Yes, Google has a nice excuse. Yes, many people will find it plausible. I won't.

For me it's clear that Tulsi's bold, unique anti-war platform will put the whole corporate America against her.

Here is a list of articles and publications, most of them pointing issues in vaccines and in what is commonly said about them. For me it is a very good entry point for those interested in criticism against vaccines, no matter if you are against vaccines or if you are just curious to know the arguments. Of course most of the articles and claims are categorized as pseudo-science (IMO it is such a sensitive issue that any criticism to vaccines is labeled as anti-science or pseudo-science even before their arguments are appropriately considered).

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/se...

Summary of the article: US and other watmongering states want to annihilate Assange. I'm doing my best to spread gossip against him to ease their task.

> the French support the vandals and rioters

I wouldn't put it that way. The French support the Yellow Vest movement, which -- unlike the government and most of the corporate media claim -- does not reduce into vandalism and rioting.

Personally I see more hope in the personalized, drugless approaches, such as Dr. Bredesen's MEND protocol. For me large part of medical scientists are too obsessed about finding drugs and don't pay enough attention to alternatives.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

https://chriskresser.com/new-h...

https://www.aging-us.com/artic...

Why so many more burnouts declared today than before? Perhaps we just have more awareness. Perhaps our jobs are indeed more stressful.

These may be important factors, but I don't think they explains this phenomenon alone. We see a huge increase in diverse kinds mental problems (ADHD, Alzheimer, depression). I think the "Broken Brain" hypothesis by Dr. Hyman quite plausible.

http://drhyman.com/blog/2017/1...

He claims that important factors for the decline of our mental health are diet and exposure to toxins, besides stress.

Because they like to act ethically, based on principles, and so they don't want to simply ban someone on the basis you are talking about ("damaging one's reputation"), a reason which could be used to arbitrary decisions -- and make Canonical look like Facebook or Twitter.

The two most valuable books I have read in my life: Eckhart Tolle's "The Power of Now" and "New Earth".

In my case -- and many people I have met share the same view -- these books have shown the path to escape from every kind of emotional suffering. Even when it is small, such emotional "noise" disturbs our capacity to enjoy life, to work well, to be a good friend or a good relative, finally to be happy.

In the "The power of now" I specially like the chapter about relationships and the last one, about surrender. "New Earth" is perhaps even better, with a clear and strong exposure of the "egoic mind" and the "pain body", his words for two traps we tend to fall into. But I recommend to read the "The Power of Now" first.

Rationalism-leaning people like me often reject anything which is named "spirituality". But these people are often those who need the most to escape from unconscious mental traps. Eckart Tolle was an academic, he is clear and precise. In my opinion he offers the best presentation of this kind of wisdom for a rational person.

I think I would have refused to read these books when I was 20 years old (precisely for being an disdainful rationalist). Eckhart Tolle says there is the right moment in your life to be open to what he tells. This changes from one person to another. But what is certain is that if you endure any kind of suffering, the early you read, the best.

Note that although there are a lot of easily accessible videos from Eckart Tolle, I don't think they are not a good substitute for the books. These videos are mainly useful when you have already read at least the first book. Especially if you are not used to read about spirituality the videos won't suffice to make you understand that this dimension is important for your life (they will not be persuasive enough to break your skeptical barrier).

Here is an example of non-Russian experts who question the idea that Assad was guilty in 2013.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.do...

You are talking about French Gaullist tradition (from Charles de Gaulle), and yes, French geopolitics was relatively independent from the US.

Since Sarkozy they have made a 180-degree turn. They are now one of the most pro-US countries in Europe, beating UK in some issues.

http://www.economist.com/blogs...
http://www.economist.com/node/...
http://fablognewsweeker.canalb...
http://www.economist.com/blogs...

Hollande, though from the rival socialist party, follows entirely the path paved by Sarkozy.

That is why we must be careful about information claiming that "Russians are blocking investigation".

Remember that similar claims made people believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. There was no good evidence of the existence of such weapons, but well-orchestrated rumors of "Saddam is blocking the work of investigators" sounded very convincing.

I find it even possible that the investigators (if they are anti-Russian as much as the former were anti-Saddam) make unreasonable requests just to get refusals.

Look great at first sight... but only at first sight.

Our planet is in serious danger. We didn't know this in the 60's. Now we do.

We need our planet, our nature to survive. Not the space. Please turn the space agency into a earth agency. There are too many good engineers there.

Our children will be thankful.

There are many people who don't think that this study was bogus. Read this and judge yourself on whether or not there are something suspecious in the rejection of this paper.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/12/gmo-retractions-denials-and-downright-lies/

apol

Your reasoning depends on concepts such as "unlikely". That is precisely what I was trying to claim: The acceptation of scientific claims made about human beings depend on what we see as "likely to be true" or "reasonable".