GUPTA/TRUMP are of course the same people---both far-right wing----both global banking OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE FREEMASONS-----working for the same global 1%. GUPTA global 1% are known all over the world for their fraudulent wealth gain ----for using wealth and power to enslave 99% of global citizens---and so too are CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---now TRUMP MOVING FORWARD third world Foreign Economic Zone development in US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
'The Guptas: How one family’s name became shorthand for corruption in South Africa'
WHEN US 99% WE THE PEOPLE ARE FORCED TO WATCH NATIONAL MEDIA PRESENTED BY 5% ROBBER BARON PLAYERS----WE KNOW WE ARE NOT GETTING REAL INFORMATION.
'But the Himalayas are just where a prominent Indian geologist, Viswa Jit Gupta, says he discovered those same tiny invertebrates. His fossil discoveries, published in hundreds of articles over the last quarter of a century, have vastly influenced scientific understanding of a region that is especially fascinating to geologists because it is where the Indian subcontinent, once an island, collided with Asia, pushing up the Himalayas.
The problem with Dr. Gupta's contributions, Dr. Talent charges, is that many of the fossils he reportedly discovered in the Himalayas are so distinctive that they could only have come from somewhere else: New York State, in one instance, and Morocco in another'.
Remember, Obama wanted GUPTA as his Federal Surgeon General because he is a great big global 1% health system player.
CNN’s Sanjay Gupta roasted for stating Trump has heart disease after White House doctor gives clean bill of health
By Brian Flood | Fox News
CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Sanjay Gupta was ridiculed across social media on Wednesday for declaring that President Trump has heart disease.
White House physician Ronny Jackson said on Tuesday that Trump was in "excellent health" after conducting the president’s physical exam at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center last week. Jackson answered a variety of questions from skeptical reporters during a press briefing and repeatedly stated that Trump was perfectly fine, with the exception of needing cholesterol medicine and being slightly overweight.
But on Wednesday morning Gupta, who did not examine Trump, took Jackson’s data and declared that Trump has heart disease, prompting instant ridicule from people on both sides of the political aisle.
“This is math. This is based on the numbers that Dr. Jackson provided,” Gupta said. “The president has heart disease.”
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders reminded everyone during Wednesday’s press briefing that Jackson is the only doctor who has actually examined the president, calling him the “only credible source” when it comes to Trump’s health.
Gupta eventually followed up his on-air report by doubling down with an article on CNN’s website.
“Like most men of his age, President Donald Trump has a common form of heart disease, relatively easy to address if he increases the dose of his cholesterol-lowering medication and makes necessary lifestyle changes,” he wrote.
HuffPost Editor in Chief Lydia Polgreen, whose site refused to cover Trump in the political section for the early stages of his campaign, wrote, “I’m not a doctor but this seems like a stretch?”
Townhall political editor Guy Benson said, ”The respected doctor who actually examined Trump says otherwise. This seems reckless and unethical,” while Free Beacon reporter Alex Griswold asked, “What else did former Hillary Clinton advisor Sanjay Gupta say?"
Another user wrote, “Sanjay Gupta makes a last minute submission for the Fake News Awards.”
Meanwhile, CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter defended Gutpa on Twitter, saying the diagnosis contained “nothing mysterious.”
CNN's Chief Medical Conspiracy Theorist Sanjay Gupta is not a cardiologist, not the White House physician, has never examined the President, and has been spreading these debunked heart rumors since 2016
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) January 17, 2018
CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta diagnosed Trump with heart disease.
What kind of ethical professional would publicly diagnose someone without an examination and the permission to make public?
This article from 1989 is REAGAN era where our US medical journals---here is NATURE -----we also had a strong medical journal SCIENCE----adhering to US moral and ethical standard in scientific research and academic writing. It was during REAGAN/CLINTON that these strong public interest public health journals with broad pier review by medical and basic scientists who cared about REAL SCIENCE----transitioned into the hands of 5% players like this INDIA'S GUPTA.
INDIA and the GUPTA family are of course representative of all global 1% from each nation who were moving to gain wealth and power by lying, cheating, and stealing. Our US Clinton/Bush/Obama led the way in creating and disseminating FAKE NEWS ---this week we are discussing health public policy ---these EVOLUTIONARY anthropological findings tied to human development ARE MEDICAL/HEALTH science.
OH, WE SEE=======the GUPTA FAMILY were those DARK AGES royals------the problem in 21st century is this: medical advances are very, very, very, very bad for 99% global citizens
Gupta Empire Medicines
The Gupta Empire period was popular for several reasons. One of the reasons was the advancement achieved by the Gupta’s in the field of medicine. This was one of the divisions of science. Many new developments were brought about in the medical area.
The Charaka samhita and the Sushruta samhita were the significant works of medicine. There were hospitals established during the Gupta period where sick were properly taken care of. During the Gupta dynasty period there was usage of mercury and iron in medicine.
The use of these materials indicates the fact that the people belonging to the Gupta era had the knowledge of chemistry and they even practiced it. A lot of development took place in the field of medicine.
This is shown by the fact that doctors during that time were aware of operations and also knew how to conduct one in case it is required. It is also believed that the Gupta people had the knowledge of vaccinations.
1989Scientist Accused of Faking Findings
By WILLIAM K. STEVENS
, Page 001024 The New York Times Archives
In what is being called the most serious case of its kind since the Piltdown hoax more than half a century ago, a paleontologist from India is being accused by colleagues of falsifying numerous fossil discoveries in the Himalayas.
Unlike the case of Piltdown man, in which a single skull was passed off as a fossil of a prehistoric human, this one involves a much broader range of reported finds that have become a part of scientific literature.
The chief accuser in this case, John A. Talent, an Australian who has studied ancient life forms for more than three decades, says it may be the biggest paleontological fraud of all time.
If one believed the reported discoveries, he says, it would be like believing that kangaroos are native to Kashmir or rhinoceroses to Rio. That, he says, is how improbable it is that certain fossils could be found in the Himalayas rather than in other parts of the world where they belong. Hundreds of Reports
But the Himalayas are just where a prominent Indian geologist, Viswa Jit Gupta, says he discovered those same tiny invertebrates. His fossil discoveries, published in hundreds of articles over the last quarter of a century, have vastly influenced scientific understanding of a region that is especially fascinating to geologists because it is where the Indian subcontinent, once an island, collided with Asia, pushing up the Himalayas.
The problem with Dr. Gupta's contributions, Dr. Talent charges, is that many of the fossils he reportedly discovered in the Himalayas are so distinctive that they could only have come from somewhere else: New York State, in one instance, and Morocco in another.
Not since the Piltdown man hoax, he said, has the pool of scientific information been so polluted by ''disinformation.'' The allegation calls into question a whole edifice of scientific papers describing the geology and fossil history of the entire Himalaya region.
The British journal Nature, in which Dr. Talent's accusations emerged last week from a small academic circle into the wider world, called Dr. Gupta's activities the ''Himalayan hoax.''
Nature said that they ''will cast a longer shadow'' than the Piltdown affair in Britain. That case, the journal noted, involved only one skull, identified as human in 1912 but proved false in the 1950's. But this one involves numerous scientific reports that ''will be excised from the record only with much greater difficulty,'' Nature said.
The geology of the Himalayas ''from one end to the other has been mucked up,'' Dr. Talent, a paleobiologist, said in a telephone interview from his office at Macquarie University in Sydney. ''It would be impossible for these things to have happened geologically,'' he said, and when other scientists use the Gupta data in studies of Himalayan geology, ''they end up with highly distorted syntheses'' and come to ''weird conclusions.'' Charges Dismissed as Lies
Dr. Gupta said in a telephone interview from Chandigarh, India, where he is a professor at Panjab University, that Dr. Talent's charges are ''far from the truth'' and are the product of ''malicious bias and professional jealousy.'' He charged that the Australian scientist is ''telling lies'' about him, and ''just building up a story without any basis.'' He added, ''We've had differences for the past 20 years, and he's trying to cash in on them.''
Dr. Gupta said that he had invited Dr. Talent to visit his laboratory in Chandigarh and the geological sites in question, but that the Australian scientist had declined. Dr. Talent acknowledged that this was true. He said that he had not been able to fit such a visit into his schedule. Dr. Talent is calling, rather, for an independent panel of scientists to investigate and set the scientific record straight.
Dr. Talent's charges were also described in a news article in the current issue of Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which reported that Dr. Gupta had induced many of the world's top fossil experts to join him in co-authoring papers of the purportedly spurious finds. Dr. Gupta said that he had replied in a six-page letter to Science, as yet unpublished, and that he planned further formal replies.
Dr. Talent accuses Dr. Gupta of numerous suspect claims. In one instance, described in the Nature article, the Australian contends that specimens of a fossil reported by Dr. Gupta to have been found in India and Nepal actually came from Amsdell Creek in upstate New York. The fossils in question are those of conodonts, conical toothlike forms no bigger than a flyspeck that are believed to be the jaws of segmented worms that lived more than 360 million years ago. A Distinctive 'Fingerprint'
The Amsdell Creek conodonts are well known among paleontologists as a species that comes only from there, Dr. Talent said. Moreover, they are found there in rock formations from four different periods of the Devonian era, a highly unusual circumstance.
So well ''fingerprinted'' are the Amsdell Creek fossils, Dr. Talent said, that ''it is statistically beyond the bounds of possibility'' that they could be found somewhere else. But they are readily available in laboratories around the world, he said, and added that Dr. Gupta ''has used this material to claim ages all over the Himalayas in northern India and Nepal.''
The age of conodonts and other early fossils is known with some precision, and they are used to date rock formations and thus to help re-create the geological history of the earth.
Asked about this, Dr. Gupta said that some years ago, he had reported the ''strong similarity'' of Amsdell Creek fossils to those he said were found in the Himalayas. He insisted that they had a ''very wide'' natural distribution in the Himalayas.
In another instance, Dr. Talent charges, Dr. Gupta reported finding fossil shells of ancient mollusks, called ammonoids, in a high part of the Himalayas when they actually came from a site near Erfoud, Morocco. They also have a distinctive fingerprint, he said, having been weathered by the desert in a way that could not happen in the high Himalayas, and bearing a shiny, reddish-brown appearance.
Dr. Talent said that he realized these were ''bunkum'' when he bought some Moroccan ammonoids in a rock shop in Paris and found, ''to my horror,'' that photographic plates he made from them precisely matched plates in one of Dr. Gupta's papers. Gap of 15 Million Years
Moreover, said the Australian scientist, Dr. Gupta reported that these ammonoids were found together with conodonts like those from Amsdell Creek. The two fossils differ in age by 15 million years, Dr. Talent said, and therefore should be found in widely separated strata.
Dr. Gupta said that the coincidence of the ammonoids and conodonts could be explained either by geologic upheaval or by a slow rate of sedimentation that, over the eons, would produce very thin geologic layers.
In the Nature article, Dr. Talent charged that a single, individual conodont specimen was reported as having come from several different locations. ''No, he's telling a lie,'' Dr. Gupta said. Many of Dr. Gupta's papers were co-authored by paleontologists from around the world. According to Dr. Talent and others, experts in fossil identification would identify the fossils that Dr. Gupta said he found, while Dr. Gupta would deal with the location.
Gary Webster, a geology professor at Washington State University, was the co-author of nine papers with Dr. Gupta. He said that he stood by the identifications he made of fossilized, spiny invertebrates called crinoids, and that while he recognized that the fossils looked like those from other parts of the world, he had not been wary enough. Now, he says, he is ''virtually certain'' that most of the specimens came from some place besides the Himalayas.
''As I see it,'' Dr. Webster said angrily, ''it leaves every paper that Gupta has ever authored in question. He has willfully tried to dupe the scientific community.''
This week's discussion on health and medicine public policy will look broadly and in detail the science of EVOLUTION as tied to DISRUPTIVE EVOLUTION theories. Evolutionary theories are debated often over religious belief vs humanist-----but many of our medicinal and public health procedures and policy stem from the knowledge we gain from these evolutionary anthropology studies. When we allow these science data to be FAKED---as has been the case these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA then 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are left unable to understand what policy MOVING FORWARD is bad or good for us. That is the goal of national media in US being made propaganda and myth-making-----
Let's look at the science of DISRUPTIVE EVOLUTION as written last century-----and to where these scientific theories are being BENT to create models for transhumanism evolution.
DISRUPTIVE EVOLUTION tied to 21st century MOVING FORWARD medical advances is tied to making our natural human genome as HYBRIDIZED as MONSANTO made our natural food and plant sources. We almost have no natural seed globally these few decades of FAR-RIGHT WING GREEN REVOLUTION bioengineering. Now, these same far-right wing global banking 1% are genetically altering human DNA to create hybrid people to fit future work needs----in space, under water, inside SMART CITY ECO-DOMES.
The articles we posted just before regarding GUPTA family frauds regarding evolutionary data was DELIBERATE corruption of these century's old REAL SCIENTIFIC DATA surrounding human evolution.
This DISRUPTIVE EVOLUTION
— Transhumanism and Survival of the Quickest
September 10, 2015 AI, Evolution, images, Opinion, Posthuman, Risks, Transhumanism
- authors Andrew Allan
“Transhumanism is a class of philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values.” (Max More 1990)
Is Transhumanism an exercise in Unnatural Selection?
By definition “Transhumanism” seeks to accelerate the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form. It is therefore in direct conflict with the established biological evolutionary processes responsible for the betterment of species. In a sense you could be excused for asking whether Transhumanism is in fact in competition with Mother Nature. And naturally, is this a bad thing?
The process of natural selection has served us well as a species; we are after all the result of some several billion years of biological evolution together with the multitude of life organisms that share the planet with us. This evolution has put us at the forefront of species in terms of intellect and it is this intellect that leads us to explore what now? We question our existence, our continued existence, the meaning of life, and the mechanics of the universe. These are fairly, or would appear to be to us, philosophical questions from an intellect one upgrade from our nearest species neighbors the Great Apes (chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas). But it is this budding intelligence that drives us forward to confront our mortality and weaknesses as a natural species. Without this intelligence we would be in the relatively blissful cocoon of “ignorance”, aware of and responsive to death perhaps, but not actively seeking to transcend it.
To transcend natural evolutionary principles, including death, we need to step out of the biological cycle, if not completely, at least partly. In order to accomplish this we have to look at unnatural methods of species progression and the “movement” (with all its negative connotations) of Transhumanism embraces these ideals. It boldly recognizes the human imperative, not the choice, required to progress our species and the derivatives thereof through rapid technological and scientific advances.
The plethora of technological developments currently evolving has the potential to effect this transition to a Transhuman reality in the immediate future – within a timeframe of decades. These developments certainly focus on unnatural life extension even immortality through genetic engineering and the widespread use of nano-medicines. In essence we are the agent of selection. But what are the rules of this unnatural selection? Who decides on the rollout of radical life extending medicines? Who governs the implementation of biological enhancements? Difficult questions that the Transhuman Ethics Committee will have some interesting debates on how to answer. The growing norm of societies is becoming an impatient one – breaking away from the controlling rules of governments they perceive to be riddled with inconsistencies, unfairness and demanding social equalities regardless of contribution. Consider the “I-Phone” generation transitioning to the “I-Life” generation in the space of decades.
In the transitional period perhaps Virtual Reality will allow for us to create and experience the virtual realities of Transhumanism, a training ground perhaps.
The Role of Inorganic Evolution in the future?
The Supermachines of the future will have intellectual capacity exceeding that of the current human brain. It isn’t too difficult to imagine, the I-Phone of today could be considered more intelligent than our species predecessors, even some of us. So a future in which a computer is able to reproduce, learn, question and improve is a reality in the waiting. How long is that wait? – Not too distant if one considers the rapid evolution of Artificial Intelligence, the exponential capability improvements suggested by Kurzweil and the single-minded pursuit of AI advance through the creation of evolutionary algorithms, robotics and reverse engineering of the human brain. The coupling of this machine evolution with Transhuman evolution will pose the most significant problem facing the newly evolving species – how do we ensure a seamless integration of the two resulting in in a transcendental species of Posthumans?
Survival of the Quickest – are we already in a race against time?
Time is an important driver, something that our evolved intellect has appreciated, leading us to recognition, not only of our own mortality, but the painfully slow progression of natural selection and evolution. It has taken us over a million years to progress from our ancestors Homo erectus to our species Homo sapiens. Our intellect and understanding of mortality produce a natural impatience, a need for more understanding, more life and ultimately more time.
But how much time do we have as humans in the conventional sense?
Are our efficient but outdated norms of evolutionary progress hopelessly too slow in the race to a better future? Most likely they are as technological, medical and Artificial Intelligence is progressing at a rapid pace driven by our impatience to achieve the goals of Transhumanism and beyond. Homo sapiens face the real risk of being left behind unless we integrate developments across the species. Even so the ultimate aim of Transhumanism is in fact to transcend the limitations of Homo sapiens so either way Disruptive Evolution will result in the establishment of a new species with cognitive and physical abilities vastly exceeding ours.
The Transhuman movement is at a critical juncture with the understanding of the potential future spreading like wildfire in our internet connected world. Transhumanism is no longer a somewhat obscure “movement” but a philosophy which is becoming more widely shared amongst futurists, scientists and the collective self of the Internet.
It leads one to question what am I contributing to the advancement of our species, the fusion of technology, machines and humans towards a better future with the prize of immortality tantalizingly close?
We spent an entire week discussing human genetic engineering of DNA MOVING FORWARD these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----we chose to discuss GENDER BLENDING because our state and local global banking 1% pols were PRETENDING to pass laws tied to CIVIL LIBERTIES for our GBLT------when the laws passed were to be directed at genetically altered trans-humans. Transexual remember are different then transhuman.
The US national media is HIDING real information on these 21st century medical procedures as they CORRUPT what was REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE evolutionary human development data. So, evolutionary data was REAL -----it was meticulously studied and recorded-----all of that is being allowed to be thrown aside and the far-right wing global banking 5% players are creating FAKE MEDICAL AND EVOLUTIONARY data to sell the goals of TRANSHUMANISM.
Disruptive evolution is the basis of these TRANSHUMANISM goals.
We are not going to focus on sexual gender blending genetically engineered humans===but look at the science being CORRUPTED in creating propaganda surrounding TRANSHUMANISM.
We must understand the history of all public policy and information in order to see the corruption-----and then knowing how to STOP MOVING FORWARD.
School's Out: Gender Bending and Gender Blending
by Sharday Mosurinjohn
Published on February 22, 2012 at 10:54am
I’ve been thinking of writing about trans youth and education in part because of some legislation that could affect trans people’s access to bathrooms (more on that in another post) and some other legislation that proposes to allow gender changes on Canadian passports as long as the holder “looks like” the gender marked down. (Wow, where do I begin… Will we see beard length quotas? floral pattern dress requirements?)
We’re elaborately taught how to relate to ourselves as gendered beings. It’s been a long time that people have been building on the critical observation that there’s no natural connection between pink/girl or boy/blue, yet kids continue to be the targets of aggressive marketing that creates profitable niche interests--a collection of stereotypes from which gender binarized consumers are “free” to choose—and of subtler gender conditioning (as my friend Ember is finding out, swaddled babies, though indistinguishable, are praised as pretty or strong depending on how parents advertise their sex). I’ve mentioned how a lot of kids are skipping the closet and, consequently, finding themselves at the forefront of advocating respect toward sexual difference. What about trans youth? There’s been increasing attention to “gender creative” or “gender independent” kids as social space opens up in which to discuss, rather than repress, their behavior. Could these terms reflect a reluctance to apply the concept of transgender to youth of a certain age because of its association with sexual identity (I am thinking specifically here of the historical, medical roots of trans-related descriptors in the West that have stemmed from the word “transsexualism” coined as “transsexualismus” in the early 1900s by Magnus Hirschfeld and later “trans-sexual” by Harry Benjamin in the 1960s)? Conversely, does the usage of the trans label problematically continue to lump the T in with the LGB? (Not that the B gets much visibility, either).
Documentaries like My Secret Self and books like Gender Born, Gender Made have pointed out that kids in some families are open at home about their gender expression but closeted at school. How can teachers convey the appropriate sexual health and other information to kids when this is the case? Unfortunately, if educators think they “know their audience” (i.e., “no one in this class is gay,” “no one in this class is trans”) they may not address certain issues—issues which are important for everyone to be aware of. A commenter on a previous blog entry expressed concern about the assumption that gay and lesbian sexuality is non-reproductive. It’s crucial to check these assumptions and consider what it means to explain same-sex sexual health in a reproductively mixed sex interaction, for example, sex between, say, a cisgendered bio-woman and a trans-woman who hasn’t had bottom surgery. (I recognize that some of this language I’m using is long-winded while at the same time it fails to capture the complexities and possibilities of a person’s identity and physicality). Or how do you teach something like genital hygiene when the genitals are potentially a site of mind-body disconnect (or what the medical system labels “dysphoria”)?
As we saw with the genderless kid Storm, people freak out about young people’s gender identities for all kinds of reasons, at least one of which in Storm’s case was the objection that the parents would confuse the child, and that a kid was unable to consent to such an “experiment.” This objection seems bizarre to me because a) it reveals a mindset that there are not only just boys OR girls but that there is a proper way to be one or the other and b) it betrays a fear that maybe it’s not so clear after all because the child is liable to respond to a different teaching which c) only illuminates how there is nothing at all given about the way a person will relate to themselves gender-wise, even sometimes in spite of all the received dogma.
This obsession with the vulnerability of children also plays out in the medical establishment. At Toronto’s Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), “gender dysphoric” kids are forced play in “proper” gender roles as a form of “treatment” that will realign their cis gender identity. Ironically, this treatment is based on the theory that these youths’ apparent trans identity is really only repressed homosexuality (which is no longer in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual [DSM] and is, therefore, apparently fine). The bottom seems to fall even farther out of this argument when you consider that you can of course be trans and gay.
But the consent issues don’t just stop with kids. In Canada, at least, we don’t even accept informed consent for trans adults. After a DSM diagnosis of gender identity disorder (GID)—which ensures some public funding for related health expenses—they have to pass a year long dress up test , living as a member of the “other” gender before qualifying for hormonal and surgical interventions. Funny when you consider that anyone else can surgically alter their gendered appearance as long as they sign their consent form and pay enough money. New tits, for example, are apparently fine as long as they confirm your existing, government-sanctioned gender identity.
Anyway, I think the idea of asking how kids can know that they want to be a “different” gender or sex gains a little bit of perspective if you follow the question by asking how anyone can know that they do want to be whatever gender or sex they “are.” I want to suggest that it’s not the most helpful question to be asking, in the first place. I’m not advocating that any kid who displays “gender creativity” should be labeled trans, because who knows? That kid might end up identifying as cis, or as trans (feeling like there is a clear reality to male/female physical sex and they were born in the wrong body), or they might come to identify with being genderfluid or genderqueer, and rejecting the idea of having to transition.
If many people already so strongly expect that children have a gender identity (sense of gender?) then why such reluctance to accept one they define for themselves? And if there has been so much thought about the decoupling of gender, sex, and sexuality, then why is it so hard to accept kids who want to recouple them in specific ways? Moreover, even though queer sexuality implicates a non-normative gender performance, why does the T only seem to be taught if it’s bundled along with the “LGB”?
We outed DR OZ as being global banking 1% player pretending to be ANTI-GMO while pushing 'natural' products we already knew were not helping public health. He as GUPTA have been made national media figures for US public health and both are NOT educating on REAL public health frauds and data.
OZ would of course be that US medical media personality who would have been protesting and shouting against HUMAN GMO-------creating human species-----but OZ and GUPTA have been silent on the goals of TRANSHUMANISM and they are silent on the CORRUPTION of our natural DISRUPTIVE EVOLUTIONARY sciences.
This is what our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE have had these few decades of ROBBER BARON FRAUDS----and dismantling of our US sovereignty to that of third world DARK AGES access to real information.
Dec 29, 2015 @ 10:45 AM 24,198 The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
Why You Shouldn't Trust Dr. Oz's Latest Fishy Propaganda
Kavin Senapathy , Contributor Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Eminent cardiac surgeon Dr. Mehmet Oz, known best for charming millions of women in the 25 to 54 demographic, opened his show on December 7th with “Fast Facts About Genetically Engineered Salmon,” which the US Food and Drug Administration approved this November for human consumption after over twenty years in a regulatory quagmire. But the so-called facts Oz presented about the AquAdvantage salmon, which grows twice as fast as conventional Atlantic salmon, reeked more than the most rotten of fish.
The episode, titled “Genetically Modified Salmon Coming to a Store Near You,” pushed the myth that genetically engineered (GE) foods like the AquAdvantage salmon pose a unique health risk to consumers, along with the fallacy that we have a “right to know” at the point of sale whether a food has been produced with molecular GE techniques. “Genetically Modified Organism” (GMO), the term the general public and media alike use to describe products of these techniques, is an unscientific and arbitrary descriptor, because the vast majority of the foods we consume, whether organic or conventional, have had their genomes altered in the field or in a lab.
Dr. Mehmet Oz has a history of anti-GE rhetoric. Photographer: Scott Eells/Bloomberg
First engineered in 1989 by a small company now known as AquaBounty Technologies, the AquAdvantage is an Atlantic salmon with a copy of the growth hormone gene from the Chinook “King” salmon and a promoter from the ocean pout. All genes in all living things have promoters, a region of DNA that functions as an “on” switch for genes. Importantly, promoters don’t code for proteins, which are what allergic individuals react to. Some promoters only activate a gene in response to certain external stimuli, while the pout promoter acts constantly on the growth hormone gene allowing the salmon to grow year-round, while its non-engineered counterpart stops eating and growing in low light winter months.
Growing to market weight in half the time and using 20% less feed than non-engineered salmon in contained, inland tanks that don’t muddy ocean waters, the AquAdvantage salmon is truly a sustainable fish that should win the hearts and minds of environmentalists and proponents of healthy seafood as part of a balanced diet.
But these facts don't stop the Great and Powerful Oz, who loves salmon so much he gives it as an annual holiday gift, from painting the fish with a fear-laden brush. In 2011, the FDA reprimanded the television doctor for an “irresponsible and misleading” report on arsenic in apple juice, followed by a June 2014 hearing, where members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee chastised and interrogated Oz for peddling ineffective and even harmful products. Despite being thoroughly rebuked by journalists, the FDA, and over a thousand doctors for his evidence-scarce recommendations, Oz dished up the AquAdvantage salmon with just a dash of facts, and a generous slathering of misinformation.
Dr. Oz has a history of anti-genetic engineering rhetoric, which holds a prominent place in the television personality's train of misleading discourse. Lisa Oz, co-producer of “The Dr. Oz Show” and wife of the TV doc is a known supporter of staunch anti-GE campaigner and self-described yogic levitator Jeffrey Smith. Lisa, whose favorite pastime is hanging out with her husband and “boss[ing] him around,” is a vaccine opponent and promoter of alternative health products, some of which happen to sponsor her and Dr. Oz’s radio and television programs.
The TV doctor’s other half recently collaborated with and narrated Smith’s anti-GE documentary, Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of Our Lives. Notably, when Dr. Oz featured Jeffrey Smith on a 2012 episode called “GMO Foods: Are They Dangerous to Your Health?”, not one scientist was willing to share the stage with the oft-ridiculed levitator.
When we think of EVOLUTIONARY data we often look to those images of pre-human species through today's homo-sapiens. Much of our evolutionary data is tied to understanding how our human organ systems work and with that came the ability to produce medical treatment and products which were indeed helpful to our human public health. We needed to understand the digestive evolution in lower animals to understand why our own human organ structures may becoming VESTIGAL----
Here we see what is FAKE medical data being used to weaken our natural human infectious disease structure----our endocrine system made useless but PHARMA---ANTI-BIOTICS ET AL.
This article originates from a right wing religious stance of GENESIS as written in Bible-----they are selling the idea of DARWIN'S theories of evolution were not valid -----when in fact DARWIN'S stance is most likely correct---but these few decades of medical corruption is creating DISBELIEF in REAL SCIENCE.
Our appendix as other endocrine organs evolved from digestion to a specialized function of protecting humans from microbes found in the foods we eat and water we drink. It is a VESTIGE organ as regards digestion as DARWIN stated---it simply evolved to a different function.
Today's US 99% are faced with attacks on REAL INFORMATION from two sides-----we understand our religious 99% may indeed still believe in GENESIS creation-----but what we have today is global banking 1% deliberately corrupting REAL scientific data to confuse our global citizens. No, the appendix and other endocrine organs are not USELESS----PHARMA is simply trying to kill our natural immune system.
The Appendix: Useless Vestige or Evolutionary Innovation?
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on February 23, 2013
The appendix has long been maligned as an obsolete vestigial remnant of digestive evolution. Is it really as worthless as people say, or does it have a purpose after all?
For many years, the primary function of the appendix seemed to be to give surgeons a little something extra to do whenever they visited a patient’s abdomen. After all, it could get infected later and was thought to be useless, so why not get rid of it? Now, evolutionary analysis has finally caught up with the medical evidence that the modern appendix is functional and has now bestowed its blessing. Evolutionary biologist Heather Smith and surgeon William Parker presume to have elucidated the evolutionary history of the appendix and discovered “the strongest evidence yet that the appendix serves a purpose.”
Despite a century of evidence that suggested the appendix had some sort of immunological function, Darwin’s dictates ruled.
Despite a century of evidence that suggested the appendix had some sort of immunological function, Darwin’s dictates ruled. Pathologists certainly had ample opportunity to study normal appendices, and they found they contained lymphatic tissue suggesting the normal appendix was designed to do a job. Yet Darwin, deluded by his day’s incomplete anatomic knowledge into thinking that only humans and great apes possessed appendices, hypothesized that the ancestral primate had evolved a large cecum to digest a tough leafy diet. He believed that its cecum eventually shriveled to a functionless appendix as dietary demands eased. And if Darwin said the appendix had no function, it was easy for many to ignore evidence to the contrary.
The appendix is located at the juncture of the small intestine and the first part of the large intestine, called the cecum. Despite the common assertion that the appendix is a useless evolutionary vestige, comparative primate anatomy cannot trace its supposed origin. And despite the fact that we can live without it, it actually serves important functions in the immune system.
As with many other mystery organs relegated to the vestigial evolutionary waste bin—metaphorically if not literally, since fortunately most are not so exposed for easy excision--the appendix eventually began to be rehabilitated as medical science found it impossible to ignore additional evidence of its important roles both before and after birth.1 To rectify this Darwinian dilemma, Parker’s team compiled data on the diets of 361 living mammals of whom they credit 50 with having an appendix. (German evolutionary biologist Olaf Bininda-Emonds points out that not all 50 are confirmed, but some are.) When analyzed in light of the mammalian evolutionary tree, they found the evolutionary history of the appendix failed to follow any particular pattern. Thus they conclude it evolved independently 32 to 38 times. Because it evolved so often, it must have been useful, right?
Parker himself has been one of the many researchers to be involved in actual experimental research elucidating the functions of the appendix. He and his colleagues have suggested the appendix provides a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria to shelter when dangerous pathogens temporarily out-compete them. That is real experimental science. That is real evidence for God’s good and purposeful design. And it needs no evolutionary confirmation or explanation.
The evolutionary “evidence” Parker and colleagues offer here is based purely on the presumption that mammals share common ancestry. And why? Not on the basis of any scientifically observable support—evolution of one kind of animal into an different, more complex kind has never been observed—but rather on the mere determination to explain biodiversity through naturalistic processes. The Bible provides God’s account of the origins of all kinds of animals (and plants and humans) in the first chapter of Genesis. God created many kinds and designed them to reproduce after their kinds. This is exactly what we see in biology, as organisms vary within their kinds but do not become new kinds of organisms.
Thus, the many unconnected and unexplained appearances of the appendix in the mammalian evolutionary tree merely serve as further confirmation that the tree is invalid. And they do not contribute one whit to actual medical science.
Baby boomers tied to science degrees learned in evolutionary science all the basic evolutionary models----and yes, some revised DARWIN evolution just as physics revised NEWTONIAN physics-----we study and revise to create new 'hard science'.
The diversion from DARWINIAN evolution to this PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM evolution has been and still is HYPOTHESIS----not THEORY---and definitely not SCIENTIFIC LAW. These ideas seem to answer questions outside of DARWIN'S model----but as with all science genetic disruption has been found to occur for many different reasons.
TODAY, TRANSHUMANIST making GMO OF HUMAN BEINGS are calling this UNNATURAL attack on human development PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM ----or DISRUPTIVE EVOLUTION. What we see below is actual scientific research creating HYPOTHESIS on natural evolution-----what TRANSHUMANISTS are doing is calling their MAN MADE ATTACK on natural human DNA-----this same kind of DISRUPTIVE evolution.
Our 99% of citizens choosing to still believe in GENESIS creation ---and we think in US those percentages are small----are free to believe creationist models----that is what makes the US a freedom, liberty, and justice nation. STEM requires understanding these scientific laws and theories-----MOVING FORWARD is corrupting those 20th century facts to advance SCIENCE FOR SCIENCE SAKE---
Punctuated Equilibrium Examples
7th grade8th grade9th gradeMiddle SchoolHigh SchoolCollege
Punctuated equilibrium is a term that refers to the evolutionary changes of plants and animals in a relatively static way. In contrast to the concept that life forms change slowly over time in response to their environment, punctuated equilibrium is a theory that those changes occur in spurts of time periodically.
Understanding Punctuated Equilibrium
This theory stands in contrast to Darwin's more dynamic model of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium states that evolution only takes place in bursts of time that are rapid. However, the term "rapid," in evolutionary terms should be understood to mean approximately 500,000 years in some circumstances.
Prior to the change which is often caused by an environmental factor, the life form's species or class lives in "stasis" or an unchanged state for many, many years because it does not have a need for change. Once the change happens, quite quickly, the species re-enters stasis with its new evolutionary adaptation.
Examples of punctuated equilibrium include:
- A species of sea animals lives, breeds, and dies for thousands of years. Suddenly, the sea level changes and the animals must adapt. Their bodies develop in order to accommodate the environmental change, and from then on are evolutionarily different from their ancestors.
- A species of birds exists in stasis for many thousands of years. Suddenly, a bacteria causes their primary tree of sheltering choice to die. The birds must adapt within the environment to trees that are much higher requiring more wing strength. Some birds die. The remaining birds' bodies adapt as necessary and they return to a state of stasis.
- A species of worms lives in the soil in a particular climate and is in a state of stasis. Climate changes cause the pH of the soil to change. The change in pH causes some worms to die, but those that survive adapt and reproduce with new ability to withstand the pH change in the soil. The species returns to stasis.
- Some argue that the evolution of monkey into man is actually a form of punctuated equilibrium as there are periods of no change (in stasis) and periods of what appears to be rapid and pronounced change.
- The specific species Globoratalia crassaformis is a microfossil that shows punctuated equilibrium that took upwards of half of a million years to transition into G. tosaensis and eventually G. truncatulinoides. Both species still exist.
- In New Hampshire there is a quarry in which the pattern of punctuated equilibrium has been noted in Trilobites. The fossils suggest a quick appearance of change between one an older and more recent class called Phacops.
- Fossils of Brachiopods show a "sudden transition" between the species Kutchithyris acutiplicata and K. euryptcha that seem to only be explained by a sudden need for evolutionary change.
- A variety of dinosaurs including Stegoceras, Tyrannosauras, Syracosaurs, and Lambeosaurus all show signs of punctuated equilibrium that aligns with environmental changes such as sea level change that might have caused a need for evolutionary adaptation.
MOVING FORWARD TRANSHUMANISM is being called that rapid burst of evolutionary change-------of course these terms were assigned to NATURAL evolution ---global banking 1% and their 5% player SCIENTISTS are corrupting these REAL evolutionary models by installing GMO HUMAN CHANGES calling them DISRUPTIVE ----PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM EVOLUTION.
'Punctuated equilibrium states that evolution only takes place in bursts of time that are rapid. However, the term "rapid," in evolutionary terms should be understood to mean approximately 500,000 years in some circumstances'.
Of course our 99% of GENESIS CREATIONISTS are using all this corruption of real scientific theory to claim none of DARWINISM or well-documented evolutionary science is correct.
What 99% of WE THE PEOPLE must do is STOP MOVING FORWARD TRANSHUMANISM and to do that we must educate how these 5% players are corrupting REAL science.
Below we see a real hypothesis about physical adaption and its causes.
'A species of birds exists in stasis for many thousands of years. Suddenly, a bacteria causes their primary tree of sheltering choice to die. The birds must adapt within the environment to trees that are much higher requiring more wing strength. Some birds die. The remaining birds' bodies adapt as necessary and they return to a state of stasis'.
Here is one of the most famous DISRUPTIVE EVOLUTIONARY examples------moths changing color due to exposure to industrial chemicals in atmosphere. Changes in Earth's atmosphere, natural disasters such as volcanoes, fires, flood all acted over millions of years to create a change in living function------in order to survive that species had to adapt QUICKLY or DIE OUT. DARWIN's evolutionary theories are tied to development occurring under GRADUAL environmental changes-----DISRUPTIVE evolutionary hypotheses try to explain these RAPID EVOLUTIONARY changes very likely driven by just such disasters.
Our man-made INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION is creating such extreme environmental devastation that indeed we are seeing some NATURAL DISRUPTIVE EVOLUTION as seen in this MOTH species. Humans do not evolve under RAPID evolution because we are too COMPLEX. DARWIN'S gradualism theory fits our human evolutionary theories.
TRANSHUMANISM IS GENETICALLY MODIFIED PEOPLE (GMO)------RAPID BODY CHANGES being made by industry. They are calling this DISRUPTIVE EVOLUTION. It is what DAN BROWN in ORIGIN called TECHNOLOGY'S TRANSHUMAN CREATION-----the technologists pretending to be GOD and starting a NEW ORIGIN for humans.
Disruptive Selection: Nature’s Way of Weeding Out the Average Business
Brian SolisJune 13, 2013in Business - Marketing, Disruptive Technology
It’s everywhere. I live in Silicon Valley where many say that the terms disrupt and disruption have become buzzwords. Pundits believe that the word is losing its promise and impact through the acts and examples of entrepreneurs and businesses that misuse the word to describe intentions rather than associating it with a desired or natural effect.
In some of the startup meetings I attend for example, digital disruption is actually a stated business objective. Instead of “killing it” or “crushing it” many businesses are aiming now to disrupt it!
Kidding aside, disruption is more than a buzzword of course. It is a term that is becoming an important part of everyday business to describe what is happening to and around markets and ultimately companies everywhere. While it may be a genuine goal, disruption is the act of disturbing or interrupting the norm and its effect is measured by the the following series of events that unfold.
Like it or not, disruption is a natural part of life. I refer to this phenomenon as Digital Darwinism, when society and technology evolve faster than the ability to adapt. Every so often something comes along and completely upsets the norm. And this is only accelerating. Either you’re disrupting or you’re at risk of getting disrupted.
Continuing the Digital Darwinism metaphor, businesses, like nature itself, are open to natural selection. One of the three common forms of natural selection (including directional and stabilizing selection) that I’d like to explore is that of disruptive selection, which selects against the mean of the population. Adapting the definition to suit the purpose of this discussion, disruptive selection singles out average businesses in any given population making room for speciation, the formation of new and distinct species in the inevitable course of evolution.
In my research on disruptive selection, I found several references to London’s peppered moths. H.B.D. Kettlewell, an English physician set out to study the unexplained color variations of the peppered moth in the 1950s. Kettlewell set out to better understand why in the industrialized areas of Britain, the peppered moth population evolved from light gray-colored individuals to that of primarily of dark gray species. In rural areas, the peppered moths were predominately light in color. Kettlewell learned that darker moths survived predators in the industrial areas by blending in to polluted environments. The lighter moths stood out and were seen easily by predators. In rural areas, the opposite would occur.
In the realm of digital disruption, disruptive selection opens the door to creative destruction, which is set to unleash up every industry imaginable. As Joseph Schumpeter noted in, “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” published in 1942, creative destruction is the process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. Said another way, there’s always going to be instances where new kills old or the the old evolves into something new.
Let’s take Uber for example as a form of disruptive selection. Who here loves taking taxis? I’m often in San Francisco and New York and the experience that I have is, well, poor, which is kind. Cars don’t stop to pick you up. When they do, cars are often dirty, drivers are frequently less than pleasant, and the goal of getting from point A to B is generally by way of creative way points.
As a result, I’m a big fan of Uber as is anyone who uses the service.
For those unaware of Uber, it was founded in 2009 by Garrett Camp, Travis Kalanick and Oscar Salazar as an on-demand mobile platform that connects passengers to available drivers. The app shows passengers available cars, the distance/time to them, an estimated price based on their destination and an integrated payment system so that you can simply step out of the vehicle rather than doing the oft uncomfortable dance of remittance. More importantly, Uber introduces a human touch, giving passengers the ability to rate drives and also learn more about each driver and the experiences other Uber users have shared for each. This is important because it introduces a shift in the value proposition.
Each time I get into an Uber car, I interview the driver to learn more about why they use Uber. The story is often the same. As you would guess, money is part of the equation, but so is service. Each driver has their own process of greeting passengers and ensuring that their ride is clean, pleasant and personalized. Those who don’t get it…don’t get it and it’s clear in their reviews. PASS!
At a minimum though, Uber offers black car or luxury car operators to expand their customer base when they’re in between jobs. The price is often comparable to that of a standard cab and as you can imagine, taxi operators are not in love with Uber. Essentially, Uber is disrupting the taxi industry and this has regulators up in arms as they flail to protect their way of life.
Rather than fixing the taxi industry’s problems or setting out to improve passenger experiences, regulators and officials instead cry foul and attempt to block Uber in each city it introduces. WTF!? If anything, that’s a response worthy of Digital Darwinism and a strong example of disruptive selection in action. If you have a choice, the decision is easy. And over time, unless the taxi industry innovates to compete, companies such as Uber and Sidecar will at come point become the norm. To date, Uber is now in 29 cities internationally and was recently awarded Fast Company’s “2013 Most Innovative Company in Mobile.”
Disruption eventually gives way to models and templates for others to follow. Eventually however, disruption evolves into business as usual until it is disrupted again through a process of disruptive selection. Reacting to disruption may already be too late. Setting out to improve experiences and outcomes and finding innovative ways to do so is your only answer. And, this is something that becomes part of everyday business.
Setting out to disrupt markets is commendable, but to compete for the future takes more than intent to disrupt, it takes vision to see what others cannot and perseverance to do what others cannot or will not. The best investment you can make in business is the quality and experience of your product for it is the experience that people will document and share. In a connected economy, those shared experiences become the trusted leverage other consumers seek to make informed decisions.
Every threat has its antagonist. Disruption is only thwarted, or also fueled by, innovation.