THE ZEOLITE ‘CHELATION’ AND BODILY CLEANSING CONUNDRUM; by Iman Safi 23 January 2024

3THE ZEOLITE ‘CHELATION’ AND BODILY CLEANSING CONUNDRUM;

Questions Demanding Answers:

Much has been recently said about the ability of zeolite to rid the body of toxins. How true is this?

Zeolite is a naturally-occurring mineral. It is found in some soils and in deposits all over the world. As a MSc. in soil science and a practicing field agronomist for 45 years, I have dealt extensively with zeolite for over three decades, and I believe that I can safely say that I know what it can and cannot do.

I have a well-founded background in biology and chemistry and always took interest in medical, health and wellness issues. I am therefore familiar with scientific literature from both medical as well as naturopathic perspectives, and I know how scientific data and conclusions can and should be presented.

Moreover, in the last 2 to 3 years, with all the talk about graphene, all the contrasting reports, misinformation and disinformation flying around from all sides, I had to use my own scientific knowledge to delve into the myths and facts and listened to the words of the experts in that field.

In this article however, I am not going to discuss whether or not graphene has been insidiously pushed into our bodies. I will restrict my comments to whether or not zeolite is able to remove graphene in any given situation as a starting point.

I am backing up my argument(s) herein with easy-to-check references using Wikipedia. And even though this is a technical discussion, my argument is written in a manner that is easy to comprehend even by those of little or no science background.

I am writing this because I have come across a video that promotes a ‘protocol’ using zeolite to ‘pull out graphene’ and other nasty chemicals from human bodies: "Masterpeace test removing foreign substance from blood with Dr. Carrie Madej"

At face value, the video alleges to offer a masterpiece solution (hence the name Masterpeace) to allay the fears of very concerned people who have lost trust in much of what was dished out to them. However, I feel rather uncomfortable with the manner is which data figures were presented and many conclusions drawn from the studies done.

On the above bases, and after watching the 33 min video, I felt that it didn’t provide satisfactory information and that it presented more questions than answers. This is why I decided to give the podcasters the chance to explain themselves and hopefully allay my concerns. This is why I am asking the promoters of this ‘protocol’ the following questions:

a. What procedure have you followed to conclusively detect and measure the level of graphene in blood when eminent scientists in the field proclaim that no such tests are available? I am asking for the specific names of both quantitative and qualitative tests.

b. Why are you withholding the name of the lab that has done the tests? The reason you gave does not seem rational. By revealing the name of the lab, you can add much credibility to your claim all the while putting the onus of explaining how the figures were obtained on the lab instead of yourselves.

c. Even at face value, the data sheets presented are questionable to say the least. To begin with, the tables are not itemised in a manner that clearly explains what is what. Secondly, figures presented on a separate table on the right side are very obscure. I had to work out that they are the individual figures before they were averaged.  

However, it is still unclear to me if they are based on analytical data collected from the same person over a period of time, or otherwise data collected from different people. But this is not all because in either case, many of the readings you reported are identical to the fifth significant figure. Anyone who has passed Biology or Chemistry 101 with a D knows that this is a virtual impossibility. Presented below is one of many tables with highlighted 7 colour-coded pairs of exact figures.

I have consulted with a friend with a much more superior medical knowledge and experience to mine, and she assured me that if one gives two blood samples from two different veins the results will not be identical to such a level of accuracy. Such identical figures are not restricted to the table above. They are present in all of your data.

What is your explanation?

d. Where did you get the standards for the levels of the items you have analysed in the blood in a manner that can accurately describe them as ‘tolerable’, ‘borderline’ ‘high’ and ‘very high’?

e. Zeolite is one of many naturally-existing aluminosilicate minerals that adsorb cations (ie positively charged particles) by virtue of its Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC). Are you familiar with this term? The reason I ask is because you did not make any reference to it even though it is central to the properties of zeolite.

f. Zeolite has a high CEC because of its hollow 3D structure giving it a higher surface area than say muscovite, montmorillonite and other sheet-type aluminosilicates. This brings into question the physical size of the 3D frame. This is an essential determinant that decides what particles it is able to hold within its frame and what particles it cannot. Your presentation did not make any reference to this.

g. To sum up points e & f, zeolite is capable of adsorbing certain positively charged entities by a process called ‘Cationic Exchange’.

h. Zeolite therefore is not a chelating agent as referred to in your presentation. On what basis was it referred to as such?

i. Chelation and Cationic Exchange are two different things. How can you explain that your presentation did not seem to understand the difference? Do you know the difference?

j. But even if one uses a real chelating agent such as EDTA, DTPA or anything else, such molecules electrostatically attracts all positively charged ionic particles (i.e cations). This includes cations of the essential elements calcium, magnesium, zinc, iron, potassium, manganese and copper. In other words, if they can indeed chelate out toxic substances, they will equally lead to electrolyte depletion. Have you monitored the levels of electrolytes in your patients’ serum and if you haven’t, can you explain why? Admittedly, there is a mention of iron levels, but no discussion or explanation was given.

Can you explain why?

k. What is the underlying electrostatic explanation of the alleged ability of zeolite to bind and remove polyethylene and polypropylene from the body given that they are not positively charged particles?

l. Your data refer to graphene oxide in terms of moles; nanomoles to be specific. How do you define what is a graphene mole? Is it in reference to a single carbon atom or a benzene ring? I need to know so I can make further calculations to your many claims and ask you more questions.

m. How do you administer zeolite? It can’t ‘purify’ blood unless it is in the blood stream. In such case, it will need to be taken intravenously. It seems however that your ‘Masterpeace’ product is oral. How does it get absorbed into the villi of the intestine when it is such a huge molecule?

n. Your presentation made an astonishing representation that the zeolite in the ‘Masterpeace’ product can be in particles as small as 1nanometer (nm) and as big as a whole cell. In reality, according to Wikipedia, ‘zeolites have microporous structures with a typical diameter of 0.3–0.8 nm’.

Zeolite - Wikipedia

This size is only that of the pore. It doesn’t include the silica and alumina around it that create it. A whole unit would be at least 3 times the size but I wasn’t able to find confirmation for this that I can quote. However, it must be kept in mind that single units of this complex chemical structure don’t exist naturally and cannot be created artificially. Physically-speaking therefore, a zeolite nano-particle cannot be as small as 1 nm. Your claim lacks scientific foundation and credibility.

On the other extreme of the size equation, a cell-size zeolite particle is too big for the intestine to absorb. Your argument falls down on both counts unless you can explain. Can you?

o. In your presentation, it was suggested that the nasty components removed by zeolite eventually get excreted in the urine. If the whole idea of the alleged chelation is about physically trapping harmful chemicals and removing them from the blood serum by binding them virtually irreversibly to the zeolite particle, how do they end up in solution? Does the zeolite release its load in the kidneys? Doesn’t this put the load back into the serum and defeat the purpose Can you please explain how do they end up in the urine?

p. The final point is about particle size. Graphene is comprised of sheets of many benzene rings each of which is about the size of the hollow inside the zeolite structure. A single benzene ring therefore is theoretically an entity that can be trapped by zeolite. But graphene is made up of many of those entities. There is no limit as to how many of those rings can exist in the molecular structure of graphene, a hundred, two hundred, a thousand? There is really no limit as such. In reality, one needs at least a couple of dozens of those rings in a cluster before it can even be called graphene; after all, a single ring is benzene, a double ring is naphthalene, a triple ring anthracene and so forth. There is a hoard of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with multitudes of benzene rings and they still do not qualify to be referred to as graphene. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon -Wikipedia. A graphene nano-particle is expected to have 100-300 nm in size, i.e 100-300 the size of the pore space within zeolite that is alleged to have the capacity to trap it. Am I correct in saying that this would be like trying to catch elephants using mouse traps?

*graphite molecular structure size - search (bing.com)

q. At the surface, your presentation seems to be designed to appeal to people who have lost confidence in many aspects of what has been dished out to them. Feeling vulnerable, they ended up deeply concerned about how to help themselves and their loved ones. You seem to be representing yourselves in a manner that offers solutions, but you are not making a proper scientific representation of your claims anymore than you are explaining to your audience what your ‘protocol’ is all about and how much does it cost. Do you have any comments to make here?

Addendum: (17 February 2025)
Over and above what has preceded, I would like to add a little update.
1. Intestinal uptake: I found out that very small units smaller than 0.1 micron (i.e. 0.0001 mm or 100 nm) can get absorbed and enter the bloodstream, but much smaller ones won’t have the exchange capacity to do the job as mentioned previously.
2. Accumulation: the body doesn’t have a system to get rid of the zeolite. It will instead accumulate in various organs especially the liver. 
3. Aluminium release: I don’t know how I missed this one out in the original article. The aluminosilicate frame of zeolite is pH sensitive. The stomach acids may not fully break it down, but any breakdown at pH 3 and below will release aluminium and put it into solution available for absorption by the intestine. By the way, the stomach pH is around 3.

 

 

Uncle Sam’s Scam: Is Australia That Independent? 5 May 2015 Interview with Iman and Susan Safi

Uncle Sam’s Scam: Is Australia That Independent?

https://sputnikglobe.com/20150505/1021730914.html

12:20 GMT 05.05.2015 (Updated: 10:12 GMT 06.08.2022)

© AP Photo / G20 Australia, Andrew Taylor

Subscribe

International

India

Africa

In an interview with Sputnik, Australian social activists and members of Australia's Labor Party, Susan and Iman Safi, highlighted the problem of media misinformation in the West, Australia's deplorable political dependency on Washington and the role of Russia in global affairs.

"Western media, which is "best" represented by Rupert Murdoch's News Limited, has lost its honesty, independence, and the quest for investigative journalism. Where are today's equivalents of Bernstein and Woodford who broke the story of the Watergate scandal?" Susan and Iman Safi emphasized.

So far, according to the social activists, it is hardly surprising that Australia's media sources have jumped on the bandwagon of the US-led anti-Russia campaign.

Abbott to Prevent Russia, North Korea From Bidding on Submarine Tender

11 February 2015, 08:33 GMT

On the other hand, Canberra is not "independent" when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Since the end of the Second World War, Australia's political establishment has been in cahoots with America on practically every matter, "going all the way with LBJ" (a term used by the Australian PM at the time when asked by the 36th President of the United States Lyndon Johnson to send troops to Vietnam), Susan and Iman Safi stressed.

Australia is highly concerned regarding its security and believes that if its policies suit the US' interests that will automatically guarantee Washington's assistance when such is needed.

That is why Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott has never missed a chance to criticize Russia, blaming it groundlessly for shooting down the infamous MH17 flight over Donbass or invading Ukraine.

"Unless Australians are prepared to question their need for dependence on America, and some are beginning to do this, PM Tony Abbott can feel at liberty of accusing Russia of the extinction of the dinosaurs," Susan and Iman Safi noted with a touch of irony.

Asia

Australia's Abbott Thanks Ukraine's Poroshenko for Support Over MH17 Crash

11 December 2014, 07:41 GMT

"As a matter of fact however, a former Australian PM, Malcolm Fraser, who died recently, wrote a book titled ‘Dangerous Allies’ in which he details the dangers of an alliance that no longer suits Australia's interests and goes even further to say that the alliance with America brings more danger to Australia than not having one," the social activists underscored.

Washington's military adventurism in the Middle East, NSA global surveillance exposed by Edward Snowden and the US' involvement in the Ukrainian coup of February 2014, carried out by neo-Nazi paramilitary groups, have become alarming signals to the world.

"We believe that all forms of USA/NATO/EU interventions in Ukraine are both provocative and foolish. They are based on lies with the single objective of demonizing Russia as a foreground to bring it down," they pointed out.

Asia

Australian PM Abbott Considered Sending Troops to Ukraine

24 February 2015, 12:10 GMT

The world is heading to multi-polarity; Australia and other nations need more breathing space to conduct independent foreign policy.

According to Susan and Iman Safi, who created the international group "BRICS for Polycentric World" on social media, the BRICS are a driving force behind a transformation of the world economy away from a US dominated system.

Moreover, the BRICS will determine the degree to which a new international political order is developed, they believe.

Chomsky: Corporations Greatest Threat to Freedom of Speech in US

12 March 2015, 01:13 GMT

Meanwhile, the West is rapidly losing its high moral ground and position as a "beacon" of liberty and free speech, since it is exercising selective censoring and sanctioning. Free media in the West is quickly becoming a thing of the past, they remarked.

"It is the lies and the deception of the media and the misinformation that Westerners accept as true that allows politicians like Australian PM Tony Abbott to accuse Russia of downing MH17 and to rudely and extremely undiplomatically use street language such as ‘shirt fronting’ President Putin," Susan and Iman Safi noted.

"As Australians, we feel very ashamed of this series of events and whilst we don't have the formal capacity to apologize on behalf of all of Australia, we will nonetheless say that we are very sorry that this has happened. Mr. Abbott's words and actions were not said and done in our name."

According to Susan and Iman Safi, Russia is currently at the forefront of fighting, on the diplomatic and moral front, tyranny and fascism in the world.

In light of the forthcoming 70th anniversary of the victory in the Second World War, the social activists claimed that regardless of the US-instigated boycott of the May 9 Victory Day Parade in Moscow, Westerners still remember and appreciate the outstanding role of the Soviet Union in defeating Nazi Germany in 1945.

Australia’s confused & confusing stand on China. May 18 2020 By Susan Safi

Australia’s confused & confusing stand on China

16109 Views May 18, 2020 43 Comments

by Susan Safi for The Saker Blog

To understand what is happening between China and Australia currently, we need to examine some of the undercurrents in Australian politics and culture.

In the West, including Australia, “Democracy” has been presented to and instilled in the people as the measure of civilization, development and justice. Maybe there was a time when this was true for some, provided they turned a blind eye to so many things.

This writer once believed democracy could be achieved by stronger, skilful participation in a political party where motions voted on and passed could even make their way into national policy. This is how it looked in Australia because the framework was there. Having ongoing access to Senators, Ministers, Members of Parliaments, shadow ministers and other senior politicians in opposition and smaller parties, indicated an accessible, tangible semblance of democracy where ideas, concerns, contributions to solutions could be freely discussed, including issues related to foreign policy, security and agricultural innovations. But was it all a cynical game? Some politicians, before they reached the most senior positions, were honest about many issues. One of them, not too long ago, told us in confidence something we already knew; that the West was supporting terrorists to take down the Syrian government. Did any of those politicians we had frank discussions with truly possess any power to discuss such issues or opinions with their peers and in parliament? If they had, would they have got away with flouting the “rules”; that is, to never go against big power interests, the American Embassy and any other big lobbies with clout. This is the status of democracy when it comes to Australia, and it should not be a surprise to anyone.

But is there also a cultural side to the current problem being discussed. Australia has a history of believing that it cannot stand alone and must have a protector, a strong military alliance with the biggest power of the day; first it was Britain, the former colonizer and then the USA. Until the end of the Second World War, Australia saw Britain as its protector, despite Australian soldiers being used as expendable cannon fodder by the Empire during WWI. But that was not enough to nudge Australia into waking up and seeking neutrality. The fear of invasion regularly entered the national discourse, likely at strategic times pushed along by government propaganda. After WWII, the geopolitical shifts led to Australia welcoming the United States as the new protector and ally. Australia is also a member of the intelligence alliance known as “Five Eyes” as well as the military ANZUS Alliance. Even in the political framework, which is based on a duopoly, a two-party system, each of the two major parties in Australia considers its political ally to be either the American “Republicans” or the “Democrats”. The two major political parties in Australia disagree and fight over every issue regardless how insignificant, but the one thing they both would never re-visit, is their bi-partisan approach to following America’s directives on foreign policy. And, when America asks Australia to jump, the Prime Minister answers “how high?” and the opposition does not bat an eyelid. Never mind what wars and mischief any of those American administrations involved themselves in, started or lied themselves into, dragging their small, compliant ally, Australia, into sharing the blame but not the “spoils” of wreaking death, destruction and sheer piracy world-wide, under the guise of “protecting our way of life”.

The COVID-19 issue seems to have caused some unintended consequences in terms of the perceptions and realities of the order of the world. Are the people of Australia going to allow their leadership, whatever party they come from, to, as usual, follow the orders of their “master” and sink with them to the bottom of the sea? Why would a nation such as Australia, a wealthy country with everything going for it do that? Does its leadership in parliament and its leadership–in-waiting truly think their great “ally” and “partner”, the USA, cares one bit about Australia and her well-being?

The only viable option for Australia’s politicians is to realise they must urgently engage in serious nation building, ensure good relations across the world and be officially a neutral county. Perhaps a good read of the book “Dangerous Allies” by the former conservative Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, might enlighten some. Here in 2014 he discusses his book. That’s a long time ago in this fast-changing world. Why is it that Australian leaders don’t take heed of his warnings? Australia must listen to Fraser when he addressed Australians saying that (we) must “recapture our strategic independence”. Retired, ageing leaders often are more open about such realities and have little to lose. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F69baWypks

So commonly in Australia, there are displays of anger and outrage at some event affecting the country, intertwined with displays of a great sense of victimhood. Have we in Australia not done a study to identify our unique trading items which China badly needs? Have we not analysed whether or not disentangling from the USA is necessary and instead taking the road of neutrality, independently working on making that important trading relationship with China into one of win-win? And if that is not possible, have we not other trading partners? We need to believe in ourselves and we need to show that we possess strong bargaining tools and only accept fair, reciprocally beneficial deals.

Australia’s dependence on trade with China is not a one way street as many Australians, including the media and politicians seem to portray. It may well be the other way around. Afterall, Australia is by far the world’s largest producer of iron ore, which is very accessible, of very high quality and inexpensive to transport to China. As the largest producer of lithium, a highly strategic material for military and electronic applications, Australia is a reliable supplier of this to China. Furthermore, it is estimated that by 2021 Australia will be the world’s top producer of gold up from its current second position, and although Australia should be storing great reserves of it, the bulk of it goes to China. We have so much to offer, but we should come only from a position of strength, and, above all, the approach to this trading relationship should be from a national perspective of benefitting the collective rather than allowing individual business tycoons to dominate the relationship.

Australia imports 595 types of goods from China; that is 27.6% of total imports. Of those items, 167 are apparently deemed as “critical”. The rest of the Western world is in a similar predicament after allowing its manufacturing base to deteriorate and increasingly becoming dependent on goods from China’s burgeoning manufacturing sector. The implications of winding down the nation’s manufacturing base and other essential industries seem not to have been analysed during that winding down process, and neither has the potential impact on national security or compromising national sovereignty been considered. We are apparently now in a situation where we don’t have the ability to manufacture common medicines for the nation; https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/greatest-peril-study-finds-australia-most-dependent-on-china-among-the-five-eyes-20200514-p54ssg.html

The story of trade and relations with China, when it comes to Australia, is perhaps similar to that of many other Western countries where the good of the nation is not taken into consideration but rather, the big businesses rush to China to make dizzying fortunes and quick profits. The relationship of a sparsely -populated but resource rich country such as Australia with China needs to be part of the national development plan, and not a free game card for the tycoons. We somehow need to change the culture of Australian politicians and parties who only care about short-term gains, because they are only concerned with getting elected and re-elected. If we don’t take action urgently to awaken and alarm these politicians, where will their motivation be to engage in substantial nation-building projects, ensuring the viability, well-being and security of the nation and being true leaders and servants of the people? We will in fact truly become “victims” if we don’t heed this warning.

Australia should eschew all that is wrong with the ally we follow and obey. We followed their footsteps in taking our manufacturing base off-shore, thereby inevitably strengthening those nations and eroding the backbone of what makes a viable nation. We followed their economic models and many of their social policies, turning our backs on what underpinned commonly held values in Australia. Where do we stand today with the fall-out of the COVID-19 issue which exposes the reality of the nature of ruin in United States and the fact that we followed their philosophy of “the American/Western way of life”?

China often threatens Australia with trade sanctions and has already imposed an embargo on Australian beef. And recently, the Australian Trade Minister is having problems communicating with the Chinese because allegedly they are not returning his phone calls. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-17/coronavirus-china-investigation-trade-barley-beef/12256896 The beef industry is up in arms trying to resolve the impasse, and the government sees a silver lining in China’s rising dependence and “addiction” to Australian baby formula milk. As a matter of fact, Australian products are highly prized by Chinese consumers and are regarded to have exceptionally high quality. This is a huge plus for Australia.

It is as if the Australia Government is totally unaware of its bargaining power and the extent of Chinese dependence on Australian imports that they are unable to source from other suppliers.

China can get beef from Brazil or Argentina for example, but where would China go to find iron ore in the quality and amounts it imports from Australia? Where will it source its highly prized lithium from and what about Gold? And this is not to mention other supplies of which Australia is a major global producer.

The issue at hand here is that China deals with Australia collectively. In Western language, this is seen as “totalitarian” and taboo. But on the other side of the scale, Australia does not only pander to the USA, but it also allows Australian companies to make international deals even if they are damaging to the national economy and security. In the Western language, this is called “free enterprise”.

With all the above said, the manner in which Australia deals with China is rather farcical. Raising the ire of the Chinese would be the fact that, on the one hand, Australia implores them to remove Chinese sanctions on Australian goods, whilst at the same time, Australia sailing out with their strongman American ally, into waters are under dispute, just in order to demonstrate their “world policemen” cabal status. Then, at this delicate time, adding insult to injury, Australia enthusiastically participates in the US led push for an enquiry into China and the WHO, with the implication of legal ramifications. The hypocrisy of this all is palpable, a grovelling trade partner one minute and a participant in world policing the next. China must look at Australia and wonder whether this trading partner is a valued and reliable one, or merely one that when it is necessary, needs to show their loyalty to their military and political ally, America.

Australia needs to redefine its position in the world, be on good terms with all nations, including China and America, on terms that can be negotiated in a manner that suits all, with all parties on equal par with each other.

Afterall, if land-locked, tiny and resourceless Switzerland was able to stay neutral during WWII, why is it that Australia cannot even try?

 https://thesaker.is/australias-confused-confusing-stand-on-china/

KEEPING HOPE ALIVE. Susan Safi, 6 January, 2024.

KEEPING HOPE ALIVE
Susan Safi, 6 January, 2024.

Pepe Escobar has for some years been a top writer on “economic corridors” of the emerging new world, a world forging ahead with innovation and endless energy. A world very different to the "West", one that takes its rights and privileges to be itself, and not interested in judgement by other civilisations unable to accept difference.

His vivid, often inspiring writings on this topic, (see attachment) by default are,at least to the keen observer, juxtaposed to that of the flailing, multi-headed hydra of the “empire” of the West that sows chaos and brutality where “needed” as it struggles to recover its former status; a status most in the West believe is still intact, hence that denial delivering the monster a little more of a boost of energy, agency and finances in order to keep the show going a little longer.

All that is good and creative, all the remarkable achievements of the people of the West, in every discipline, has been twisted, perverted and plundered with the permission of Western “leaders” serving the faceless moneyed and powerful “elites”; a diverse “class” that collaborate at times and then war against each other “quietly”when their interests clash.

First they asset stripped whole countries, colonies, any vulnerable country or region, including their “friends” and “allies” whose politicians convinced their people that all was good.

Many in the West have woken up to this.

A Western "empire" clinging to its recent status as being the unipolar power, wielding full-spectrum global domination; a paradigm operating in the same old mindset, following the same old playbook, but striking out, taking many down with it as it quickly sinks and implodes amidst a very new and different world emerging as those parts of the world unhook from what doesn’t serve their best interests, as described by Escobar 

Instead of the Western empire dismantling its sick ways of global thuggery and abuse, even of their own populations, and instead turning a new page, it increases in audacity as each day passes, stuck in the clutches of a mafiosi mindset and associations, selling their people “solutions” for a world of “problems”, all-the-while scheming via these “solutions” for further enslavement of and harm to their populations, a population still largely unaware of what is going on and what has really happened over time.

There are enough who are piecing together the puzzle and unplugging from the mind games and control. There is much hope, but waking up to and acting on the situation doesn’t come cheaply. Being aware brings some safety and the ability to think laterally, to unite with others and forge new ways that are culturally suitable and realistic.

I’m feeling a little sad this morning after reflecting on a conversation last night with a really smart filmmaker friend in Lebanon, currently having a break from her home in Beirut and staying in the countryside in Southern Lebanon with family. She feels there is no hope for the region, she feels they’re "drowning" and truly believes the West and its allies will finish off the area. Her hopes have, temporarily perhaps, vanished.

Being right in the midst of deep existential threats, I have nothing to say to comfort her. I can’t say to her that I think she’s wrong and hugely, I mean massively, over-estimating the US, EU and their NATO war apparatus. I’ve outlined above what I think is happening. But that would be of no comfort to her.

I have to acknowledge that she is fully aware of the circumstances that hold back so much potential in her world, in her region; a region mired in either present or imminent death and destruction and a lack of will and desire by the stronger nations in the region to stand up and start to be visionaries, creative builders of a new, unique region, harnessing the good of it’s many cultures, taking the weaker, suffering nations along with them and needing to urgently, totally shun and sideline a cancerous nation among them that’s out of control. Only when the region has taken its destiny in its own hands will that troublesome thug of a neighbour come to heel and get some humility.

The Middle East region can achieve this if there is the will and the belief that the buck stops with them and that outside nefarious players cannot solve their problems or even desires, and that they need to leave in every sense of the word.

No one is going anywhere, anywhere on this planet in fact, until they take collective responsibility and actions and face the pervasive inner demons that divide, paralyse and at times in history destroy them. A big ask, but surely better than being under the boot of powers that wish them nothing good.

Like others in her part of the world, my friend has lived in this knowledge for most of her life and like many, feels that this desire of collective responsibility and visioning is not something the region is ready for. Or is it?

Turning to an active participant of the Western "empire", Australia; its leaders by pragmatic and "contracted" necessity are short-sighted, opportunistic and dare not waver from the "rules" of the "empire". They dutifully (no duty to the people) put all their bets on and efforts toward this dying despotic world led by various sick clusters of "cabals" who only know existence to be the pursuit of predictable, endless wars for various goals, accepting the ongoing destruction of ordinary people's lives, lives that mean nothing to them apart from when they are of some use to them.

These psychopaths oppose their servile nations with murderous force and scheming should they entertain any dreams of true sovereignty, independent policies, the freedom to choose neutrality perhaps, hold any bold aspirations and innovations or thoughts of partnerships, including international, based around mutual building and cooperation for the good of their own country. This very much describes Australia.

These "transnational" "cabal" have no loyalty to any nation, they merely hijack and steer them as their own vehicles. They oppose self determination to their last breath because their existence depends on the lack of all the positive human aspirations described above, including those of "their" own people in the powerful nations they drive and act from.

The ordinary folks in those "powerful" nations, generally speaking, truly believe they, as a nation, are the greatest, all powerful, exempt from any international laws and conventions, more human than anyone else, and the biggest exceptionalists walking on the planet where every reference point for anything in existence must come from that mindset they sit in. If it doesn't then it doesn't exist. Some now realise they are just puppets being stripped bare, often mere cannon fodder, just like their counterparts in their masters' satellite in the Levant.

In the past the collective of these “Cabals” focused mostly on raping and pillaging the non-Western world, whilst ensuring an obedient, cooperative population in the West. But now it’s clear to many in the West that the evil is on our doorstep, even inside our living rooms and becoming all pervasive.

We will overcome all of this by gaining full awareness of the facts, being united, and willing to sacrifice for the long term good. That’s the story of many other parts of the world. That’s the earthly expression of the battle of good over evil.

CLIMATE CHANGE FICTION VS SCIENCE Iman Safi, February 23, 2019

 CLIMATE CHANGE FICTION VS SCIENCE

As I keep reiterating, climate is changing, and it has always been changing. I don’t know why it changes and I don’t believe anyone knows why either.

In saying this, if the predictions are accurate in terms of an overall increase of 1-2 degrees Celsius in 100 years, then we must realize it won’t be noticeable in one’s lifetime, and for one to conclude that “it’s getting hotter” after experiencing a warm day is ludicrous.

What is sinister is that meteorologists and activists seem to deliberately hide basic data from the public. Remember that they are the same ones who profess to know WHY climate is changing and are adamant that it is due to human activity.

Cyclone Oma has nearly hit the Qld. coast before it dissipated. Why is it that weather reports do not make any comments about the temperatures along the coast before and after Oma?

These are the facts. Before Oma, the temperatures from Ballina south to Rockhampton north were in the mid 30’s. After Oma, the temperatures dropped to low 20’s.

When the coast experiences such a drop in temperature it is usually because of a “cool southerly change”. But there is no cool breeze coming from the south. This morning in fact it is very still, but yet cool.

Does anyone ask why? Do weather reports explain why? No, because the reason does not suit their agenda.

So here are the facts.

Thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. But it can be changed. This is how a fuel combustion engine changes heat of burning fuel into “work” ie locomotion.

In a similar manner, a cyclone/hurricane takes in energy from warm water and “uses” it to generate storms. Massive amount of energy is needed to move all of the wind they generate at such high speeds. But the end result is that the heat that was absorbed from the ocean waters end up dissipated resulting in cooling of not only the ocean waters, but also the entire region and atmosphere.

This is why Oma has resulted in nearly a 15 degree drop in temperature.

And by the way, what is the amount of energy an average cyclone/hurricane dissipates? Here is the answer and the link to it:

“This is equivalent to about 200 times the total electrical generating capacity on the planet! NASA says that "during its life cycle a hurricane can expend as much energy as 10,000 nuclear bombs!" And we're just talking about average hurricanes here, not Katrina”

How much energy in a hurricane? - How much energy in a hurricane, a volcano, and an earthquake? | HowStuffWorks

WEATHER MANIPULATION? Iman Safi March 31, 2022

WEATHER MANIPULATION? 

Cloud seeding and ‘making’ clouds are two separate things and cannot be discussed as being identical.

Cloud seeding is about generating rain from EXISTING clouds. Research in this area has been going on for decades. Even if the technology has been perfected, it only produces rain, it does not produce clouds.

To produce a cloud, enormous amounts of energy would be needed.
A single gram of water needs 540 cal to be vapourised.
To vapourise enough water to produce a cloud that can produce only 10 mm of rain over 1 square km, you need 5.4 trillion calories.

Over the East Coast of Australia we had 800-1000 mm of rain over an area more than 1000 km long and 100 km wide. If we base it on 800 mm on an area of 100,000 square km, you’ll need 4.3X10(19) {ie 19 zeros} cal. This is equivalent to 30 million times the amount of energy produced in the Hiroshima bomb.

Only the sun can furnish such amounts of energy.

All human-produced energy boils down to energy produced initially either by fossil fuels or nuclear reactions. When people use electricity, laser, EMF, HAARP, whatever, they need to start by the primary sources of energy i.e., fossil fuel or nuclear). We thus far do not have any other source.

Unless I can see a scientific proof to the contrary of the above, and I stand to be corrected, I would put the weather manipulation theory in the misinformation basket.

Wise Up. Iman Safi November 18, 2020

If you know and proclaim that the mainstream media reports only lies, and then choose to believe some of those lies, then you should wise up.

If you fight to free Assange and then support his persecutors, then you should wise up.

If you believe that today’s political Left is progressive and represents the natural transition from the Left of the bygone era, then you should wise up.

If you believe in the anthropogenic theory of global warming even in the absence of scientific evidence, then you should wise up.

If you believe in global peace and you don’t know who is working for peace and who is the warmonger, then you should wise up.

If you are happy to parrot the words of those around you, if you think it is trendy and cool to follow the ill-informed public opinion without putting any effort into fact-finding, then you should wise up.

If you judge people and leaders by their words not by their actions, then you should wise up.

If you believe that huge industrialists, globalists and oligarchs genuinely support Black Lives, the climate and social justice and inject such movements with billions of dollars in donations because they are nice people, then you should wise up.

If you are unable to put two and two together and see that you cannot separate the hidden agendas of the media and the oligarchs, then you should wise up.

If you think I am a bigot because I use my brain and refuse to be pushed into the flock going into the slaughterhouse, then you should wise up.

If you think that the late and great Martin Luther King Jr. would be happy to see looting and violence done in his name under the guise of fighting for social justice, then you should wise up.

If you genuinely believe that Biden is going to establish peace on earth, end racism in America, end the use of fossil fuel and restore the ailing American economy, then you should wise up.

But this is my personal opinion, and I am entitled to it just as you are. But if you believe that freedom of speech applies only to you because you are a warrior, a member of an organization dedicated to fight the big pollutants, big-pharma and the deep state, then you’d only be serving their interests.

And last but not least dear friends, when I see you posting opinions I disagree with, I leave you alone because I respect your freedom of choice and value your friendship; but I expect this respect to be reciprocated. If you wish to discuss anything I post with me in a rational and civilized way, please go ahead. But uncouth comments and sending sarcastic private messages is rather rude, don’t you think?

Please do not to expect me to pussyfoot around you and feel that I am coerced to agree with you, if for no reason at all other than I neither expect you nor dictate to you that you must agree with me.

WHAT THEY WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT GREENHOUSE GASES Iman Safi February 24, 2019

WHAT THEY WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT GREENHOUSE GASES

There is a gas that can cause a serious blood disorder medically known as alkalosis, and if people inhale high concentrations of it for a long time, it can even cause death. It is very chemically active and highly corrosive. It can corrode the toughest of metals and turns them into dust. Imagine what it might do to the human body.

It is neither carbon dioxide nor hydrogen cyanide. It is oxygen.

Human-induced global warming advocates use the same above “scientific” approach in their description of the so-called greenhouse gases, because if one believes the news, he/she would be led to believe that greenhouse gases are categorically bad. This is because all the rhetoric about greenhouse gases is negative, and it is rare, if not impossible, to find a single good attribute given to them.

As a matter of fact, greenhouse gases are not any less important for life than oxygen. Without them, we would not have rain, we would not have plant life, and the global temperatures would fluctuate between very highs and lows, making it impossible for life to exist as we know it.

Earth’s atmosphere is mainly comprised oxygen and nitrogen. They tally up to 95-99%. The main other components are argon, solid particles, and the greenhouse gases.

The greenhouse gas that is most abundant is water vapour (moisture), but its percentage varies greatly depending on location and climate. In humid regions, the content can be as high as 3% or more, and in dry desert locations, it will go as low as 0.01% or less.

The thing with water is that it has a high “Specific Heat”. As a matter of fact, it has the highest Specific Heat of all naturally occurring substances under normal pressure. In other words, it takes a lot of heat to heat up water, and at the same time, water stores heat like no other substance. This is why swimming pools, sea water, and all massive water bodies resist temperature change and take a long time to cool down or warm up.

Greenhouse gases, mainly and primarily atmospheric moisture, regulate temperate on earth. Without them, earth would experience dramatic day/night temperature fluctuations, but having too much of them will cause heat to build up.

Now, we have been bombarded by theories about the alleged effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. This statement is far from the truth. It is atmospheric moisture that is the biggest and most significant greenhouse gas, and it is very easy for cynics to Google this statement.

Before we talk about carbon dioxide however, the other main greenhouse gases to take a look at are methane, nitrous oxide, CFC’s and ozone.

Most of methane in the atmosphere is the outcome of natural fermentations and volcanic activities. Some of it is produced as an industrial byproduct and many ill-informed global warming activists and alarmists blame cattle for methane emissions in their flatulence, but it doesn’t take much intelligence to compare the orifices of cows with volcanoes to figure out which is the major contributor.

Nitrous oxide is naturally produced both naturally and by some industries. Two thirds of it is produced naturally.

When it comes to ozone, if anything, human activity and the emission of CFC’s into the atmosphere are meant to be deplete the ozone layer, not enhance it.

This leaves us with carbon dioxide, and it has been the hot topic for at least a whole decade now and being blamed as the major culprit behind global warming. Activists, politicians, opportunists, “scientists” fearmongers and highly vocal people are all united in spewing endless on-going harangues about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming.

We are now inundated with lectures about carbon footprints, low-carb beer and carbon-neutral air travel, and mostly from people who do not even know what carbon is and cannot find it on the periodic table. The rhetoric is coming out of our ears and talks of such issues as carbon sequestration by people who have never heard the term until they heard it from businesspeople or politicians with vested interests, is rather offensive for anyone who is trying to make some scientific sense out of this so-called carbon debate.

As a greenhouse gas, it is a fact that carbon dioxide absorbs heat. However, it does not retain it like water vapour does. Instead, it reflects it back. This video represents what a carbon dioxide molecule does with heat it receives:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | Center for Science Education (ucar.edu)

Climatologists argue that even though atmospheric moisture is the most abundant and most significant greenhouse gas, the much less abundant carbon dioxide plays a huge role in the so-called “positive feedback”. They define positive feedback as a loop process in which carbon dioxide traps heat, reflects it back at the atmospheric moisture, heating it up, and eventually producing more atmospheric moisture that will trap more heat. This is how they allege carbon dioxide is the main contributing factor to “global warming”. Greenhouse Gases And Water Vapor: When 'Positive Feedback' Is A Bad Thing | Science 2.0 (science20.com)

This theory is at best debatable. First of all, there are no studies that validate it. Secondly, if this theory is accurate, we must then expect a similar scenario to what happens in deserts.

In deserts, midday temperatures can go higher than fifty degrees Celsius but a few hours later, they can drop at night to freezing temperatures and below. This is because the atmospheres of deserts have very low moisture content. Atmospheric moisture is not any different than liquid water. It stores heat, and this is why regions of atmospheric moisture levels of that are much higher than deserts do not experience those massive day-night temperature fluctuations that deserts do.

The logic in this self-evident fact should also apply to regions in the world that are highest in carbon dioxide, right? If the “positive feedback” theory is accurate, atmospheric moisture accumulation and warming should be experienced mostly in and around big industrial cities, right? So why is it then that it is the glaciers in Antarctica that are melting? Why is it that the effect of low atmospheric moisture levels in deserts can be seen locally while the effect of high level of carbon dioxide production has to travel for thousands of kilometers to show its effects? And where are the positive-feedback-generated huge clouds that lurk around big cities?

Something is certainly amiss.

Carbon dioxide-induced global warming advocates often spew their anger, and often violently, on any counter argument yelling out “stop ignoring the evidence”. They are confusing the evidence of the melting of the glaciers of Antarctica with a theory that doesn’t have a single foot to stand on.

No one knows why Antarctica is melting. There has been a recent theory about a radioactive activity happening below Antarctica. Such an explanation would be more plausible, but it doesn’t seem to be gaining much attention probably because it doesn’t suit the agenda of the anti-carbon dioxide brigade. A Hidden, Radioactive Heat Source Seems to Be Melting East Antarctica From Below : ScienceAlert.

When “scientists” start telling half-truths, then they are in fact telling whole lies. When their “science” cannot be substantiated by the scientific process, it becomes a matter of opinion.

When politicians and groups with vested interest take on board such lies and opinions, as intelligent human beings, we must at least stop and ask questions. When the thought police stand in the way to stop us from asking questions, casting aspersions on anyone who doesn’t follow them like a sheep, we should become more determined to challenge their thoughts, ideology and real objectives.