Mandela, When number 46664 is no more


Now that the health of former ANC leader Nelson Mandela (94) is deteriorating, I ask myself – and I think rightly so – what is going to happen with the white farmers in South Africa. We do not read so much about it in the media because after all they are only whites. Genocide of other peoples and cultures is much more interesting.
Since apartheid was abolished in South Africa is a lot has changed. This time it’s the white farmers turn to get killed, but the Western mainstream press remains silent … It’s politically correct to kill whites these days so …

Nelson Mandela

Mandela is known by the majority of the world as the man who was incarcerated for years because he fought for the freedom of his country and his countrymen. And that we should feel sorry for him or even find him noble because things like these are written about him:

“This is a man who earned respect, in his nonviolent struggle against injustice and racism. In his humble honesty, he is a model for all politicians. His name will echo in history as one of the great ones of the earth “(source – 4th comment).

The ANC and Mandela are big supporters of Marxism-Leninism and aren’t shy to use violence to achieve their goal.
People all over the world wish him strength and recovery. Some thank him for what he has done. But no one is talking about the real Mandela who was not for nothing in a cell on Robben Island, sentenced to life imprisonment.

“In 1964 he was convicted for his involvement in the Rivonia gang. This gang plotted assassinations against whites across South Africa, but especially against leaders of the Afrikaners and their families. In this ‘Rivonia Trial’ due to his involvement he got life. ” (Source)

Mandela knew even back then that the whites were necessary for the economy in South Africa. That alone is the reason they are still there. It has even got Mandela the Nobel Peace Prize (1993). A ridiculous price, that every terrorist on this planet can get. As long as one fights for justice all means are justified to arrive at the goal, unfortunately.

ANC

The ANC is nothing more than a terrorist organization were terror and corruption prevail. What about the car fire killings in 2003, during President Tabo Mbeki’s reign, Mandela’s successor and also a member of the ANC. What about the bombing in Pretoria with 19 deaths?
Another sweetie from the South African club, but democratically elected, is Jacob Zuma the current president of South Africa and fellow party member of Mandela and Mbeki. We all know his song called Kill the Boer.

The ANC is a feeble excuse for a party, meant for people who want to give in to their animal instincts. The future of South Africa in the hands of this kind of people. The future of their own people, the white farmers, but also that of the South African economy. And if we look at other African countries where the local population is in power, it’s not a hopeful prospect

Every coin has two sides

Of course it’s not just only misery the ANC and Mandela have brought to South Africa. Apartheid was abolished and South Africa is almost free from the colonial mindset brought by white Westerners.

The white farmers who still live there, should we see them then as collateral damage?

By Mike Tomale @miketomale

What If You’re A Skinny Type 2 Diabetic?


As usual an excellent piece reprinted by Steve Milloy. Nothing to add.

JunkScience.com

It is estimated that 80 percent of type 2 diabetics are overweight. It’s not clear who came up with this figure, or–more importantly—how it was determined. Perhaps it is tied in with modern medicine’s love for cataloging risk factors, especially simplistic ones. Cynics might go even further, suggesting that risk factors do a much better job of selling drugs than preventing diseases, but we digress.

View original post 801 more words

Doug Hoffman: Solar photovoltaics failing worldwide


To me it’s very basic: “There is no such thing as a free lunch”+”If it sounds to good to be true it is”. If you’d install high quality installation the installation cost would be cost prohibitive, if you install China grade the installation won’t last long enough to return your investment let alone be profitable. Now that subsidies are being cut and the real price has to be paid, and you get the real market spot price for the energy you put back into the grid instead of the subsidized price these forms of energy production are the most expensive and unreliable on the market today.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

solar_money_houseFrom the Resilient Earth:

Everyone has heard the pitch for solar energy, install solar cells on your roof and get free electricity from the Sun. Sure they cost a lot up front, but they will last 25-30 years—which just happens to be about the payback time given current electricity rates from coal, nuclear and natural gas. So when solar panels start failing in two or three years the economics of solar power collapses like a house of cards. That is exactly what is happening around the world. Cheap Chinese solar panels have flooded the market and are now starting to fail at an alarming rate. Solar panels covering a warehouse roof in Los Angeles were only two years into their expected 25-year life span when they began to fail. Worldwide, solar power adopters are reporting similar problems and say the $77 billion solar industry is facing a quality crisis.

View original post 225 more words

Common ground for many psychiatric disorders


A while ago the UCL institute of Cognitive Neuroscience ran an ‘ask a neuroscientist’ section via twitter. So i duly posted a question that was on my mind for a long time.
“what are the fetal white matter correlates of schizophrenia and autism?” Actually i wanted to ask “what are the fetal white matter correlates between many psychiatric disorders” but i guessed that that question was to broad so it’d be ignored for sure. To my surprise it did get an answer, which made me happy, but it also didn’t answer the question which had the opposite effect. It’s the first question (un)answered in this vid:

Why i asked this is because to me (after reading untold papers for decades) it’s crystal clear that a large part of psychiatric disorders stem from a different layout of the basic structure that later directs the composition of the brain. At the stage that white matter starts to get formed it lays down the endresult, as a in a building the foundation determines the final internal structure of the building.

When white matter strands start their work and the whole complex growth of neural pathways commences, it’s that layout which shapes the structure by giving less or more prevalence to certain information transmissions thereby regulating the forming of pathways. In doing so the white matter also influences the forming of grey matter due to the regulation of signal since more grey matter will form at places where signals are abundant and vice versa.

This complex feedback system then causes a brain to form.

So when the basic white matter has some slightly differing structure logically the endproduct will be reflecting those differences. When learning that the famous Rain Man instead of being an autist was actually suffering from agenesis of the corpus callosum things fell into place.

Since the fetal white matter directly influences the structure of the CC and that in turn influences how the hemispheres develop it’s a short jump to thinking that many a psychiatric disorder is in fact a variation on a theme: white matter influenced brain formation.

Looking at Schizophrenia and Aspergers one thing is clear, they are very much alike in certain aspects. Alike enough that in the DSM IV Schizophrenia had to be excluded in order to diagnose Aspergers. Looking further down the list actually quite a few disorders could be said to have those aspects in common, the problems with social functioning. ASPD for example comes to mind.

Since this part of mammals is such an integral part of their being, any lasting variation in it must have evolutionary origin. With a malfunctioning social brain a mammal isn’t likely to reproduce. Since the malfunctions seem to increase rather than diminish there should be a environmental feedback which keeps it going.

Going way out on limb here, how about what we (well, they not me) see as psychiatric disorders are actually evolutionary paths to get rid of the archaic primary control of the limbic system? This system is completely out of it’s depth in a complex society, which we now know exists for 10s of 1000’s of years, long enough to have started an evolutionary reaction since that system is contraproductive. It lays at the root of 99% of conflicts,wars,misery known to man.

It is just not feasible that the feedback of the rationale doesn’t get to influence in the long run behavior, which in turn over time influences genetic variations.

Putting the ‘Activist’ in Scientist


Yep, that was pretty naive to assume scientists were some kind of superhumans, devoid of the squabbles of mere mortals. Devoid of emotion, pure rationality drives them in the quest for knowledge. Nope. Just the same silly meanspirited narrowminded backstabbing lying manipulating miserable beings like everyone else

Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

29 people have submitted a statement regarding the Keystone Pipeline. Purely political opinions are being camouflaged as ‘scientific judgment.’  

I grew up thinking that scientists were the source of untainted knowledge – that I should pay attention to what they said because they were society’s truth tellers. It was a scientist’s job to deliver the naked, unadorned, inescapable facts.

The manner in which various political factions and vested interests might later attempt to use those facts wasn’t a scientist’s concern. He was above the fray. Integrity shone from his brow. He was incorruptible.

How pathetically naive I was.

Yesterday Inside Climate News, a website dedicated to unabashedly activist journalism, published a story titled Scientists: Key Parts of State Dept Keystone Review Are ‘Without Merit. It tells us that 29 people have submitted a joint statement about the proposed Keystone Pipeline, which is intended to ship Alberta oil across…

View original post 685 more words

Psychiatry Is Not Based On Science


This piece written by PHILIP HICKEY, PH.D. would have been what i would have written if i weren’t so lazy. It’s deadly sober accuracy describes the fallacies of psychiatry (and in my view, psychology also) perfectly. This post by Phil should be in all newspapers, journals and whatever so humanity can get some counterweight against the ‘everyone is crazy except us professionals’ meme that sweeps the world. Hardly a day goes by and one doesn’t see an event where a ‘psychological support team’ is present to caress the poor tender souls of the onlookers, or a new mental ‘disease’ gets focused on to scare people in taking their unruly children to a psychiatrist to get drugged.


by Phil on June 1, 2013

On May 27, David Brooks, a New York Times columnist, wrote a piece on psychiatry called Heroes of Uncertainty.

It’s an interesting and somewhat contradictory article. Here are some quotes:

“As the handbook’s [DSM-5] many critics have noted, psychiatrists use terms like ‘mental disorder’ and ‘normal behavior,’ but there is no agreement on what these concepts mean.”

“What psychiatrists call a disease is usually just a label for a group of symptoms.”

This is beginning to look like an anti-psychiatry article. But then:

“Psychiatrists are not heroes of science. They are heroes of uncertainty, using improvisation, knowledge and artistry to improve people’s lives.”

“They certainly are not inventing new diseases in order to medicalize the moderate ailments of the worried well.”

So what we’ve got is a kind of middle of the road article. Psychiatrists are basically good guys (heroes, actually), but their subject isn’t as scientific as they claim.

If I were a psychiatrist, I think I would have just left it alone. But the not-scientific jab had to be addressed, and psychiatrists Jeffrey Lieberman and Jack Drescher weighed in with comments.

Dr. Lieberman is president of the APA and a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University.

He opens his rebuttal with this paragraph:

“While I share David Brooks’s frustration over the slow progress in finding the biological causes of mental disorders, I am concerned about his opinions on the scientific basis of psychiatry and the clinical care that it provides to millions of people. The brain has proved to be infinitely more complex than any other organ in the human body, and the functions that mediate behavior are the most highly evolved in the animal kingdom.”

There’s a lot of spin in here. Firstly, David Brooks, in his article, never expressed any “frustration over the slow progress in finding the biological causes of mental disorders.” What he said was:

“Furthermore, psychiatric phenomena are notoriously protean in nature. Medicines seem to work but then stop. Because the mind is an irregular cosmos, psychiatry hasn’t been able to make the rapid progress that has become normal in physics and biology.”

What he’s saying here is that mental phenomena are inherently too complicated, irregular, and changing to ever yield the kind of scientific certainty that one finds in physics and biology. And that’s what Dr. Lieberman can’t let go of, because that is their Holy Grail – that “one day” we’ll know the underlying biological causes of “mental illnesses,” and psychiatrists will finally be real doctors.

Back to Dr. Lieberman’s quote:

“I am concerned about his opinions on the scientific basis of psychiatry and the clinical care that it provides to millions of people.”

This is the spin mechanism known as juxtaposition. The “scientific basis of psychiatry” is juxtaposed (irrelevantly) with “clinical care…to millions of people”. We’re good guys toiling in the trenches of human suffering; therefore our work must be scientifically based! It’s not real logic. It’s Madison Avenue logic, and psychiatrists are getting better at it every day. It’s the equivalent of politicians arranging to have themselves photographed kissing babies or shaking hands with soldiers in wartime.

“The brain has proved to be infinitely more complex than any other organ in the human body…”

Note the phrase “has proved to be” – like this is something that psychiatrists have just discovered. They went looking for their neurochemical causes of complex human behavior, and guess what – the brain is more complex than they had thought! For decades they and their psycho-pharma allies have been telling us that they had it all figured out. But now the beans are spilled. So will they come clean and say: “Guys, we’re a bunch of shysters who have been deceiving you for decades?” No. The brain was just more complex than they had thought. The scale of complexity of the brain has been known for at least 100 years. But perhaps they didn’t teach that in psychiatry school!

Here’s more spin from Dr. Lieberman:

DSM- 5 “… reflects the current state of our knowledge, limited as it may be. This does not negate its value in helping clinicians evaluate and treat patients, as well as the fact that it can and will continue to be improved as subsequent research enables us to better understand the biology of the brain and mental illness.”

There it is again: the “biology of the brain and mental illness.” Still the Holy Grail.

Jack Drescher, MD, is a psychiatrist, and served on one of the DSM-5 work groups. Here are two quotes:

“Like the rest of humanistic medicine, a science of the mind should never lose its heart.”

This sounds good, but says nothing.

“In comparing psychiatry with astronomy, however, Mr. Brooks should remember that in 2006, the International Astronomical Union voted on whether Pluto is a planet. Even astronomy, the hardest of sciences dealing with the most irrefutable of facts, is dependent on its human practitioners’ subjectivity and interpretation of data.”

This is very high order spin. The message that a casual reader would take from this paragraph is that psychiatry is just as scientific as astronomy – “the hardest of sciences.”

The International Astronomical Union voted to designate Pluto a dwarf planet instead of a planet, but no astronomer ever imagined that this had any significance other than administrative. NASA called the shuttle a “vehicle.” They could have called it a “spaceship.” It wouldn’t have made the slightest difference. A botanist can call a plant by its Latin name or its English name. It doesn’t affect anything in the world of botany. But when psychiatrists vote, for instance, to expand their “diagnosis” of depression to routinely include bereavement, this is an entirely different matter, and highlights that the entire taxonomic system is arbitrary and subjective.

A biological analogy of the DSM voting system would be if biologists voted that henceforth geese would be swans. They could vote all they liked, but that will not make geese swans. Biological classification is based on reality, whereas psychiatric classification is based on the subjective perceptions and votes of psychiatrists.

An analogy from astronomy would be if the astronomers had voted to make Pluto a star.

As we often find when we analyze the psychiatric spin, Dr. Drescher is either not too bright or very deceptive.

CONCLUSION

Psychiatry is under attack for its spurious concepts and its destructive, disempowering practices. It presents no defense based on logic or facts, because it has none. It’s a sandcastle, and the tide has turned.

Last updated by Phil at June 1, 2013.
Original Post by Original Writer