JohnDJasper

And you're perfectly entitled to post it as you see fit. I'm only pointing out that you might add greater value to your post by adorning it the extras and increasing the possibility that another reader might actually receive and benefit from the information instead of passing it by impatiently. Another technique that I find helpful is using the Quote button as opposed to the Reply button when generating the reply. That makes it obvious which post you're replying to. It is perfectly permissable to edit out any of the quoted text to minimize the footprint of the post and focus attention on any specific item that you specifically want to address. To embed video, copy the video url to the clipboard, then press the Insert Media icon on the toolbar. Paste (or type) the complete url into the media URL box, then click Insert. []

@LovePrevails, You complain that people ignore you but if this is how you regularly present information, I'm not surprised. You obviously thought that this video was worth posting a link to but failed to even give any reason why someone should watch it. Try posting the title of the video and a short explanation for why people should watch it. In other words, sell it. Although I tend to ignore such anonymous links, curiosity got the better of me and I watched it. The title is What the Cell is Going On by Naturopathic Doctor Gary Tunsky. Dr Tunsky does a very good job in this video of explaining how the body works as compared to how medical doctors think it works. His comparison between naturopaths who treat the cause of disease and MDs who treat symptoms of disease is spot on and his depiction of a cell asking a drug what it has brought that the cell needs is priceless. Although I'm not fully in agreement with Naturopathic medicine, millions of people are apparently (according to Bad Science by Ben Goldacre) turning away from MDs to the alternative healers like them because they've lost faith in the cut, burn and poison modality (the last are my words, not Goldacre's.) What the Cell is Going On [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDkgTjZ2xQ0]

@TruthahnDerRuin, I've had several smallpox vaccinations. At least one as a child and then repeated when I went into the military long before I woke up. If you think that it eradication is an ideal for anyone much less everyone, you are missing the point of the evidence of your own body. If you get past the pro-vaccination hype and just understand how your body is designed to work, you will hopefully start to understand why bypassing the immune system with vaccinations is dangerous and by no means ideal. Yes, some people opposed to vaccines would agree because they don't understand how the body works but have learned to fear the more extreme adverse affects of vaccines. When their own children or those of their friends and neighbours become damaged, they don't have to understand the underlying processes to recognise the danger. As I said earlier, anti-vaxers come from different starting points. Many are actually pro-vaccination but anti-unsafe vaccines. What they don't realise is that even the safest vaccine is bad for you or at least is of no value to you. Perhaps I am missing the finer points of forum etiquette. But when someone starts a thread about vaccines and I make a post about a vaccine, I do not expect to be told that I am too far off topic and should start a new thread. Perhaps I'm wrong but anything that swerves widely from the OP is off topic. I don't mind if no-one wants to discuss the OP but feel justified in complaining if the thread starts filling up over a graph posted by another member that was so poorly presented that it should have been dismissed out of hand or sent back for remedial work.

@Chisleu, What you describe here is the official history of polio. If you would, compare it to the official history of the War on Terror where so many westerners believe that we're being targetted by Islamic fundamentalist who hate us for our freedoms and under that justification, we're now fighting terrorism in numerous countries around the world, mostly in the Mid-East and Africa. Is the truth actually that the War on Terror, justified by the 9/11 attacks, is just a ruse for pushing western hegemony into sovereign states that refuse to kowtow to the dictats of the PTB? Listening to the experts on both sides of the fence, you find extremely convincing arguments backed up by endless videos and interviews that leave the viewer torn between believing one side or the other. Not surprisingly, most people will default to the side that they've been conditioned since childhood to trust - their own government and mainstream media. Surely, they wouldn't lie about something so huge and important! Arguments over disease causation and the effectiveness and safety of vaccinations are actually just as well supported on both sides but once again, people tend to err on the side that they've been conditioned since childhood to trust - doctors, the government and the mainstream media. What's even worse is that there is so much published research in support of vaccination that once again, how could all these people be wrong! So, how do you know that many vaccines on the market are incredibly safe and serve a fantastic benefit? Where did you get this information? What evidence supports it? How much of the opposing evidence have you reviewed? How much trust are you putting into doctors, government and mainstream media? Are you basing your judgement on the peer-reviewed science? You then go on to denounce anti-vaccine arguments as crap and dangerous. Are you sufficiently informed to make such a statement or are you just perpetuating the fear-based propaganda of the medical cartel?

Electioneering is designed to tell the lies that will convince the public to vote for a specific candidate. The tactics of party politics, baby kissing, rolling out the wife and kids or wearing faith in a specific deity are all part of that process. But the main ammunition is telling the public what they want to hear about lowering (or not raising) taxes, cutting or increasing spending on various programmes and rooting out corruption, blah, blah, blah. It's really just a show as all of the candidates presented for our choice will have been pre-selected by the real rulers so their candidates will always win. As part of this show, $millions will be spent on selling the candidates through the media and unfortunately, we have been programmed to believe what we see on TV. Everyone forms a judgement on whom to trust, if anyone, based on skills that they developed over their lifetime and the system ebbs and flows on the quality of these decisions. It is the system that we have. As the article doesn't provide a link to the research document nor any information about who funded it, we can only judge it on this limited view of it. I suspect many will use this to further justify the necessity of a ruling elite for managing the ignorant masses when what it really says is that the current masters have so screwed up society that people are not properly educated AND that every government policy and program is so unnecessarily complicated.

I happened upon a 1970s recording of Noam Chomsky discussing politics which you might find interesting. Over the last 30+ years, he's probably modified his views to some extent but even back then he had the bastards pegged. You might also appreciate this audio of Lysander Spooner's "No Treason - The Constitution Of No Authority" if for no other reason than to realize that we're still fighting the same battles of libertarians back in the 19th century. The only thing that's changed is the sophistication of our chains.

This is almost funny. When the SHTF, hyperinflation will no doubt reduce all but the super-rich to poverty level when a loaf of bread costs a wheelbarrow load of useless money. I'm going with the idea of storing up tinned foods for a short contingency but must remember to buy a manual tin opener for when the power goes off! [pi]

Chomsky gets mentioned by so many podcasters that it's hard to keep up with who said what. A quick search failed to raise a link for what that's worth. Chomsky was already battling the imperialist powers while I was still a teenager (I'm currently 55 years old) and he has more than earned my enduring respect. I'm not sure what (Chomsky) views you're finding confusing as he's always made perfect sense to me even if I didn't agree with him.

Cheapskate! I resemble that remark. If I had to actually pay fair market value to access Stef's books and podcasts, I would have to just move along and forego the benefits held within. Fortunately this model allows me to become educated in ways I didn't expect while making a significant monetary contribution over time. If I was still making £40K annually, I'd happily jump up to a higher amount but those days are long behind me.

Welcome John. I'm a relative newby myself but I believe that stumbling upon FDR was a great cap to what was a pretty good 2012 for me anyway. I hope you enjoy the community. John

I do not understand why you posted the death rate from Polio rather than the number of people contracting Polio. I remember seeing a picture of a room with dozens of people in iron lungs. They were not dead, but they were also not healthy. Whether intentional or not, this discussion about Polio deathrates is hijacking my thread. It's well worth reading the many documents on this subject to be found at Polio and DDT as it helps to highlight the convoluted nature of both the disease(s) and vaccination and how taking a simplistic view of either is unscientific. If you guys want to sweat over the Polio details, please start another thread. But if you want to discuss the gun, the coercion, the force, the scare tactics, or the psychological indoctrination from childhood to parenthood, this is the place to do it! Don't make me call in the forum gestapo to restore order! []

Up to this point, I was thinking that this was a good debate on the interpretation of The Dark Knight Rising. It's a shame that someone had to spoil it! I'm drawn towards DoubtingThomas' side in this argument, not because of my greater knowledge of Batman past and present, but because I agree that the film is propagandising in favour of government policy and actions and demonising those who protest against it. I commend to you Scott Creighton's critique of the film series written before the release of the third film with the hope of fighting the propaganda campaign that the first two films had proven to be: Boycott the Batman: The Dark Knight Trilogy Turns on Us. (Although in hindsight, it appears that the script predates the Occupy Movement, it didn't predate the recurring mass protests at G8 and other meetings of the globalist leaders.)

This is merely me reposting anti-vaccination information that I hope will bring the faithful closer to doubt and doubters closer to freedom from this tyranny. It would be a terrible shame if we achieved a society free from the evils of government and religion only to remain locked in the chains of vaccinationism. More than likely, the fresh air of a free market would put vaccination to a proper trial where I'm sure it would die its natural death but in any case, people could decide for themselves whether to take part. But we cannot forgot the dogma of "herd immunity" where non-believers must be coerced into receiving vaccination for the good of the herd; where anti-vaxers are immediately found guilty of murdering children just because they've spoken out in public - possibly stopping someone in the future from getting a live-saving vaccination. (Been there - got the T-shirt!)

A raft of information on this subject has been drawn together in Polio and DDT on the whale.to website. This site contains a lot of material that you wouldn't find on many other sites so is a constant target for ad hominem attacks. This makes it easier for people to discount or completely ignore the vaccination-related information. This is not a place to go for conventionally-accepted ideas.

Unfortunately, vaccination is a multi-faceted, highly complicated subject and almost everyone seems to come to the discussion from a unique ideological base. My flag is firmly planted in the ideology that the human body represents the current height of physiological evolution - oh if this were only true of our sociological evolution which seems poised on extinction - and we're still getting to grips with the intricacies of our organisms. I wonder if anyone truly understands all of the complex interactions that occur under the watchful eye of the autonomous nervous system much less possesses enough wisdom to safely interfere with it? I can almost understand the complexity of a microprocessor and have often written machine code to accomplish minor tasks as a subroutine to higher level languages. I used the machine code in accordance with precise instructions on how those commands would affect the processor and even then couldn't relax until I'd thoroughly tested the program and confirmed that all results were correct and it was bug free. At no time would I consider bypassing the normal programming interface and trying to alter the microprocessors behaviour by injecting substances into it, applying extremes of heat or cold to it or surgically removing parts of it. However, I'd be perfectly happy for someone who had the requisite knowledge and skills to undertake these tasks if they would be beneficial to a malfunctioning processor. My belief, based on my review of the history and science of innoculation, immunization and vaccination, is that all of this tinkering with the immune system is being accomplished by people who think they understand the human organism but in truth, have a very narrow view of how it works. Some patients became paralysed due to what was diagnosed as polio, so the vaccination industry set to work to stop people getting polio. On the face of it, they claimed success eventually when people stopped being diagnosed with polio after the vaccinations began. (I say eventually because the first unlucky vaccination recipients contracted polio and either died or became paralysed by the Salk vaccine.) Unfortunately, the true nature of their success is shrouded in confusion as many claims exist even to modern times that polio is still with us but has been rebranded to a number of alternative diagnoses GBS, MS, ME... Other claims insist that the rules for diagnosing polio changed to include only those where the patient had not been vaccinated as well as the general trend of polio decline that was occurring before the vaccine was released. There's also a clear correlation with the rise and demise of DDT pesticide use during the mid-20th century which strangely enough is being reflected in modern times with the rise in polio in India which coincides with the increased manufacture and use of DDT products in that country. (NB. I'm only picking on polio because it was brought up in discussion. The basic points apply equally well to all other infectious diseases that the vaccination industry insists on saving us from.) Leaving aside the argumental pea-soup above, let's focus on what I think are the two main arguments against vaccination. The lesser of the two, in my opinion, is that neither Jenner (of cow-pox/smallpox fame) nor Salk had any real idea what the long term affects were of their innoculations/vaccines. Even when their patients started dropping dead, neither they nor there successors could admit that these obvious longterm affects were unacceptable and just kept plowing on until forced to stop. The less noticable long term affects we are probably all living with to this day. Almost everyone accepts vaccination as a great medical success despite the research mentioned in the linked document by Scheibner indicating that vaccinated mothers were not passing on protection resulting in their children contracting whooping cough and other diseases at an earlier, more vulnerable age; despite the evidence indicating the healthy benefits associated with natural measles. Despite the evidence, mostly covered up by the profession but sometimes glimpsed by outsiders, that the worst outcomes of cases of infectious diseases are often due to underlying health problems and/or the attempts by physicians to reduce fever. What I think is the main argument against vaccination is the unquantifiable immediate and future health benefits that arise from allowing natural infectious diseases to take their course. It appears to have been common knowledge that diseases such as polio and measles were minor episodes in most people's lives, never to be seen again. Epidemics and serious cases occured during hard times such as war, famine or wherever sanitation and clean water were lacking. Epidemics cleared up when the environmental workers got busy. Instead of running away from measles, families would take their children to visit a measles sufferer so that they could get it out of the way. Perhaps the same was true with polio? The bottomline here is that the vaccination industry is based on the assumption that doctor's have greater wisdom than that contained in the human organism and are therefore warranted to tamper with the inner domain. My view is that they don't really know what they're doing and mankind as well as our domesticated animals, are suffering because of it. When they drop the gun and the fear propaganda and produce solid scientific research supporting their case, only then will I think about adjusting my viewpoint. Some vaccination light reading: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/01/31/sisyphus-and-the-conjugate-vaccines/ http://www.hpa.nhs.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733756107 (NHS Measles incidence) http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2009/09/02/measles-deaths-pre-vaccine/ http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/05/20/for-the-good-of-the-herd/ Over-reporting of measles deaths in Kenya (sub-saharan) http://www.ajtmh.org/content/68/4_suppl/30.full http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean2.html (Swine Flu Expose) http://www.vaclib.org/books/archive2/won/wonderfulcenturyXVIII_tex_pix.pdf http://www.vaclib.org/books/archive1/hadwen/absurd.htm http://www.vaclib.org/books/archive1/peebles/peebles1.pdf http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020110shelton/020110shelton06.html (Department of Agriculture traced the epidemics of foot and mouth disease in 1902, 1908 and 1914 to smallpox vaccine.) http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020110shelton/020110shelton07.html (CHAPTER XXIX COMMERCIAL MEDICINE - evidence of the profit motive for vaccination)

The subject of vaccination is a particular bugbear of mine because it inevitably involves the use of force and/or deception to compel society to submit to it and represents the most egregious violation of our most valued property rights, our own bodies. The history of vaccination is one of frequent government-enforced mandatory immunization programmes, of relentless use of superstition to raise fear among the public and of ignoring scientific evidence that clearly demonstrates the true nature of diseases, the real culprits behind epidemics, and the true human costs of vaccinations. Even if you're firmly convinced about the necessity and safety of vaccinations, as a freedom lover, you cannot afford to overlook the associated "gun in the room." To get past the faith and fear hype of the vaccination industry and come to a decision based on the scientific method, it is essential to include the work of Dr Scheibner. "Dr Viera Scheibner is Principal Research Scientist (Retired) with a doctorate in Natural Sciences from Comenius University in Bratislava. After an eminent scientific career in micropalaeontology during which she published 3 books and some 90 scientific papers in refereed scientific journals in Australia and overseas, she studied babies’ breathing patterns with the Cotwatch breathing monitor developed by her late husband Leif Karlsson in the mid 1980s. Babies had alarms after vaccination, indicating stress. This introduced her to the subject of vaccination. She then started systematically studying orthodox medical papers dealing with vaccination issues. To this day she has collected and studied more than 100000 pages of medical papers. Despite such extensive research of orthodox medical papers published on vaccines over the past 100 years, she established that there is no scientific evidence that these injections of highly noxious substances prevent diseases, quite to the contrary, that they increase susceptibility to the diseases which the vaccines are supposed to prevent and also to a host of related and unrelated viral and bacterial infections. Vaccines are involved in a great number of modern ills of childhood such as immunoreactive diseases (asthma, allergies), autoimmune diseases (diabetes, multiple sclerosis, lupus erythematosis), cancers, leukaemia, degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, behavioural and learning problems, to mention just the most important conditions. Her research into vaccination has culminated so far in two books and a number of shorter and longer individual papers published in a variety of scientific and medical publications. She has also conducted frequent international lecture tours to present the results of her research to parents, health and medical professionals and anyone else who is interested. She has also provided a great number of expert witness reports for court cases relating to deaths and injuries caused by vaccines, such as so-called “shaken baby” syndrome." Measles Vaccines Part I; Ineffectiveness of Vaccination and Unintended Consequences. ~ by Dr Viera Scheibner (PhD) | International Medical Council on Vaccination Measles Vaccines Part II; Benefits of Contracting Measles ~ by Dr Viera Scheibner (PhD)

False equivalence. Discrimination by race, nationality, culture, or any other criteria that you don't happen to like is not the same as violence against other people. If you have any belief in property rights at all, you would acknowledge this. People should be able to do with their property as they wish, even if that means discriminating by standards that you don't happen to like. Calling it evil, I have no idea what you're hoping to accomplish with that. Are you going to even make an argument for why you think segregation on a voluntary basis is dangerous nonsense and evil? @Ivan - Thanks for the response. I've re-read your 1st paragraph above a few times and am having trouble understanding your "False equivalence" claim. I linked teaching people to distrust others on a racial or ethnical basis with violence against kids and abuse of authority because all three are destructive present day realities. Have I presumed that the perpetuation of bigotry is a destructive action? If so, it behooves me to make a case in support of my position. Firstly, it might be wishful thinking on my part but I hope that we're both in agreement that violence against children is destructive to both the children and society. Similarly, I'm hoping that we agree that abusing authority is destructive to society. If not, then I'll have to admit defeat because the gap between us is beyond my limited abilities. However, if we're ok so far, then perhaps I can make a small stab at establishing the destructive nature of instilling good-guy/bad-guy prejudice based on biological or place of birth differences. Keep in mind that I'm not an authority on this subject (or any other for that matter) but am speaking only from my 'school of life' credentials. One of the most prominent stereotypes of American television and film is the white hat versus black hat in wild west mythology. This symbolism is still routinely used in modern times quite recently in relation to white hat computer hackers who hack for good compared to the black-hatted destructive hackers. Another media-ingrained prejudice is that of the beautiful princess/handsome prince=GOOD vs the ugly hag/brutish beast=BAD. I vaguely remember a teaching aid from decades ago where the child is shown drawings of various people in typical costume/dress (e.g. typically fireman, doctor, attractive lady, rough-looking man with dark features and asked to identify which ones are strangers. Almost invariably, children point to the rough-looking man upon which the instructor then tells them that actually, they're all strangers and none of them should be trusted fully. The fact that even older children need this qualification of the meaning of a stranger is an indication of the level of influence that media stereotypes have on us. Children that grow up in closed communities where they rarely if ever encounter anyone outside of their race, nationality, or religious/political influence will naturally have a difficult time when they first encounter someone who is clearly different. Left to their own devices, they will decide for themselves if the stranger is good or bad over a period of time based on how that person interacts with them. In practice though, they will see how others in the community treat the stranger and pick up on both their verbal and non-verbal clues. If they are taught healthy caution which gradually becomes earned trust, they will no doubt adopt this in their own lives as they mature. If, instead, they learn that the stranger is to be shunned based on their skin color, place of birth, dialect, religious belief or lack thereof, or for any reason besides the quality of their character, they will be hard-pressed to not adopt this way of judging people too. This learned prejudice may never express itself as anything other than an uneasiness when the child reaches adulthood and finds itself having to work or socialise with "different" people. But if taken to the extreme, these prejudices can erupt into horrifying genocidal violence. To get to that extreme, no doubt, requires many decades of escalating, tit-for-tat retaliations until no-one remembers who actually started it. Is there any question that prejudice too often leads to murder? Is racially or ethnically inspired murder, whether individually or by the millions, destructive? If you agree that it is, then you must accept my point that people brought up to distrust people based on racial or ethnical differences is dangerous. Regarding your statement "Discrimination by race, nationality, culture, or any other criteria that you don't happen to like is not the same as violence against other people. If you have any belief in property rights at all, you would acknowledge this. People should be able to do with their property as they wish...", I acknowledge the correctness of your statement AND that I never said anything to the contrary. "Are you going to even make an argument for why you think segregation on a voluntary basis is dangerous nonsense and evil?" Why would I when I was clearly talking about people being brought up to distrust people based on racial or ethnical differences? Ivan, I couldn't possibly compete against your mountains of evidence so I'll bow to your unquestionable expertise in this area.

@TronCat - Parents and other adults tend to use violence against kids. People in authority tend to abuse their authority. People brought up to distrust people based on racial or ethnical differences tend to segregate. People who continue to propagate such dangerous nonsense when they know better have chosen evil over good. We can only hope that education and time will correct all of these social problems. In my lifetime (currently 55 yo), I've seen society go from shock at a mixed race couple to almost general acceptance although I'm sure that there are plenty of diehard bigots of all persuasions who will go to their graves without changing their attitudes. Your last statement makes the assumption that while you and your people are segregating on racial/ethnical/etc lines that the blacks will be doing the same. There's a very good chance that most communities will be made up of intelligent, tolerant people who recognise that we're all human and can help each other grow and prosper without prejudicial diversion. Keep in mind that we're all descended from 1 of 3 groups of Africans that left that continent approx 59,000 years ago. If the documentary below is correct, our differences are completely due to our adaptation to different environments as we spread out across the globe. It's All in the Family! [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4]

@TronCat - I'm fairly new at this but I cannot fault your reasoning here. I also could not fault the owners of adjoining property which might include roads and businesses in general who would have the right to refuse entry/service to people they found disagreeable due to their willingness to discriminate against humans for whatever reason. Fair is fair.

Hello to one and all, I only found out about Freedomain Radio a few weeks back thanks to an interview with Stefan by James Corbett. James is a wonderful researcher and analyst in his own right but the added value of his program is the link he provides to so many enlightened sources of truth and common sense. During that broadcast, Stefan echoed much of the truth that I had independently discovered over the last 5 years since I began my journey of awakening. At the age then of 50, I had a lot of catching up to do compared to so many of my online mentors but I felt that I was making good progress. However, when I started listening to Stefan's free books, I was surprised to find out just how much learning I still had to do. Before finding Freedomain Radio, I was heavily convinced by the Zeitgeist Movement philosophy of resource-based economics and the evils of money. I had explored the idea of stateless society from other avenues and did not feel that the case was strong enough. I am now completely sold on anarchy thanks to Stefan's faultless arguments. I must admit that I've undergone almost total immersion in this material thanks to being able to walk around with the podcasts playing on my mp3 player. Every time that I think I've found a flaw in the evidence supporting anarchy, I always remember Stefan's argument that if you cannot trust a private company to supply X because they might abuse the power gained, it would be a bigger mistake to trust that power in the hands of a state with a monopoly on force. What do I bring to this forum? Although raised loosely as a Catholic, I've been an Atheist for 35 years. As an ex-US Air Force Seargent, I have experience as an unwitting cog in a violent organisation (I honestly thought that we were defending our country but I know better now!) As an IT professional working for the local police force, I have experience as an unwitting cog in a violent organisation (I honestly thought that we were keeping the peace and protecting society but I know better now!) As a retiree from both organisations (the latter due to redundancy) and as carer for my disabled wife, I am completely dependent on the public purse for my total income and therefore in deep shit should we successfully reach anarchy in my lifetime. Besides awakening to the myriad of ways that governments and corporations are robbing us blind, directly or indirectly, of money, freedom, health and future, I've spent much of the last 5 years researching the field of health and nutrition originally hoping to find a cure for my wife's Multiple Sclerosis. Although successful in finding the cure, I was totally unsuccessful in convincing my wife to embrace the knowledge but I cannot really complain as I'm not very good at adopting all aspects of a healthy lifestyle myself. I've dropped eating meat, no problem, and almost completely cut out alcoholic drinks. I still have the odd bit of dairy occassionally. I tried the mostly raw diet for a couple of years but wasn't thriving on it so have settled currently on the McDougall-ish lifestyle which is by no means optimum but certainly a cut above the standard American diet. I don't trust doctors! I don't trust doctors because I've read too many books by doctors about the indemic corruption in the profession, the unscrupulous adherence to the drug or cut mindset, the faith/fear-based propagation of the vaccination industry and their complete disregard for the evidence of their own failure. I also don't trust doctors because in my personal research into health and nutrition, I encountered overwhelming evidence in support of the body's ability to heal itself and maintain good health just by providing its needs, something that is not recognised by conventional medicine. But don't write me off as someone who believes in alternative medicines such as homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, herbalism, etc. I'm completely against these for various reasons.The closest label I can put on my philosophy of health is Natural Hygiene but with many variations being practiced around the world, that isn't necessarily an easy definition to pin down. Suffice it to say that I believe that the causes of health are pure air, pure water, an alkaline diet mostly comprised of vegetables and fruit, sufficient exercise, sleep and rest, sunlight, correct temperatures, mental balance, meaningful relationships and productive work. Or to put it a different way, avoiding those things which injure the body such as bad air, water laced with metals and chemicals, highly-processed foods and non-foods (soft drinks, coffee, tea, etc,) lack or excess of exercise, sleep and rest, staying cooped up indoors, prolonged extremes of temperatures, excessive worrying, toxic relationships and stressful or mindnumbing jobs. Simples! :o) I have strong opinions on a number of subjects (9/11 was definitely an inside job) but all of my opinions are based on evidence and are, therefore, subject to change if new evidence arises that trumps the prior evidence or at least swings the balance to an opposing viewpoint. I don't believe that anyone should believe something because I think it's true. Likewise, I will not believe anything just because others believe in it even if "others" equals millions of believers. If numbers were important, I'd be a 14 yo Han Chinese Christian who speaks Mandarin. Instead, I'm a 55 yo American Atheist living in the UK who can only speak two languages (American English and British English.) So there! I'm looking forward to learning more about philosophy in general, anarchy, voluntarism, non-aggression and plenty more from all you good people. John x