Their seriously flawed analysis (which, sadly, is being used by the US Preventive Services Task Force to update its recommendations on supplement use) was widely reported by the media.2
Now, the attack against vitamin supplements has heated up yet again—this time they're trying to quell the idea that vitamin D, specifically, has any useful purpose for the average person.
Numerous media sources3,4 have trumpeted the findings of a recent meta-analysis,5 which claims that vitamin D supplements are not only useless against heart disease, stroke and cancer, but may do more harm than good, and that further investigation into vitamin D would likely be "pointless"! According to the authors of the study:
"Available evidence does not lend support to vitamin D supplementation and it is very unlikely that the results of a future6 single randomized clinical trial will materially alter the results from current meta-analyses."
What's more, they also found that people taking vitamin D supplements had anincreased risk for hip fracture, which prompted Professor Karl Michaëlsson, a researcher at Uppsala University in Sweden, to publish a call for stricter labeling on vitamin D supplements. In his editorial,7 which accompanied the featured analysis, he writes:
"Without stringent indications -- i.e. supplementing those without true vitamin D insufficiency -- there is a legitimate fear that vitamin D supplementation might actually cause net harm."
It should be noted that the dose given to the women in the study with increased fracture rates was 500,000 IU, all in one dose. This is an intake the body cannot absorb and process properly and the toxicity of the dose itself was not a surprise to the vitamin D researchers. The increased fractures were seen shortly after the huge dose but the rate declined in later months.
Research Shows Vitamin D Sufficiency Is Critical for Good Health
Meanwhile, a robust and rapidly growing body of research clearly shows thatvitamin D is absolutely critical for good health and disease prevention, in part due to the fact that it influences about 10 percent of all your genes.
Just one example of an important gene that vitamin D up-regulates is your ability to fight infections and chronic inflammation. It also produces over 200 anti-microbial peptides, the most important of which is cathelicidin, a naturally occurring broad-spectrum antibiotic.
Since the early 2000s, scientific investigations into the effects of vitamin D have ballooned. By the end of 2012, there were nearly 34,000 published studies on the effects of vitamin D, and there are well over 800 references in the medical literature showing vitamin D's effectiveness against cancer alone. According to Carole Baggerly, founder of GrassrootsHealth, as much as 90 percent of ordinary breast cancer may in fact be related to vitamin D deficiency.
Granted, the featured review is rebuking vitamin D supplements only. They're not trying to claim that vitamin D deficiency doesn't have any repercussions for your health. On the contrary, it supports the notion that sun exposure is your best source of vitamin D, as your skin naturally creates it in response to UV radiation.
However, many people, especially those living in northern latitudes, are simply unable to get the necessary sun exposure needed to maintain clinically relevant vitamin D levels of 50-70 ng/ml year-round.
Vitamin D Synthesis is Unlikely During Winter Months...
The US map below shows the likelihood of vitamin D synthesis during February. My Vitamin D Resource page also contains maps showing vitamin D synthesis in various US states for the rest of the year. As you'll see, even if you live in the southernmost states, optimal vitamin D synthesis will not occur until June!
I firmly believe that UVB exposure is a far healthier way to optimize your vitamin D levels, but if you can't use the sun or a safe tanning bed then it is best to use an oral supplement, but please recognize that it's an inferior choice.
Vitamin D supplements are also among the least expensive, and the health impact of deficiency is so broad and detrimental that it simply makes little sense to scare people away from vitamin D supplements—unless you've got some ulterior reason for doing so.
As I will discuss below, you DO benefit from taking other nutrient ratios into account when you use a vitamin D supplement though, which makes supplementation a bit more complex, compared to raising your levels through sun exposure.
Vitamin D Supplements Under Fire
The analysis, published in the journal Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology,8 looked at 40 previously published randomized controlled trials of vitamin D supplements, with or without calcium, concluding that vitamin D supplements do not reduce the risk of heart attacks, strokes, cancers, or bone fractures in the general population by more than 15 percent.
What's more, the researchers claim the effects of vitamin D supplementation are below a "futility threshold," (not a surprise when the average dose was 400-800 IU/day, already demonstrated to be ineffective) effectively rendering further investigations unnecessary. Attacks have been repeatedly made against nutritional supplements and the value of nutrition for disease prevention in general, but we may have reached a new low. WebProNews.com even went so far as to say that:
"Further studies show unborn babies do not get any benefits from the vitamin when taken by pregnant women."
The studies were not referenced so it is impossible to understand what led them to this mistake, but I'm firmly convinced that this is incorrect and may lead many mothers completely astray. Your baby will be born with approximately 60-70 percent of whatever your (the mother's) vitamin D level is.
According to Dr. David Ayoub, who has testified in hundreds of cases of infantile rickets misdiagnosed as child abuse, mothers who are deficient in vitamin D, with levels around 18-19 ng/ml, have a significantly greater risk of having children with infantile rickets.
Make no mistake about it: optimizing your vitamin D levels during pregnancy is absolutely CRITICAL for your baby's development. Granted, your best bet is to make sure you're getting plenty of sun exposure. Unfortunately, women in general are heavily indoctrinated to fear sun exposure, which has led to a virtual epidemic of vitamin D deficiency.
Another study9 by the same New Zealand research team, published in October of last year, concluded that people with vitamin D deficiency and evidence of bone loss are the only ones that should be taking vitamin D. This too flies in the face of mounting research from premier vitamin D research organizations such as GrassrootsHealth.10
The Vitamin D Controversy Heats Up
In the featured video at the top of this article, Carole Baggerly interviews Dr. Cedric Garland of UCSD Moores Cancer Center about this latest meta-review.11 Another prominent vitamin D expert and researcher, Dr. Michael F. Holick, M.D., PhD., author ofThe Vitamin D Solution, has also dismissed the analysis, calling it flawed and "silly." (Incidentally, Dr. Holick is the person responsible for identifying the major circulating form of vitamin D—25-hydroxyvitamin D3—which is the form of vitamin D doctors typically measure now to assess vitamin D status.) According to Dr. Garland:
"This meta-analysis is nothing new and is already obsolete, since it is mainly based on old papers that used too little vitamin D to expect any effect. A New Zealand study saying we should only supplement people with vitamin D deficiency and evidence of bone loss is equally wrong. Virtually everyone in New Zealand, and most adults in the US, are vitamin D deficient by modern criteria, being below 32 ng/ml.
The reality is that we now know that they are deficient with regard to extraskeletal effects of 25(OH)D if their serum level is below 40 ng/ml. These papers should be disregarded as obsolete work. We are moving into a new era of using vitamin D3 in doses no less that 4,000 IU/day for people aged 9 years and older... Studies using less than 4,000 IU/day are on the verge of obsolescence."
Why the Latest Vitamin D Analysis Is Meritless
Drs. Holick and Garland both point out the futility of looking at studies using subclinical doses of vitamin D—they're not going to show results, and for very obvious reasons. Robust evidence shows that 400 IUs of vitamin D per day is nowhere near enough. That's only about one-tenth of the effective dose! The authors of the analysis also did not include any epidemiological research, and completely ignored the most truly relevant randomized controlled trial on vitamin D and cancer.
Research published in 2007 by Lappe et.al.12 showed that after four years of follow up, there was a 77% cancer risk reduction in women who received 1,100 IUs of vitamin D and 1,450 mg calcium per day, and, achieved a serum level of approximately 40 ng/ml. The serum level is the marker we are aiming for. The serum level of those who received either a placebo or calcium by itself was approximately 30 ng/ml. If a 77 percent risk reduction is not relevant, I don't know what is.
"The Lappe et al. study and the many supportive epidemiological studies that preceded and followed it should prove to even the most ill-informed skeptic that vitamin D prevents most cancer," Dr. Garland says. "It is incredible that the authors of this review virtually disregarded all of the relevant epidemiology this randomized controlled clinical trial.
Further, according to Dr. Leo Baggerly, Sr. Research Scientist at GrassrootsHealth, "the authors of this review 'reanalyzed' the results of the Lappe study in a completely invalid manner and included their 'corrected' results in their summary, while virtually disregarding the actual study results."
The analysis' conclusion on vitamin D is in stark contrast to an ever growing number of studies showing that vitamin D (with or without calcium) has tremendous protective effect against cancer specifically. For example, another 2007 study published in theAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine13 concluded that a serum 25(OH)D level of more than 33 ng/mL was associated with a 50 percent lower risk of colorectal cancer.
A recent Cochrane meta-review14 published in January of this year also concluded that even low dose vitamin D supplementation appears to reduce cancer mortality by almost 15 percent. Theories linking vitamin D deficiency to cancer have been tested and confirmed in more than 200 epidemiological studies, and understanding of its physiological basis stems from more than 2,500 laboratory studies. So, in a nutshell, there are two significant issues that render the featured analysis without merit:
The studies included used vitamin D supplements in doses that are not clinically relevant. Adults need anywhere from 10-20 times the amount used in the studies to protect against heart disease and cancer—4,000 to 8,000 IUs a day, compared to the 400-800 IUs used in the studies
The studies have mistakenly been shooting for vitamin D levels in the 20-30 ng/ml range, which vitamin D experts today believe is HALF of what you really need for disease prevention. Ideally, you'll want a vitamin D level above 50 ng/ml, but a bare minimum of 40 ng/ml is recommended15
As noted Dr. John Cannell of the Vitamin D Council, the authors excluded no less than one dozen randomized controlled trials, the majority of which were positive.
"The authors argued that more trials of vitamin D are a waste of money and resources and will be negative," Dr. Cannell writes. "Luckily researchers at Harvard do not agree, as we all wait for their VITAL study results expected around 2017. It is a study of 20,000 healthy Americans, half of which will take an extra 2,000 IU/day compared to a group of 10,000 subjects getting a vitamin D placebo.
The study will measure vitamin D blood levels in all subjects, so we will know if any of the placebo group started taking vitamin D. It will give us specific results for those subjects who obtained blood levels of > 40 ng/ml. The VITAL study will measure dozens of clinical endpoints with cancer and cardiovascular disease being the primary end points. I will be shocked if 2,000 IU/day has no effect on any clinical endpoint."
The study that we are supporting, the D*action study run by GrassrootsHealth, is the only prospective study that actually has 1000's of subjects in the 40-60 ng/ml range. They are tracking many health outcomes such as breast cancer, pain, diabetes, as well as reporting on the dose response information. Initial publications have already been made with kidney stones (no increased risk) and a dose response relationship showing that to get approximately 97% of the population to 40 ng/ml, it will take 10,000 IU/day to achieve that. New papers are to be released soon on a very significant prevention effect with diabetes and pain levels. There is no need to wait to track your own health outcomes and achieve the benefits of the appropriate serum levels.
Are You Vitamin D Deficient?
Some news sources, such as the Star Tribune,16 have noted that high-risk groups such as babies, pregnant women, and the elderly are still advised to take vitamin D supplements. The thing is, a majority of people, regardless of age, sex, or nationality, are in fact low or deficient in vitamin D, and stand to benefit from raising their levels into the clinically significant levels, which is higher than the recommended "normal." (For more information, see the next section below.) Before the year 2000, very few doctors ever considered the possibility that you might be vitamin D deficient. But as the technology to measure vitamin D became inexpensive and widely available, more and more studies were done, and it became increasingly clear that vitamin D deficiency was absolutely rampant. For example:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 32 percent of children and adults throughout the US were vitamin D deficient
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that 50 percent of children aged one to five years old, and 70 percent of children between the ages of six and 11, are deficient or insufficient in vitamin D
Researchers such as Dr. Holick estimate that 50 percent of the general population is at risk of vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency
Make Sure Your Levels Are in a Clinically Relevant Range
When it comes to vitamin D, you don't want to be in the "average" or "normal" range, you want to be in the "optimal" range. The reason for this is that as the years have gone by, researchers have progressively moved that range upward. At present, based on the evaluation of healthy populations that get plenty of natural sun exposure, the optimal range for general health appears to be somewhere between 50 and 70 ng/ml. As previously explained by Dr. Holick:
" Both the IOM (Institute of Medicine) and the Endocrine Society acknowledge in treatment guidelines that 10,000 IU/day is considered the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). Most treatments to get serum levels in the 40-60 ng/ml range are likely to be below that level.
GrassrootsHealth has also been looking at this issue and also recommends 40 to 60 nanograms per milliliter as the ideal level (see above)... A study was done in Maasai warriors who are outside every day. That really gives us an insight where we should all be with our blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. They were found to be around 50 nanograms per milliliter."
The month of February is typically when you have the least amount of sun exposure, so right now is an ideal time to test your vitamin D levels to get an idea of what your levels are at their lowest. If you're low, take proactive measures to raise your levels, and then retest in mid-summer.
The D*Action Project by GrassrootsHealth is a very cost effective solution. To participate, simply purchase the D*Action Measurement Kit and follow the registration instructions included. (Please note that 100 percent of the proceeds from the kits go to fund the research project. I do not charge a single dime as a distributor of the test kits.)
As a participant, you agree to test your vitamin D levels twice a year during a five-year study, and share your health status to demonstrate the public health impact of this nutrient. There is a $65 fee every six months for your sponsorship of this research project, which includes a test kit to be used at home, and electronic reports on your ongoing progress. You will get a follow up email every six months reminding you "it's time for your next test and health survey."
As for HOW to optimize your vitamin D levels, I firmly believe that appropriate sun exposure is the best way. In fact, I personally have not taken a vitamin D supplement for three or four years, yet my levels are in the 70 ng/ml range. There's a handy smartphone app called DMinder (dminder.info) that will tell you how much UV radiation you're getting and how many IUs of vitamin D you're making based on your local weather conditions (reported from the weather service) and other individual parameters such as your skin tone and age. It will also tell you when to get out of the sun, to protect yourself from sunburn.
If you can't get enough sunshine, then a safe tanning bed would be your next best option. Most tanning equipment use magnetic ballasts to generate light. These magnetic ballasts are well-known sources of EMF fields that can contribute to cancer. If you hear a loud buzzing noise while in a tanning bed, it has a magnetic ballast system. I strongly recommend you avoid these types of beds and restrict your use of tanning beds to those that use electronic ballasts.
If your circumstances don't allow you to access the sun or a safe tanning bed, then you really only have one option if you want to raise your vitamin D, and that is to take a vitamin D supplement. GrassrootsHealth has a helpful chart showing the average adult dose required to reach healthy vitamin D levels based upon your measured starting point. Many experts agree that 35 IUs of vitamin D per pound of body weight could be used as an estimate for your ideal dose.
If you Opt for Oral Vitamin D, Remember Vitamin K2
Last but not least, if you do opt for a vitamin D supplement, you also need to take vitamin K2. The biological role of vitamin K2 is to help move calcium into the proper areas in your body, such as your bones and teeth. It also helps remove calcium from areas where it shouldn't be, such as in your arteries and soft tissues.
Vitamin K2 deficiency is actually what produces the consequences similar to vitamin D toxicity, which includes inappropriate calcification that can lead to hardening of your arteries. The reason for this is because when you take vitamin D, your body creates more vitamin K2-dependent proteins that move calcium around in your body. Without vitamin K2, those proteins remain inactivated, so the benefits of those proteins remain unrealized. So remember, if you take supplemental vitamin D, you're creating an increased demand for K2. Together, these two nutrients help strengthen your bones and improve your heart health.
Hope you are ready to move your feet to this very hot beat album just out by Capashen. 6 new tunes to get you up and ready to go. Free Mp3 track downloads. Grab one, or grab the entire bag. Get your body fit and firm now. Ya gotta love free. That means you pay nothing. That also means you get nothing back should you decide you don't like any of the tracks and want to return them. Our quality assurance plan means you get stuff you don't have to pay for. Oh Yeah!
Here is the meeting agenda information for the Board of Supervisor's meeting for this Tuesday evening, February 18th, 2014. This is the financial overviews part of the agenda.
Gloucester Court House Village Sub-Area Plan: The Board was approached by the Main Street Preservation Trust (MSPT) about additional planning for the Court House area. A Plan was developed to be an element of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and to provide the policy framework for future land use and development in the area, including land use regulations and infrastructure decisions. Staff worked closely with MSPT staff and the consultant team hired by MSPT to prepare the plan based on guidance from a County Administrator appointed Steering Committee and the input from the public through 2 public outreach meetings, stakeholder interviews, and other outreach efforts. A public hearing on the Plan was held by the Planning Commission in January who then forwarded a recommendation of adoption to the Board of Supervisors. The Board adopted the Plan as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on February 5, 2013.
Now can someone please explain the legality of the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust in all of this? The secret shadow government concern? The organization that wrote off over 1.7 million dollars on just over 5 million in assets without any visible justification for doing so that we could find and reported on this site? An organization that we will soon be asking, where is the missing money? (Coming soon). An organization that seems to have a great number of questions about their own legality? Exactly how is this being allowed?
E. Decision on Memorandum of Agreement for Regional Sewer Wet Weather Management Plan - Martin M. Schlesinger - Director of Public Utilities
Just say no. No thanks no how.
H. Discussion on mandatory sewer connection per County ordinance - Chris Hutson - Member, Board of Supervisors
We the people do not want this. Throw it out. Throw it out, Throw it out. Why are you going to force people to pay for something they will not use. How is this helping anyone? It is theft. Are you going to pay for not using goods and services from all local businesses? If not, then don't expect us to pay for something we do not want or will use. WE DO NOT WANT THIS. Are you getting the message. WE DO NOT WANT THIS. Let Chris Hutson pay for all the hook ups if he wants this. Hey Chris, how deep are your own pockets. (Not very deep from what we have heard. Multiple bankruptcies in that past?)
From: Meyer, John Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:17 AM
To: Garton, Brenda; Board Of Supervisors
Cc: Warren, Darrell William
Subject: Agenda item for next week JJ, Brenda,
Would like to add an item to next week's agenda. The Board should consider having the Sheriff's Department budget briefed and voted on as separate from the Administrator's budget. While having the Administrator consolidate the budgets for the Administration staff and the Sheriff saves time for the Board, and may require less effort on the part of the Sheriff, it creates an inherent conflict of interest on the part of the Administrator. To include the Administrator in the approval chain for the Sheriff Department's budget gives the Administrator fiduciary control over an organization for which she has no responsibility for or authority over. Since the Administrator does have responsibility for the other County offices, the Administrator is often forced to make choices between funding for functions that she is accountable for, and Sheriff Department functions for which the Administrator has no accountability.
I would suggest that the County might be better served by having the Sheriff develop and advocate for his own budget to the BOS. It would then be the responsibility of the BOS to make the appropriate tradeoffs between the Administration and Sheriff's budgets. Obviously, the other Constitutional Officers could stake a similar claim - and if they choose to have their budgets considered separately from the Administrator's, they should probably be allowed to do so. While this appears to me to be structurally and functionally "cleaner", it is also apparent that this would add an additional layer of complexity to the Board's already involved budget approval process. I think this warrants discussion at next week's BOS meeting and a decision two weeks hence.
Our Notes: Well Done Mr Meyer. We hope this goes through.
D.
Decision on proposed purchase of property for New Utility Facility - Martin M. Schlesinger - Director of Public Utilities
We already have the land on route 17 known as the old Page Middle school. The county needs to spend money like drunken sailors why? Again, Just Say No. Several of you were just voted in because you ran on tickets of cleaning up the insanity of county spending. Please show us that you really meant that.
Again, Mr Bazzani, please remember to turn on your microphone before you speak. We can not hear you otherwise. Thank you in advance.
In Christianity, there are Bible prophecies that warn against the mark of the beast where in order to be able to buy and sell, you have to accept the mark of the beast and Christians are warned about accepting this mark. Everyone thinks that this mark is going to be some type of chip that will be implanted into the human body or some type of payment card that will have the mark of the beast already on it. Claims have been made that credit and debit cards are part of this mark so cash should be maintained and used in their place.
AN OLD ARGUMENT REHASHED:
What most people do not realize is the fact that the mark has already been put out years ago and that just about every person has in fact accepted the mark and it's darn near impossible to buy and or sell without this mark. It's called the UPC code. 666 is marked into every single UPC code we have checked. It's not in the numbers that are read on the UPC code, but instead in the very beginning, the middle split and the very end of every UPC code. 6 is represented by two thin lines together. In evaluating a good number of UPC codes, determining that 6 is represented by two thin lines together was not always clear as the numbers underneath many UPC codes do not always match up. One has to check numerous UPC codes to finally realize that the 6 is in fact two thin lines together.
Seeing the code of 666 on each UPC bar code. The first 6 is represented by two thin lines that are longer in length than the majority of the code. The next 6 is directly in the middle of the UPC code and is again longer in length than the first series of numbers and the second set of numbers on the UPC bar code. The last 6 is again represented by two thin lines that are once again longer than the rest of the UPC code.
Here is the technical reasoning given to us as to what the above is meant to represent. The 6 that is at the start is called a guard bar for the left and right hand sides of the code. The center 6 is called a tall center bar pattern and though not called a guard bar, still acts as a guard bar separating the first set of numbers from the second set of numbers. Now because these guard bars are called and considered guard bars, a denial that these guard bars are anything other than a control system can be argued by those who designed the system.
Our argument. The lines of the guard bars are the same exact width as the number 6 in the UPC system. Any other number could have been used for those control guard bars. 111 or 222 or 333 or 123 to a full spectrum of 999 different choices could have been used for the guards. Why was 6 picked in a sequence of 3 or the representation of 666 used? They built in a second argument that still does not stand up to the light of day. 1, represented as a single thick line would have made a better representation guard bar. But that is not the second argument. Each number is represented by a series of lines that represent either a yes or no answer in a sequence of 0's and or 1's. In other words, using binary code sequencing. Each number is turned into a 7 digit binary yes/no code. Now to confuse the matter even further, there are two ways to write each number.
1,2,3 fall under what is called an S2 module. 4 and 5 is a B2 module. 6 is an S1 module. 7 is a B1 module. There are no modules given for 8,9 or 0. The way that digits or numbers are turned into bars for scanners to read is represented by two dark bars and two light bars filling spaces divided into 7 equal parts. (How many of you are now confessing to being lost already?) And you think we are done yet?
No way. So now they can argue that since 1,2 and 3 are all under one module, that the control bar could create a level of confusion for the entire system and the same could be said for 4 and 5. That leaves only 6 and 7 left for the controls. Remember, there are no modules for 8,9 or 0. 7's module is represented by two single thin bars as well. But they are spaced apart further than 6. For the purposes of space, they can argue that 6 worked out much better than 7 for the control guard bars. (Really?) The argument still remains that the control guard bars, because they are longer and never read by the scanners are not 6's at all. Well the same can then be said about 1's or any other number. So for the sake of argument, it's not only the width of each bar, but it's length as well for what is read and what is not read when scanning any given product.
Further arguments can be made that 8, 9 or zero should have been used since there are no modules for those numbers. Or even further, a special bar could have been created that did not represent any of the numbers whatsoever and used as control guard bars. So again, why are the guard bars matching the number 6 and representing 666 on everything with a bar code or UPC? Oh wait, they are not sixes. We forgot. (You look at the information on any UPC and tell us they do not represent six in the guard bars).
So our information on UPC codes is somewhat outdated. The UPC code system has grown tremendously and may now contain a new module for 8,9 and 0. The other information we did not include in the above did not relate to the 66 6 code so there was not reason to explain the rest. The 666 code still remains on all UPC labels when it could have easily been changed to a bar that did not represent any digits or numbers.
Now here is the dilemma for Christians. If the UPC code is the mark of the beast, then what? Well we have to break this down even further. What does the UPC system give us? It gives us GDP as well as GNP. Gross Domestic Product which is the sum total of goods produced in the United States and GNP, Gross National Products or an inventory of goods flowing through the land. It's an accounting system. An accounting system is neither good nor bad but can be used for either good or bad. Oh by the way, GDP and GNP is a big part of how money is valued. We the people who produce or do not produce? There is nothing else backing the currency other than GDP and GNP or so we are told. Federal Reserve Notes backed by the good faith of ???? We the people.
Your spending or lack thereof, contributes to either or both GDP and GNP. If you are not spending, you are not contributing. What you spend your money on is a determining factor. If you spend your money on imported goods, you are contributing to GNP. If you are buying domestic goods, you are contributing to GDP. This is how the government is able to blame the people for ruining the economy. But you have no control on where items come from or how or where they are produced.
UPC also tells us what is selling and what goods are needed in certain areas and allows companies to deliver goods faster than ever. Does that make the entire system bad? No. Does it make it good? No. It just makes delivering of goods to areas faster and tells us the state of the economy at any given time. At least that is the simple selling point of it all.
Where the Bible comes in. The code of 666 in the UPC may be telling. It would suggest that those who are running the system have a different belief system than the masses of the country as a whole. If you believe that the media serves interests that are not in line with your own, such as TV shows and movies that present less than ideal morals and values, that our food supply is less than maximum nutritional value or even have much in the line of nutritional value, that news channels may promote immorality instead of feeding us with proper morality, that our health care system may not be all that healthy, that the music piped to us all day long may not be in our best interests, that talk radio promotes ideals we do not quite agree with and the list can go on forever, then we might just be feeding the system we do not want.
I'm not a fundamentalist Christian and have no dogma to propagate so I do not see things the way a fundamentalist Christian will see them. What I am suggesting however is that the UPC system may be marked with 666 and may be the system that the Bible was talking about and that the few times Christ ever got really mad, one of them was in dealing with the money changers, (The bankers), the Bible may be telling us that the reason not to accept the system is because you are feeding the hand that is destroying you. But you didn't even know it was already in place and you have been told that we are still watching and waiting for it to come. Just a thought. I could be wrong. Shall we wait and see?
HOW DO YOU DESTROY AN ECONOMY?
Decrease GDP, (Gross Domestic Product) and increase GNP, (Gross National Product). In order to consume imported goods, you must outproduce and export more than you import and consume. Increasing GNP is through the natural growth of GDP. Cut GDP and you naturally cut GNP. You can sustain the image of growth through the increase of GNP for awhile, but it is only an illusion.
How do you destroy the world's economic system? You centralize GDP into the worlds most populated center. (China?) You decentralize world GNP. Again, this can be sustained for awhile, but again, it is only an illusion. You can not consume more than you produce. It's like trying to eat more food than you have on hand. How can anyone do that? It's like having one small hamburger that has to feed 5 people and you still have to give a big chunk of it to the government for your tax liability. How are you going to eat more than what you have?
Each time a manufacturing plant is closed in any country, it's at the theft of the people of that country. The demand for so many things is everywhere and yet there are so many people unemployed that could be producing goods for themselves as well as others. What gives? We are told that there is only a finite amount of resources. I look out my window and see no shortage of resources anywhere, just a shortage of production using the massive amounts of resources all around us.
Here is the inside trick. Once you burst the bubble above, there is no other option left than to create a one world system. Or is that the only option? Money is not the real power. Transportation is not the real power. These are mere tools. Information is the real power. The lack of information is the control over those who do not have the answers. Give a person a fish and that person will eat one meal. Teach a person how to fish and that person will eat for a lifetime.
THE BUBBLE:
The good news in all of this, if you wish to call it that, is that once the super rich are done feeding off the backs of the poor and the middle class, they can only turn on each other to feed. Is that why we have seen 8 International bankers commit suicide in the past 2 weeks? If this is where we are at, we are going to be seeing a number of bankers and industrialists doing this as they are now forced to turn on each other for survival as they know no other way out. How these people bought the lies of easy money and prosperity by feeding off the backs of others is beyond me. They never looked at the long term consequences of their actions which predicted their own doom. The writing was always there. How the people are blinded by greed. There is nothing wrong with riches so long as they are honestly deserved. Most in the highest places these days though have not gotten there by honest means. They have the illusion that they can maintain their positions though. They believe they have supernatural powers behind them to hold them there. It's the supernatural powers that got them there to begin with.
Now what if evil is a necessary part of life? How can one say that? An example is light, it has the ability to nourish, heal, harm as well as kill. Sound also has the ability to nourish, heal, harm or kill. Water has the ability to nourish, heal, harm or kill. Air has the ability to nourish, heal, harm or kill as well. If God is all powerful and all knowing, then he had to know when and how to create evil. Are we not told we are the children of God? As parents we do our best to raise our children properly and teach them right from wrong. Would it not also be in God's best interest to teach us right from wrong and put a way in place for him to do so for us to learn? If you come to realize what Satan's place really is, then one has to love him and what he does. Not in the sense that he should be worshiped or followed by any means. But loved for the gifts of his part in our own teachings of right and wrong. As strange as it may sound, he may just join everyone in heaven as one of the finest actors ever, playing his part perfectly. In the mean time, is it not our own part to let those leading us know when they are not doing what is right and what is wrong?
It would seem as though we let the bullies take over the play yard and without much of a fight. Even the bullies are God's children who must learn right from wrong and held accountable for their actions. Are we not our brothers keeper? Love the sinner, hate the sin? If this holds true, should we not pray for Satan? (Not to, but for).
Now let's look at more facts.
Not that the video does not present good arguments against the claims. We argued that any other pattern could have been used that does not look like a 6 in the guard bars or that the guard bars could have been made in a width not representative in any of the digits or numbers. The above video appears to be a very poor attempt to discredit the concept. Now I am open to valid credibility against the bar code being anything other than 666 in those guard sections. I have yet to find anything valid on it though.
Since the guard bars each include two bars, and each of the 12 digits of the UPC-A barcode consists of two (wide) bars and two (wide) spaces, all UPC-A barcodes consist of exactly (3 × 2) + (12 × 2) = 30 (wide) bars, of which 24 represent numerical digits and 6 represent guard bars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Product_Code Still not a valid argument for the 666, yet not a valid argument against the 666. However, when you go further down the page, there is a screenshot explaining the way that the guard bars are read or not read. Arguments can be made either for or against the 666 and it was designed that way from it's inception. A final word on the matter is simply this, it has the appearance of being a 666 representation and it could have easily been fixed a long time ago to change that appearance but no one done so. Why. They knew about it from inception. http://barcodes.gs1us.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx? PricewaterhouseCoopers PDF document showing concerns at development of the UPC over the mark of the beast. You may want to see who was really behind the entire UPC code push. Rather interesting names come up along with special interests? Ya think? IBM developed the code. Anyone know what codes IBM developed during world war 2? You might want to take a look. http://www.makebarcode.com/specs/ean_cc.html Link to more information regarding product manufacturers country codes. On to bigger issues. As mentioned above about GDP and GNP. Here are the actual figures. US GDP. $16.24 trillion 2012 http://data.worldbank.org/country/united-states
That is just the third quarter. Third quarter GNP is nearly as much as all of 2012 GDP. GNP is nearly 4 times GDP. That simply spells implosion by design. Month of December US exports vs US imports below. That is nearly a 39 Billion dollar deficit for one month and does not include tax liabilities or interest payment requirements nor transportation nor storage costs.
English: Newly industrialized countries (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Gerald talks about gold demand, bankers unexpectedly dying, emerging markets are melting down, hyperinflation is taking root, Fukushima is out of control.
Gerald talks about government transparency, ethics, morals, and reminds is that when the people lose everything they lose it, and warns us that the human spirit must rise to a much higher level if we are to stand a chance of transcending our current predicament.
“I commend the budget writers in both houses of the General Assembly for their hard work and commitment to continuing the Virginia tradition of balanced and responsible budgeting. In both the House and the Senate budgets, there are many areas where we can find common ground to grow Virginia’s economy and strengthen communities across the Commonwealth.
“I applaud members of the House and the Senate for increasing Virginia’s commitment to higher education and for adopting my recommendation to include additional funds to help localities in Northern Virginia compete for the best school support staff.
“I also applaud both houses for providing additional funds in their budgets for mental health reform. We have seen the system fail too many times here in Virginia, and the commitment from both houses to address this issue is an encouraging sign that we can make meaningful reforms this year.
“However, the greatest opportunity we have to invest in mental health reform, cover more Virginia families and grow our economy lies in accepting federal funds to close the healthcare coverage gap here in Virginia.
“I commend the Senate of Virginia for including in their budget a market-based path toward accepting this funding. That proposal will serve as a foundation for productive discussions about how best to cover more working families, create more jobs and save the state as much as $1 billion in the next eight years.
“I am disappointed that the House budget fails to accept more than $2 billion per year in federal tax dollars that should be directed to Virginia families. Instead, the House uses $45 million in state tax dollars for an inadequate and inefficient stopgap measure to attempt to help our hospitals. It is fiscally irresponsible to ask Virginians to pay this cost twice. The House should join an overwhelming majority of Virginia business leaders, health providers and 27 other states that have decided to utilize federal resources to close the coverage gap. This is clearly a case of partisan ideology driving a bad business decision.
“As the process moves forward, I plan to work with members of both chambers to ensure we have adequate investments in economic development incentives, life sciences and cybersecurity so that we can continue to grow industries that are central to our economic competitiveness.
“I look forward to working with members of both parties and both chambers to find common ground on these and many other issues that will benefit all Virginians and keep our economy strong.”
