Frustrations of Authorship

I wrote a book about existence and I thought everyone could empathise with that. Everyone I have met, without exception, has pondered the deepest of all questions, “What is the meaning of life?” I wrote a book on the subject and thought it would be the most popular volume in the universe as it answers the question; the question everyone asks. I know everyone initially pretends that meaning is what you gain from life; the meaning is life itself. At one level this could not be more correct. My book goes into the detail but it probably doesn’t give the answers readers would expect, though why would readers expect anything? If the book merely satisfied expectation what would be the point in writing it? Perhaps my mistake was my not spearheading a zealous campaign against windmills. I could have attracted a gaggle of likeminded zealots with fragrant positive affirmations. Perhaps I should have listened to those muliebrous ravens. Didn’t they crow? What was their suggestion? One new idea only for each small book and up to four tangents for large volumes, they said. The rest is padding, filler. Anything will do. Add lots of references; the more the better. Authors should conceptualise. People like that, providing it is within reasonable limits and boundaries, of course. No tin foil hat rubbish. That won’t do. It also mustn’t mess with what they know. Everyone knows the Earth is flat, sorry round, the nucleus is the brains of the cell, and gravity affirms Newton-Cartesian philosophy. To even suggest anything different would be crazy.

In order to do this, pull off the impossible, authors must parrot prettier than galahs. New ideas, spontaneous thought, mould breaking concepts are absolute no no’s; well, maybe one new idea per small book, but don’t fret if you can’t think of one. The few that will spot it won’t like it and they will use that to harpoon any chance of your literary success. Better to be a chicken than a turkey?

People are very predictable and very safe. Everyone, without exception, supports the banking system to hilt. Those that prefer cash bless Federal Reserve bankers. There you go. Big business, again pretty much without exception, is the hinge pin of all commerce. I consider my book one of those exceptions, but am I right? Certainly any sales through Book Tango (an offshoot of Penguin Books), Amazon, etc. would not qualify. Although there is a twist (all good plots need twists, I’m told). Purchases via these mediums give me nothing, zero, zip-doodle. Thus, I can honestly say, I personally have extricated myself from the bankers and Federal Reserve pariahs. For the other option, PayPal, it should be stressed, whilst it is not a formal bank, it may as well be one. As a currency transfer management system it upholds all banking principles, including those fine print fees that normal people can’t fathom. The book itself leverages the mega-corporations Adobe and Microsoft products in the soft version. An array of big brand printers might facilitate delivery of hard copy.

Of course, there are some that won’t buy e-books. They can visit mine or Jon Rappoport’s websites, for instance, absorb all the free information; each and every article online. They might read some better entries twice, just to make sure the message was understood loud and clear. But those e-books give them each a rash. They are different some way and simply won’t do. I say the only way they are different is they are going to require each and every one of you to fork out money, skinflints. They aren’t free. That is the only difference.

My Facebook network is growing. In fact, just as with some of my more ambitious blog entries, the ruder, more unfairly confronting I am, the greater the interest in me. The phenomenon is akin to school playground fights which attract swarms from nowhere. One of my Facebook friends, I’ll call him Danny, is attempting to establish a truther network (whether he recognises it or not). Most of these guys are retired, semi-retired or on the pension (dole, social security). They are all angry, have lots of time and are mostly clueless. Danny is different. He is, to the larger degree, in tune. He’s got sharp eyes and a good nose, but he’s not infallible; far from it. Well, aren’t we all… infallible? But I didn’t mean it in that way. Jon Rappoport mistakes are very hard to pick and oh so subtle. There’s the difference. Jon is a class act. Danny is not. Pure and simple.

Danny doesn’t see it that way. He thinks he is a class act too. But he is not because when the content he promotes is flawed it is very wrong. He doesn’t always learn. Though (to his credit), sometimes he does comprehend, change and adjust past errors. I would categorise him as having potential, but nothing more. Jon Rappoport sees. Danny doesn’t. My book content isn’t beyond him, but it will challenge him. It will be hard going because it will break his world; a world he isn’t sure about, because he doesn’t see. Like everyone else, normal people, he breezes through life, takes things as they come and has a big accumulated chip on his shoulders that started as a pimple in his formative years. Casually, almost in jest, I suggested he seek out “The Beauty of Existence Decoded”. That’s all. No big sales pitch. Did it open a tornado of denial and guilt or what? Danny, over several responses, has presented an essay of reasons why he quite definitely cannot seek out my book. And none of them would stand a chance in any fair court.

Ignoring the excuses, which included “being able to read energy inherence” or “plugging into the anthropomorphic field”, the reasons Danny will never invest money or time in my book are three fold. And this goes for just about every other visitor to my blogs too – my readership.

He doesn’t know what he believes because his belief systems are supported by that big chip on his shoulder that has evolved from the formative years. The only suggestions he can take seriously, as a consequence, are “one liners” that are easy to rationalise. That is why the majority of Facebook posts are sayings or proverbs accentuated by pictures.

He is frightened and greedy. This means he will only spend money on “safe” products/services that are guaranteed by the corporate machine. If it is a book, it must be written by some corporate credentialed author. When push comes to shove, only those endorsed by the system in some way have anything meaningful to say. Of course, the system has cracks and that is why Jon Rappoport managed to slip though. His backers will have rued the day they saw potential in him.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Danny is bombarded with free stuff. There is so much out there he doesn’t know where to turn. He doesn’t have time to actually read the articles he promotes or to check out whether they are credible or not. A truther network is a machine; resilient, never stopping. In fairness, I would need to devote my life to process the front page of every blog that was ever created. It would definitely be a futile exercise, but not necessarily pointless. How do I know what I might or might not uncover? Even though I am connected to everything in its vastness and have the potential to source anything from any when, I am not arrogant. There is so much I don’t know, so much waiting for me to discover. Methods are merely vehicles. If an e-book is the vehicle, then let me at it!

In cyberspace I regularly encounter folks that don’t get that a protest creates the battleground and achieves no more than that. Protests highlight how weak and apathetic human beings have become. Virtuous patriots drone on about their marvellous constitution and the betrayal of the founding fathers’ ideals. Nonsense. The constitution never changed except into what it became. The problem was the founding fathers and the subsequent constitution. Prior, the magnificent Magna Carta validated plunder. Plunder is AOK providing you draw up a treaty, according to that logic. No, not right. What did not belong never belonged and you [that cherish ownership] are all thieves. You certainly have no right to anything without a charter. And even with one, if anyone doesn’t agree with any of its clauses, individually, then tyranny has been executed if the agreement is not deemed null and void.  Ownership is cancelled. You own something only because the other agrees. Everything else is nothing more than possession. It’s mine because I found it. I ignore history. Funnily enough, your beloved cash; money is fiction too. If the belief in fiscal systems was fractured, eventually all money would be worthless.

I haven’t said anything to Danny, but if I had the chance, this is what I would say. The reason I provided PayPal as the method for purchasing my book is would be readers can make donations. My advice to Danny would be he should donate as much as will force him to treat the book with absolute respect. If that means it costs $1000 so be it. Imagine that. If you were forced to pay $1000 for my book, you would make sure every word counted. You wouldn’t read it once. You would read it hundreds of times, at each sitting savouring a little more. And that would be no bad thing, because some of you might be required to do that for full, solid comprehension of contents. Remember the advice from the ravens earlier? “The Beauty of Existence Decoded” is a work that goes the other way. It gives only new ideas, some admittedly formed from old, but, ultimately, everything always will be what it was. All those that grudgingly coughed up the bare minimum for the volume hated it. They had no respect for it; it broke their world, so they hated it. One lady paid many multiples of retail price (sic), read it several times and, eventually, loved it because she understood it. She had to understand it because she respected it. Understanding became the mission.

Let’s say someone did donate $1000. It would only ever be hypothetical because none of you are capable of doing that. Let us say this hypothetical philanthropist (if that’s the right word) read from soft cover to cover numerous times, but still could not overcome the typos, strange non-words, weird writing style and alien phrasing. They put everything into it and still hated it because they didn’t understand it because they were not ready for it. Even then, it would still be value for money. Every inch of real estate was devoured but simply did not compute. Outstanding discipline met with an outstanding result, because from an arena of respect, lack of understanding amplifies the discovery tour. Leave tackling the advanced literature for the time when materials for beginners and intermediates are mastered. The book merely opens a new time doorway, possibly put on one side for graduation day.

Whether I am nasty or nice, I will guarantee not one of you (that hasn’t already done so) will donate for my book for any or all of the reasons above. Those that donate small amounts are always too busy. Please don’t bother.

Autism corroborates “Darwinism”?

I must admit, right from the start, my title is not an honest one. I don’t suggest Darwinism (as an authority) has too much credibility in practicality. Indeed the brains behind “On the Origin of Species”, Alfred Russel Wallace, did not support Charles Darwin’s erratic and baseless conclusions, largely used to support the globalist preference towards anti-spiritual intelligent randomness or atheism. Those most ardent Darwinists have surely never heard of Wallace, but it does not stop them babbling about evolution as though each was putting the final touches to a masters’ thesis or doctorate on the subject. The tenets of evolutionism are probability and logic. Yet, breathtakingly, according to material wisdom, a convoluted plan (rationalised existence) can and does usurp the planner. To the Darwinist/globalist/evolutionist there is no universal mastermind because universes literally popped into existence and life was spontaneously created by accident (though that accident was conveniently bound to happen). Per that belief, the course of everything that lives is easily explained when factoring survival instinct against probability. Of course, when the old chestnut, instinct, rears its ugly head in isolation, the atheist demagogues are far less confident as to “how” and “why”, far less inspired in commentary. They invariably substitute one label with another and, to avoid taxing the mind; behaviour is deemed precisely the same as instinct (or, perhaps, instincts are behavioural traits). By this determination, human robots are programmed simply as evidenced by the fact their lives unravel, otherwise there would have to be a programmer and instinct would be evidence of something spooky that totally transcends material reality. Anti-views of this genre (offering the mystical version of instinct) would offend the ardent globalists who are bankrolling key Darwinist, evolutionist pioneers.

The spirit of globalists will feature in many places in this article, so I must commend them. Without them I would have likely had nothing to write about. Fluffy bunny rabbits, cats with long tails or the fast lives of highway turtles aren’t my thing, so I am truly eternally grateful to the globalists and their boneheaded supporters (the oppressed masses) for making my life interesting. Oppressed masses, what, eh? (You say) Just about none of you would even consider parting with one cent to contemplate the truth about existence, yet you rush to the side of your globalist masters with every last penny you can muster, either storing it in their banks, converting Federal Reserve blessed currency or purchasing grossly inflated products or produce provided in some way to you by global corporations. Jon Rappoport’s in the same boat. How many of you have invested in him? For those not in the know, No More Fake News (a Rappoport concept) is one of the select channels I subscribe to as he is one of the incorruptible few. There the attack, nay, transparent evaluation of globalist stratagems to the detriment of human progress is none more apparent. Genetically modified organisms, fake psychiatry a front for toxic drug pushing, autism (particularly in connection with vaccines) regularly feature in articles. But Jon’s great passion is imagination and he rues the day human beings stopped being individuals only to join the huddled masses under the banner of globalism. The sacred cow of creation became a morbidly obese fusion of everything that hinders determinism.

We both have presented serious investigations on the Zika fraud recently promoted by the World Health Organisation after a microcephaly “outbreak” (as termed) in Brazil. Though we drew different conclusions as to the ultimate cause(s), we both processed all relevant issues (where possible, backed by data) and more or less determined the same findings (with some slight but important differences). Opinions were shared as to the effect of vaccines (notably the preservative brand Thimerosal), pesticides (prominent active agent glyphosate) and we both unanimously agreed that Zika fever peril and the supposed genetically modified mosquitos from hell (if they existed at all) were absolute duds. The significant difference between Jon and I could be seen in my analysis of the possible impact ultra-sound equipment may have had of the equation. However, my fellow journalist did report on Brazilian and Argentine doctors who oversaw the 4,000 or so pregnancies in focus. According to some Spanish article No More Fake News paraphrased, the doctors interviewed confirmed foetus development was regularly checked by ultrasound and they started noticing deformities (was the equipment itself the Damocles sword is the deeper question? i.e. the more alcohol we fed to him, the more drunk he became…). I very much doubt (though I haven’t checked) that the ultrasound equipment in question was one of those new Samsung portable devices. I suspect it was the leaky, heavy variety of machine that dates back to the age of the dinosaurs.

However toward the end (though I can’t be sure what he has in store for the future) of his investigation to date, Jon pulled up a surprise tangent. It was so off theme, it got me thinking; thinking like never before. Could this radical theme, which, in normal circumstances, may have been shelved as overt propaganda, have a deeper message that transcends everything we both thought we believed to be true? Jon talked of some alarming figures, ironically, coming out of Israel that demonstrated significant microcephaly outcomes for new born babies having lived nearby or within range of a large petrochemical plant through pregnancy gestation. Of course, microcephaly is simply a word/label that emphasises a standard. At one end of the scale effects [to the skull] are hardly noticeable, whilst at the other, they are extreme. Israelite outcomes were the soft option, whereas the Brazilian “outbreak” was extreme (in part), as far as I can gather. Perhaps I haven’t been clear enough for the Darwinists. The “state of terrorism” graphic, low to critical, on your Fox News screens best expresses it. Our chosen people were in the low zone and the others, well, they showed up critical. Quite right, don’t you think?

The petrochemical angle is an important one. My last Ozzie Thinker entry, Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics, did not beat around the bush. I stated categorically that all viruses are caused by pollution and all cancers are the result of pollutants that trigger dormant fungi. More recently I have learned of Otto Warburg and, instinctively (behaviourally?), feel he is correct in his predetermination that cancers are caused by bodies’ PH levels. Dormant fungi [hypothetically might] require an acid environment to metabolise. According to Otto, the development of cancers is something akin to fermentation and any good brewer knows that sugar is essential for fine ale. Thus, the other missing link is glucose in our bodies. Cancers love it. As his thoughts on Zika fever unravelled, Jon Rappoport kept on reiterating the possibility of multiple contributors to systemic outcomes. This consideration must be applied to anything and everything. There are never any solitary silver bullets, well except when baddies are terminated by the Lone Ranger. In the case of cancer, to shortlist, a weakened immune system is infiltrated by pollution which triggers dormant fungi lounging in an acid environment using glucose as an active metabolic agent.

Other than the carbon monoxide issue, there has been no real concern over the dangers of exhaust. I wanted to cite mass poisoning in Japan’s Tokyo which infamously highlighted monoxide poisoning, but I can find no references for this distant memory. It led to, once again from distant memory, some sort of consumption tax which encouraged (re)design of cars with low capacity engines. My hunt for evidence did reveal treasure of a different sort. In 1932 Chisso Corporation expanded its business model to include production of acetaldehyde. The net consequence was the continual dumping of heavy metals (production waste) into the sea off Minamata, Japan. Methyl mercury chloride made its way into the food chain, unchecked, notoriously infecting various fish and shellfish. By the 1950’s tragic neural consequences were noticed, particularly in fishermen. Indeed, the people had to wait until 1972 for swift remedial action which saw a brief news headliner in the US. It has been useful to highlight the toxicity of mercury, which induces “considerable atrophy of the brain” (according to the selected citation).

Mercury poisoning deformity. Severe facial deformity in the case of US soldier Carleton Burgan (1844-1915). Burgan was serving with Union forces (Maryland’s Purnell Legion) during the US Civil War, when he was treated in August 1862 for pneumonia. The mercury-based drug used was calomel. An ulcer developed on the tongue that spread and destroyed his upper mouth, palate, right cheek and right eye. The cheekbone was removed to prevent further spread of the ‘mercurial gangrene’. In 1865, Burgan’s face was reconstructed in pioneering work by US plastic surgeon Gurdon Buck (1807-1877).

Sometimes the truth can manifest in the strangest ways or places. Years ago I embarked on a career of energy management at a time when serial polluter (and rehearsed liar), Professor Ross Garnaut, was invited by the Australian Federal Government to write the feasibility benchmarks for carbon pollution taxation. If that wasn’t like asking the local jewel thief to design the next prison house, I don’t know what is! Anyway, reverberations were gradually seen throughout corporate industry after Garnaut’s green paper was released. BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and all the “major offenders” began their contingency planning well in advance.

The weird thing was, in just about all or perhaps all cases, the biggest risk asset (from the carbon benchmark perspective) were the automobile fleets attached to each corporation. Some owned considerable numbers of vehicles. It was deemed that these were the greatest contributors of carbon in the atmosphere and, as I rightly pointed out a couple of years ago, carbon is now a neutral code-word used to downplay pollution. We also know that it is pollution that causes all viruses and contributes to all forms of cancer. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the petrochemical industry was responsible for the lion’s share of diseases that blight humanity today? I have no data to give an educated response to this currently, but will keep that line of inquiry open for the rest of the decade or longer, as needs dictate.

So how might evolution (per “Darwinist” theory) react to the many and numerous toxins foisted on the individual? We not only have to deal with “carbon” (sic) in the atmosphere, but there are other things too. It took roughly forty years for authorities to determine Minamata, Japan had been poisoned by industrial waste. That is the tip of the iceberg for what isn’t known, the Environmental Pollution Agencies (EPA) don’t want to know about. Lawyers in fancy court rooms assure us that serial offenders, such as Monsanto, well, they are given the license by authorities to perpetually offend and reoffend. They hang health that compromises globalism. Great quantities of Monsanto products: Agent Orange, DDT, Roundup are now a formal part of the cycle of life. I have singled out the chemical glyphosate before, but there are other nasties too. A good amount of thematic material last Ozzie Thinker entry was devoted to vaccines; notably the preservative agent Thimerosal. The Centres for Disease Circulation (CDC) insist that a special, harmless type of mercury is used in this compound (and we know that because it was blessed by the sugar plum fairies). Not everyone shares this opinion. Ethylmercury is a neurotoxin that maybe comparatively in excess of a hundred times more lethal to tissue than lead. My source substitutes “is known to be” for “maybe”. Temporarily putting to one side aluminium, formaldehyde and other up-to-date ingredients of Thimerosal, exploring and expanding the greater content of my source might add vital information.

Eli Lilly invented Thimerosal sometime in the 1920’s (no credible date source available) and after the first patent 22^nd August, 1931 numerous additional variants have been categorised (notably Stabilized Thimerosal, filed 2^nd February 1955). Only one formal study as to the effects of the compound was conducted in 1930. 22 patients located at an Indiana hospital [classified] as “dying” of Meningitis were injected with serum. Though none showed any adverse reaction (outside the range of standard medical complications) to the product, neither were any improved by it. To date that is used as “basis” for its safety. The dangers were certainly known by 1947 and probably suspected long before. A connection with Acrodynia (or “Pink’s Disease”), a form of mercury poisoning, in the 1940’s is the best evidence. Thimerosal was used for teething powders for infants at the time. Symptoms congruous with mercury poisoning include autism.

My source goes on to say that in 1967 a medical/science request for the removal [of the words] “non-toxic” from Thimerosal labels was heeded by authorities. The British Medical Journal reported skin burns from oxidisation of Thimerosal in contact with aluminium in 1972. Deaths of six newborns at a (unspecified) hospital in the 1970’s have been attributed to infused antiseptic wipes. In 1982 the FDA produced a damning report against the compound in various forms. My source also cites a 1950’s independent study which showed that Thimerosal was no more effective than water at protecting mice against potentially fatal streptococcal infection. Even though it was found far less safe than other recognised poisons, the FDA merely slapped an over the counter sales ban on Eli Lilly’s blessed product. In more recent times Jon Rappoport and others have been heavily promoting the fallout from rigged testing and false reporting of adverse effects of the Merck MMR vaccine by Dr William Thompson. An autism link was seen as clear as a bell in those early trials and everyone involved put a lid on it.

So what has this got to do with Darwinism and evolution? Though we are beginning to understand how cells work thanks to Dr Bruce Lipton, science has near zero understanding of DNA. In fact chemical coded amino acid chains are little more than symptoms. Real DNA is an invisible type of light which looks like metal to those that can see beyond the material plane. If we understood how DNA functioned, I would have no punch line for this article as what I am about to reveal would be common knowledge. Though mainstream Darwinist opinions are partially right so far as evolutionary traits can mimic design improvements facilitating survival, the mechanics and their attributes are almost completely not understood by affiliated intellectuals. Lemurian emissaries stationed on or in Jupiter’s moon, Ganymede, have not only confirmed the survival of the fittest paradigm, but have also gone as far to explain “why?” and “what was before?” Considering Lipton’s biology of the cell, theories which have been tested by numbers of Russian avant-garde scientists, we learn these miniscule membranes behave more like super-computers, collating all relevant external data to serve the mood of the mother. Indeed, what would normally be marked down as sheer insanity, has a very different pertinence in light of this new information. There is an entire volume of the Vedic texts (which one I cannot remember off the top of my head) devoted to appropriate behaviours of pregnant women. Included are such reasoned superstitions as not stepping on the cracks between paving stones.

Evolution, in the living sense, is not as our globalist sciences predict. That is largely for two reasons. Firstly, Einstein was wrong and his photon principles neither satisfy material nor immaterial outcomes in practice. I discuss light in my e-book, “The Beauty of Existence Decoded”, and, suffice to say, as, at one level, there is no time space continuum, light instantly travels from the sun to the Earth. In that capacity its integral relationship with immaterial DNA is timeless and, thus, all amendments are in the moment. Our sun (and all stars) is not merely a light giver, energy source. It is also a portal expressing (for lack of terminology) the wishes of God. Depending on which aspects of God are prioritised, determines the manifest plane evolutionary path (seen as manifest DNA). Currently, because our sun is “fake” (a transplant), negative aspects of the whole are being accentuated. Reflectively, progress at group, sub-group and individual levels is factored. Therefore, DNA can “progress” or/and “depreciate” for the group, sub-group or individual. We, as a species unit, can evolve or/and devolve. DNA is a two way street (perhaps something like a slide rule) and the evolutionists would be wise to recognise the fact.

So, going back to my hunch that the petrochemical industry, mostly via automobile exhaust fumes, has caused the lion’s share of manmade pollution, could that have affected our DNA at the group or subgroup level and what’s the evidence? Before I attempt to address this, I would like to introduce Eva Draconis (who has a numerous of entries on my other blog). She has evoked channels of communication with some extra-terrestrial entities she simply calls “the Orions”. Her very special first book (which is available in hard or soft copy), “The Orion Project: Real or Imaginary” (which was recently followed by a second part, “Noah’s Ark”), tables the uncensored record of conversations over extended periods. Gems devalued to almost insignificance are casually positioned with implications [such as] suggesting her visitors are lizard-like but not reptiles that have no central nervous systems (as we understand them) and display strange anatomic abilities that would defy any sense of globalist scientific rationale. In addition, for sustenance, readers learn, they do not consume food and only drink a nutritious water elixir which does not exist on Earth.

However, their (they call themselves Draconians) obsession with head measurements as emphasis of genetic prowess piqued my interest for this article, particularly considering the recent mainstream fetish for microcephaly. I have no answers for it yet, but I will keep thinking about possibilities for the remainder of the decade and I feel sure some resolve will transcend in the fullness of time. But returning to DNA and alterations validating evolution, the traditional view has been that changes are always random and progression has always been the accidental process of survival. The example generally given is something on the lines of, “in hard times when insects were scarce anteaters that grew longer noses were able to reach more food and survived to pass their genetic traits on to the next generation”. The passing of genetic traits is a great presumption, but, applying comparable “rose tinted” vision, there is another explanation that works just as well. If a limitless DNA central mastermind (you know, God, for instance) existed that was able to collate data, it would also be able to apply required changes to any group (sub-group or individual) that determined them. As survival stands the best chance at group level (continuously multiplying trillions are much harder to purge than tens), the “species group” (for instance) is the best attribute (for progressive survival) from the holistic DNA perspective. In fact there is more to it than that. If, we assume, that DNA (as the exchange agent for manifestation) represents the interests of God, then, it would take an enormous group to fully support the wishes/interests of the whole. Life and non-life [with all those idiosyncrasies] would be God’s blueprint.

Therefore, applying petrochemical (and other) toxins to the equation, which, I might add, would affect the entire human group (with possible exceptions of Inuit Eskimos and a few others), could the downsizing of skulls and encephalitic disorders be so insignificant in most cases they go unnoticed? In addition, depending on the gravity (effect) of the toxins, might a hyperbolic reaction determine the impact on the chosen few that (it could be said) take “punishment” while sharing the ills thrown at any “given group”?  Is that why many people that live in radioactive environments don’t suffer and others show horrendous genetic mutations? There is one more thing. Might the offspring of those that either absolutely do or absolutely don’t care be selected as the chosen few? I haven’t any answers yet. I am just throwing it out there; posing the questions. But it does seem to fit the case. Perhaps those miracles are not miraculous after all? Perhaps that’s how existence works! There is a lot more investigation required, serious thought and valid research going to be needed to bolster glib sentiment, but I think I’m onto something. Whether the left wing “truthers” like it or not, perhaps their Thimerosal, Roundup and other “Don Quixote” crusades actually camouflage dangerous smoke and mirrors of the most devious and desperate kind. Who would have thought the globalist darling, Darwinism, would have inspired me to unravel the truth behind autism?