beautiful job that most people can’t tell the page was ever missing.

DNA does that.

In the 1940’s, the eminent scientist Barbara McClintock damaged parts of the DNA in corn maize. To her amazement, the plants could reconstruct the damaged section. They did so by copying other parts of the DNA strand, then pasting them into the damaged area. . . .

How does a tiny cell possibly know how to do that???

A French HIV researcher and computer scientist has now found part of the answer.

Check out The Mathematics of DNA.

And if you can find anything wrong with what Perry has written, you may be sure he (and I!) would appreciate hearing about it.

Beware unfermented soy foods

I've been sitting on this story for too long. I keep wanting to write long, but don't have the time. So I figure I will settle simply for providing links with brief commentary that, I hope, will pique your interest.
I saw this article by Dr. Joseph Mercola about the dangers of unfermented soy. It has been linked to brain damage, breast cancer, and more.
And what are unfermented soy products? How about . . . soy milk, soybean oil, soy protein (an additive in many foods; look also [primarily?] for "textured vegetable protein" or TVP), soy "cheese," soy "ice cream" and soy "yogurt," tofu, edamame . . . --You know, all those supposedly "healthful" foods.
All those "healthful" foods that aren't--for various reasons, including these . . . that Mercola lists and documents in his article:

• 91 percent of soy grown in the US is genetically modified (GM). For many of us, that poses no worries. After all, the U.S. government wouldn't permit the widespread introduction of harmful GM organisms into our food supply would it? (More on that in future posts.) More important: The primary reason for the GM is to make the soy resistant to the herbicide Roundup--which we will get to in the next point.
   
• You may be sure that all the GM soy is "loaded with the toxic pesticide" Roundup.
   
• Soy contains natural toxins known as "anti-nutrients" which "interfere with the enzymes you need to digest protein."
   
• Soy contains hemagglutinin, "a clot-promoting substance that causes your red blood cells to clump together."
   
• Soy contains goitrogens, substances that "block the synthesis of thyroid hormones and interfere with iodine metabolism, thereby interfering with your thyroid function."
   
• Soy contains phytates which "bind to metal ions, preventing the absorption of certain minerals, including calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc -- all of which are co-factors for optimal biochemistry in your body."
   
• Soy is loaded with the isoflavones genistein and daidzein which "mimic and sometimes block the hormone estrogen, and have been found to have adverse effects on various human tissues. Soy phytoestrogens are known to disrupt endocrine function, may cause infertility, and may promote breast cancer in women."
   
• Soy has toxic levels of aluminum and manganese. --For example, "[s]oy formula has up to 80 times higher manganese than is found in human breast milk."
   
• Soy infant formula puts your baby’s health at risk. --Among the startling and disturbing statistics Mercola references:
   
• "[E]strogens in soy can irreversibly harm your baby’s sexual development and reproductive health. Infants fed soy formula take in an estimated five birth control pills’ worth of estrogen every day."
   
• Infants fed soy formula have up to 20,000 times the amount of estrogen in circulation as those fed other formulas!

Mercola provides links for all of these claims. You'll have to read the original article for details.

One key item. Please pay attention to the point about unfermented soy products. Fermented products (which, Mercola notes, are healthy--for reasons he explains) include . . .

• Tempeh
   
• Miso
   
• Natto
  
  and
   
• Soy sauce. ("Be wary," however, Mercola notes, "because many varieties on the market today are made artificially using a chemical process.")

Land of the free? Not when it comes to food!

I touched on this about a year ago. Hate to keep beating the drum. But as I keep discovering how my own health depends on bucking the "Fast Food Nation" approach to eating, I keep bumping into the obstacles--some major, some minor--that our federal government and, now, more and more, our state and local governments, are putting in our way to basic rights--like the right to buy an egg that has not been irradiated, or milk that has not been pasteurized (i.e., heated to a point where its enzymes and helpful bacteria have been destroyed).

Want to buy fresh (raw) milk? Illegal! --Doesn't matter what kind of agreement you are willing to sign: "I take full responsibility for my own health. If I become sick from this milk, I will pay all of my own medical costs. . . ." Doesn't matter. The government is going to "save" you by ensuring that, if you have any milk at all, it has been properly denatured through pasteurization, at least.

Good luck finding un-homogenized milk (suspected of contributing to some of the blood fat issues many of us suffer). That's difficult. But buying raw milk: Wholly illegal.

And now the U.S. federal government is becoming ever more tyrannical. Check out this story about how the feds, state, local and even Canadian "law enforcement" officers are engaging in illegal intimidation tactics against private citizens seeking only to eat foods that they believe are healthy for them.

"Weird" Science #1 - Properly mineralized agriculture better than modern medicine?

One of my new favorite magazines, Acres USA, included a striking opinion piece this month.
"Newspapers, magazines and electronic media outlets all over the world recently announced a breakthrough vaccine that will hopefully protect women against breast cancer," the author began.

He then referenced a report from CBS News (5/31/2010):

In the current study, genetically cancer-prone mice were vaccinated -- half with a vaccine containing the antigen and half with a vaccine that did not contain the antigen. None of the mice vaccinated with the antigen developed breast cancer, while all the other mice did.

Dr. Vincent Tuohy, Ph.D., the principal investigator on the project, said, "We believe this vaccine will someday be used to prevent breast cancer in adult women in the same way that vaccines prevent polio and measles in children. If it works in humans the way it works in mice, this will be monumental."

All well and good. Indeed, exciting.

But, asked the author of the Acres USA article, if this research is worthy of excitement, why have so few people heard of research conducted close to 60 years ago that produced similar results based solely on diet changes?

Specifically, why have so few of us ever heard of the pioneering work of Dr. Maynard Murray, M.D., who conducted multiple experiments from 1938 through the 1950s that showed that animals fed vegetables, fruits and grains that had been fertilized with sea minerals were able to overcome cancers that the same animals fed the very same foods grown in more conventional ways were not?

Murray first became interested in sea minerals when he realized that he had never found a sea creature suffering from cancer, even though cancers are very common in similar species that live in freshwater. "For example, fresh-water trout all develop terminal cancer of the liver at the average age of five and one-half years; cancer has never been found in sea trout. It is also known that all land animals develop arteriosclerosis, yet sea animals have never been diagnosed as arteriosclerotic." (Sea Energy Agriculture, p. 30)

So what kind of experiments did Murray do?

In 1954 he had Ray Heine and Sons Farms of Rutland Township, Illinois, grow oats, corn and soybeans--approximately half of each of these crops the normal way, and the other half exactly the same except for one difference. The experimental crops were grown in soil that received an application of 2,200 pounds of sea solids (sea salts--including whatever trace elements were present in the sea water before evaporation) per acre.

Murray was interested in how the crops grew. (The crops grown with the sea solids did better.) But then, after the crops were harvested, Murray wanted to see if these crops, now used as feed, would offer any differential benefits to the animals that ate them.

Researchers from the Stritch School of Medicine at Loyola University conducted the experiments.

They mixed up similar blends of the control grains and experimental grains--one part soybeans, two parts oats, and four parts corn--and fed them to different kinds of animals.

For example,

C₃H mice were obtained. . . . This strain of mice has been bred so all females develop breast cancer which causes their demise. The mice were two months of age when received and started on the feeding experiments. The life expectancy of this strain for females is no more than nine months which includes the production of two or three litters. The experimental and control groups both consisted of 200 C₃H mice and those fed on control food were all dead within eight months, seven days. The experimental mice that were fed food grown on the sea-solids-fertilized soil lived until they were sacrificed at 16 months; definitive examination revealed no cancerous tissue. The experimental group produced ten litters compared to the usual two to three litters and none developed breast cancer.

--Ibid., pp. 50-51

Then there were the Sprague Dawley rats: 25 controls and 25 experimentals were all injected with Jensen Carcino-Sarcoma (cancer).

All of the rats fed on the control diet died within 21 days of cancer. Nine of the rats that were fed the experimental diet died of cancer within 40 days; 16 lived five months until they were sacrificed; there were no cancer "takes" in the 16 . . . survivors that were fed experimental food.

--Ibid., p. 51

And the 24 rabbits, 12 experimentals and 12 controls. This time, both groups were fed a high cholesterol diet for six months and then fed their respective soybeans, oats and corn diets.

The control group did develop hardening of the arteries and all had died within ten months. The experimental group did not exhibit hardening of the arteries.

--Ibid., p. 52

Murray was very careful in the way he reported these results:

I want to emphasize that these feeding experiments and the results are only preliminary and it must be kept in mind that the mice, rabbits and rats used in these feeding experiments have a different physiology than human beings. The results are not definite but merely indicate an interesting trend and further research should be done to further document the findings. . . . In no way . . . do I suggest that the same results would occur in a human being due to the preliminary stage of research.

--Ibid., p. 50

Sounds like good science to me! So why don't we hear about it? Has it been disproven? Not that I've seen!

So what has become of Murray's work? What has the medical establishment done with it?

As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing.

Why?

Maybe it has to do with money . . . and the cozy relationship between the major pharmaceutical companies and the FDA. After all, the FDA can't permit people to think of foods as possessing healing qualities!

As reported by Mike Adams in Natural News back in May of this year:

[The FDA] has structured the rules to categorize anything that treats or prevents disease as a drug. So if you eat walnuts, and those walnuts lower high cholesterol (which they do), the FDA declares your walnuts to be "drugs."

Existing law dictates that if anything is advertised as providing health benefits without the FDA's approval, it's automatically considered to be an "unapproved drug", even if it's a common, everyday food like walnuts, cherries, grapes or oranges.

Amazingly, references to peer-reviewed scientific studies are not allowed to be made by companies without permission from the FDA because the agency considers this to be an illegal health claim. So if you sell walnuts, and your website merely links to published scientific studies that describe the cholesterol-lowering benefits of walnuts, then you can be threatened, arrested, imprisoned and fined millions of dollars by the FDA for selling "unapproved drugs."

If you flee the country, you can be then be listed on INTERPOL as an international fugitive wanted for "drug offenses." This is exactly what happened to Greg Caton, who was recently kidnapped from Ecuador by U.S. agents working on behalf of the FDA, brought back to the USA against his will, and sentenced to federal prison where he remains to this day. . . .

If you're skeptical that what I'm saying here is true, take a look at the warning letter the FDA sent to Diamond Food, Inc. back in February concerning the health claims the company had been making about its walnuts.

There's plenty more where that came from!

And it's enough to make me angry.

How is our federal government serving us, helping us, by engaging in this kind of behavior?

And then there was this gem from Dr. Jonathan Wright's Nutrition and Healing newsletter (received 5/8/2009):

For decades, the FDA has been a danger to you and your family's health. Nearly 20 years ago, the government's own General Accounting Office (GAO) wrote: "GAO found that of the 198 drugs approved by FDA between 1976 and 1985...102 (or 51.5%) had serious post-approval risks...the serious postapproval risks...[included] heart failure, myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, respiratory depression and arrest, seizures, kidney and liver failure, severe blood disorders, birth defects and fetal toxicity, and blindness."

That terrible record continues into the 21st century (Vioxx is just one example that springs immediately to mind).

And to add insult to injury, while it has been busy approving all those potentially lethal patent medicines, the FDA has also been actively fighting against your right to keep yourself healthy with foods and food supplements! Picking on cherries is just one recent example. All the way back in 1949, former FDA commissioner Dr. George Larrick said: "The activities of...so-called health food lecturers have increasingly engaged our attention....[we are fighting] the good fight against dried vegetables, vitamins, and similar products."

Sure is comforting, isn't it?

My Passport to India getting better and better!

If you haven't checked it out, I would like to encourage you to go to http://www.mypassporttoindia.org/ and at least watch the Day 4 video and check out the corollary materials.

I'm very impressed with what Mission India is doing with this series.

A little stay-at-home-mom one-upsmanship: "Why I can't make friends"

Someone on the Sonlight forums posted a link to Why I can't make friends (3:15). The deadpan computer-generated voices and unexpressive faces of the two mothers in this video make the interaction all the more hilarious.

If you have ever felt yourself being put down by someone else as a result of their casual comments about how superior their children are, I think you may enjoy it!

Of course, you won't want to miss PT ST OT OMG (Physical Therapy, Speech Therapy, Occupational Therapy, OMG; 1:55) as well.

If you've interacted with anyone really into natural childbirth, you'll probably get a kick out of the over-the-top The pool had baby bunnies on it (1:36).

Children's nutrition, cleanliness, and health: The average human swallows 40 spiders in their sleep (1:39).

Toy dangers: It could happen (1:13). Absolutely hilarious.

Helicopter parents? There's an app for that! (1:06).

I wasn't as taken with the other videos. I'm sorry to think the creator may be running out of steam.

Income inequality, taxes, and tax breaks

I keep hearing about how the gap between rich and poor keeps growing in the United States . . . and how the size of so many top executives' salaries in the United States have ballooned in recent years . . . even while average workers' wages have failed to keep up with inflation.

Typical information along these lines includes statements like these:

• From the New York Times, March 2007:
  

  The [latest] data . . . shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

• Or this, from an excellent article by Professor G. William Domhoff of the University of California at Santa Cruz:
  

  The ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000, at the height of the stock market bubble, when CEOs were cashing in big stock options. It was at 411:1 in 2005 and 344:1 in 2007, according to research by United for a Fair Economy. By way of comparison, the same ratio is about 25:1 in Europe.

  And,
  

  The rising concentration of income can be seen in a special New York Times analysis of an Internal Revenue Service report on income in 2004. Although overall income had grown by 27% since 1979, 33% of the gains went to the top 1%. Meanwhile, the bottom 60% were making less: about 95 cents for each dollar they made in 1979. The next 20% - those between the 60th and 80th rungs of the income ladder -- made $1.02 for each dollar they earned in 1979. Furthermore, the Times author concludes that only the top 5% made significant gains ($1.53 for each 1979 dollar). Most amazing of all, the top 0.1% -- that's one-tenth of one percent -- had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people.

Clearly, we are looking at some rather astonishing inequality, here! And it would be wonderful if the people receiving the highest incomes would be willing to share some of their wealth with--i.e., give . . . or, shall we say, be charitable toward--those less fortunate than they.

Of course, our government is not particularly inclined to think in terms of charity. It prefers to speak in terms of rights and fairness and equality. And so we hear talk of the need to raise taxes on the wealthy. And we hear discussions about what to do with the Bush-era tax cuts.

What we don't hear is any kind of acknowledgment like this (from an editorial by Joel Belz in the latest World magazine):

In all the discussion about tax breaks for the rich, two fairly simple facts are really all you need to know.

Fact No. 1 is that only 3 percent of all the taxpayers in the United States pay more in income taxes than the other 97 percent combined. [That shouldn't be so surprising, when one considers the income disparities. --JAH] Fact No. 2 is that even if you taxed that 3 percent of our population at a rate of 100 percent of their income [not quite three times the current top rate--JAH], you wouldn't produce enough additional revenue to cover the deficits our federal government is now incurring each year.

Notice: We're talking about current deficits, here! We're not talking the federal budget. We're talking solely about the federal budget deficit. The federal government can't squeeze a whole lot more out of American citizens. And even if it could, it couldn't pay its debts.

Let's see. What is that called?

Oh, yes!

Bankruptcy.

And when national governments go bankrupt, what usually occurs?

Oh, yes!

Social upheaval . . . on a grand scale.

And what are our politicians talking about? Means for restructuring our nation's financial circumstances along the lines of Chapter 11 bankruptcies?

No.

Apparently, they would rather dig us further into a hole, so we can enjoy the kind of social upheaval Europe is enduring right now as people protest austerity measures . . . or, possibly, worse (all-out warfare with those to whom we owe money and are unable to pay)?

Reading what shouldn't be there . . . but is

I have three or four web pages set up as my standard home pages on my web browser. But I so rarely start a new session that I almost never visit my home pages!

Today, however, I wanted to have two browser sessions going at the same time--so I could copy material more readily from one screen to another. (Just a little easier than using multiple tabs in one browser session.)

Anyway. That meant I saw my home pages--which include iGoogle--for the first time in weeks. My eye was attracted--as it usually is--to one of the widgets I have running on iGoogle: Mighty Optical Illusions.

And today's optical puzzle was a doozy:

What do all those strange shapes stand for?

I know--or at least I assume--the artist has to be playing with negative space. Normally I can "see" whatever-it-is they have hidden in the negative space. But this one just seems really difficult!

Eventually, with the help of some commenters, I was able to make it out. But unlike the editor of the blog, who says, "once you see it, there’s no going back," I will confess that I "go back" regularly. I have to almost trick myself into seeing what the artist has hidden.

See how you do.

If you can't make it out, let me suggest that you pretend you are looking at a flat piece of bright metal. Someone has cut holes in it with an acetylene torch. The metal is brightly lit from the front (behind you, over your right shoulder), and the background is dark.

Yes, it does say something.

If you don't get it, "check this revealing article," writes the blogger. And there you will find an easier puzzle of a similar variety -- although I believe we should say it uses positive rather than negative space:

Well?

Some land, a new job . . . and a whole new (weird (??)) science . . .

Let me begin with the land, the property.

I don't know when this first came up. Quite a number of months ago.

Sarita said she was disgruntled with how we are invested for retirement. "You have money in conventional investments," she said. "That's okay. But I want some money invested in land."

More particularly, she wanted some land for some kind of end-of-the-world scenario family retreat. Kind of.

To be honest, even today, months later, I'm not really sure what her real goal was or is other than to "own some property." And she wanted me to make it happen.

I tried to write up her goals as best I could. (After all, how can one choose property if one doesn't know what the property is going to be used for?)

I don't know that my document was really all that helpful. But next thing I knew, Sarita was talking about the (empty, undeveloped) property next door to Amy and Phil over in Virginia.

"But we don't want to live in Virginia!" I protested. "We love Colorado!" (If you're a Virginian, please forgive my personal predilection for Colorado.) "We have no intention of moving to Virginia! We don't want to own a home there. . . ."

"But I want some property. And I would rather it were somewhere close to Amy and Phil than anywhere else. . . ." (Notice for anyone who may feel we are slighting our other kids: Justin hasn't really decided where he might settle. And our other two married children live right close by where we are. So, I imagine, if Sarita feels the need to "retreat" somewhere in an apocalypse, that would mean she would feel the need to move away from where we are--which means it would be away from where our kids other than Phil and Amy are. . . . So the property next door to Amy and Phil is attractive.)

"I want us to purchase that property," said Sarita.

"And then what? Just let it sit there?"

No answer.

"If we are going to own land, I don't want it simply to sit there, doing nothing. It has to be productive."

More silence.

I really wasn't interested in the property. It was Sarita's idea. . . . But guess who was sent to Virginia to check out the property and to negotiate a purchase?

Yep! Me.

As of sometime late in August, Sarita and I were able to come to an agreement with the (now, previous) owner, and as of early last month, we became the new owners of 57 acres of relatively undeveloped timber and farmland in Esmont, VA.

. . . And at the same moment, I think I got a new job as, more or less, manager of this new property.

And you know what? I'm pretty excited. I've got a whole new world to explore and study.

*********

Okay.

So on to the "whole new (weird(??)--certainly unexpected/out-of-the-ordinary!) science."

I think I've been moving in this direction slowly for quite some time. Maybe I began, ever so slightly, back several years ago when we discovered that Amy and Luke had some kind of strong reactions to wheat. Not allergic reactions in the anaphylactic sense of the term. But sensitivities nonetheless. Debilitating reactions that were not immediately nor obviously related to the ingestion of wheat until we (or, I should say, really, they--both Amy and Luke) took deliberate and careful steps wholly to eliminate wheat from their diets and then gently test to see whether reintroducing wheat caused certain symptoms.

It took several months, but eventually we--Sarita and I, our family--could not deny what we (or, rather, they) were experiencing.

And then there were the issues I've been dealing with. What I discovered about all the things conventional doctors don't talk about: my interactions with my rheumatologist (see this series of posts); discoveries about the interaction of wheat with my body that seems to exacerbate my rheumatoid symptoms; and so on and so forth.

But it's gone beyond that. The alternative medicine discoveries I've been making--about cholesterol (just for a minor example: average size and number of particles per volume of blood matters more than total volume of cholesterol; see also Marc's comment at the bottom of this post) . . . or about the interplay of autoimmune disorders and Grave's Disease and rheumatoid arthritis . . . or the things I mentioned a few days ago about thyroxine. --All this stuff, and my traditional/regular doctors seem totally oblivious.

But the drumbeat continues. There were discoveries not just about organic milk, but about (what aficionados want to call real milk, but what we will agree to call) raw milk from cattle fed solely on organic grasses and other forage rather than on grain.

And then, semi-finally, Amy and Phil took off for Virginia to start homesteading. And they have gotten deeper and deeper into some--what appears . . . or, rather, appeared--to be very "weird" views about food and food-growing.

"You don't want to eat non-organic foods."

"Stay away from GMO."

And my longevity and vitality doctor kept talking about the importance of eating organic. ("But it's so expensive!" I replied.)

And then, suddenly, maybe four months ago, Sarita, trained (though no longer licensed) dietitian that she is, and über skeptic, when it comes to foods, of everything that hasn't been thoroughly proven through double-blind scientific tests . . . --Sarita suddenly came out and said, "We are going to eat organic."

So we are eating organic.

(I ought to comment, here: We are eating organic, but--from my perspective--without as much pleasure as I would hope, especially considering the expense. So much of the fruits and vegetables we buy are so lacking in flavor! --But that is a subject I intend to return to in days to come. I am learning about these things and will be glad to share. . . .)

Meanwhile, now, I have begun to study how to turn our new farmland into something productive. . . . And I have been introduced to enough "weird" things that I have begun to follow the lead of Amy and Phil at least to check out what they are doing and advocating.

And so I am studying what practitioners call "biological farming" or, as one speaker I've listened to described it, organic farming "beyond zero-input"--what we might call stimulated or positive organic farming.

Sidebar:

Sadly, so much organic agriculture seems to be defined by what farmers avoid or don't do. They don't add certain chemicals or 'cides (pesticides, herbicides, etc.) that aren't naturally present in the soil. But biological farmers--among whom I hope to take a place--seek to use scientific understanding wisely to manage the natural resources that are normally present in healthy soil--the natural elements (yes: nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium--the stuff on which modern commercial agriculture is founded, but calcium, sulfur, boron, sodium, manganese, and all the other elements, too) and, almost more importantly, the microbes, the fungi, the protozoa, the worms, and so forth that are also present when soil is healthy.

Biological farmers avoid all the bad stuff, but they seek to add resources that may be missing. They don't sterilize the soil--as so many of the modern chemical agricultural products do. Rather, they bring the missing ingredients into the mix to encourage healthy growth and, thereby, push out the unhealthy.

********

I intend to say much more on this topic in the future, but I would like to pass on just this one story at least to whet your appetite.

It's from a lecture in which the speaker, Bruce Tainio, described some of the work he has done.

Early in his career, he said, he was a plant breeder. One of his jobs was to produce a mildew-resistant spinach. He did that and was successful. "But then, about a year and a half or two years later, I found that my mildew-resistant spinach had a new variety of mildew growing on it!" So he developed a new variety that was resistant to two types of mildew.

"After going through 13 varieties of mildew, I decided I was helping Mother Nature produce these strains of mildew . . . and I became frustrated as a plant breeder."

He said he began looking at the reasons plants get diseases and to see if he could develop some kind of testing mechanisms by which farmers could predict whether their crops were going to be attacked by pests or diseases.

Eventually, he came to the conclusion that he could do that by testing the pH in the petioles of plants.

After years of study, he said, he came to the conclusion that there is an optimal pH level for all living plants. The sap in the petiole should measure 6.4 on the pH scale. If they measure 6.4, you can sleep well because they will not suffer disease or attack from insects. If they are at 5, you have an 80% probability that the plants will suffer damage from disease or insect attack. If they are at 4, they are, without doubt, diseased.

That is what he said.

I had a group of grape growers from California who had studied my work on pH. They wanted to call me and tell me that I was incorrect. Maybe my theory applied to every other crop, but it didn't apply to grapes.

I said, "Why do you say that?"

"Well we are good grape growers. We have been grape growers for 40 years. There are five of us in our group. We have taken the pH of our plants, and the highest pH we could find in the tissue is 3.1. The average is 3."

I asked [my caller], "How many acres of grape plants have you replaced in the last five years because of phylloxera?"

The phone went silent for a minute. Then he said, "Well, yeah. We have replaced about 50% of our grapes right now and we are scheduled to replace them all eventually because the phylloxera really takes its toll on our grapes."

I said, "Well, that could be an indicator that you are wrong on your pH."

"Well, we have grown grapes for 40 years, and we know how to grow grapes."

End of story.

Grape growers right, or Tainio right?

Beyond that, why would pH have anything to do with disease or pest resistance?

Tainio noted that low calcium in a plant cell means there will be high hydrogen, hence low pH, and hence, susceptibility to disease and insect attack.

Low cell pH yields a high resonance frequency. . . . Hydrogen has a higher resonance frequency than does calcium, potassium, or sodium. . . . Diseases and/or insects come from low calcium in the plant cell, simply because it is helping to modify the frequency, the infrared frequencies, for insects to see. . . .

Calcium, sodium, magnesium, potassium, and hydrogen: the balance in these five nutrients yields a pH of 6.4. Healthy, disease- and insect-free crops are the result of balancing these five and getting 6.4. I have never seen a disease or insect attack a 6.4 pH crop, period. If you have insects on a crop and bring it up to 6.4 through foliar nutrition, the insects will walk away. They won't even recognize that it's a crop. If you have diseases, the diseases will stop, period, if you bring it up to 6.4.

Why will the insects walk away? . . . One of the ways insects recognize crops . . . is through infrared. Infrared in the 720 nm range, we can't see. In the 660 nm range, we can see. . . .

[Similarly with insects.] When we balance the nutrition, we are holding the signature of that crop to a realm that the insects don't even know that it's there. They will fly right by. They won't even recognize it.

(There are other ways that they recognize crops, but this is one of the easiest to explain.)

Okay. More than enough for one post . . . and you get to know a little bit about some of the things I'm working on!

Heavy metal contamination . . .

While talking with my naturopath on Tuesday, as I already mentioned, we got onto the subject of heavy metals.

I told him that, considering how much heavy metal Jonelle has in her body, I figured I was probably loaded with the stuff, too. I don't know where or how I would have been contaminated, but I can't ignore the possibility.

He replied, "It's highly unlikely you would've gotten heavy metals from the same place Jonelle did. Most people who are loaded with heavy metals got them from their mothers."

"Their mothers!?!"

"Yes."

"And where would the mothers have gotten their heavy metals?"

"The most common source: tooth fillings. The mercury in tooth fillings."

He suggested I look up a video on YouTube: Smoking Teeth.

I've done that. And I looked up a bunch more. Pretty enlightening . . . and scary at the same time!

Here's Smoking Teeth:



Don't believe the graphical presentation? Check out Visualization of Mercury vapors in UV light:



. . . and It Really Is MERCURY!:



And then--for a really eye-opening perspective on how amalgam fillings ought to be removed, check out Safer Amalgam Removal:



How does your dentist remove fillings?

Finally, in case you wonder: How Mercury Causes Brain Neuron Damage from the University of Calgary:



. . . And after all that, perhaps you noticed--as I did--the warning that appears to be from an authoritative source . . . that one should never have amalgam fillings placed in the middle of gold crowns.

So what did the endodontist do the week after I had a gold crown put in this summer, and my tooth was killing me with pain? . . . Yep! Amalgam filling.

I think I have some more research to do.

--International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology -- http://iaomt.blogspot.com