Posted by: graemebird | September 12, 2010

The CSIRO’s Continued Malicious Lying: The Ocean Acidification Fraud.


Ask yourself what questions would need to have been answered to make the following statement and not be lying:

“How acidic will the oceans get?

The pH of seawater has historically remained at about 8.2, which is slightly alkaline (pure water is neutral – pH 7). However, CO2 from human activities has caused the pH of ocean surface waters to drop by 0.11 pH units. This might not sound like much, but it is equivalent to a 30% increase in acidity. Unless CO2 emissions are curbed, the pH is expected to fall by 0.5 pH units by 2100, a 320% increase in acidity.

How can we stop it?

Even if all carbon emissions stopped today, we are committed to a further drop of 0.1—0.2 pH units and it will take thousands of years for the oceans to recover. However, action now can prevent conditions, that are corrosive to calcifying organisms, from becoming more widespread.”

This is all lies. They can muster no evidence to support these lies. But the lying has gotten too much momentum now, and so the lies must continue until the mass-sackings begin. I’d be happy to read anyone who has evidence for any of this bullshit. But the EVIDENCE WILL NOT BE FORTHCOMING. I know this not because of any gift of second sight, or any claims to abilities in the art and science of soothsaying. But simply because I’ve read many of these studies insinuating a problem here, and they are uniformly without foundation.

“The pH of seawater has historically remained at about 8.2, which is slightly alkaline (pure water is neutral – pH 7).”

Its not SLIGHTLY alkaline. Its highly alkaline. The human body is about 7.35. Only your pancreas ever gets this alkaline.

“However, CO2 from human activities has caused the pH of ocean surface waters to drop by 0.11 pH units.”

A lie. How do they think they know this? This presupposes testing before and after. And a global averaging for these tests. Who was making all these tests back there before the industrial revolution? And do the before-and-after claims take into account the melting of ice and the addition of fresh water since then?

“This might not sound like much, but it is equivalent to a 30% increase in acidity.”

This is a lie right there. You cannot have an INCREASE IN ACIDITY when you start alkaline and remain alkaline. You have a reduction in alkalinity. Not an increase in acidity.

“Unless CO2 emissions are curbed, the pH is expected to fall by 0.5 pH units by 2100 a 320% increase in acidity.”

Two lies in one sentence. Dealing with the second lie first; The oceans are alkaline and they will remain alkaline. Where is this prediction of a 0.5 drop coming from? They are just making it up. They are just lying.

“Even if all carbon emissions stopped today, we are committed to a further drop of 0.1—0.2 pH units and it will take thousands of years for the oceans to recover.”

Another two-lies-in-one. The carbon cycle isn’t a thousand year deal at all. Egregious and unforgivable lying. And we are not committed to any such drop in ph. Why would we be? They are talking as if its a straight carbon accumulation and not a carbon cycle. Suppose you are blowing bubbles through some water? What determines how much CO2 and O2 are taken up by the water?

Well the answer is temperature and PH. If the PH is lower the water takes up less CO2 and O2. If the temperature is lower it takes up more. So this fantasy of continual accumulation is a lie. The other thing is that if the CO2 increases in the water, so too will the phyto-plankton. Which means more animal-plankton. Which means more carbon rain.

The CSIRO is actually trying to tell us that the extra CO2 will just accumulate in the water. They are liars and from a cultural and self-preservation point of view this is incredibly unacceptable. Since its one thing for the media and the politicians to be always bullshitting us. But once a scientific body starts doing this funding cuts and sackings must start or we will find the entire vocation of scientific enquiry poisoned.

Unless you are willing to go to google-scholar and check out the studies, you ought to take my word for it that you are being lied to. Because if you did go there, believe me, you will find a big load of nothing.


Voltage is ph. Or ph is voltage. Or at least its hard to figure out what the differences in the two concepts are. We call acids “proton donors”. Likewise we might well call alkaline substances “electron donors.” So that an alkaline can be thought of as a solution with a positive voltage.

“When (CO2) dissolves in water (H2O) it forms carbonic acid (H2CO3) – the same weak acid found in carbonated drinks. ….”

Fine. But why would you expect any substantial net change in voltage (or ph) in this process. Take what happens in our body. When we go to digest protein our body sends HCL into our blood. But is there a net change in body voltage? If we eat a roast Christmas brunch at 11.00 am, why are we not dead, from the untoward effects of acid penetrating through to our blood, come the noon-time?

The answer is that there is no immaculate conception of acidity in this case. For every molecule of HCL our body injects into the gut during mealtimes, it also injects a molecule of NaHCO2 (ie sodium bicarbonate) into our bloodstream. It would be passing strange if our body could alter its own ph on a net basis, and at such short notice. Likewise the story that CO2 absorbed into the water winds up producing a higher concentration of H2CO3 (carbonic acid) molecules in the sea water is far from powerfully surprising. What WOULD be surprising is if this process gave us anything more than the tiniest minimal net change in ph. You see they’ve shortened the story of the process here. But if CO2 itself isn’t implicated as some powerful proton donor, then where is all this voltage supposed to disappear too when the tiny bit higher amount of CO2 is dissolved into the water?

Here we see that it is not so very surprising that they cannot find authentic evidence for this scare story. Because they don’t have any apriori case either.

Here is the ocean acidification network.

Unmitigated bullshit. Note that it is basically a United Nations project. Its part of Unesco.

“Seawater contains more dissolved ions than all types of freshwater. However, the ratios of various solutes differ dramatically. For instance; although seawater contains about 2.8 times the bicarbonate than river water based on molarity, the percentage of bicarbonate in seawater as a ratio of all dissolved ions is far lower than in river water. Bicarbonate ions also constitute 48% of river water solutes, but only 0.41% of all seawater ions.”

Well where are all these negative ions coming from? We see that we have bicarbonate in both freshwater and sea water. Surely we have to take into account the negative ions that are increased when CO2 is dissolved into water, and not just focus on this single myopic business of carbonic acid. If the creation of positive ions, when CO2 is dissolved in water, isn’t roughly matched by the creation of negative ions ….. then where are all the electrons disappearing too?

What I think is going on is that the UN club-for-liars have a proven formula. Just clutch onto any old bullshit, do not under any circumstances come good with any evidence, and then wait for your opponents and critics to make a mistake or two.

I’m not proposing any strict conservation-of-ph rule. I’m just saying that they don’t have the compelling apriori case that they may have seemed to have had. And since they have no empirical evidence, and are merely bullshitting, then they have no case at all.

If you look at the actual situation, you have all these positive and negative ions getting about in solution, in a sort of “static-equilibrium”, now unless you add further positive ions or alternatively electrons, how would it be that you would expect to change the ph? You wouldn’t. So focusing on carbonic acid alone is just more trickery on the part of the fraudsters.

Another matter. It appears that the globe is absorbing electrical energy. It seems to be absorbing a bunch of electrons and electrical energy. Now THIS is something that surely can affect the balance of ions in solution. All the time we see that the sea water balance of ions-in-solution is such that we wind up with an alkaline solution. Thats where the balance falls and its hardly so very surprising, given the electrical energy the earth appears to absorb constantly.

Now why would that ever change? If the sea keeps accepting electrons then the ph ought to stay high. Since the ph is just the balance between positive and negative ions. Ph amounts to voltage. Or something very similar to it.



  1. I’ve just watched all this Oakeshott and Windsor footage, and I cannot for the life of me think where this bile against the independents is coming from. Everything they said made sense and they’ve done a marvelous job.

    Both sides can participate in the shaping of policy now. The power of the argument is more likely to get through under these circumstances.

    Getting on with business, NBN must be taken onto the general budget. The bankster involvement has to be paid off, and the bankers not let to go near the project ever again. Ken Henry and a couple of dozen more in treasury must be fired. And the NBN must be slowed right down (before being built back up) to a starting size consistent with good budgeting and consistent with improving cost-effectiveness.

    Slowing to one twentieth the pace, but growing at 1% per week, would be a more realistic starting model.

  2. Here is the ocean acidification network.

    Unmitigated bullshit. Note that it is basically a United Nations project. Its part of Unesco.

  3. So, is this the beginning of the end, with our new communistic politicians?

  4. Yes Kevin. It is more globalist fraud. It seems to be a fallback position when someone is trapped and cannot go anywhere with the warming side of the fraud.

    We already know what happens with centralisation. Evil bastards make decisions which wind up killing tens of millions of people. As occurred with the centralisation of malaria control.

    I’m not proposing any strict conservation-of-ph rule. I’m just saying that they don’t have the compelling apriori case that they may have seemed to have had. And since they have no empirical evidence, and are merely bullshitting, then they have no case at all.

  5. every employee of the CSIRO must have been in league with the fractional reservists.


  6. From unleashed speaking of the NBN:

    “Graeme Bird :
    13 Sep 2010 5:20:40am
    Its not employment galore. Since spending is taken away from other areas. If they try and roll it out too quickly it will be unemployment galore, since it will blow out technicians wages, meaning that the diverted expenditure will be employing far less people than otherwise.

    Reply Alert moderator

    Graeme Bird :
    13 Sep 2010 5:39:45am
    Although from a long-run perspective I do see some sort of advantages from diverting spending from city to country. But you ought not make out that this spending comes out of a burning bush or something. It has to be diverted from elsewhere.

    As to a reasonable pace of growth, consistent with increasing cost-effectiveness: An article said that there were maybe 7000 techs in the country that could do the job when 25000 were needed. Taking even 1000 away from their current employment will increase their wages.

    If you dropped the pace of planned roll-out (in terms of connecting each house) to one twentieth and then increased that pace 1% per week, it would take six years to get back to the hoped for rate of 5000 households connected per day. Start out at just 250 per day, increasing at 1% per week as a sort of starting pace.

    This sort of thing would make it at least POSSIBLE to reduce the costs over the life of the scheme. And it might mean only a four or five year delay to completion. The current plans are ridiculous.

    Reply Alert moderator”

  7. I want to show you all something that is more than typical. Doug Arthur linked the following:

    The context implied that Doug Arthur was linking evidence that CO2-emissions caused non-negligible ocean acidification. This was a wild goose chase. There was no evidence at all on this recording.

    The recording was 14 minutes and 31 seconds long. Not a shred of evidence. The people pushing the global warming fraud always do this. They never have any evidence, but they link wild goose chases so that third parties will THINK that the rest of us were ignoring the evidence.

  8. Got this one through with regards to the Pakistani disaster:

    Graeme Bird :
    13 Sep 2010 4:39:15pm
    What is needed is capital accumulation. Thats hard for a poor country. In our country higher land tax, if not handled well, could mean capital destruction. But in Pakistan, where bigshots hold huge amounts of land and most people own very little or none, rejigging tax towards land tax could help.

    Of course economy in government could help. But they do need the infrastructure to deal with these floods.

    For everyone in the world there is one very obvious way to increase capital accumulation. And this is to replace debt-based money with cash-money. Most of our money supply is interest-bearing. It ought to be cash. There is not a country in the world today that would not benefit from replacing interest-bearing money with simple cash.

    Reply Alert moderator

  9. What a pathetic gutless bunch are the University Of Queensland. The fellow was simply practicing freedom of speech. Rightly placing freedom of speech over religious belief. Religious belief is fine. Nothing wrong with it. But freedom of speech comes first. Its not as if he put “piss-Christ” in some sort of fancy art exhibition or something as offensive as that. It was very mild stuff. And evenhanded as well.

  10. Graeme Bird :
    13 Sep 2010 6:44:50pm
    There is nothing strange or unprecedented about the warming and cooling, or the rate of warming and cooling in the twentieth century. Anyone who says so is simply ignorant of climate history. There is nothing strange about the levels of CO2 in the twentieth century except perhaps for their stability which is pretty suspicious. Anyone who thinks that they have risen with unprecendented haste has not seen the CO2 record.

    So stop putting about all this nonsense. There are so many myths getting around. Its as if you’ve just seen Al Gores mockumentary. The most dishonest movie ever made.

    Reply Alert moderator

  11. Graeme Bird :
    13 Sep 2010 8:08:05pm
    I’ve put forward an introduction to the ocean acidification rort. The explanation is to long for this forum. And its incomplete in and of itself. But if you read it to get a handle on the dubiousness of the case these guys are attempting to make, then when you go to read the studies yourself, you will see what I mean.

    Its only when you go and check out the various studies yourself that the bogus nature of this scare story jumps out at you.

    The introduction is here:

    Reply Alert moderator

  12. Graeme Bird :
    13 Sep 2010 6:22:03pm

    Getting back to the topic at hand; It was disgraceful for the ABC to give Clive Hamilton so much space here, talking about the alleged evils of CO2-Emissions, when Clive Hamilton is totally ignorant when it comes to climate science. Find someone who knows what they are talking about. Its not complicated. Get those people on who understand the subject. Get people on who will engage with EVIDENCE.

    Its bad enough that there is an evidence filibuster going on here. But the ABC, who we have to fund, does not need to make the situation worse.

    Pretty simple. Reject any essay that refuses to deal with the evidence, and lets have some people on who can discuss the evidence. Evidence evidence evidence. And if you get people to talk about the evidence, none of those people will be Clive Hamilton.

    Reply Alert moderator

  13. pedro the economist:

    “Yes, the recession is the problem not the stimulus. A large fall in GDP won’t magically disappear no matter what you do. However, the largely useless stimulus won’t make it any better.”

    Where do you start with something like this? Pedro if you are having any trouble understanding economics ASK.

  14. “Graeme, pH is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration.”

    Thats NOT right. You have decided to blank out the negative ions in this story. Its not just about positive ions and lone protons. Its about the balance between negative and positive ions.

    I know what you are talking about from a definitional point of view. But its not the whole story. Let me illustrate with a quote from wiki.

    “It is the presence of hydronium ion RELATIVE TO hydroxide that determines a solution’s pH. The molecules in pure water auto-dissociate into hydronium and hydroxide ions in the following equilibrium:

    2 H2O OH− + H3O+

    In pure water, there is AN EQUAL NUMBER OF hydroxide and hydronium ions, so it has a neutral pH of 7.”

    So you see that once you get beyond this rather misleading definitional matter its really about THE BALANCE OF negative and positive ions. And not just about the absolute number of positive ions floating about.

  15. “Graeme, pH is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration. So water at a pH of 8 has a hydrogen ion concentration (or acidity) of 10 to the power -8 Molar, while water at a pH of 7 has a hydrogen ion concentration 10 times higher, at 10 to the power -7 Molar. That is, it is 10 times more acidic than the water at pH 8, because it has a 10 times higher concentration of hydrogen ions…..”

    So far so good. Except for one thing. The erroneous notion that I did not know the above. Continuing:

    “…. That is what acidity means…..”

    Not thats NOT what “acidity” means. Rather that is how pH is narrowly defined. Its defined in terms of the positive ions alone, whereas the meaning of acidity and alkalinity is to do with the balance BETWEEN negative and positive ions.

    Third parties might not realise this. But the alarmist camp has this stock reaction to any discussion on pH. And its referring to this logarithmic scale to do with positive ions alone and pretending that you did not know that already.

    JohnZ at Catallaxy pulled that one on me. They pulled it at Gristmill also. The alarmists always try and run that line. If it was a matter of me not knowing about the logarithmic scale then you would think I’d have learnt it by now.

    But the focus on positive ions alone, derived from this narrow definitional matter, obscures the reality of positive and negative ions, and helps these guys mangle the language and stooge everyone when it comes to the oceanic acidification scam.

    Once again: The oceans are alkaline. And they will remain that way. There is no oceanic acidification going on. Rather there is the totally unbacked speculation of a tiny move towards a less corrosive neutral.

  16. Mr Bird

    You are an obvious fan of this darky so this should please you

  17. Christopher Hitchens ought to be able to cure himself of cancer even at this late stage. I don’t have his email, but I tried to get a message to this effect through to him just the same.

  18. Burning salt water. Its hard to imagine this being used for cars like the video suggests. But you would think you could use it to pump salt water out of a canal going inland, for the use in salt-water greenhouses, either side of that canal.

  19. Mr B

    The editor of the Fractional-Reserve-York Times must be on holiday, because somehow a Fine Christian Man was able to get this published:

  20. Yes good article for a change. But he’s insufficiently sure of himself. Whereas extra deficits from tax cuts are ambiguous, stimulus spending unambiguously throws people out of work.

  21. Christopher Hitchens ought to be able to cure himself of cancer even at this late stage. I don’t have his email, but I tried to get a message to this effect through to him just the same.


    How is he going to do this? As if you have a secret cure I am sure the world wants to know.

  22. Birdie;

    How do you account for the fall off in PH?

    No bullshit, give it to us straight.

  23. WHAT FALLOFF IN PH????????????????

    The fall-off in Ph is in your mind. Its at least possible of course. CO2 is an “acidic oxide” as is SO2. But why are you assuming there is a fall-off in pH?

    You don’t just jump to this conclusion because a global warming fraudster tells you so. For goodness sakes man; If you don’t know these guys are compulsive liars now you aren’t going to figure it out in a month of Sundays.

  24. “How is he going to do this? As if you have a secret cure I am sure the world wants to know.”

    Well we are talking about pH right. So its a matter of your finding out what pH cancer cells like and can survive in. And what pH normal cells like and can survive in.

    Try and check that out and get back to me with a solution to turn the tables in favour of the Hitchens non-cancer-cells.

    Too easy.

  25. Mr Bird

    Those Gook and Wop cunts are pushing for a carbon tax again.

    Can we deport those two traitors?

  26. Yeah and get rid of fucking Marius Klopper too. That cunt sounds like two horses that need to be sent to the glue factory.

    And fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. Fucking Stutuchbury seems to have turned. I’ve already been over to give him a serve and a piece of my fucking mind. I told him if the boss put him up to this, he just has to tell the boss know. He’s got to remember his roots. He’s an Australian first. Not like this wandering cosmopolitan sellout Kloppers.

    Fuck me. Did I not tell you that the truly stupid have become upwardly-mobile? Here is Kloppers promoted to head up BHP at the age of 44. With the total advantages the bigshots have in this new environment of the cronies, its basically a political appointment.

  27. Mr Bird

    Kloppers is a South Effrican, like another sellout you know who is a professor.

    None of these South Effricans can be trusted even if they are white as ghosts.

  28. Birdie:

    You need to calm down and take this all in. Take a deep breath and push down as it relives the stress of a carbon price.

    Cousin Soon is now saying you have found a cancer cure. Is that correct?

  29. Mr Bird
    it seems those Jew bastards at Goldman are guilty of deliberately starving the darkies and golliewogs

  30. Useful link:

  31. Bird,

    You should have a look at dendritic cells, DCA, oncolytic viruses, stem cells, str1720, resveratrol and in paticular for men, provenge and abiraterone.

    Also the docrates institute in Finland.

    This pH stuff isn’t worth a pinch of shit. This other stuff could become generic medications with widespread use and high success rates.

  32. No you are entirely wrong dot. If a cell is at ph 7.44 thats good for an adult. If its at 7.61 thats good for a kid. If your cells are at 7.18 you are sick. And if your cells are at 6.48 or lower the cell cannot function in its specialised way and will turn cancerous. Thats the take home story by which you would want to judge the merits of any discussion on the subject.

    There is a fellow in France who takes a pretty straightforward approach to this sort of thing. He treats tumors by finding out how to get to them via the arteries. And then he sends a solution of sodium bicarbonate up those arteries to the tumor. And the tumor simply melts away. It cannot be any other way, since the specs for the cancer cell mandate a certain ph. Whereas the specs for the healthy cell mandate another ph. And one cannot survive in the others ph and vice versa.

    When you have low ph you cannot absorb oxygen. So all the viruses come out to play and start using enzymes to dissolve your low-ph and low-oxygen cells. This poisonous crap gets throughout your whole body, does damage and makes you sick. So the starting point is that you have to get your cell-voltage aka ph, right. Now you don’t necessarily do it in the crude fashion that the French bloke uses. But hey. If thats the quickest way to get results then that might have to do until you have a more holistic solution.

  33. “Cousin Soon is now saying you have found a cancer cure. Is that correct?”

    No what I’ve found is the correct paradigm by which you view the problem of cancer. There are a few people out there getting success through using a wide range of treatments compatible with this paradigm.

    Its illegal to cure cancer in the US, and the poison has spread here. You cannot say that you are treating cancer, unless by radiation or chemo-therapy. But since these don’t really cure cancer, though they may retard it some, then you cannot say you are curing cancer at all. So curing cancer is an illegal activity, thanks to the science-workers.

    The French fellow getting the good results uses a different paradigm then Jerry Tennant, who focuses on voltage (aka pH). The French bloke just says “Cancer is a fungus.” Now whether cancer is a fungus is actually pretty immaterial. A cancer cell can only survive in a low oxygen, and low ph environment. And a fungus has the same environmental requirements.

    So the take home story is that it doesn’t matter whose right or wrong. The same direct and indirect treatments around the body-voltage paradigm ought to work no matter whether you think that cancer is a fungus or you think it is merely a “devolved” cell.

  34. It is outrageous isn’t it, Mr B.

    In some parts of Old Europe, it’s a Criminal Offence even to merely mention the Hebrew Cancer, let alone try to cure it.

    All because Bloody Adolf lost Perspective and just took things too far.

    He really ruined it for the rest of us didn’t he?

  35. Did you know that Adolf issued non-interest-bearing money supply? Thats important since it meant that the recovery wasn’t haunted by too many resources going to the bankers. Of course he wound up finding other ways to waste resources. Goose-stepping across Poland being on of those ways.

    • It really is a shame we don’t have anyone in Australia nowadays with Good Old Adolf’s understanding of basic economics.

      The only Aussie politicians who even remotely compare to Adolf would be Bob Katter and of course Barnaby, who is First Rate.

      • Adolf’s understanding of economics wasn’t great. But far better than that of his other socialist colleagues. You’ve got to remember that he made great progress early on, and the left at first loved him. Only later some of the right, and that was partly an ambit claim to stay out of the war. Always a valid motive, but sometimes used in invalid ways. You will remember that Adolf was Times man of the year at one stage. 1933-36, along with hateful persecution, was associated with a kind of mini-renaissance in Germany. And why not? When some of that value had been taken back from the bankers.

      • Yeah Adolf was a good bloke wasn’t he. A Very Good Bloke.

        And he sure taught those bankers a few lessons didn’t he. About six million lessons they had to learn the hard way.


  36. Fucking Hell the Gook is a stupid cunt.

    Can anyone tell me how a deeply harmful policy can be a “no regrets policy.”

    “I agree there’s no urgency on a carbon tax if no one else is doing anything but Kloppers’ plan is basically a no regrets policy. ”

    Why do you want a carbon tax Jason Soon. You are a fucking moron mate. Yeah so you don’t give a shit, and you can harm every working Australian, for no reason at all, and not regret it.

    That doesn’t make it a no regrets policy you stupid cunt. Jason Soon not caring about fucking up Australia hardly means its a “no regrets policy”.

    Explain yourself you blockhead.

    Face it. Kloppers is a moron. He’s just basically given it away what a dummy he is. Does anyone still believe in this free market in CEO’s?

    Once you have gotten to where the bigshot companies have systematic, non-market advantages over the smaller guys, then the big jobs are basically akin to political appointments. Kloppers is an idiot. His advocacy is explicitly based on soothsaying and gutlessness. Notice that his discussion on these matters is an evidence-free-zone.

    Don’t be thinking that running BHP is some sort of hard gig. He couldn’t screw it up if he tried. All the rules favour the bigshots. Its only digging stuff out of the ground in that sort of environment.

  37. Look as this moron. He’s basically a Green. He may as well be Lambert himself. He’s saying we have to give up our sovereignty on the matter. Notice not a word on scientific evidence.

    Note also that he’s been consorting behind closed doors with a redhead succubis. He sorted out a crony deal behind closed doors, with only three outfits invited. The guys a complete fuckwit.

  38. Kloppers: The stupidest man in Australian business.

  39. Mr Bird

    what do you make of this?

    Could Lambert’s transformation for the worse since 25 years have been due to his ideological proclivities?

    • But its not Lambert. Its that handsome little fellow they always perch above the wedding cake.

  40. Well said, Mr B.

    What a Stupid Gook Cunt.

  41. Don’t be fooled Graeme:

  42. Fucking dot. Don’t fucking pollute my blog with your stupidity. There is no evidence, one way or another on your link. Shit you are a fucking idiot.

    Now the fact is, that the cancer cells “operating specs” are for a ph of 6.48 or lower.

    If a cell is at ph 7.44 thats good for an adult. If its at 7.61 thats good for a kid. If your cells are at 7.18 you are sick. And if your cells are at 6.48 or lower the cell cannot function in its specialised way and will turn cancerous.

    Thats the facts of the matter you fucking moron. Where in your link you stupid cunt, is there a contradiction to these facts.

    Fucking hell man. I’d swear we didn’t make people this stupid when I was little. How can an alleged incident, of an unfortunate nature, contradict that paradigm and those facts?

    You are too stupid to be an economist mate. Bad economics is dead easy. Good economics is harder than medicine. Thats why only Kates and Rafe make the grade at your main site. And only I achieved excellence.

  43. Birdie:

    Are you vying for the big job at BHP? It’s in the bag if you want it.

    • It would be an easy job sure. The place almost runs itself. But there is no chance they would give it to me.

  44. Adolf was hopeless at economics as far as I can make out. But perhaps somewhat less hopeless then his socialist colleagues. But if these reports are right, that he was smart enough to issue money supply that was non-interest-bearing, well thats something. If true this would mean at least he was smart enough to understand what the other looters were up to.

  45. Very quickly, we can put to rest the dumb Gooks claims that a carbon tax is a “no regrets” policy. If that doesn’t strike you as immediately idiotic then read the following. And sorry for having to go over the basics:

    Graeme Bird :
    17 Sep 2010 3:19:57am

    There is this anti-economic argument going about that a carbon-tax is alright just so long as the revenue is returned to the public by tax cuts elsewhere. Nothing could be more foolish.

    A carbon tax will reduce tax revenues from all other sources. So it cannot be “returned” to the public. But supposing this is wrong and the carbon tax wound up raising revenue at first.

    Well at first we would have our current investment setup and the revenue. With each year that passed we would have distorted investment decisions and supposing the tax was successful, we would have reductions in CO2-output…..

    SO THE CARBON TAX WOULD UNDERMINE ITS OWN REVENUE BASE. So we wind up without the revenue and with all the economic damage.

    This is the same problem when we compare an export-competitive currency versus tariffs. Tariffs seem like a good idea in the first instance. No economic damage and all this revenue. But sooner or later you lose the revenue and retain only the economic damage. Same situation with a carbon tax. I say that the carbon tax will destroy revenues right from the start. But if thats not true, in the long run, the carbon tax is all economic damage with very little tax revenue. This is the opposite of what a tax ought to be about.

    I’ve not seen a single example of someone getting the science wrong and the economic argument right. If you start off in an unscientific manner thats how you will continue.

    Reply Alert moderator


    Clearly Kloppers has been too busy to be reading his King James version of the book of proverbs.

    “King James Bible
    Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: [and] he that shutteth his lips [is esteemed] a man of understanding.”

    Marius has really let the cat out of the bag. Had he just kept his mouth shut, we would never have known. Fortunately he’s heading up an outfit that practically runs itself. Its only digging stuff out of the ground for the most part. With the advantage that the deep pockets players have under our method of allocating natural resources, you don’t have to be too bright inside the Kloppers office.

  47. Clearly Kloppers has been too busy to be reading his King James version of the book of proverbs.

    “King James Bible
    Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: [and] he that shutteth his lips [is esteemed] a man of understanding.”

    Marius has really let the cat out of the bag. Had he just kept his mouth shut, we would never have known. Fortunately he’s heading up an outfit that practically runs itself. Its only digging stuff out of the ground for the most part. With the advantage that the deep pockets players have under our method of allocating natural resources, you don’t have to be too bright inside the Kloppers office.

  48. Look at the idiot steve from brisbane. Here was Paul Sheehan, on deaths door, and next he was cured. And he explains the situation very well. I would have described the same phenomenon, more in terms of low ph and the absence of oxygen. These two characteristics go hand in hand. So Sheehan describes it as too much CO2. But in the end, despite such nuance, we would be talking about exactly the same thing.

    So anyway the stupid cunt, steve-of-brisbane, being fucking dumb, quotes Sheehan. Quotes him and doesn’t fucking listen.

    So what makes steve-of-brisbane imagine that he’s a medical researcher all of a sudden. What makes him imagine in his wildest dreams that he is right and Paul Sheehan is wrong?

    Its the phrase “magic water”.

    Thats all it took for steve-of-brisbane to make a cunt of himself. That phrase alone.

  49. “It should be bird’s motto, “if I have seen further it is because I have been surrounded by pygmies”

    But I”ve already used a version of that motto. My motto was “if I’ve seen further than other men, its because I’ve stomped on the head of pygmy’s”

    Exactly right though Steve. Nothing magical or particularly smart about what I do. I simply have gotten the methodology right for ranking paradigms. I see which are the most promising paradigms. So it wasn’t at all hard to judge Jerry Tennant as being on the right track.

    The “magic water” story is completely in keeping with the Tennant paradigm. But check out the stupidity of steve-of-brisbane. The blockhead rejects first-hand witness testimony on what basis? On the basis that he knows and the first-hand witness does not? On what basis then?

    On the basis that it seems too good to be true, and on the basis that some wag coined the phrase “magic water. ”

    What a fuckwit is our steve-of-brisbane. What an assclown. All thats wrong with the world in that one example.

  50. “What isn’t the Bird good at I wonder.

    Nobel level in science, economics, literature.”

    Don’t insult me you wop cunt. I thought there was some sort of truce on.

  51. Nobel Prize indeed. How dare this wop cunt heap such disrespect upon my person.

  52. Its going to be hard going quaffing sodium bicarbonate the whole time to get your general ph to the highest possible safe levels. Or perhaps just above the highest safe levels, so that electrons are being donated to where the cancer cells are.

    If you keep quaffing sodium bicarbonate alone that would be like consuming a great deal of salt. So this “magic water” from the softdrink company at Taree would be an excellent thing as well.

    And then in addition to this you would want to get one of these: A water ioniser. If you had cancer, or in fact any chronic illness you can think of, any time you weren’t actually digesting protein, you’d want to be quaffing ionised liquids of some sort. Every liquid you took away from when you were trying to digest protein, could use the benefits of an ioniser.

    This one from New Zealand, since the reason I’m dwelling on this is my Mum is sick.

    “The KYK Genesis is considered one of the best water ionizers /alkalisers in the world as a recent consumer test has established. It was voted the best ionizer/alkaliser: value for money with 5 stars and editors pick :

    The KYK Genesis is available in 2 different plate sizes:

    KYK 25000 ‘Genesis’ Water Ionizer/Alkaliser: 5 plate ionizer/alkaliser:

    pH range: 4-10 and programable up to pH 3-11*

    ORP range: -50 to -450mv and higher programable*”

    Doesn’t matter if you are having tea or coffee, or anything at all apart from digesting protein. You want to be trying to get these electrons into you.

    But you just try claiming that this is a cure for cancer. Your act will be closed down SO FAST you won’t have enough time to sell off the office chairs.

    Many people by now must know that this is a cure (or can assist in curing) cancer. But no-one is allowed to say it or they will be taken out of business, by weeks end.

  53. Listen to this fucking moron steve-of-brisbane.

    “Mr G Bird: haven’t you ever heard of the placebo effect?”

    Of course I have you fucking dumb cunt. But what would that have to do with anything.

    The “unique water” is highly ionised magnesium bicarbonate, with other minerals. So it is designed to raise ph. When you raise ph the cells can now absorb oxygen. Cancer cells do not survive in a high oxygen, alkaline environment. They survive in an acidic anaerobic environment.

    Lets go over it again you stupid cunt. I swear it would be easier to teach this to ten year olds then this mentally retarded steve-of-brisbane cunt.


    2. Specialist human cells cannot function in an acidic environment, without sufficient oxygen.

    3. Oxygen will not be aborbed in high enough quantities where the ph is too low.

    4. At first the low pH low oxygen environment will tell all these dormant viruses its time to come out to play. They will use enzymes to dissolve your cells. The junk from this process will be transported around your body. This is what chronic illness is. Low ph, viruses activated, junk poisoning your entire system.

    5. But if the oxygen and pH drop even further, the cells will turn cancerous.

    So unique water obviously is at least helpful in this situation. I saw your link, went to the company website. Sure enough. Highly ionised, magnesium bicarbonates. No chlorine or fluoride. Of course it will be helpful given the above facts.

    What are you? A fucking moron.

    Once again we see this fellow make an ass of himself, simply because somebody coined the phrase “magic water.”

    What an immensely dumb cunt this fellow is. And irresponsible too. Because at any time an elder relative could be on the verge of getting the cancer.

  54. Fuck this cunts stupidity never ends. Now he’s down on camel milk, but has presented no evidence for or against camel milk one way or the other.

    Where are these people being turned out? These dumb cunts like Mark Hill and steve-of-brisbane that simply do not know what evidence or reason is.



    The silly cunt thinks that some sort of mirth in a phrase is a stunning medical argument.

    Steve you should just kill yourself mate. Some chick will get way too drunk and then there is a chance the stupid gene will be passed on.

  55. Why does steve put forward an opinion large or small when he is so manifestly incapable of thinking about any subject in anything like a sane way?

    Camels particularly have to face severe stresses. What could it be in the milk that could allow the baby camel to survive in the incredibly harsh conditions that face it? Well who knows. But its at least a possibility there is some sort of active agent here. You cannot just dismiss the matter on the basis of smug ignorance.

    One time I was taking this cows colustrum back when I was a real juicer. I remember getting absolutely trashed, losing my bag and mobile phone, and falling asleep in a park. I woke up eventually and not even a sniffle when I ought to have been near dying of exposure. So the cow, on a freezing spring morning, seems to be able to transfer something to her calf to allow it to stay alive.

    Why dismiss camels milk given the incredible stresses that the baby camel has to cope with as the sun beats down on it and no water in sight?

  56. Bear in mind that in terms of outcomes the French medical system is ranked first in the world. Maybe doctors aren’t mandated by law to be stupid cunts in that country.

  57. Steve links to something pointing out that French medical researchers are interested in camels milk. But somehow steve thinks he knows more than the French medical researchers. This even though French medical OUTCOMES are the best in the world.

    But Steve knows better. If we could stop the hateful killing of camels by murderous greenies, and make the laws for capturing land and camels clear, then maybe we would have an whole new industry, and start making wild advertising claims for camels milk.

    But then maybe not. Steve knows far better then the people who have actually USED IT for medical purposes. Steve knows far better than the French researchers.

  58. Hope your mum gets better, Mr B.

  59. She will if I can convince her to get a water ioniser. But it pisses me off the uselessness of the science and medical community that I didn’t know about these machines until this very day. She could have spent the last five years healthy.

  60. A rare public speaking engagement by Bill Still.

  61. Mr B

    Do you think Camel Milk explains how a bunch of shiftless bastards like the Gyppos got The Pyramids done?

    • It wasn’t the gypos (Kemi-Egyptians) that built the pyramids.

      • Right.

        I didn’t think those lazy bastards could have done it, even with Nutritious Camel Milk.

  62. I’m pretty sure the pH ranges you quote would go past cancer developing as acidosis would basically be lethal. 7.3-7.45 is normal.


    Why are you saying all the other stuff like oncolytic virii, DCA etc don’t work?


    DCA is used to treat acidosis,


    “If a cell is at ph 7.44 thats good for an adult. If its at 7.61 thats good for a kid. If your cells are at 7.18 you are sick. And if your cells are at 6.48 or lower the cell cannot function in its specialised way and will turn cancerous.”


  63. Graeme Bird :
    16 Sep 2010 9:33:41pm
    Why are these foolish opinions of Marius Kloppers even newsworthy? He doesn’t have the evidence either. This is merely evidence that the very stupid have become upwardly-mobile. If he wants to recommend measures harmful for Australia he ought to go home to his own miserable little country. His name sounds like two horses that need to be sent to the glue factory.

    Reply Alert moderator

  64. Graeme Bird :
    17 Sep 2010 8:40:19pm
    Kloppers is not being an astute businessman. He’s being a sellout. He ought to live with uncertainty, rather than impose certain disaster on this country, or he ought to go back to where he came from.

    Its true that by imposing costs on his own business, but relatively higher costs on smaller outfits, he can shore up his own position. But to think that this sort of behavior is okay on the part of our big businesses, is to advocate a retreat to primitive pre-Adam Smith conditions.

    Its already happened in the US. The total takeover by cronytown. Its not acceptable for ring-ins to contribute to that outcome here.

    Reply Alert moderator

  65. “DCA is used to treat acidosis, amongst other things ”

    You are such an idiot Mark. If DCA is used to treat acidosis, well of course its going to be successful.

    Lets go over it again you brainless cunt Mark Hill:

    “If a cell is at ph 7.44 thats good for an adult. If its at 7.61 thats good for a kid. If your cells are at 7.18 you are sick. And if your cells are at 6.48 or lower the cell cannot function in its specialised way and will turn cancerous.”

    Is there anything there to say that DCA is better or worse than ionised water? Is there? No there isn’t.

    Obviously you are going to be able to get more out of ionised water though. Because you can absorb more of that then any drug. And you will be able to afford more of that then any drug.

  66. Graeme Bird :
    17 Sep 2010 1:57:53am

    If you need this many reviews it seems to imply that you don’t know what you are doing and probably ought not have the job.

    Reply Alert moderator

    Graeme Bird :
    17 Sep 2010 8:02:32pm

    The solutions are all almost completely generic. Raise the income tax threshold, reform tax/currency/money. Mass-sackings in government. Find a way to grow momentum in infrastructure investment. No taxes on retained earnings in business. Have a built-in-bias towards small business to keep the bigshots lean, scared and to stop them from paying themselves too much……..

    If you haven’t sorted out the above before you become an MP (let alone a PM) you are likely not up to the job.

    Reply Alert moderator

  67. Terry McCrann laying some home Truthzzz on the idiot Kloppers:

  68. “This has led to allegations Kloppers is “talking his own book”, given that BHP sells only 10 per cent of its coking coal in Australia and 18 per cent of its thermal product. There are two points to make on that front. First, that is his job.”

    Here Mathew Stevens of the Australian advocates that crony-town help bring about the sort of pre-Adam Smith crudeness that we now see operating in the US. Yeah good one Mathew. Next he shows his slackness as a journalist:

    “Kloppers’ frank endorsement of carbon science….”

    You fucking moron Mathew. Get your fat ass back into doing some real journalism you ignorant fuck. The dimwitted Kloppers is staging a rebellion against CO2-science.

    I gave Stutchbury a good talking to the other day. I wonder if that lively message was approved?


    If a cell is at ph 7.44 thats good for an adult. If its at 7.61 thats good for a kid. If your cells are at 7.18 you are sick. And if your cells are at 6.48 or lower the cell cannot function in its specialised way and will turn cancerous.




  71. We see that we already know the cure for cancer. But socialism will not let it happen. From the time that a person has been diagnosed with cancer in the US, until such time as he finally dies, the socialist medical system can hope to pick up about 400 000 dollars in revenues.

  72. So you read the link, you have absolutely no understanding of these matters, and somehow you wound up believing what you read.

    You want to see how ionised water emulsifies fat. You think its an optical illusion?

  73. Try and watch a few videos of the machines working so you won’t be so ignorant. Once again: You are a stupid cunt. Your presumed wop second sight does not work.

  74. Shut up, Woppy.

  75. The level of Cambria’s irrationality is just offensive. Banking. A profession where very stupid people can make a lot of money.

  76. Lets be clear here. We are not saying that drinking bicarb of soda in some haphazard way is a sure-fire method of curing all cancer. Nor would one claim that ionisation of water alone will do the job for you, if you do not understand what it is you are trying to achieve.

    “If a cell is at ph 7.44 thats good for an adult. If its at 7.61 thats good for a kid. If your cells are at 7.18 you are sick. And if your cells are at 6.48 or lower the cell cannot function in its specialised way and will turn cancerous.”

    These are the facts of the matter and there are implications to this. In terms of going with a strategy, I myself cannot see how you are going to be able to physically force your PH up high enough, without a pretty much unlimited supply of alkalised water. Whether you get it delivered by the crateful to your door from Taren Point, or whether you get a machine and make it at home.

    Perhaps a really competitive person could raise their pH on baking soda alone. I’m experimenting with this, but I really cannot see it, except as a stop-gap measure. A little extra sodium in ones system may be helpful to clear out the Chlorine from ones body more effectively. But the amount of baking powder you would need to turn the tide, if you were mortally ill, might be impractical. It may be unhealthy to have a lot of extra sodium in your system.

    So clearly some sort of plentiful access to ionised water must be part of the treatment. It cannot be otherwise. If you are in Sydney, start with the “unique water” from Taren Point as a stop-gap, then go from there. Actually you can get unique water delivered in Melbourne and Brisbane too. I would advise tal to order a crate and try it out.

  77. Bird. Did you even look at the links I posted ehre?

    • What was the point Mark? I believed you. Why can you not accept and practice logic? What is wrong with logic in your view of things?

      I have no reason to doubt the efficacy of the anti-cancer drug you mentioned. Since by your own admission, this drug of yours cures Acidosis. What does it mean to cure acidosis Mark? Yes Mark. Thats right. It means that this drug lifts pH. Acidosis is low pH. Lifting acidosis means raising pH.

      So you yourself presented confirming information for what I’ve been telling you. You have further proved the basic soundness of the approach I have taken. Cancer has been cured. Only the economic fascism of the public-private-partnership, has prevented us from realising this.

      But no drug is going to be able to beat the direct injection of voltage into the body via ionisation of every liquid you injest. No drug can hope to compete with that. No chance at all. Where is the drug going to get all the electrons from? And Lord knows what side effects it has. If you want to increase pH add electrons directly, and then fix all the many problems that have lead to the ill-health in the first place. The raising of the pH will make you healthy right away. But one doesn’t want to be in an artificial state of health this way. One wants to just use this “artificial” health, to give one the opportunity, to get ones entire body working properly, so that in theory you would not need to be propped up in this way.

  78. You should look at oncolytic virii as well. Some are naturally occuring. Viruses that eat cancer and thus turn your immune system on to the cancer as well.

    Worth a look.

    • Right. But if you don’t have a plan to lift pH you can never be fully cured. So having a virus that eats cancer cells is a bit like having surgery each day. The virus will be digesting cancer cells and spreading junk around your body the whole time. Better to actually solve the problem outright.

      • I don’t know about the pH thing, but the “junk” that is spread around will actually induce dendriditc cells to switch on to fight the cancer and help macrophages switch back from being “hijacked” and fight cancer all over your body.

  79. No you are just talking shit. Virus shit, and dissolved cancer cells are going to poison your whole system and make you feel like you are suffering from AIDS. Putting poison all through someones body isn’t the latest fashion.

    The drug you mentioned that treats acidosis, well thats good since it raises pH. But its not going to raise pH as cleanly and as effectively as 2 gallons of ionised water at -750 millivolts is.

    The virus you mentioned will kill cancer cells. But without raising the pH this will be a forever thing. Keeping the cancer in check perhaps, but poisoning the body on a daily basis and maintaining the environment for more cancer to grow. The two of them together sound like a reasonable combination. But by no means the best way to go if good health is the goal.

  80. Look Mark you are a fucking moron. Your stupidity is offensive. WHAT IS WRONG WITH LOGIC? What is wrong with human reason? Why do you find it so offensive?

    “John H,

    Please educate Bird on cancer. I tried but I don’t know enough. He’s a blowhard but I wouldn’t like someone to use quackery and have themselves in a world of hurt.”

    We discussed it didn’t we? What did you not understand? You mentioned two drugs … actually one drug and one virus … that ought to be effective together.

    One drug you mentioned will raise pH right?

    But its not possible that it could be as effective or as cost-effective as downing two gallons of pH 11 water? How could it be? Our bodies aren’t some sort of fucking electricity out-station. You cannot possibly be thinking that a drug for acidosis, can lift pH as well as unlimited water chock full of voltage just come off the mains?

    Drugs can be effective. But no fucking pill is going to be THAT effective.


    “Please educate Bird on cancer. I tried but I don’t know enough.”

    The hatred of logic never bottoms out at Catallaxy. Here Mark assumes I’m wrong with total certainty. Even though he knows with total certainty that he doesn’t know shit.
    In reality most anti-cancer drugs hurt you but hurt the cancer more FOR A FEW MONTHS until the cancer gets used to the drugs. From there the drugs will likely hurt the patient more than the cancer.

    So a new drug will be tried when the patient gets sick again. Then a new one. Then another one.

    So the quacks are screwing it up. Some of those drugs would be useful in context. In the context that you’ve already turned your body into an unwelcome place for cancer from a pH point of view. Then when you use the drug you win the war outright. Get rid of the cancer in total.

    We would have been doing this this last 30 years. But the fact is that medicine is a public-private-partnership and not free enterprise. This is why all those people had to die of cancer during that time.

  82. “A little extra sodium in ones system may be helpful to clear out the Chlorine from ones body more effectively. But the amount of baking powder you would need to turn the tide, if you were mortally ill, might be impractical. It may be unhealthy to have a lot of extra sodium in your system.”

    Or one could start taking a magnesium supplement and boost dietary potassium and calcium intake. The body has a very tight regulation of pH and will “leach” minerals out of the bones to maintain plasma pH. I’d rather trust evolution’s strategy for regulating pH than my current understanding.

    Attempts to keep increasing pH could be an excellent way to go blind and accelerate aging. In most cells there is a “garbage disposal” organelle, the lysosome. For that organelle to degrade various molecules there internal pH must be maintained at 4.5. In one study I read once the pH reached 5.0, the lysosomes could not degrade the molecules, becomes overloaded, and can then burst, leading to cell death. These organelles used to be called “suicide vesicles” because of their capacity to kill cells. The bloated lysosomes contain lipofuscin, a key marker of aging. In that study by simply restoring the pH to 4.5 via cAMP agonist the lysosomes cleared the accumulation. So if you keep trying to push your pH too high you might actually accelerate aging, especially considering lysosome loss of function is a key cell aging marker.







  84. “Attempts to keep increasing pH could be an excellent way to go blind and accelerate aging. In most cells there is a “garbage disposal” organelle, the lysosome. For that organelle to degrade various molecules there internal pH must be maintained at 4.5. In one study I read once the pH reached 5.0, the lysosomes could not degrade the molecules, becomes overloaded, and can then burst, leading to cell death.”

    But thats on a micro level John. Since when have you heard of people going blind lifting their pH when their pH is clearly very low?

  85. “Hey Jason and Dot,

    Just returned from Bird’s blog, long time since been there. Have posted something on the absurdity of trying this pH stuff. Yeah, it gets frustrating when you see people peddling such dangerous crap.”

    John H you retarded lying asshole. YOU!!!!!! are spinning dangerous crap you dumb cunt. Not me. YOU!!!!! Do you know how many people die of cancer every year you fucking cunt? Don’t you accuse me of what you are guilty of you stupid cunt.

    No I don’t know how many people die every year of cancer either. But its a lot right? And its so unnecessary and you are being an irresponsible cunt with your irrationality on the matter.

    Lets go over it again you fucking idiot. Cancer does not exist in high pH environments. It doesn’t. You might think it does but it doesn’t. Low pH is critical for the development of cancer.

    Have you got that sorted now, or do you have contrary advice on the matter?

    Now our cells are sophisticated beasts. More sophisticated then our refrigerators. The cell needs high pH to function. This does not mean that within the cell, the cell will be incapable of producing a low pH reaction. Any more than a kid is incapable of producing stomach acid. Any more than a fridge cannot have a butter-warmer within it. Don’t make shit up.

    Don’t be making a cunt of yourself on Catallaxy because people need to know the reality. Its irresponsibility like that which you have shown here that is the cause of all these cancer deaths.

    There is simply no need for people to be dying of cancer like they are. You have never heard of one case of someone going blind because of high pH. Nor did you come up with a serious reason why they would. Being as you were talking on a tiny sub-cellular level.

    Of course sub-sectors of the cell have their own electrical specs. The human body is an electrical system of great complexity. But it need voltage to make it work.


  87. Bird, best wishes re your Mum.

  88. Check out the flat learning curves from steve-of-brisbane. It would be easier to teach a four year old.

    “But on a serious note, doesn’t it seem likely that his current angry responses to any suggestion that his hoped for miracle cancer cures are almost certainly illusory is due to his being stressed out about his mother’s apparently failing health? (And for saying that I’m probably due for another broadside.) I’ll leave him be for a while.”

    Look you moron. Its pretty simple really. Cancer cells do not, and cannot survive in a high oxygen, high pH environment.

    Why is this complicated?

    The cancer gets used to any new drug the quacks come up with. So they all work for a little while. But unless they can provide electrons and oxygen they can only be a temporary setback for the cancer.

    Now this ought not be difficult to understand. Yet JohnH, Mark, Jason Soon, and it appears all of you there do not seem to be able to understand it.

    We have maybe a trillion viruses in a near-dormant state in our body. When oxygen and pH levels drop, as they always do in a chronically ill person, these viruses come alive and start eating the human. They do so by injecting enzymes into human cells to dissolve them. Then waste products get moved around the body causing complications everywhere. So its best to kill these critters off with high oxygen and high pH levels. Only a few, and just a very few, bacteria like the high pH environment and they are easy to kill by other means. But no virus likes this high pH environment.

    Water as a liquid has these molecular clusters. But high pH water has smaller molecular clusters so it can move through the body more easily, getting at areas that for some reason have been unable to get as much blood/oxygen/electrical flow.

    So supposing you see someone with diabetes whose feet are becoming infected. Water with a pH of 11 will be useful here if he is used to it. He can put his feet in it. The pH of his feet may be brought up to 7.88 making healing possible. If he drinks it (supposing he has become used to drinking pH 11 over time) his circulation will improve and the oxygen and electrons will have more chance to get to his feet.

    Because that person is already chronically sick his total pH will be low and the pH of his feet will be lower still. By pushing his general pH up very high, the contrast will help force oxygen and electrons down to his feet.

    In the same way high pH water will help get electrons and oxygen into areas that have for some reason been cut off to an extent. When you blow bubbles through water it is the pH that determines how much oxygen can be dissolved in the water. If a woman has breast cancer, this is a situation where we have an area in the body with a lot lower pH then elsewhere. So this pH 11 water is useful for bringing oxygen, electrons and blood-flow back to that area.

    Now this is pretty useful information for tal and others don’t you think. So this irresponsible garbage you are all spewing over at Catallaxy is really beyond the pale.

    Now why is every dumb cunt at Catallaxy sure they know everything about cancer all of a sudden?

    I have to go and research all this stuff. I didn’t even find out about water ionisers until steve-of-brisbane mentioned “unique water.” But when I want to know about something I have to research it. Whereas you dumb cunts only have to adopt a smug posture and you know everything already.

    How does Jason Soon know I’m wrong for example? The Gook practicing witch-craft?

    Some tiny subset of a cell that JohnH was talking about has its pH at 4.5. Quite clearly we see that this is not affected by the PH of the body more generally. Or else this couldn’t work at all.


  90. Mr B

    Until you adopt Hebrew Science, the Cancer Mafia will never let you have a moment’s rest.

    This may be even more dangerous than speaking the Truth about Jack and 9/11.

  91. Best wishes for your mom, Graeme. I’ll cast whatever Taoist white magic spells I can to help.

  92. Mr Bird,

    It has been a while, as I have been busy with other projects, but I am most dismayed to read of the ill health of your mother. My dear old Dad is a regular cosumer of unique water over the last 5 years and is still relatively spritely while rapidly closing in upon his century.

    As always the herd at Cattle-axy low away confusing what they do know for what is possible. I will humbly admit my ignorance but wish you well on your unrestrained quest for knowledge.

  93. […] As they are saying record rainfalls have silenced two climate wackos and the lying CSIRO. […]

  94. Currently it appears like Movable Type is the top blogging
    platform out there right now. (from what I’ve read) Is that what you’re using on your blog?

  95. As excellent as the Austrian and British Classical Schools are in terms of being such well thought out edifices of human reason ……. They are not true to the situation we face ourselves in. Take profit maximisation just for example? Does anyone go from being in rags, to being a property magnate, on the grounds of profit maximisation? No of course not. So what are the bigshots really chasing?
    If profit maximisation were really the goal of DECISION-MAKERS (ie real humans with influence (as opposed to getting locked into any “theory of the firm”)), then under even reasonably (only reasonably) sound background conditions, resource allocation would not be too bad, as against the disgrace of resource allocation we see today.
    Not the individual banks, but the banks TAKEN AS A CARTEL create money out of thin air. But people are right to object to us throwing moral opprobrium on this racket, on the grounds that; the banks cannot be getting the full benefit of the counterfeiting racket that a counterfeiter would. Because after all when their asset (your debt) is created, the banks also have a new liability on their balance sheets, of the same quantity in short order.
    Now the banking system rigs it that their liability will always reduce in value, and therefore can be dismissed, and their asset will always out-pace inflation. They rig this with central bank policy. I’ve heard this wicket called “arbitrage” and its been suggested that the answer is to force tighter money on the central bank. Ha ha. Like any politician is in a position to push the banking sector around. Like a central bank is beholden to anyone but the banking sector? Maybe in the sixties in the southern hemisphere such a fantasy could be sustained.
    But its not just a matter of arbitrage or a difference of opinion on monetary policy. And if it is HERE its certainly not, when it comes to the Northern hemisphere.
    Nonetheless the people who argue correctly that the banking industries new assets (via their money creation scam) are always matched by the same quantity of addition to their new liabilities, do have a point.
    How is this resolved to the moral disfavour of this obvious counterfeiting racket?:
    The fact is that like most scams, the scammer has to share a bit of the booty out to middlemen. The illegal drugs booty (economic rent) is shared out to the street dealer. And the cartel picks up “little-fish” now and again (as the cop in “Scarface would have it.”)
    The legal drug-dealing scammers, who are fundamentally the same scammers as the afformentioned networks ….. well they have to give the Doctors a cut. Doctors being after all, drug-dealing prescription writers first, and health professionals second, and for the most part sincere in both their roles.
    So the point of business, or at least the way to get rich, is NOT to profit maximise. Its to give up such notions, about the time you give up on Santa Claus. You see you want to be the other beneficiary to the money creation scam. The banks cannot be the total beneficiary. The banks must accept the liabilities they are bound to incur, along with the assets they expropriate through trickery.
    Your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to be the partner to the bankers money-creation scam. This involves you getting the best interest rate available, on a SURE THING, which in practice means having excellent collateral.
    The banks create money on sure things. Thats why the instincts of people like Professor Quiggin and the great writer Bob Ellis are dead-on when it comes to privatisation. Because what happens is that the investment bankers, the lawyers, the economic consultants …. well they all tongue the ear of the sitting politicians, and get a SURE THING. Competitive business IS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE A SURE THING. A sure thing is proof of market dysfunction.
    Then they pyramid money creation against this sure thing. The net result is that we take all the good things AND ADD DEBT BURDENS TO THEM. Privatisation is about taking something good, AND ADDING DEBT TO IT. That debt has come about through new money creation. The resources therefore having been expropriated from other Australians.
    Moving on we see that there are a lot of get-rich gurus out there in the book market. Some of them are really smart guys who have proved their mettle in good times and bad. And when you boil down what they have to offer, you find that getting rich is about seeking out the fractional reserve subsidy. Getting rich is about being on the other half of the money-creation racket. Its about being the partner with the banking cartel, wherein they extort the wealth of society through new money creation, and your job is to be the other half of that windfall.
    Not long ago I scored a big low-interest loan. It took all my high-interest debt off the table and it turned my life around. Unless there is a sudden sado-monetary epoch that throws most people out of work, this constitutes a massive subsidy. A massive subsidy that I don’t deserve in micro, but that I can consider it okay for me to accept as compensation for taxes and for being stiffed when I fell into debt-addiction.
    Well thats a single loan for me. But the rich slobs are getting this subsidy week in week out, pretty much from the time they turn 21. And we need a REAL new deal, to set this thing to rights and to make sure that no-one gets the money creation subsidy any more ……. the treasury and the extraction industries, alone excepted.

  96. Wow, marvelous blog structure! How long have you ever been blogging for? you make blogging look easy. The entire glance of your site is fantastic, as neatly as the content!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: