Harmony Thomas1
Member since Nov 24, 2011
Recent Comments
Re: “Drugs in Disguise”
I think that what people tend to be AGAINST is the present/potential restriction of plant medicines by government, science, and (hidden) corporate entities/interests that have a larger stake in promoting use of pharmaceuticals. Perhaps many points in this article lead to another idea? The latter being that the herbs in as close to their natural plant state as possible would be far more preferable to those that have been processed and packaged creating (once again) an "industry." Further, it would be more ideal to use as many locally-grown herbs as possible in lieu of all manner of those originating elsewhere - and potentially undergoing all manner of inputs before they reach the user. We do not need every herb that is marketed to us. Many herbs that are found relatively locally can be substituted for others. Often, I have read that a "good" herbalist generally makes prolific use of only about 15 basic herbs - if even this. And a reliance on science? I didn't know whether to laugh or groan at this mention. For anyone who has informed oneself for many years regarding numerous aspects of nutrition, healthcare, plant medicines, governmental regulatory bodies, the so-perceived "stringent" requirements of conventional science and medicine tend to be anything BUT this. Ruefully amused that anyone still believes such an inaccurate claim. In fact, it is alarming to discover how LITTLE "science" is needed in order for a pharmaceutical drug to be approved. Hence the recalls? And the latter are probably only the oft-mentioned drop-in-the-bucket. "Only" tradition with regard to plant medicines? Can only laugh at this as well. Pharmaceuticals are based on the latter, they contain only isolated ingredients regarding the latter instead of the whole array of naturally-occurring constituents (and we only have minimal knowledge of the supporting/buffering roles of these), and the span of time that each has been used by humans and animals cannot even be REMOTELY compared. People make poor and/or uninformed life choices constantly - to include regarding medical/recreational drug use, alcohol, food, etc. Further, life is not "safe" nor does it offer a money-back guarantee. I perceived (some) effort with regard to this article at presenting a balanced perspective. Mostly, however, I think the author's conventional influences are glaringly apparent. And "conventional" is not necessarily accurate or preferable.
Re: “Occupy: Humboldt's 1 Percent”
Simply - in appreciation of what you share.
Re: “Dialog with the Pig”
Regretfully - in agreement. Can a perceptive person perceive any longer that respectful dialogue is going to result in any substantive change whatsoever? Neither can the ever-increasing divides between people and their perspectives and priorities be minimized. It is happening, it is escalating, and despite a desire for a general tenuous peace - I don't see this likelihood. Not between the citizens of this country or the nations of this world. So many of us do not yet even have an understanding/recognition of energy descent/net energy, other declining natural resources, the precariousness of our food supply, etc. Yet, with growing momentum, I think most of us have an INSTINCTIVE sense that any number of chaotic events, situations, and upheavals are definitely on the horizon.