Thursday, June 21, 2018

Qanon Heads up

Heads up

The play has been dynamic defense up to now while an intensive investigation ground along.  From the signal here, it appears that the play is now rotating into offense mode.  This is late June 20 th.

There is certainly a mountain of options now available to exploit.

This will all end in mass arrests and it is a judgment call when enough of the audience is prepared.  We got plenty of indication showing up.  It will still be a shock to most.

all good.


Jun 20 20181582Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: a38ba8 No.1840075 📁
Jun 20 2018 21:44:55 (EST)
Now that’s what I call a VIP!📁
1581Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 682934 No.1838471 📁
Jun 20 2018 20:22:46 (EST)
We serve at the pleasure of the President.
We left the decision on timing to him.
Today, at the rally, he made his decision.
Shift in tactics.
Attacks ^
1580Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: ad54cb No.1838281 📁
Jun 20 2018 20:14:11 (EST)
Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: ad54cb No.1838246 📁
Jun 20 2018 20:13:01 (EST)
[[[ ]]]
[[ ]]
[ ]

R they serious?
1579Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: ad54cb No.1838246 📁
Jun 20 2018 20:13:01 (EST)
[[[ ]]]
[[ ]]
[ ]
1578Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: c04bc0 No.1837073 📁
Jun 20 2018 19:19:46 (EST)
Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: c04bc0 No.1837019 📁
Jun 20 2018 19:18:21 (EST)

Look for more direct confirmations.
It’s time.
1577Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: c04bc0 No.1837019 📁
Jun 20 2018 19:18:21 (EST)
Anonymous ID: b008c5 No.1836621 📁
Jun 20 2018 18:53:38 (EST)qproof.png
1576Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: dab18e No.1835669 📁
Jun 20 2018 17:50:05 (EST)556042FC-27BA-4AE6-8D70-EDA7B194E680.jpeg
We hear you, Patriots!
1575Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 22739b No.1834282 📁
Jun 20 2018 16:09:35 (EST)
Abandon ship!
Hussein staff talking.📁
What are we leading up to?
1574Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 17f4ea No.1831799 📁
Jun 20 2018 13:06:05 (EST)5B9489D2-1763-4A2E-B314-9CBDE30EC339.jpeg
They want you DIVIDED!
They call us names.
They make threats.
They censor.
They lie.
They project.
They cheat.
They steal.
They harm.
They are sick.
They are evil.
At some point the streets (for them) will not be safe.
1573Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 48c89c No.1829713 📁
Jun 20 2018 10:43:02 (EST)📁
Re_read drops re: 302 mod
DOJ forced to supply.
Rank & file testifying as informants.
Hussein WH SR Staffer ON RECORD.
House of Cards.
These people are SICK.
Doctor(s) treating.
1572Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: e96bad No.1828656 📁
Jun 20 2018 09:21:46 (EST)
Anonymous ID: 20c603 No.1828594 📁
Jun 20 2018 09:17:59 (EST)ring.jpg
Have a peek at her ring. Just sick

Part of the club.
1571Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: e96bad No.1828504 📁
Jun 20 2018 09:11:40 (EST)
Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: e96bad No.1828481 📁
Jun 20 2018 09:09:03 (EST)
FF prevented.
Immigration / chikd separation.
Narrative change critical.
IDEN talking points.
Distract IG report / hearings / Korea.
Iran next.
Regime in trouble.
People awake.
These people are sick.

Spelling error due to mobile.
1570Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: e96bad No.1828481 📁

Qanon IG/Huber Mirror FBI/DoJ

I am sharing this item put up on the 18th. It maps out the machinery put in place to roll up the profound corruption been discovered daily in the FBI/DOJ. The IG commands 450 investigators and i am sure they are the source of those 5000 sealed indictments per month now adding up to 35,000.

The clean out of the FBI is happening in the public space for us to see. Today we hear Peter Strozk was escorted out of the building.  Our problem there is that we know so much we do not understand what took so long but this is all part of a much bigger operation whose scale is shocking.
Central to this is that the FBI and the DOJ must be completely cleansed along with the whole Judiciary before we start arresting all those sealed indictments.  We also had confirmation from Q that Huma and Podesta were both indicted on 3/11 and 6/11 of last year.  These also remain sealed.  There were rumbles at the time that suggested just that.
I do not know how much in the form of interviews have been conducted and the general silence and the volume of out put suggest little of that yet.  I suspect that the indictments are coming in from data collected electronically over the past several years even by Military Intel.  They would have opened the files and collected the raw supporting data including financial transfers and the like.
Understand we are now seeing the end of all forms of government internal secrecy and this literally ends the possibility of corruption as a significant factor.  Big brother really has no need to know about you and us but it certainly needs to know if its minions are really minions.
Q !CbboFOtcZs ID: 502ea1 No.1804985 📁
“Attorney General Jeff Sessions has also said U.S. Attorney John Huber is investigating claims of FBI and DOJ misconduct related to these actions, noting that Huber would be “conducting his work from outside the Washington D.C. area and “in cooperation” with Horowitz.”📁

“This is not the end of the process. United States Attorney John Huber continues his work in cooperation with the Inspector General to review certain prosecutorial and investigative determinations made by the Department in 2016 and 2017,” Sessions said. He has reviewed this report and, based on its findings and his own investigation, will provide recommendations as to whether any matter not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of Special Counsel.”📁

SC = restart w/ significantly less staff = stupid
(Reddit Summary)

-Professor Turley is a very respected liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian. Has been critical of both parties over the years.

-Turley says the use of John Huber gives the IG the prosecutor he needs to bring charges and seek indictments. (No need to go through RR which is critical)

-Huber is conducting a full-fledged criminal investigation into all the matters Republicans are calling for a special counsel to investigate.

-Huber has been investigating these possible crimes for five months (Now seven), since November 2017.

-By giving the IG a prosecutor they can now go after the deep state without looking like a political witch hunt. This is critical.

-Sessions informed Congress in his letter that all the matters recommended for investigation by Goodlatte, Gowdy, and Grassley are “fully within the scope of [Huber’s] existing mandate.” He also informed the chairmen that Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who is working with Huber, has a staff of 470 investigators, giving Huber access to enormous investigative firepower that far exceeds the staff of any special counsel. (Who needs a SC with that type of manpower?)

-The inspector general’s jurisdiction to conduct civil and criminal investigations includes “actions taken by former employees after they have left government service.” Then Huber can act on any of those matters.

-This is HUGE A Grand Jury can be empaneled anywhere, in any deep red state, away from D.C. (This is very important and why Trump needed to appoint as many Judges as possible)
-Huber and Horowitz can accomplish everything a SC can do.

-If Sessions feels that charges should have been made that weren't, he can still appoint a SC to make that happen.

-Huber is a lawyer from deep red Utah, not the D.C. swamp.

-“If a special counsel were appointed, there would be a great deal of delay,” Turley stated, versus the team of Huber and Horowitz, who are already five months into this investigation. (It's too late to even appoint a SC. Charges can be filed before midterms.)

-From /u/ClardicFug - Huber and Horowitz were both appointed to their positions by the Obama administration. This helps optics a lot. Pretty much decimates the "Trumped rigged the investigation" argument that's sure to be made.📁

Lawsuit Targets Billionaire OxyContin Family for Causing Opioid Epidemic

It is obvious that they set out to exploit opioids addictive quality from the get-go.  This as obviously bordered on criminality and criminals.

I do not see them surviving a long day in court if all this is true. Yet they also insulated  the industry from doing exactly the same.

Prosecutors must  start seeking to charge back the costs involved, even into trust pending resolution.

Lawsuit Targets Billionaire OxyContin Family for Causing Opioid Epidemic

A landmark lawsuit is the first in the country to name the actual owners of Purdue Pharma who makes the deadly drug OxyContin for their role in the opioid epidemic.

Members of the Sackler family, who’ve made billions pushing their deadly OxyContin drug on the masses are arguably responsible for more deaths than any Mexican drug cartel.

Instead of being hunted down at their plush mansions by DEA agents, they are rubbing elbows with members of Congress. Now, however, for the first time, the family is being targeted by a landmark lawsuit for the damages they knowingly caused with their products.

On Tuesday, the state of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against the multi-billionaire Sackler family over the role their drug OxyContin has played in sparking one of the worst addiction and overdose epidemics in history.

The lawsuit accuses the company, Purdue Pharma, and its heirs of spinning a “web of illegal deceit” which fueled the deadly crisis in which America currently finds itself.

What sets this lawsuit apart from the numerous other lawsuits targeting opioid manufacturers — including several against Purdue — is that it has taken the landmark step of personally naming the company’s executives.

According to Maura Healy, Massachusetts state attorney general, the suit names 16 current and former executives and board members, including the chief executive, Craig Landau, and eight members across three generations of the Sackler family that wholly owns Purdue.

“Purdue Pharma and its executives built a multi-billion-dollar business based on deception and addiction. We’re suing,” Healey tweeted Tuesday.
As the Guardian reports, the lawsuit alleges Purdue deceived patients and doctors about the risks of opioids, pushed prescribers to keep patients on the drugs longer and aggressively targeted vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and veterans.

Their strategy was simple: the more drugs they sold, the more money they made, and the more people died,” Healey said on Tuesday.

On Tuesday, Purdue issued a statement in response to the lawsuit in which they denied all allegations.

“We share the attorney general’s concern about the opioid crisis. We are disappointed, however, that in the midst of good faith negotiations with many states, the Commonwealth has decided to pursue a costly and protracted litigation process,” the company said in a statement.

“We will continue to work collaboratively with the states toward bringing meaningful solutions.”

According to reports, in just the last decade, in the state of Massachusetts alone, the company sold 70 million doses of prescription opioids, bringing in more than half a billion in revenue.

“It was Purdue’s executives who led and directed this illegal business model, leading to addiction and deception to enrich a few while leaving a path of devastation and destruction in its wake,” Healey said.

According to Healey, more than 670 Massachusetts residents have died solely from the result of ingesting the Sackler family’s drugs.

Purdue, along with several other companies who knowingly pushed opioids on people who did not need them, is facing more than 300 lawsuits from city and county authorities across the country. However, this is the first one which goes after the individuals who became exceedingly wealthy from the sale of this drug.

According to the Guardian, the Sacklers being sued are: Theresa and Beverly, the widows of the brothers Mortimer and Raymond Sackler who built the company into the narcotics giant it is today; Ilene, Kathe and Mortimer David Alfons Sackler, three of Mortimer’s children; Jonathan and Richard Sackler, Raymond’s two sons; and David Sackler, Raymond’s grandson.

These family members and a number of their siblings and children are collectively worth an estimated $13bn, according to Forbes, with the vast bulk of the fortune generated from sales of OxyContin. Feuding family members have mostly declined to talk about the opioids crisis and avoid discussing their links to it.

As TFTP previously reported, Purdue Pharma, under the guidance of brothers Arthur, Raymond, and Mortimer Sackler, began a propaganda campaign to push their new drug, as described in The American Journal of Public Health, “The Promotion and Marketing of OxyContin: Commercial Triumph, Public Health Tragedy.”

One of the primary missions of Purdue Pharma was to identify the doctors across America prescribing the most pain medication and strategically marketed the drug directly to them as a safe alternative to other pain medications.

According to the LA Times:

“The Times’ investigation, published in July, disclosed that for more than a decade, an internal security team at Purdue monitored doctors and pharmacies it suspected of colluding with dealers and addicts. In the case of the L.A. ring, criminals set up a phony clinic near MacArthur Park in 2008 and worked with corrupt physicians and pharmacies to obtain pills over 18 months.

“A Purdue sales manager dispatched to investigate the high volume of prescriptions at the clinic found a rundown building thronged with rough men and urged supervisors to alert the Drug Enforcement Administration, saying she was “very certain this is an organized drug ring.”

“Despite her pleas and additional evidence suggesting that pills were pouring into the hands of criminals, company officials did not go to authorities until years later when the drug ring was out of business and its leaders under indictment. By then, 1.1 million pills had spilled into the illicit pipeline.”

These disturbing revelations came after a prior investigation that found Purdue maintained a secret Purdue database of 1,800 suspect doctors, but only about 10 percent of them were reported to law enforcement.

As doctors began to readily hand out this new drug, these high dose pills became a scourge across main street America. Drug users increasingly turned to OxyContin for the powerful high and euphoric effects, comparable to heroin, but which can reportedly last for over eight hours.

Instead of investigating the company for their overt and dangerous tactics, the government and establishment welcomed them into their ranks. Even after dozens of lawsuits exposing this corruption, in an entirely irresponsible and hypocritical move, the FDA approved a measure to give OxyContin to children.

The fact that some people are freely allowed to market potentially deadly drugs, while others are thrown in a cage for the same activity, seems to highlight that not all people are equal in the eyes of the state or the law. Hopefully, this landmark lawsuit will expose this insidious paradigm.

1960's 'Gargoyle' Attack in Southern Illinois


I have suspected for some time that the so called gargoyle is a non Terran crypt-id and likely intelligent.  This pretty well confirms just that.  There also must be many others who simply do not remember.

I wonder if a strong magnetic field will trigger lost memories as well?  That would save us a lot of aggravation.  We need to recover as many of these memories as possible simply because it is very common place and we need the data to properly understand what is happening around us.

What is also becoming clear recently is that full disclosure is close enough that they do not care to cover their tracks well..

1960's 'Gargoyle' Attack in Southern Illinois
Posted: 12 Jun 2018 01:18 PM PDT

The following comment was found on the Beyond Creepy YouTube page. It was made in reference to a discussion about Gargoyles:

“This guy (Nick Redfern), is telling the truth about this Gargoyle-looking thing back in the 60's because this thing paralyzed me one day when I was six, on a trail in the woods. After it was done with reading my brain for technology it let me go. It looked like a Gargoyle with huge bat wings. I lived in Alton, Illinois at the time, back in the sixties. This is true. This Gargoyle-bat looking thing erased my memory for over 40 years, then one day, I just started to remember to my horror.
 Because growing up on a farm in southern Illinois after moving from Alton, Illinois I never saw anything that would trigger my memory of that day when I was six years old.

Now, back to what triggered my memory of that day in Alton on the trail. I was in my late 40's when my friends were camping out on a dark cloudless night when, all of a sudden, I saw my first flying saucer. So I hollered to my three friends to quickly come here and look up where that I was pointing and they saw it too. It was very clear to see what it looked like. Saying the least, we were all amazed because none of us had ever seen a real flying saucer before. After the camping trip, I started to think about what my friends and what I had just seen. That's when it hit me like a ton of bricks of what happened to me back in the sixties when that bat-looking thing grabbed me by the back of my head and stopped me where I was just standing in the middle of the trail watching the older kids in front of me racing to the club house. They just kept on running and never looked back at me when I was stopped by this Gargoyle-bat-devil looking thing that had me paralyzed. Someone had the idea of racing to the club house that we all built one day but, no, I've never remembered anything about that day until I was well into my 40's. After that night my friends and I went camping when we all saw that flying saucer.

Things in this world are not like we think that they are or like we had hoped that they should be. My hopes are one day to be hypnotized to see if I have any memories of this Gargoyle thing's technology, because as he was reading my brain, I could see his too. So that being said, there's no telling what memory of its technology I have. Just remember this, never never go into the woods without a gun or a very long knife, or something for protection.” - Mary Ledbetter

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Marine Protected Areas Are Important. But Are They Working?

I have been on this topic for a long time and the world is slowly stumbling into this space.  We are al long way from best practice as yet.

Let us propose a thought experiment.  Establish a manged block of ocean, say the south China Sea which is actually a submerged continental land mass.  In this case a starting point would be to establish harvesting channels along side non harvesting channels.  Done right, this should allow a productive channel to naturally dump productive surpluses into the harvested channel.  sizing needs to be optimized but perhaps only a third of the area is ever harvest against a schedule that optimizes the economics.

There are plenty of variables involved here but the intent is to have the highest sustainable biomass along with the related harvest without producing productive deserts however temporary..  .

Marine Protected Areas Are Important. But Are They Working? 

The world won't meet international ocean conservation targets by 2020, so a team of scientists is looking at what's next for saving our seas. 

A view from Air Force One of Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the Pacific Ocean. Former President Barack Obama expanded the ocean reserve to be the largest marine protected area in 2016. 

Photograph by Saul Loeb, AFP/Getty Images

By Sarah Gibbens

PUBLISHED June 16, 2018

Every year National Geographic brings together explorers, scientists, and storytellers from around the world to share their discoveries and insights—along with their solutions for creating a more sustainable future. Learn more about the Explorers Festival and watch a live feed of the event. Read more explorer stories and join the conversation with #NatGeoFest.

You can think of a marine protected area like a boost of vitamin C taken at the onset of a cold. It may not cure you, but it can help you bounce back.

“A [protected] ecosystem tends to be more resistant to disturbance and it's more resilient—it comes back faster,” says Jane Lubchenco, now a marine ecologist at Oregon State University and formally the administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “It's not unlike your body. If you are immunocompromised, you're much more likely to come down with a cold or flu.”

These protected ocean spaces, when defended well, won't solve all the problems in the world's oceans, but they might give us a fighting chance against afflictions like climate change or overfishing. Studies have shown that completely closing a portion of the ocean off to activities like fishing and drilling helps keep wildlife populations healthy and increases biodiversity.

They also make headlines—declaring MPAs has been a growing trend in the past two decades, in part because the U.N. member countries are nearing a 2020 deadline to protect 10 percent of the world's oceans. It's a target unlikely to be met. The U.N. says that just under six percent of the world's oceans are protected, but one study published last March found that number is closer to 3.6 percent if you remove regions that have only been declared without any real changes.

So why are countries falling short of the goals they say are critical to meet? And what makes an MPA so necessary in the first place?


Exactly what people mean when they refer to a region as a marine protected area is unclear and often debated, sometimes hotly—and that's part of the problem, says Lubchenco.

“The lack of clarity around what 'MPA' means causes a lot of confusion,” she says, noting governments can't expect the same benefits from protected areas with looser protections. “What you get depends on what's allowed.”

It wasn't until February of this year that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature—a global organization responsible for classifying species as extinct, endangered, threatened, etc.—published a set of standards outlining that an MPA is a region managed explicitly for conservation.

Before, the onus was on individual countries to set their own standards. Even with the IUCN guidelines, an MPA can refer to anything from a region that's completely closed to a region that allows some commercial fishing. 

Why Are Marine Areas Worth Protecting?

“MPAs are not a panacea. They're not going to solve everything,” says Lubchenco. “But they're a powerful and underutilized tool.”

A study published in 2017 in the Journal of Marine Science found that no-take marine protected areas yield higher quantities of fish and more ecological diversity. For those who fish on the perimeters of MPAs, the spillover is lucrative.

They won't prevent climate change from occurring, but MPAs may help ecosystems bounce back after the effects of climate change are felt. But just how much they help is a matter of some scientific debate. 

In a study published last May in the journal Nature Climate Change, University of North Carolina biologist John Bruno found that even MPAs won't be able to weather warming temperatures and other impacts of climate change.

“MPAs are in big trouble until we tackle warming,” says Bruno. “To tackle climate change, we just have to reduce emissions. The science suggests really the only thing we can do is mitigate CO2 emissions.” 

Bruno is skeptical that MPAs can offer climate change resilience. He believes the biggest benefits are that different species are allowed to survive and grow in number, thus increasing biodiversity.

Lubcheno, however, thinks this biodiversity is exactly what could boost regions that do feel the pinch from climate change.

“As we are radically changing ocean ecosystems, the more sources of genetic variety we have, the most likely it is to be suited to a new climate,” says Lubchenco. She gives the example that some species of coral are heat tolerant, meaning they don't bleach and whither away like many other coral species do when subjected to warmer waters.

“We know there's genetic diversity for thermal tolerance, and the hope is some genotypes will make it through the bottleneck of these warmer waters. If you protected those in an MPA, it's more likely that those will become more important,” she adds.

In other words, when (not if) the ocean warms, MPAs may be the best chance at preserving the genetic material that can weather warmer waters.

MPA Map Makers

The world is already expected to fail at meeting its ocean conservation targets by 2020—so what happens next?

Lubchenco says policymakers need to recognize four protection levels, from fully safeguarded areas that don't allow any sort of human take like fishing or mining, to areas that are only minimally protected and allow commercial activity. Clarifying the type of MPA, she says, will help determine what the benefits will be and how the parks are enforced.

Scientists are also trying to figure out where they can get the biggest bang of their buck.

Should MPAs be established in areas at high risk of environmental damage, or is protection more effective in already pristine environments, for example.

A group of ecologists, climate scientists, economists, and data scientists from National Geographic's Pristine Seas initiative are beginning an ambitious project to map exactly where and when the world should create more. (Lubcheno is among those contributing to the effort.)

They'll look at environmental hot spots than can help create tangible benefits like biodiversity, food availability from fisheries, and climate change resilience.

Convening the group is National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence Enric Sala, who says, “Success for this project is to come up with a map with areas that, if preserved, will save the life in the ocean, will help us produce food, and will help us mitigate climate change.”

After knowing where to place MPAs, Sala and his research team plan to take their findings to local governments in the hopes that it will help inform policy.

A meeting to kick off the initiative was held in April, and the group plans to publish their findings in a scientific journal by summer of next year.

It's a massive effort that the team hopes will ultimately help protect parts of the ocean that are imperiled by human activity.

Lubcheno points out that much of the technology that allowed industries to fish or drill for oil in far places were developed after WWII. She sees establishing MPAs as taking the ocean back to the way it existed before humans roamed the high seas with such abandon.

“The ocean used to be a de facto MPA,” she adds. “We need to re-establish protected areas because we got things out of balance.”

Ayahuasca, the Psychedelic Antidepressant?



We are now starting to see the science come out and it is clear that it helps.  This report is a good look at all that.  I have little doubt now that all out so called psychedelics will prove potentially beneficial to the restoration of brain function.

Misuse has deeply clouded the whole  field and we have lost over two generations of science on this.  We will recover that quickly.

What is blindingly clear is that these drugs are effective and must be used under strict protocols because they are effective.  Now we are learning how they are effective.  Resolving depression is apparent for several of these substances.  Healing brain damage is also apparent as well and we are now learning how.

PTSD needs to be cured and it now appears possible.

Ayahuasca, the Psychedelic Antidepressant?

By Neuroskeptic | June 17, 2018 6:09 am

A traditional Amazonian psychedelic brew is an effective and rapid-acting antidepressant, according to a paper just published. But the new study revives some long-standing questions.

Ayahuasca is a mixture of herbs, traditionally used for spiritual and therapeutic purposes. The main active ingredients are N,N-DMT, a potent psychedelic, and several molecules that inhibit the enzyme MAO. The MAO inhibitors serve to prevent the N,N-DMT from being broken down by the digestive system, allowing it to enter the bloodstream and cause hallucinations and other alterations of consciousness.

In the present study, Brazilian researchers Fernanda Palhano-Fontes and colleagues gave ayahuasca to 14 patients with chronic depression who hadn’t responded to other antidepressants. Another 15 depressed patients received a placebo drink.

The ayahuasca group showed a strong improvement in their depressive symptoms, which persisted for at least a week (the last assessment was on day 7). The patients given placebo also improved but this effect was modest and short-lived. This graph shows the MADRS depression scale scores during the trial (lower is better):


Palhano-Fontes et al. conclude that ayahuasca could be a safe and effective antidepressant. No serious side effects occured, although “the ayahuasca session was not necessarily a pleasant experience”:
In fact, some patients reported the opposite, as the experience was accompanied by much psychological distress. Most patients reported nausea, and about 57% have vomited, although vomiting is traditionally not considered a side effect of ayahuasca, but rather part of a purging process.
In my view, this is a promising study, and well-designed. For instance, Palhano-Fontes et al. went to some lengths to make the placebo brew look, taste and smell like the real thing. They even added zinc sulfate to make the placebo cause gastrointestinal distress, like the ayahuasca (although no-one on placebo vomited.)

However – and regular readers can probably guess what I’m going to say at this point – I think it’s possible that ayahuasca’s antidepressant effects were themselves a kind of placebo response. This is because, as expected, the ayahuasca caused powerful psychedelic effects, such as ‘altered perception’ and ‘transcedence’.

Such potent subjective experiences could lead patients to have confidence in the treatment and thus drive placebo effects, if combined with expectations that ayahuasca will be beneficial. A profound experience could trigger improvement in other ways, as well, such as by giving patients a new perspective on their own mental state.


Now, in the case of ayahuasca, this ‘psychological’ interpretation of the antidepressant effect is not necessarily a problem. I think most people (including the traditional ayahuasca users) already assume that the psychedelic experience is part of the therapeutic process.

However, let’s consider another mind-altering drug which is being researched as a rapid-acting antidepressant: ketamine. Ketamine, much like ayahuasca, produces powerful antidepressant effects when compared to placebo, and in my view this may well be because of psychological processes, including placebo-like ones. Ketamine and ayahuasca produce very different experiences, but in both cases the subjective effects are intense, profound and unmistakable.

The difference between ketamine and ayahuasca is that many ketamine researchers believe that the antidepressant properties of ketamine represent a direct pharmacological effect, mediated by the drug’s effect on glutamate signalling; on this view, the subjective effects of ketamine are a mere epiphenomenon.

Palhano-Fontes et al. do discuss possible specific pharmacological pathways that might underly the antidepressant effects of ayahuasca (e.g. sigma-1 receptors), but they also acknowledge that
Visions are common during the effects of ayahuasca, and are most frequent with the eyes closed… It has been suggested that visions may play an important role in the therapeutic effect of ayahuasca, as they may help bringing clarity to introspective events
I wonder if almost any drug that produces psychedelic or other profound subjective effects would perform as well as ketamine or ayahuasca. 

It would be interesting to carry out a comparative trial with (say) ketamine, LSD, mescaline, ayahuasca and a few others. I would predict that, regardless of the specific pharmacology of each drug, the intensity of subjective effects would be the best predictor of outcome.

'Whatever this animal is, it can read my mind!' -

This report is extremely important. I had come to the conclusion that the large smart critters out there have the ability to control our ability to see them by mind to mind influence.   However, this came about reviewing many reports in which that provided the best explanation.  It was a long way from been directly observed simply because no observer is expecting this.

This report does exactly that. We never learn what the creature is except it is noisy and angry and very much in their face.  Better yet it responds to the observer's thoughts of using his shotgun by getting more angry.

The good news is that the creature shows restraint.  No one Got hurt.  That makes it a likely Big Foot although we cannot count out the Dogman or Giant Sloth.  We are long overdue to make direct contact with this lineage and to learn how to cooperate with them...   .

'Whatever this animal is, it can read my mind!' --

 Saturday, June 16, 2018
'Whatever this animal is, it can read my mind!'

“In my encounter with Sasquatch/Dogman(?), it was screaming right in my face (note there were no trees for 75 yards). AND I COULD NOT SEE A THING!!! I had accidentally caught one in a trap; he destroyed the trap then followed me home. When it got dark, he came to my house screaming. When the whole family went out on the porch to see what it was, we could hear it right in front of us but could see nothing! Every time I thought of asking my father if I could take his shotgun to see what this thing was the screams got five times louder. I said to myself, 'Whatever this animal is, it can read my mind!' This is a true life experience that happened 55 years ago (1962). Since then I have had one other experience where I knew they were right next to me but I could not see them!" - PeterBerian

Congress is proposing big changes to the National Organic Standards Board – and farmers are raising the alarm

Yes do raise the alarm.  We have seen major top down regulatory initiatives converted into monopoly protection schemes although in fairness i expect this to end abruptly under Trump.
 First off, the Organic system we have is not broken at all.  In fact it is becoming robustly healthy as the move to organic methods rapidly expands. It simply does not need to be fixed.. 
That the majors want to be able to dick with the rule making system is no surprise.  In the end though i expect it to be futile.  The reason for this is that the bad news regarding non organic methods keeps expanding and is building a broad constituency that is paying attention.
There is no such thing as organic GMOs although strangely they could prove welcome.  After all we have plenty of true GMO well accepted and clearly successful.  In fact all our nine thousand year old food staples have proved to be GMOs in the form of polyploidys which means someone doubled the DNA size in order to expand the grain size.  
Yet exceptional care is desired and the roundup scheme is the clear counjter example . .
Congress is proposing big changes to the National Organic Standards Board – and farmers are raising the alarm

Saturday, June 09, 2018 by: Vicki Batts
Tags: agriculture, Congress, Farm Bill, farming, food items, food supply, groceries, harvest, National Organic Standards Board, organic farmers, organic food, organics

(Natural News) For health-minded consumers, knowing that the “organic” label is something they can trust is of utmost importance. But now, it seems lawmakers are seeking to make changes to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). And as you might suspect, these are the kinds of changes that could spell disaster for organic food as we know it.

The NOSB was created back in 1990 as a supervising body for the National Organic Program. The organization is made up of 15 volunteer members. Current members include organic producers, environmentalists and conservationists, consumer and public interest advocates, and a scientist, among others. The board member requirements were designed to ensure representation is balanced, and to inspire trust in the NOSB overall. The panel must be comprised of a certain number of individuals from each area, and by design, this is supposed to help protect organics against special interest groups like the agriculture industry.

But all that could change, under a new scheme designed to give politicians (and perhaps indirectly, Big Ag) more power than the board.

Is Congress going to destroy organic food as we know it?

Congress, in their infinite wisdom, has proposed two major changes to the NOSB — changes that would ultimately weaken the power of the NOSB, if not render the board obsolete entirely. What are these harebrained ideas from our elected officials?

As Civil Eats reports, Congress would, for one, like the NOSB to allow employees of organic farmers or producers to be permitted to have board positions. And secondly, Congress has proposed that they begin “allowing politicians to sidestep the NOSB’s authority to approve substances such as the fertilizers and pesticides used in organic production.” reports that the 2018 Farm Bill would also require the NOSB to consult with the EPA and FDA “when considering whether to allow a pesticide or any other non-organic substance approved by those agencies in organic.” Further, the bill would give the Secretary of Agriculture the power to put pressure on the NOSB to “expedite” their review of industry petitions to allow the use of a “non-organic post-harvest handling substance” in organic foods, provided the product is “related to food safety.”

So, how long do you think it will take some bought-off politician to quietly approve a toxic product from Bayer-Monsanto for use in organic food?

Criticisms of the new bill abound

For consumers and members of the organic industry alike, this latest move by Congress is seriously disturbing. Not only are they trying to take power away from the NOSB, but they are trying to corrupt the organization and are literally paving the way for special interests groups to have their way with organic food.

The 2018 Farm Bill, titled Agriculture and Nutrition Act (HR2) has already been given an “F” from the National Organic Coalition. The coalition declared that the new measures proposed by Congress are “unnecessary and weaken the authority of the NOSB” — a sentiment many people share, no doubt.

Proponents of the Farm Bill claim that the NOSB is a dinosaur, holding organic farmers back from the latest “innovations.” Others have been critical of the fact that the NOSB primarily consists of small farmers and business owners, claiming that this leaves larger operations (like Del Monte or Driscoll’s) “unrepresented.” But whether or not these concerns are fair is debatable; large-scale farms that are new to the organic industry may be less concerned with upholding the integrity of organic food.

Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, commented, “There are so many large companies getting involved with organic that do not have the history with organic, and that makes them less than optimal members of the NOSB.

“They don’t have the insight into organic practices,” he contended.

“If a Del Monte employee replaces a small-scale family farmer, for example, you’re undercutting the integrity of the organic seal,” Feldman added. Feldman was an NOSB member from 2010 to 2015. He added that many people who are critical of organics are “really steeped” in the pesticide industry.

Ultimately, the 2018 Farm Bill seems dead-set on undermining the integrity of organic food, and the government is once again attacking food freedom. Learn more about what you’re eating at

Sources for this article include:

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court

Far too often, Americans think that they live in an information cocoon impenetrable to outsiders and are rudely shocked to discover that outsiders can be even better informed.  I think that happened here.

No one calculated if the Russians so indicted had a good motive to show up and it is obvious that someone did and decided to have some fun.

How would you respond upon discovering that you had been charged in absentia for a bogus crime merely to save an investigator's butt.  If money was no object, the temptation to turn the tables would be overwhelming.  That is exactly what happened here and now Mueller must come up with evidence that never existed..

Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court

By Tyler Durden

Zero Hedge

June 13, 2018

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, according to Bloomberg.

Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American voters.

The special counsel’s office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin’s active “interference operations” against the United States.

“The substance of the government’s evidence identifies uncharged individuals and entities that the government believes are continuing to engage in interference operations like those charged in the present indictment,” prosecutors wrote.

Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would “allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,” according to the filing.

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors wrote. –Bloomberg

Mueller also accused Concord of “knowingly and intentionally” conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.

And Concord Management decided to fight it…

As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn’t see that coming – and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.

I don’t think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch Project.

One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area attorneys — Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm — filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. –Powerline Blog

Politico’s Gerstein notes that by defending against the charges, “Concord could force prosecutors to turn over discovery about how the case was assembled as well as evidence that might undermine the prosecution’s theories.”

In a mad scramble to put the brakes on the case, Mueller’s team tried to delay the trial – saying that Concord never formally accepted the court summons related to the case, wrapping themselves in a “cloud of confusion” as Powerline puts it. “Until the Court has an opportunity to determine if Concord was properly served, it would be inadvisable to conduct an initial appearance and arraignment at which important rights will be communicated and a plea entertained.”

The Judge, Dabney Friedrich – a Trump appointee, didn’t buy it – denying Mueller a delay in the high-profile trial.

The Russians hit back – filing a response to let the court know that “[Concord] voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure], and further intends to enter a plea of not guilty. [Concord] has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel’s motion is pettifoggery.”

And the Judge agreed…

A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller’s request to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off the scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms charged in the case. –Politico

In other words, Mueller was denied the opportunity to kick the can down the road, forcing him to produce the requested evidence or withdraw the indictment, potentially jeopardizing the PR aspect of the entire “Trump collusion” probe.

And now Mueller is pointing to Russian “interference operations” in a last-ditch effort.

Of note, Facebook VP of advertising, Rob Goldman, tossed a major hand grenade in the “pro-Trump” Russian meddling narrative in February when he fired off a series of tweets the day of the Russian indictments. Most notably, Goldman pointed out that the majority of advertising purchased by Russians on Facebook occurred after the election, were hardly pro-Trump, and they was designed to “sow discord and divide Americans”, something which Americans have been quite adept at doing on their own ever since the Fed decided to unleash a record class, wealth, income divide by keeping capital markets artificially afloat at any cost.