Clif High - clifwoojo5282018

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 28, 2018 - Clif High

29:10

clifwoojo5282018

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good morning.
	It's 6.45 a.m.
	Monday, May 28th.
	Happy holidays to those in the Americas and celebrations.
	Good day to everyone else.
	New format, new work, and just a general discussion about a few things.
	So let's go into topic number one is the new work.
	I am retired from doing the WebBot reports, the altar reports, the bare-naked wealth reports for a while, at least for a while.
	The bare-naked wealth reports present a slight obstacle at the moment anyway, due to the nature of the data being filling up, getting too high a level of conscious forecast language.
	And this comes from all of the remote viewing of cryptos, all the psychics given crypto forecasts, and all of the various tarot readers and astrologers and chicken, blue chicken kind of people getting into the crypto business and speaking about it.
	And it's caused a big bulge in language that would have to be filtered out.
	Not messing about with it anyway.
	I've got some other projects going, but just a note on that for those that are wondering.
	As I move into a new area, which is going to be like the invention business.
	And so I've got an invention for a ray gun for the cheese and wine industry.
	And this ray gun, and it probably won't end up being an actual ray gun with a little trigger and, you know, bulgy 1950s plastic housing and that kind of thing.
	And it'll more likely be something like a microwave oven in terms of its shape.
	But we've had some preliminary success with the studies and experiments and investigations into some of Cozy Rev's math that seems to suggest that it's possible to lens or filter either way, opposite ends of the spectrum, to concentrate or to reduce the amount of time stuff coming on in.
	So it's feasible to construct a device that would age wine or cheese more rapidly than the elapsed time would suggest.
	So you might get the, maybe it would double, right?
	Even that would be a fantastic benefit to the wine and cheese industry to be able to cut their aging time in half, yet achieve the same results or keep it in there for the same duration and double the aging effect.
	So this is a very worthwhile goal and you know might be worth considerable amount of money to the wine and cheese industry.
	So that's one invention I've got.
	I've got another one I'm working on.
	I'm working on the patent for the cheese and wine ray gun as well as the patent for an enhancement to the pop rivet industry.
	Pop rivets are everywhere.
	We use them all the time.
	We're just basically unaware of them and I've got an enhancement for them that will allow an expansion of that very useful device into other areas not normally considered at the moment and it sort of expands on its capability.
	So it's an enhancement to pop rivets.
	And so I've got these two preliminary patent documents that I'm working on.
	One for the wine and cheese ray gun, one for the pop rivet enhancement device.
	And that's keeping me a little bit busy at the moment.
	But it's only two out of several, out of a great many of these inventions that I've been thinking about over the years.
	And these have just gotten to a point where I'm able to reduce them down to the requirements of the patent office, which is to accurately describe the device and method required for the end goal.
	So that's what I've got going on over this next month.
	Also going to be making a few more videos.
	I'm on getting on top of this.
	Okay, so now let's segue for a minute into health issues.
	And so I've had health issues relative to what is non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and a potential expression of that as irritable bowel syndrome, which is a very terrible disease.
	I mean, it sounds ugly, and it is.
	And it's very debilitating.
	You lose weight, you lose muscle mass.
	It's quite painful.
	You're not going to die, but you think you're going to die.
	When they did surveys of men and women who suffer from it, over a third of them said that they would be willing to give up 25% of their remaining years of life if they weren't, if they wouldn't be sick anymore.
	It's that debilitating.
	I mean, it just robs you of time, it robs you of life.
	And so I don't have IBS.
	What I actually have is lectin sensitivity.
	And I'm of the opinion that a lot of the people that suffer from IBS probably are in the same category, where the IBS stuff gets you so far, but you're always touchy, you're always tentative, you're always right on the border of stepping off and getting another attack of the IBS.
	And this and the definition of the IBS is such that they're drilling in on a lot of these things that theoretically cause it, but at the same time, they're not always effective for people such as myself.
	And there's this thing called the FODMAP, which is the fermentable oleogo di monosaccharides and polynols.
	And FODMAP is a actually a measurement of short-chain sugars that are in various different kinds of food.
	The theory being with IBS, well, the mechanism with IBS, what actually causes the pain and everything, is that these particular kinds of sugars, according to the doctors, for causes they can't identify, for reasons they can't state, these particular kinds of sugars make it through your digestion process,
	which includes the small intestine, and they make it into the large intestine and the bowel, and they ferment and they cause excruciating pain as the body tries to react to this unexpected fermentation process going on inside it.
	And it causes all kinds of havoc.
	It related to leaky gut, it's related to bacterial overgrowth.
	It's related to damage of the ileus or the ileum, which is the connection between the small intestine and the rest of the system, leads to all kinds of problems.
	It can lead to scarring and terrible damage that can be quite debilitating.
	So it's nothing to mess around with.
	Now that's IBS as it's described.
	My issue is with lectins.
	Now the thing about lectins is they work on a similar mechanistic pathway to causing you the problems.
	And that similar mechanistic pathway involves proteins called lectins that glom onto the carbohydrates and then take them through the digestive process into the larger gut where they can ferment.
	So it's still the fermentation, it's still the body reacting to the unexpected fermentation inside it.
	It's still the body reacting to the problems that this causes, the pain, the bloating, the scarring, the discomfort, etc.
	But it's theoretically a different mechanism.
	Now, the doctors can't say, allopathic medicine can't say why people have IBS.
	They can't say that, well, this particular attack was caused by whatever.
	They can say that the mechanism that caused it was this fermentation of this carbohydrate.
	But that's the same thing with lectins.
	Now, there's a big difference between the FODMAP, which is the anti-IBS diet, and the lectin avoidance diet.
	So just as an example, if you have IBS, you're not supposed to have honey.
	If you have lectin sensitivity, honey's good.
	Honey coats the gut, it helps form particular kinds of mucus that protect you and so on.
	But theoretically, if you've got IBS, honey is going to make it through the, some of the short-chain sugars are going to make it through your digestive system and end up in your larger gut and ferment and cause you problems.
	So there are a number of things you can do.
	They're not nice, but you can determine if indeed you have lectin sensitivity.
	You can go on the lectin avoidance diet and then try reintroducing some of the more potent lectin vegetables like oh the tomatoes, the nightshades, kep says amanum, paprika, cayenne pepper, this kind of thing.
	If you're lectin sensitive, you will suffer greatly for 10 or 12 hours, 10 to 15 hours.
	And there's the thing, the lectin sensitivity, basically, the episodes of it last as long as it takes to get that lectin and all those carbs out of you and thus all of the problems that it creates because the body goes to a great deal of trouble to try and remove these.
	So here's the actionable item from this particular small video.
	And that actual item is that if you suffer either IBS or lectin sensitivity, you may want to do an examination, a trial of this stuff called black seed oil.
	And so you might want to take black seed oil capsules or take a teaspoon of the liquid twice a day, get a teaspoon twice a day.
	Black seed oil has all kinds of benefits for all kinds of diseases, and it's touted by history and evidence as being very effective against all kinds of problems for humans.
	And it does show some effectiveness in helping to heal from the damage that IBS and lectin sensitivity can cause.
	And it also plumps you up in a number of different ways.
	It does not bring in any lectins and it has no short chain sugars in it.
	So it should not cause an issue for either of those conditions.
	But just be advised if you're sensitive, you're sensitive and it won't make any difference.
	Maybe you're sensitive to, you've gotten to the sensitive to the point where you can't handle gelatin capsules and so you might want to try it with just straight out of a bottle with a teaspoon.
	It's not particularly unpleasant.
	You can put it on other food and eat it that way.
	You shouldn't heat it up because it'll destroy some of its components.
	It has anti-cancer components, anti-inflammatory components, antifungal, antibacterial, etc.
	etc.
	So the benefits are quite substantial to taking it and as an actionable item, in my personal experience, it will help with IBS/slash lectin intolerance symptoms.
	And it will age you over time.
	The longer you can take it, the better off you are.
	You know, you get better benefit taking it that third week than you do the first week.
	Even though you get to get a lot of benefit in the first week, it builds up and it's quite substantial over time.
	And you needn't take large doses of it.
	So there's our actionable item.
	Now this brings us up to really one of the points of the videos here, which was to get on the case of some people, guys that I like, video personalities in YouTube, who I happen to watch, who are getting on the case of this fellow called Jordan Sather.
	Now, Jordan Sather is a YouTuber, he's a young kid.
	There's a lot of reasons to get onto his case, right?
	To jump up and down and say, Jordan, you know, you're not thinking appropriately.
	You're not applying any critical thought here whatsoever.
	And these reasons are quite obvious.
	I mean, he's a follower of Corey Good and the Blue Avians, right?
	He's part of that cadre of people that show up on Gaia TV.
	He's young.
	He's got no credentials.
	He's never done anything other than be a presenter on YouTube.
	And okay, that, you know, that takes some balls to do, especially in your first few videos.
	And it can get your ass in trouble, as we see all the time from YouTubers that are experienced and then do stupid things and get themselves into trouble.
	So, you know, it's not without its risk.
	But nonetheless, he's got no qualifications for discussing the secret space program.
	You know, he's never investigated the money aspect.
	He's just simply parroting out information that he's gotten from people that are making shit up.
	Corey Good and his secret space program guys.
	And Jordan Sather applies no critical thinking to his cult-like adherence to a lot of these second generation or third generation New Age beliefs.
	So as far as I know, he's a supporter of channelers, you know, that kind of thing.
	Anyway, though, so there's a lot of reasons to get on Jordan Sather's case.
	However, these guys I watch, like Joe from the Carolinas, the man of ambiguity, can't decide which Carolina he's from.
	Anyway, he's been getting on Jordan Sather's case about some things that really they shouldn't.
	Really, they need to understand what they're talking about before getting into it.
	So specifically one of the things that he'd mentioned was the statements that about that Sather had made about Trump making, I guess it was an executive order saying the CDC can't use the words evidence-based or science-based in their statements anymore.
	And here's the issue with that, Joe, specifically to you.
	Say there is correct.
	That language is used as mind control.
	And if one were to actually go and do some research, you will be able to validate what I'm about to tell you.
	So for instance, let's take the Jonas Salk and his polio vaccine and thus the big push.
	That was used as the public relations spearhead for all kinds of vaccines.
	Prior to that, vaccines had a very negligible effective rating and were not very well thought of by the public.
	Polio comes along, it's a huge and nasty epidemic, and they come along and they release the Salk vaccine, which prevents polio and their esteemed analysis.
	Here's the problem with that.
	If you look at the polio epidemic, it was on a regular old bell curve in terms of its production.
	If we hadn't done anything, the polio, if we had not introduced the polio vaccine, the polio epidemic would have ended almost exactly at the same time.
	If you look at it and plot it historically, the introduction of the Salk vaccine was at the low point of the coming out of that bell curve of the polio epidemic.
	They didn't introduce it at the beginning of the thing and shut it down solid.
	No, the polio vaccine was developed and its effectiveness was touted, but its effectiveness was touted based not on empirical evidence, but rather a tie they saw between the generalized reduction of polio and the time they introduced the vaccine.
	They did not plot the previous epidemic and get the curve over time of that epidemic as it develops and then say, well, we have definitive evidence because the curve came on up, we introduced the vaccine and it stopped dead.
	Didn't happen that way.
	The polio vaccine was introduced at the very end of the polio epidemic.
	So was it effective or not?
	Nobody knows.
	What we do know is that some 30 plus years later, those people, a lot of those people that had taken the polio vaccine in a particular form in the early days, ended up with a near polio condition and it ended up shortening their lives.
	So under the circumstances, the vaccines from that point on were labeled as evidence-based.
	But that evidence was not evidence.
	That evidence was a circumstantial tie between the introduction of the Salk vaccine and the end of the polio epidemic.
	But the polio epidemic was ending anyway, and you can plot that against history and see that I'm telling you exactly the case.
	Now, there's another example.
	So let's take another example of evidence-based medicine.
	All right, so there was this guy in the 50s, his name's Keyes or Keynes.
	One of the two, Keyes or Keynes, I can't remember.
	But you can go and look it up, you'll find him.
	And what you're going to be looking up is the introduction of a particular idea that leads to statins.
	Okay, this idea is that cholesterol is related to diet and that cholesterol is related to heart attacks.
	Okay, and this guy, Keyes or Keynes, whatever his name was, did a study, and he did a study of, let's just say it was 11 nations.
	You go look it up, you tell me how many it actually was.
	And he did a study of, he didn't do any research, he didn't take blood and all of this kind of stuff.
	What he did was he examined a previous set of circumstances, statistics.
	He examined these statistics and he came to a conclusion.
	But before he came to that conclusion, or excuse me, before he announced it, before he wrote it up and stuff, and perhaps even in the formation of that conclusion, he cherry-picked the nations that he was studying.
	He eliminated a lot of nations and their data sets from his study, thus skewing his results over to the conclusion that he wanted to present, which was that cholesterol is bad and basically you need to take statins to reduce your cholesterol in spite of what they do to your brain.
	So anyway, statins, in my opinion, are an example of, quote, evidence-based medicine, where the evidence was evidence-based was mind control.
	Because if you'd never examined his study, you would make assumptions that are not true.
	If you never examine his study, you're going to come to the assumption that he was correct.
	But if you look at his study, you say, well, why did you eliminate these 22 nations from your study?
	Why did you throw out over half of the actual numeric data and not use it?
	Even if you didn't even note it.
	So, in my opinion, any doctor that says statins are good for you is full of shit.
	He's never examined the Keynes or Keyes study, doesn't know how flawed it was.
	So, Joe from Carolinas, this is another example of evidence or scientific based being applied to something as a form of mind control.
	They don't want you to examine this.
	They don't want you to come to a different conclusion.
	They want to sell you statins because they make a lot of money at it.
	And there are a number of other instances.
	In a general sense, let's acknowledge something that even our current medical establishment and scientific establishment acknowledge.
	And so there have been a couple of studies, you can look them up, and one of the studies went and studied other studies.
	And what it did was it went through and examined a number of peer-reviewed in a number of different peer-reviewed journals.
	It examined several thousands, several tens of thousands of other studies.
	And it didn't care about their conclusions, and it didn't care about, to a certain extent, as long as it wasn't pertinent, it didn't care about the methodology used in the experiments.
	But what it did examine was the write-up, the nature of the abstract of the experiment itself.
	And so this study duplicated, I think it was Australia in England, but it might have been USA in England.
	Two different scientific institutions each did the study independent of each other, and they both came to the same conclusion.
	They were off numerically by a small amount.
	In one group, they said it was 71%, and in the other one, I think they said it was 68%.
	But I can't remember which was which.
	But in any event, 71 or 68% of the experiments were flawed and could not be duplicated.
	So in doing their study, these two institutions examined all these other scientific studies and they came and they said, basically, your study XYZ has an experiment that you've designed, but that experiment can't be replicated by anybody else because of QR and S,
	because you didn't put down your inbuilt assumptions, because you didn't put down the methodology related to those inbuilt assumptions and so on.
	And so they're basically saying that 71% of all of the stuff you read in science journals, peer-reviewed, as being accurate conclusions of studies, that the experiment is flawed, and other institutions who even follow the same methodology won't be able to obtain the same results.
	They're non-duplicatable results.
	And it's not to say that they're wrong.
	That wasn't their point.
	What was their point was to say that other people couldn't duplicate the results based on how this experiment was described.
	Now, at one level, that means that the experiment itself, description of that experiment, was flawed.
	It may mean the experiment was valid, it just wasn't effectively described.
	It may also mean the experiment was bullshit, that it not only was the description, that the description may have been accurate, and that the experiment itself could be quite flawed.
	And so this is a level of critical thinking.
	Someone presents you with a study and says XYZ is true, go read the study, read how the experiment was conducted and see if indeed they knew what they were doing or they're just saying, you know, we wanted to achieve this conclusion and basically here's how we're going to go about it.
	Frequently you find that that is the case in peer-reviewed science because it's been backed by somebody's money.
	And so they'll get money for doing an experiment and they'll describe in advance the results to the they'll describe to the money people the results that they intend to get out of their experiment so the money people know what they're paying for.
	You know, it doesn't do a paint company any good to find out that its paint is highly toxic.
	So they're going to want to know ahead of time that they're funding a study that will show that their paint is not highly toxic, that kind of thing, right?
	Anyway, so to Joe of the Carolinas, yes, Jordan Sather is not a critical thinker, okay?
	Jordan Sather doesn't do any analysis.
	Jordan Sather, he's a local boy in it, and he's local to my state, he's a native like I am.
	And it pains me to say this, the kid is not well educated.
	I don't know about a schooling that's independent.
	He's not showing any sign of a good education though, where he can think critically about stuff and give you an analysis that makes sense relative to the facts that are being presented.
	And so I agree with you, Joe.
	Jordan Seder needs to be taken to the woodshed.
	He needs to be introduced to a swift kick to the butt in order to jog his brain because that's probably where he's keeping it at the moment.
	But you can't get on his case for the stuff about evidence-based and scientific-based in our language, because indeed it is, they're catchphrases that are used to control minds, shut down thinking, just like the catchphrase of conspiracy theory, right?
	There are a whole lot of people you say conspiracy theory to.
	From that point on, they're shut down.
	They don't want to talk because they've been trained.
	And so there's a lot of people that are also trained to evidence-based and science-based.
	Now, in my mind, evidence-based means that you can find examples of humanity using that particular approach several thousand years back, and it's been effective for the several thousand years across a wide range of humanity.
	That's evidence.
	Okay, something you can really get in and chew on and gnaw on and that sort of thing.
	So in that sense, Jordan Sather is right.
	No, he's not correct about the blue chickens.
	Yes, he does appear to be involved in a cult.
	Yes, it's really mysterious as to how he made such a splash on YouTube with so little effort and in such a short period of time.
	And okay, so he's an engaging personality.
	There's a lot of engaging personalities that do it a lot better on YouTube that don't seem to have the oomph behind him.
	And yes, he is connected to Gaia and has been part of some of these conferences and things.
	So as far as I'm concerned, he's in the cult with Jimmy Church, you know, Corey Good, and all of those guys.
	And so, no, I don't particularly listen to Jordan Sather.
	I watched Joe of the Carolinas, and when he was talking about Jordan Sather's language, it kind of rankled because in this sense, Say there is correct.
	And so, you know, give him props for that, right?
	Not for doing critical thinking, but for parroting back the new age mantra that, you know, evidence-based and science-based is bad.
	Now, I agree, we need evidence-based and we need science-based, but we need to understand what the hell we're talking about and be able to critically analyze it from whatever perspective we appear, whether we're appearing from a science basis or whether we're coming in from the new age woo-woo, you know, far-out stuff, right?
	In either case, we need to think critically because critical thinking is what allows humanity to survive, thrive, and grow.
	And it's good stuff.
	It's fun too.
	So, anyway, so this is about the end.
	It's looks like it's into the turn of the tide.
	It looks like we're getting into the beginning of the flood tide here.
	I need to get the dogs down on the beach.
	And so, one last thing here is that I'll be doing more videos, probably a lot of them about the invention business, like the wine and cheese ray gun and the pop rivet enhancement invention.
	These are going to be generally useful, and people will find them of benefit.
	So, I want to keep on with these things.
	At the moment, I'm doing them in patents because it makes sense at a couple of different levels.
	And speaking of which, today is May 28th.
	Once again, it's now 7:15.
	Been involved in this a half an hour, and I'm going to chop it up.
	I don't know how I'll edit it out, but so this is May 28th, 2018.
	But just a note to those people that bitch about all the videos of mine being stolen, even if I put up dates and splash it all over with graphics and that kind of stuff, they're just going to be edited out.
	And in fact, the editing process then makes the theft of that video in YouTube's mind legitimate as fair use.
	I think it's egregious that they steal an hour and a half of my video work here and edit together two videos and then claim that they've made an improvement to them.
	YouTube buys this, all right?
	They accepts it.
	So, I think this is rather non-critical thinking on the part of YouTube.
	But, what can you do, right?
	So, I'm going to start doing videos in a different manner such that I will personally benefit should they be stolen.
	Don't want them stolen, don't want the copyright theft, and I will fight copyright theft wherever I can and whenever I can.
	But, should they be stolen, my strategy is going to be that I'll benefit from those thefts by the way in which the content is presented and the content that is presented.
	So, anyway, that's it for today, May 28th, 2018.
	Happy holiday.
	It's 7:15.
	I got to get the dogs down to the beach.
	I'll edit this out a little bit later.
	No, I wasn't saying that Jordan Sather is an ass.
	I'm not saying that Joe of Carolinas is misguided.

▲