SHARK!

I was at the gym this morning, and while winding down on the treadmill one of the screens was running a National Geographic special on shark attacks on surfers. It made me wonder how common shark attacks are, so I asked Gemini, the Google AI. My question:

Near the shore humans are an easy target for sharks. Why don’t sharks feed on humans more often?

The answer:

The available information provides a comprehensive understanding of shark feeding behaviors, the rarity of shark attacks on humans, and the reasons why sharks generally do not view humans as prey.

Here is a synthesis of the findings:

1. Shark Feeding Behavior and Preferences: Sharks are opportunistic predators with diverse diets. While some species specialize, most sharks eat a variety of marine life, including fish, crustaceans, mollusks, marine mammals, and other sharks. Large species like great whites, tiger sharks, and bull sharks prey on seals, sea lions, dolphins, and turtles. Sharks often target weak, injured, or dying prey to conserve energy.

2. Frequency of Shark Attacks on Humans: Shark attacks are extremely rare. The International Shark Attack File (ISAF) typically records an average of about 60 to 70 unprovoked attacks globally per year. The risk of being attacked or killed by a shark is statistically minuscule; for instance, you are far more likely to be struck by lightning or killed by a falling coconut.

OK, that is not the complete answer, but I think we can stop at far more likely to be killed by a falling coconut :)

The point is this sort of thing can help us understand mythology a bit better, because mythology typically arises from the unconscious fear of death.

Of the most likely causes of premature death in the US, medical error and iatrogenic death are the third leading cause, behind heart disease and cancer. Iatrogenic death refers to a death caused by medical treatment or medical professionals. This includes errors in diagnosis, treatment, medication, or surgical procedures.

We don't come across this information casually because it tramples on one of our most cherished mythologies. So let's put it this way, we are far more likely to be killed by the medical and pharmacology industries than a coconut falling on our head, but we are far more afraid of being eaten by a shark.

So are we being preyed upon by these industries? Interesting question. Surely not, the medical / pharmacological industry is altruistic, right? Humm. 

On the other hand it does profit from our diseases. In fact these industries are more profitable by orders of magnitude than the other major industries combined. 

Surely however, we are not "preyed upon" by these industries. On the other hand the US, the wealthiest nation in the world, is also the sickest developed nation in the world. Why are we so sick?

Well (no pun intended), these industries can't help themselves, they operate (no pun intended) by the profit motive. Whether they intentionally make us sick is a debatable question. One thing can be sure, as long as they operate by a profit motive they are incentivized to disseminate completely incorrect information as to the cause of health, just as they are incentivized to disseminate completely incorrect information as to the cause of disease.

Many if not most doctors start off with altruistic intentions. It's a reasonably safe bet the ones who stick it out do not end up that way.

And it's more than a sad state of affairs, it's tragic.

In fact, it's a title waiting for a book...

Nutrition: An American Tragedy

Dr. Doug makes his case with unassailable logic

But what he is saying is so foreign to our post modern diet and lifestyle choices we literally can't comprehend the truth of it. Meanwhile the average way of eating these days is making us sicker and sicker, and the so-called health care system is making itself richer and richer.

Is what I just said an oversimplification? 

There are also ever increasing levels of environmental toxicities, and it would be difficult to design and mount studies to determine whether the primary cause of increasing post modern diseases are due primarily to toxins we handle and inhale or to toxins we chew and swallow.

Or even, as it has becomes increasingly apparent, to the drugs pushed on us by big pharma.

With all sources of toxicity in the mix it's difficult to find a definitive answer as to which of these three sources of toxicity is the primarily culprit, but it's interesting to note that one of them, environmental toxicities, we do not choose to ingest into our bodies, as they are in our environment, but highly-palatable toxic substances we do choose to ingest.

So that one source of toxicity is completely under our control. So how do we implement these changes? As Dr. Doug says, eat more fruits and vegetables, in particular the ones that can be eaten raw. 

Fruit till dinner, and salads at dinner, it's not complicated, but to get enough calories you will be eating a higher volume of food than you are used to. Why is that? Plants are high in fiber and low in fat, and fats are very calorie dense. It's basically impossible to get fat or stay fat on a high fiber low fat diet, but the processed food industry doesn't want to tell us the truth about that, and big pharma is happy to tell us Ozempic is the answer to obesity.

It's a lie. But a very profitable lie.

Pharma drugs? We can usually stop ingesting these also, as we make healthier choices as to what we chew and swallow.

If something is highly palatable maybe let's stop falling into that pleasure trap, and choose whole fruits instead. When hyper-palatability is eliminated as a choice the palatability of fruits as our healthy choice comes to the fore.

But won't we become weak eating only plants, especially raw plants? You may find it interesting that Dr. Doug Graham has won the British Masters National Powerlifting competition recently, making it two years in a row.

Dr. Doug Graham's journey into dietary logic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoOtT_slJ-U&t=303s

 

Modern mythologies have become dangerous

Recently I have been writing about modern mythologies that we are generally unaware of, and the dangers they pose. We have a very hard time admitting to our collective selves that mythologies even exist in our modern time of science and technology. Why is this?

There are several aspects to this. First and perhaps most relevant is that mythologies only function when we are completely unaware of them. Mythologies "stand in" as unassailable truths that are simply not questioned. It never occurs to us to even acknowledge they exist in and around us.  We do not think of mythologies any more than we think of the air that we breathe...it's invisible.

Until it's not. Until toxic "air" begins killing and injuring people.

It's an interesting question whether ancient mythologies were as dangerous as modern mythologies. Perhaps they were. Mythology is so inextricably interwoven with fact it is not easily seen. It is probably a significant part of the reason wars happened, and continue to happen.

When mythology is revealed to be a dangerous fiction the collective we are incapable of seeing it. The reason for that is we all carry an unconscious program of immortality. Until we get old or are stricken with early disease we all feel as if we are going to live forever, an inextricable part of the unconscious mind.

Let's admit it, it's difficult to face certain truths. But let's also admit that sometimes it's the best and most constructive thing we can do.

The making of this independent documentary film is a case in point. One point of light among the billions. The film maker tells his story of the walls of silence and denial he faced in the making of it, and now in the showing of it. I think you may find it interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg753aPeGaw

And here is the link to the film itself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwjDeRglkwg

A deliberate destruction of evidence

Big pharma is doing everything in it's power to prevent studies showing the negative effect of the mRNA jabs reaching conclusion. What are the possible reasons for doing this? Well it's not too hard to figure out. The damage to the pharma industry would be massive. But what about the damage to the innocents who trusted the system? Innocents whose lives and health have been profoundly impacted?

This situation is of historical impact, meanwhile the coverup continues

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVcXT4jhy5I

Why are there so many microcap biotech stocks?

It comes out of a modern immortality mythology. This myth is that by manipulating our genome we will be able to become super healthy, healing all diseases, while reaching maximum happy and healthy life span.

But wait, does this also mean we can continue eating junk foods and drinking booze, and still be super healthy? Big pharma drugs on TV seem to be pushing that idea...

So continue putting toxins in our bodies, get a few super cool genetic modifications, and become super men and women?

The fountain of youth mythology appears in various guises as long ago as the 5th century BC Greece.

We modern technological humans tend to think mythology belonged only to the ancients. And the fact we have science proves it! The end of mythology! 

Yeah, not so fast Oglethorpe, mythology abounds in the age of science, and the two exist side by side, in fact getting along together very nicely.

But science works and mythology doesn't, right? 

Absolutely, the problem being mythology is frequently called science well before being proven. Or worse, called proven when that is not the case, or half-assed "proven", as is so often the case with all those drugs on TV.

All drugs have side effects, and is frequently the case they are six of one, half dozen the other. Meanwhile the cause of health (it's a real thing) has only benefits and no drawbacks. A perceived drawback, the one stopping most people from becoming healthy, is having to give up delicious foods. 

What? No sugar or salt? 

Guess what? Give them up and taste buds go back to being sensitive the way they are in new people. And then something wonderful happens, sensitive buds taste more variety.

The battle of empathic humanity with psychopathic humanity

The above title isn't one I would have come up with, the endocrinologist, author, medical researcher and teacher, professor David Anderson said it in this brief clip talking with John Campbell. It seems humanity is presently at a crossroads from a variety of angles.

But I will repeat something I have said many times in recent blogs, the idea we will improve humanity with genetic modifications is a science fantasy coming out of a lack of understanding of the true cause of health. As but one key example, the cancer epidemic began with the introduction of industrialised food-like substances, and continues accelerating. 

Our great ape cousins have little cancer (quoting Gemini AI):

 "Studies consistently report that cancer, especially epithelial neoplasms like breast, prostate, and lung carcinomas (which are common in humans), are very rare in great apes. While these cancers are responsible for over 20% of human deaths, their incidence in great apes is estimated to be less than 2% or even lower."

Cancer rates in humans were very low before the introduction of industrialized food-like substances. The idea we don't know the exact cause of these food borne diseases is an example of willful ignorance. Yes, if we were breathing dirty air and drinking dirty water this would rival dirty food as a cause, but the fact is for the most part the air we breath and the water we drink is exponentially cleaner than the industrialized fast foods being sold on every street corner.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution technology began degrading human health, and the answer, say the technologists, will be more technology.

We all like technology for many good reasons. But we could be doing much better at seeing and dealing with the unintended consequences of each technology individually, well before it's too late to do anything about them.

It can be said, as a result, humans are collectively self-destructive. And the battle of empathic humanity with psychopathic humanity may be reaching a critical stage. The psychopaths are loud, devious, and narcissistic. Will the empaths have the inner strength to ward off the psychopaths? Looking back on history to this point it's a difficult question, empaths tend to see the best in people and not recognize the degree of threat in the narcissistic psychopaths

Well, listen to this conversation and see what you think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7-OEGkN008

How much real information is missing in the nightly snooze?

Well, a lot. Would it be a stretch to say that "content" is mostly propaganda and entertainment to keep us uninformed and addled? From my perspective, no, it is not. 

I first started noticing this information vacuum when I came home for the summer from boarding school in the 11th and 12th grades. There was one TV at boarding school in the rec hall, and a number of students were huddled around it, and a few others that were playing pool (billiards). 

I was, thankfully, one of those.

And then home for the summer I would see my father mother and sister huddled around the TV every evening. Meanwhile I'm headed out the door, sprung from boarding school, to have an adventure out in the non-boarded real world. I learned a lot doing that, some of it the hard way, the knowledge that sticks.

Now what? Enter the internet, Google, and then YouTube. People say the internet is full of emotionally damaging specious garbage, to which I say, yeah, so don't look at that crap. Here's but one example of the kind of thing we do not learn from the snooze:

What China Found on The Moon

Wikipedia says Pandora's box is a metaphor for something that brings about great troubles or misfortune, but also holds hope. In the myth Pandora was the first woman on earth.

What we consume for entertainment (politics?) and intellectual stimulation is mostly within our control. It's an interesting time to be alive, but I suppose that can be said of any time. Being here, so to speak, is simply interesting.

So don't watch that snooze crap. Netflix is OK, but choose wisely:)