Mammography/Thermography (Radar TV 22:00)

Toen mevrouw haar afgelegde eed benadrukte die artsen dienen af te leggen en zich volledig aan moeten conformeren, toen knapte er iets bij mij….. Jakob (Zie onderaan)

 

‘Cancer Screening Has Never Saved Lives’ BMJ
Study Concludes
Tuesday, January 12th 2016 at 3:45 am
Written By:
Sayer Ji, Founder
Millions have marched for “cancer causes.” Millions more have
been diagnosed “early” and now believe screening saved their
lives. But a new study confirms something we have been reporting
on since our inception: In most cases, screening not only has not
“saved lives,” but actually increases your risk of dying.
An extremely important new study published in the British Medical Journal titled,
” Why cancer screening has never been shown to “save lives”—and what
we can do about it , ” confirms something we have been reporting upon at
GreenMedInfo.com since our inception, namely, cancer screening has not lived
up to its long held promise of “saving lives” because diseasespecific
reductions
in mortality do not equate to reductions in overall mortality. Worse, in some
cases overall mortality actually increased because of screening.
In the new study, Vinay Prasad and colleagues, argue that the real benchmark
for the success of any cancer screening program is if the “early stage” cancers
being diagnosed and treated actually result in a reduction in the overall
mortality.
For instance, we have reported extensively on the widespread
misclassification of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) as a bono fide
malignant cancer, as well as its epidemic level overdiagnosis and
overtreatment . Tens of fhousands of women are diagnosed each year with
these socalled
“early stage breast cancers,” even though the National Cancer
Institute itself acknowledges it should be classified as a benign or indolent
lesions of epithelial origin. The New England Journal of Medicine published a
study in 2012 shows that approximately 1.3 million women were diagnosed
with DCIS in the past 30 years, with most receiving either mastectomy,
lumpectomy, radiation, chemotherapy, or some combination thereof. Ironically,
many of these women ardently believe that their lives were “saved” by the
screening and treatment, succumbing to the biomedical equivalent of Stockholm
syndrome where identifying with the ‘aggressor’ becomes palliative. In reality,
most suffered irreparable harm not from the “cancer,” but from both the
psychological and physical effects of being wrongly diagnosed and treated. If
the end point were not breast cancer specific mortality (‘invasive’ breast cancer
has not declined but increased with screening, indicating overdiagnosis ),
but overall mortality, it is likely that these DCIS diagnosed women’s lives were
significantly truncated because of screening programs; at the very least, the
quality of their lives would have been significantly negatively impacted.
Much of the damage, pain, and suffering associated with overmedicalization
could have been avoided if public health advocates and private industry
promoters of screening programs had realized that reducing the risk of cancer in
one bodily location the
breast, the colon, the lung, the thyroid does
not
necessarily translate into a reduction in mortality risk everywhere else. It is this
memeplex
of medicallyreinforced
ignorance which drives the many
diseasespecific,
multibillion
dollar, causemarketing
campaigns, like the heavily
pinkwashed “Breast Cancer Awareness” campaign, which increasingly the public
is acknowledging to be a highly unethical moneymaking
scheme.
The article summarizes the problem associated with confusing disease specific
with overall mortality reduction, succinctly:
Despite growing appreciation of the harms of cancer screening, 1 2 3
advocates still claim that it “saves lives.” 4 This assertion rests, however,
on reductions in disease specific mortality rather than overall mortality.
Using disease specific mortality as a proxy for overall mortality deprives
people of information about their chief concern: reducing their risk of
dying. 5 6 Although some people may have personal reasons for wanting
to avoid a specific diagnosis, the burden falls on providers to provide
clear information about both disease specific and overall mortality and
to ensure that the overall goal of healthcare—to improve quantity and
quality of life—is not undermined. 7
In this article we argue that overall mortality should be the benchmark
against which screening is judged and discuss how to improve the
evidence upon which screening rests.”
And so, without the proper benchmark or end point, all the educational and
fundraising
efforts going towards “reducing deaths” or “saving lives” from
breast, prostate, lung, skin, brain, [insert body part], become misleading, if not
overtly propagandist in nature.
Indeed, the extant scientific evidence itself reveals that at best the present
disease specific agenda for “cancer prevention” is pseudoscientific.
In the
section of the study subtitled, “Why cancer screening might not reduce overall
mortality,” the authors summarize what the literature reveals on the topic:
Discrepancies between disease specific and overall mortality were found
in direction or magnitude in seven of 12 randomised trials of cancer
screening.8 Despite reductions in disease specific mortality in the
majority of studies, overall mortality was unchanged or increased. In
cases where both mortality rates were reduced the improvement was
larger in overall mortality than in disease specific mortality. This
suggests an imbalance in nondisease
specific deaths, which warrants
examination and explanation. A systematic review of metaanalyses
of
cancer screening trials found that three of 10 (33%) showed reductions
in disease specific mortality and that none showed reductions in overall
mortality.9
The implications of this are profound.
As we reported previously with Anjelina Jolie’s decision to have her breasts
and ovaries prophylactically removed , ostensibly to “reduce her risk of
dying,” removing healthy body parts to prevent diseasespecific
mortality is
unlikely to reduce the overall risk of dying. And yet, the “Jolie effect” is a well
established phenomena. Her decision was lauded the world over as courageous
and an “evidencebased”
precautionary step, with tens of thousands of women
(and some men) following suit. We hope the new BMJ study raises a flag of true
caution for those who may habitually and uncritically follow the celebritycentric
herd mentality.
The significant harms of screening overdiagnosis and overtreatment extend to
men as well. For instance, aggressive prostate screening programs over the past
few decades have resulted in the removal and/or irradiation of millions of men’s
prostates. A 2004 study found that an astounding 200,000 men are being
diagnosed annually with prostate cancer. 1 Tragically, the 2013 National Cancer
Institute report referenced above also found that socalled
“early stage
prostate cancer,” high grade intraepithelial prostatic neoplasia (HGPIN), is also
essentially a benign lesion within prostatic epithelial tissue, not unlike DCIS in
women’s breasts. In other words, millions of men were diagnosed with a
potentially lethal “precancer”
or “early stage cancer” they never had.
As an aside, it should be noted that even in the case of lesions of true concern
for malignancy, there is always hope. Cancer is not an inexorably lethal, genetic
mutationdriven
process that happens in an environmental, nutritional, and
psychospiritual/
emotional vacuum. Instead of viewing it as the biological
equivalent of a terrorist, and cutting, burning, and poisoning the target tissue
(and, collaterally, the entire body of the host), we need to abandon the warfare
model of allopathic medicine and adopt one that focuses on targeting cancer
stem cells in nontoxic
ways , looking at carcinogenesis through the lens of
the informational dysregulation of genetic and epigenetic pathways in the cell;
informational “disease” in contradistinction to physiochemicallybased
disease is,
of course, more prone to being reversed. Cancer, in this view, can be halted in
its tracks, and even regressed, assuming that, along with informational
corrections (e.g. “nanopharmacological” approaches like homeopathy, “energy
healing,” high quality food ( which is also informationcontaining
)), the
tumor microenvironment can be adjusted back to healthier conditions through
detoxification, lifestyle modifications, mindbody
interventions, and targeted,
“high dose” nutritional support.
‘Cancer Screening Has Never Saved Lives’ BMJ
Study Concludes

Page 2
Tuesday, January 12th 2016 at 3:45 am
Written By:
Sayer Ji, Founder
The new study explained how prostate screening programs have created “off
target” deaths, primarily through the high rate of false positives, overdiagnosis
of nonharmful
cancers (e.g. HGPIN), and detection of incidental findings (i.e.
unintentionally discovered conditions):
For example, prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing yields numerous false
positive results, which contribute to over one million prostate biopsies a
year. 12 Prostate biopsies are associated with serious harms, including
admission to hospital and death. 12 13 Moreover, men diagnosed with
prostate cancer are more likely to have a heart attack or commit suicide in
the year after diagnosis or to die of complications of treatment for cancers
that may never have caused symptoms. 12 13
Shockingly, PSAbased
prostate screening has been found to have a false
positive rate of about 75%. 2 Obviously, given this finding, there is nothing
specific at all about the prostate “specific” antigen test, which is why the United
States Preventive Services Task Force now strongly recommends against it .
How the Public Is Misled Into Believing “Screening
Saves Lives”
As we have explored in previous writings, such as ” The Dark Side of Breast
Cancer Awareness Month ” and ” A DIRE WARNING: The Cancer Industry
Owns The Media And Your Mind ,” the public is intentionally misled into
believing a priori cancer screening saves lives even when no real, independent
scientific evidence exists to support it.
The new study reveals just how truly inflated the public’s expectations have
become:
A systematic review has shown that the public has an inflated sense of the
benefits and discounted sense of the harms of mammography screening,
the cervical smear test, and PSA screening. In one study 68% of women
thought that mammography would lower their risk of getting breast cancer,
62% thought that screening at least halved the rate of breast cancer, and
75% thought that 10 years of screening would prevent 10 breast cancer
deaths per 1000 women. Even the most optimistic estimates of screening
do not approach these numbers. The most recent Cochrane review of
randomised controlled trials of PSA screening failed to show a reduction in
disease specific death. The Cochrane review of mammography did not
show reduced breast cancer deaths when adequately randomised trials
were analysed.
Advocates of screening have emphasised its benefits, sometimes
verging on fear mongering. Others, including us, think that shared
decision making should be the focus. But as long as we are unsure of
the mortality benefits of screening we cannot provide people with the
information they need to make an informed choice. We must be honest
about this uncertainty.
A summary of the Swiss medical board’s decision not to recommend
mammography shows that for every 1000 women who undergo
screening one breast cancer death is averted (from five to four), while
nonbreast
cancer deaths either remain at 39 or may increase to 40. If
nonbreast
cancer deaths remain the same, a woman must weigh net
benefit against harms. If screening increases nonbreast
cancer deaths
to 40, women would simply be trading one type of death for another, at
the cost of serious morbidity, anxiety, and expense. Women should be
told that to date, with over 600 000 women studied, there is no clear
evidence of a reduction in overall mortality with mammography
screening.”
The public’s uncritical trust in screening programs help keep hidden the
significant harm they produce; harms that are further obfuscated by
industrysponsored
research. The study cites the fact that, ” of 57 studies
[reviewed] only 7% quantified overdiagnosis and just 4% reported the rate of false
positive results. ” They also found that, ” When researchers do examine the harms
of screening the results are typically sobering”:
False positive results on breast cancer screening have been associated
with psychosocial distress as great as a breast cancer diagnosis 6
months after the event . False positive results affect over 60% of women
undergoing screening mammography for a decade or more, and 1213%
of
all men who have undergone three or four screening rounds with PSA. In
the NLST [National Lung Screening Trial] 39.1% of people had at least one
positive test result, of which 96.4% were false positives.
Overdiagnosis affected 18% of people diagnosed with lung cancer on low
dose CT in the NLST, and researchers have found that as many as one in
three diagnoses of invasive breast cancer (or one in two for invasive cancer
and carcinoma in situ) by mammography constitute overdiagnosis. These
numbers are broadly equivalent to those found with most major screening
tests.”
There are also wellknown,
though rarely acknowledged, harms associated with
the screening technologies themselves. For instance, xray
mammography uses
a particular type of gamma radiation that has been found to have as much as
a six fold increased carcinogenicity . Another example is CT scans. It has
been estimated that .4% of all cancers in the U.S. are caused by them .
Clearly cancer screening programs that rely on intrinsically carcinogenic
diagnostic technologies (as well as carcinogenic treatments like
chemotherapy and radiotherapy) must be halted if they can not actually be
proven to “save lives,” which, I believe, the study clearly demonstrates.
The study concludes, powerfully:
We encourage healthcare providers to be frank about the limitations of
screening—the harms of screening are certain, but the benefits in overall
mortality are not. Declining screening may be a reasonable and prudent
choice for many people. Providers should also encourage participation in
open studies.
We call for higher standards of evidence, not to satisfy an esoteric standard,
but to enable rational, shared decision making between doctors and
patients. As Otis Brawley, chief scientific and medical officer of the
American Cancer Society, often states: “We must be honest about what we
know, what we don’t know, and what we simply believe.”
For additional learning listen to the lead author Vinay Prasad ‘s interview from
the British Medical Journal’s website below:
Read more on this topic below:
‘Hidden Dangers’ of Mammograms Every Woman Should Know
About
Tuesday, July 16th 2013 at 12:30 pm
Written By:
Sayer Ji, Founder
Millions of women undergo them annually, but few are
even remotely aware of just how many dangers they are
exposing themselves to in the name of prevention, not the
least of which are misdiagnosis, overdiagnosis and the
promotion of breast cancer itself.
A new study published in the Annals of Family Medicine titled, Longterm
psychosocial consequences of falsepositive
screening mammography , brings to
the forefront a major underreported harm of breast screening programs: the
very real and lasting trauma associated with a falsepositive
diagnosis of breast
cancer. [1]
The study found th at women with falsepositive
diagnoses of breast cancer, even
three years after being declared free of cancer , “consistently reported greater
negative psychosocial consequences compared with women who had normal
findings in all 12 psychosocial outcomes.”
The psychosocial and existential parameters adversely affected were:
● Sense of dejection
● Anxiety
● Negative impact on behavior
● Negative impact on sleep
● Degree of breast selfexamination
● Negative impact on sexuality
● Feeling of attractiveness
● Ability to keep ‘mind off things’
● Worries about breast cancer
● Inner calm
● Social network
● Existential values
What is even more concerning is that “[S]ix months after final diagnosis, women
with falsepositive
findings reported changes in existential values and inner
calmness as great as those reported by women with a diagnosis of breast
cancer.”
In other words, even after being “cleared of cancer,” the measurable adverse
psychospiritual effects of the trauma of diagnosis were equivalent to actually
having breast cancer.
Given that the cumulative probability of falsepositive
recall or biopsy
recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography is at least 50%, [2]
this is an issue that will affect the health of millions of women undergoing
routine breast screening.
The Curse of False Diagnosis and ‘BonePointing’
Also, we must be cognizant of the fact that these observed ‘psychosocial’ and
‘existential’ adverse effects don’t just cause some vaguely defined ‘mental
anguish,’ but translate into objectively quantifiable physiological consequences of
a dire nature.
For instance, last year, a groundbreaking study was published in the New
England Journal of Medicine showing that, based on data on more than 6 million
Swedes aged 30 and older, the risk of suicide was found to be up to 16 times
higher and the risk of heartrelated
death up to 26.9 times higher during the
first week following a positive versus a negative cancer diagnosis. [3]
This was the first study of its kind to confirm that the trauma of diagnosis can
result in, as the etymology of the Greek word trauma reveals, a “physical
wound.” In the same way as Aborigonal cultures had a ‘ritual executioner’ or
‘bone pointer’ known as a Kurdaitcha who by pointing a bone at a victim with the
intention of cursing him to death, resulting in the actual selfwilled
death of the
accursed, so too does the modern ritual of medicine reenact ancient belief
systems and power differentials, with the modern physician, whether he likes it
or not, a ‘priest of the body.’; we must only look to the wellknown
dialectic of
the placebo and nocebo effects to see these powerful, “irrational” processes still
operative.
Millions Harmed by Breast Screening Despite Assurances
to the Contrary
Research of this kind clearly indicates that the conventional screening process
carries health risks, both to body and mind, which may outstrip the very dangers
the medical surveillance believes itself responsible for, and effective at,
mitigating. For instance, according to a groundbreaking study published last
November in New England Journal of Medicine , 1.3 million US women were
overdiagnosed and overtreated over the past 30 years. [4] These are the ‘false
positives’ that were never caught, resulting in the unnecessary irradiation,
chemotherapy poisoning and surgery of approximately 43,000 women each
year. Now, when you add to this dismal statistic the millions of ‘false positives’
that while being caught nevertheless resulted in producing traumas within those
women, breast screening begins to look like a veritable nightmare of
iatrogenesis
‘Hidden Dangers’ of Mammograms Every Woman Should
Know About

Page2
Tuesday, July 16th 2013 at 12:30 pm
Written By:
Sayer Ji, Founder
And this does not even account for the radiobiological dangers of the xray
mammography screening process itself, which may be causing an epidemic of
mostly unackowledged radiationinduced
breast cancers in exposed populations.
For instance, in 2006, a paper published in the British Journal of Radiobiology ,
titled “Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy Xrays
and implications
for the UK breast screening programme,” revealed the type of radiation used in
xraybased
breast screenings is much more carcinogenic than previously
believed:
Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that
the low energy Xrays
as used in mammography are approximately four
times but
possibly as much as six times more
effective in causing
mutational damage than higher energy Xrays.
Since current radiation
risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation,
this implies that the risks of radiationinduced
breast cancers for
mammography Xrays
are underestimated by the same factor. [5]
Even the breast cancer treatment protocols themselves have recently been
found to contribute to enhancing cancer malignancy and increasing mortality.
Chemotherapy and radiation both appear to enrich the cancer stem cell
populations , which are at the root of breast cancer malignancy and
invasiveness. Last year, in fact, the prestigious journal Cancer , a publication of
the American Cancer Society, published a study performed by researchers from
the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive
Cancer Center showing that even when radiation kills half of the tumor cells
treated, the surviving cells which are resistant to treatment, known as induced
breast cancer stem cells (iBCSCs), were up to 30 times more likely to form
tumors than the nonirradiated breast cancer cells. In other words, the radiation
treatment regresses the total population of cancer cells, generating the false
appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of
highly malignant to benign cells within that tumor, eventually leading to the
iatrogenic (treatmentinduced)
death of the patient. [6]
What we are increasingly bearing witness to in the biomedical literature itself is
that the conventional breast cancer prevention and treatment strategy and
protocols are bankrupt. Or, from the perspective of the more cynical observer, it
is immensely successful, owing to the fact that it is driving billions of dollars or
revenue by producing more of what it claims to be fighting.
The time has come for a radical transformation in the way that we understand,
screen for, prevent and treat cancer. It used to be that natural medical
advocates didn’t have the socalled
peerreviewed
‘evidence’ to back up their
intuitive and/or anecdotal understanding of how to keep the human body in
health and balance. That time has passed. GreenMedInfo.com , for instance,
has over 20,000 abstracts indexed in support of a return to a medical model
where the ‘alternative’ is synthetic, invasive, emergency modeled
medicine, and
the norm is using food, herbs, minerals, vitamins and lifestyle changes to
maintain, promote and regain optimal health.
[1] John Brodersen, Volkert Dirk Siersma. Longterm
psychosocial
consequences of falsepositive
screening mammography. Ann Fam Med.
2013 MarApr;11(
2):10615.
PMID: 23508596
[2] Rebecca A Hubbard, Karla Kerlikowske, Chris I Flowers, Bonnie C Yankaskas,
Weiwei Zhu, Diana L Miglioretti. Cumulative probability of falsepositive
recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening
mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18
;155(8):48192.
PMID: 22007042
[3] Research: Come Diagnoses Kill You Quicker Than The Cancer , April
2012
[4] 30 Years of Breast Screening: 1.3 Million Women Wrongly Treated ,
Nov. 2012
[5] GreenMedInfo.com, How XRay
Mammography Is Accelerating the
Epidemic of Breast Cancer , June 2012
[6] GreenMedInfo.com, Study: Radiation Therapy Can Make Cancers 30x
More Malignant , June 2012
● Millions Fall Prey To This Deadly Breast Cancer Myth
● Millions Wrongly Treated for ‘Cancer,’ National Cancer
Institute
● Pinkwashing Hell: Breast Removal as a Form of
“Prevention”
● Thyroid Cancer Epidemic Caused by Misinformation, Not
Cancer
● Is BRCA “Breast Cancer Gene” A Death Sentence
● 30 Years of Breast Screening: 1.3 Million Wrongly Treated
● Astounding Number of Medical Procedures Have No
Benefit
● Ovarian Cancer: What We Think We Know May Harm Us
● Why Angelina Jolie Should Leave Her Ovaries Alone
● Breast Screenings Creating An Epidemic of
OverDiagnosis
References
1 Review Cancer statistics , 2004. Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T, Ghafoor A,
Samuels A, Ward E, Feuer EJ, Thun MJ, American Cancer Society CA Cancer J
Clin. 2004 JanFeb;
54(1):829.
2 http://www.thennt.com/nnt/psatesttoscreenforprostatecan
Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com , on the Board of Governors for the
National Health Federation , and Fearless Parent , Steering Committee
Member of the Global GMO Free Coalition (GGFC), a reviewer at the
International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine .

Toen mevrouw haar afgelegde eed benadrukte die artsen dienen af te leggen en zich volledig aan moeten conformeren, toen knapte er iets bij mij…..

Ik heb een boekje voor mij liggen welker inhoudt essentieel blijkt wanneer het gaat om gezondheid, natuur en milieu.
En internationaal leiderschap zal zich hierbij als aandachtspunt duidelijk niet ongemoeid laten.
In harmonie met de maan, De toepassing van de maankalender in het dagelijkse leven
Geschreven door:
Johanna Paungger & Thomas Poppe
Beschrijving:
”De stand van de maan is van invloed op het leven op aarde. Maar hoe gaat dat in zijn werk en hoe kunnen we deze natuurwet toepassen?
Johanna Paungger inventariseerde eeuwenoude, van generatie op generatie overgeleverde kennis over de effecten van de maand stand op het leven van alledag. In dit baanbrekende boek, dat zij samen met Thomas Poppe schreef, geeft zij adviezen en tips op alle belangrijke terreinen van het dagelijkse leven: van geneeskunde en gezondheid, via voeding en huishouding, tot tuin- en akkerbouw.
Een maankalender achter in het boek geeft in een oogopslag de schijngestalten van de maan en de maanstand in de dierenriem tot het jaar 2015”
 
Ik citeer:
”Het behoort tot de oer plichten van de mens om acht te slaan op zijn lichaam en zijn omgeving.
Onze beschaving verdooft ons gevoel voor deze plicht, mede omdat we op zoveel terreinen van het leven onze verantwoordelijkheid kunnen afgeven (‘Maakt niet uit, ik ben toch verzekerd…’)”
 
”Een van de belangrijkste regels is echter dat Chirurgische ingrepen zo mogelijk bij afnemende maan moeten worden uitgevoerd, ook al wordt deze kennis nog maar sporadisch toegepast en is onder artsen nog maar weinig bekend.
Zij kan gewoon nog niet probleemloos in een wetenschappelijk hokje worden ondergebracht. 
Maar ook de kennis dat men voor een operatie zijn handen zou moeten wassen, heeft er eeuwen over gedaan om als juist te worden geaccepteerd”

Samenvattend citaat:

”Het licht der natuur liegt nooit,
maar de geleerden hebben het tegen de natuur gekeerd.
Als de mens onrecht doet, doet hij ook onrecht aan het licht der natuur.
Zoekt daarom eerst het rijk van de waarheid,
dan zult u meer doen dan ooit op aarde is gedaan.
Twijfel nooit aan God, onze hoogste arts.
Zo wij hem en onze naaste liefhebben, zo zal hij ons alles geven wat wij nodig hebben.
Wanneer wij echter werkloos blijven en de liefde vergeten,
dan zal ons ook worden afgenomen wat wij meenden te bezitten. 
# Paracelsus
 
Artseneed van de KNMG en de VSNU (Vereniging van Universiteiten):
”Ik zweer/beloof dat ik de geneeskunst zo goed als ik kan zal uitoefenen ten dienste van mijn medemens.
Ik zal zorgen voor zieken, gezondheid bevorderen en lijden verlichten. Ik stel het belang van de patient voorop en eerbiedig zijn opvattingen.
Ik zal aan de patient geen schade doen. Ik luister en zal hem goed inlichten.
Ik zal geheim houden wat mij is toevertrouwd. Ik zal de geneeskundige kennis van mijzelf en anderen bevorderen.
Ik erken de grenzen van mijn mogelijkheden. Ik zal mij open en toetsbaar opstellen, en ik ken mijn verantwoordelijkheid voor de samenleving. Ik zal de beschikbaarheid en toegankelijkheid van de gezondheidszorg bevorderen.
Ik maak geen misbruik van mijn medische kennis, ook niet onder druk.
Ik zal zo het beroep van Arts in ere houden”
 
EN ZO HET IS GESCHREVEN, ZO ZAL HET GESCHIEDEN!!
 
JESAJA 30: 21-26 ( GOD’S PROFETIE OVER OPSTANDIGEN )
”EN ALS U GOD’S PADEN VERLAAT EN AF-DWAALT, ZULT U EEN STEM ACHTER U HOREN ZEGGEN:
‘NEE, DIT IS DE WEG, HIER MOET U LOPEN.’
U ZULT AL UW ZILVEREN EN GOUDEN AFGODSBEELDEN VERNIELEN, ZE WEGGOOIEN ALS VOORWERPEN DIE U NIET WILT AANRAKEN.’WEG ERMEE! ZULT U ZEGGEN.
DAN ZAL GOD U ZEGENEN MET REGEN IN DE ZAAITIJD, MET OVERVLOEDIGE OOGSTEN EN MALS GRASLAND VOOR UW VEE.
DE OSSEN EN JONGE EZELS WAARMEE U HET LAND BEWERKT, ZULLEN KOREN ETEN, WAARVAN HET KAF DOOR DE WIND IS WEGGEBLAZEN.
OP DIE DAG DAT GOD UW VIJANDEN VERNIETIGD, ZAL HIJ U WATERSTROMEN GEVEN DIE LANGS ELKE BERG EN ELKE HEUVEL NAAR BENEDEN KLATEREN.
 
DE MAAN ZAL NET ZO HELDER SCHIJNEN ALS DE ZON, EN HET LICHT VAN DE ZON ZAL ZO FEL ZIJN ALS HET LICHT VAN ZEVEN DAGEN BIJ ELKAAR!
ZO ZAL HET ZIJN ALS DE HERE ZIJN VOLK BEGINT TE GENEZEN EN DE WONDEN DIE HIJ HEEFT GESLAGEN GAAT VERZORGEN….”
 
JESAJA 32: 1-7 ( VREDE VOOR HET VOLK VAN GOD )
”KIJK DAAR KOMT EEN RECHTVAARDIGE KONING MET EERLIJKE LEIDERS IN ZIJN GEZELSCHAP!
HIJ ZAL ISRAEL BESCHERMEN TEGEN STORM EN WIND.
HIJ ZAL HAAR VERFRISSEN ALS EEN RIVIER IN DE WOESTIJN EN ALS EEN GROTE ROTS, DIE SCHADUW GEEFT IN EEN HEET EN ONVRUCHTBAAR LAND.
DAN ZULLEN DE OGEN VAN ISRAEL ZICH UITEINDELIJK WIJD OPENEN VOOR GOD: 
ZIJN VOLK ZAL NAAR ZIJN STEM LUISTEREN.
ZELFS DE HEETHOOFDEN ZULLEN VOL GEVOEL EN BEGRIP ZIJN, EN ZIJ DIE STOTTEREN VAN ONZEKERHEID ZULLEN ZICH DUIDELIJK UITSPREKEN”
OP DIE DAG ZULLEN DE ONGELOVIGEN, DE WEERSPANNIGEN NIET MEER ALS HELDEN WORDEN BESCHOUWD!
HUN DWAASHEID ZAL VOOR IEDEREEN DUIDELIJK WORDEN.
IEDEREEN ZAL EEN SLECHTE MAN HERKENNEN EN HUICHELAARS ZULLEN NIEMAND MEER OM DE TENT KUNNEN LEIDEN.
HUN LEUGENS OVER GOD EN HUN BEDROG TEGENOVER DE HONGERIGEN ZAL VOOR IEDEREEN DUIDELIJK ZICHTBAAR ZIJN.
OOK DAT ZIJ DE DORSTIGEN HET WATER ONTHOUDEN.
DE SLINKSE STREKEN VAN SLECHTE MANNEN ZULLEN WORDEN AANGETOOND, EVENALS DE LEUGENS DIE ZIJ GEBRUIKEN OM DE ARME IN RECHTSZAKEN TE BENADELEN ALS DEZE VOOR ZIJN RECHT OP-KOMT.
MAAR EDELE MENSEN ZULLEN EDELE DADEN WILLEN DOEN EN DAARIN VOLHARDEN”
 
JESAJA 32: 15-20 ( VREDE VOOR HET VOLK VAN GOD )
”TOTDAT TENSLOTTE DE GEEST VAN UIT DE HOGE OVER ONS WORDT UIT GEGOTEN .
DAN WORDT DE WOESTIJN TOT EEN LUSTHOF.
IN DE WOESTIJN ZAL HET RECHT WONEN, EN DAARDOOR ZAL ER VREDE ZIJN.
RUST EN VERTROUWEN ZULLEN DAN EEUWIG REGEREN.
MIJN VOLK ZAL IN VEILIGHEID LEVEN, RUSTIG THUIS.
ONDANKS HET FEIT DAT HET HAGELT ALS HET BOS GEKAPT IS, EN UW STAD LAAGGELEGEN IS.
 
U BENT GELUKKIG EN RIJK GEZEGEND, ALS U ZAAIT OP DE OEVERS EN U UW VEE IN GROENE WEIDEN LAAT GRAZEN”
 
JESAJA 33: 15-16 ( DE HERE ALS RECHTER, WETGEVER EN KONING )
”IK ZAL U VERTELLEN WIE HIER KAN LEVEN:
ALLEN DIE EERLIJK EN RECHTVAARDIG ZIJN; DIE GEEN WINST WILLEN MAKEN DOOR BEDROG,
DIE ZICH NIET LATEN OMKOPEN, DIE WEIGEREN TE LUISTEREN NAAR HEN DIE MOORDEN BERAMEN, EN DIE DE OGEN SLUITEN VOOR AL HET SLECHTE. DERGELIJKE MENSEN ZULLEN WORDEN VERHOOGD.”
 
JESAJA 40: 27-31 ( DE HERE IS IN AANTOCHT )
”WAAROM ZEGT U DAN, JAKOB, EN OVERLEGT U, ISRAEL:
‘DE HERE LET NIET OP MIJ EN KOMT NIET OP VOOR MIJN RECHT”?
BEGRIJPT U HET DAN NOG NIET? WEET U NU NOG NIET DAT DE EEUWIGE GOD, DE SCHEPPER VAN DE VERSTE UITHOEKEN VAN DE AARDE, NOOIT MOE OF LUSTELOOS WORDT?
NIEMAND KAN DE DIEPTEN VAN ZIJN BEGRIP PEILEN.
MACHTELOZEN EN VERMOEIDEN MAAKT HIJ STERK, DE ZWAKKEN GEEFT HIJ KRACHT.
JEUGDIGEN ZULLEN UITGEPUT RAKEN EN DE JONGE MANNEN ZULLEN HET OPGEVEN.
MAAR ZIJ DIE HUN HOOP OP DE HERE HEBBEN GEVESTIGD, ZULLEN HUN KRACHTEN WEER TERUG KRIJGEN. 
ZIJ STEIGEN OP MET VLEUGELS ALS VAN ARENDEN; ZIJ ZULLEN VOORT SNELLEN, MAAR NIET MOE WORDEN; ZIJ ZULLEN WANDELEN ZONDER UITGEPUT TE RAKEN”
 
JESAJA 53: ( ALS EEN LAM NAAR DE SLACHTBANK GELEID )
”MAAR ACH, WAT ZIJN ER WEINIG DIE HET GELOVEN!
WIE ZAL LUISTEREN?
AAN WIE ZAL GOD ZIJN REDDENDE MACHT OPENBAREN?
IN GOD’S OGEN WAS HIJ EEN GROENE SCHEUT, DIE GROEIDE AAN EEN WORTEL 
IN DROGE EN ONVRUCHTBARE GROND.
MAAR IN ONZE OGEN HAD HIJ NIETS AANTREKKELIJKS , NIETS DAT MAAKTE DAT WIJ HEM GRAAG WILDEN AANVAARDEN.
WIJ VERAFSCHUWDEN EN VERACHTEN HEM, EEN MAN VAN ZORGEN, VERTROUWD MET HET BITTERSTE VERDRIET.
WIJ KEERDEN HEM DE RUG TOE, EN KEKEN DE ANDERE KANT OP ALS HIJ LANGS KWAM, HIJ WERD VERACHT EN HET DEED ONS NIETS. MAAR HET WAS ONS LEED DAT HIJ DROEG, ONS LIJDEN DRUKTE HEM NEER.
 
WIJ DACHTEN DAT ZIJN LIJDEN EEN STRAF VAN GOD WAS VOOR ZIJN EIGEN ZONDEN!
 
MAAR HIJ WERD DOORSTOKEN EN VERBRIJZELD TER WILLEN VAN ONZE ZONDEN.
HIJ WERD ZWAAR GESTRAFT ZODAT WIJ VREDE KONDEN HEBBEN; HIJ WERD GESLAGEN EN DAARDOOR WERDEN WIJ GENEZEN! WIJ ZIJN HET DIE ALS SCHAPEN AFDWAALDEN!
WIJ VERLIETEN GOD’S PADEN EN GINGEN ONZE EIGEN WEG.
DESONDANKS LEGDE GOD DE SCHULD  EN ZONDEN VAN ONS ALLEN OP HEM. 
HIJ WERD IN EEN HOEK GEDREVEN, EN MISHANDELD, MAAR ZEI GEEN WOORD.
 
JESAJA 55: 8-12 ( GEZEGEND IS HIJ DIE DE HERE ZOEKT )
”MIJN PLANNEN ZIJN NIET DEZELFDE ALS DIE VAN U, EN MIJN GEDACHTEN ZIJN NIET UW GEDACHTEN!
NET ZOALS DE HEMELEN HOGER ZIJN DAN DE AARDE, ZO ZIJN MIJN WEGEN HOGER DAN DIE VAN U.
EVENZO ZIJN MIJN GEDACHTEN HOGER DAN DE UWE.
ZOALS DE REGEN EN DE SNEEUW VANUIT DE HEMEL NAAR BENEDEN KOMEN EN OP DE GROND BLIJVEN LIGGEN OM DE AARDE WATER TE GEVEN, HET KOREN TE LATEN GROEIEN, ZAAD VOOR DE BOER EN ETEN VOOR DE HONGERIGEN TE PRODUCEREN, ZO IS MIJN WOORD OOK, IK STUUR HET UIT EN HET LEVERT ALTIJD VRUCHT OP.
HET DOET ALLES WAT IK WIL EN BEREIKT DATGENE, WAARVOOR IK HET WEGSTUUR.
 
U ZULT IN BLIJDSCHAP EN VREDE LEVEN, DE BERGEN EN HEUVELS, DE BOMEN OP HET LAND, DE HELE WERELD OM U HEEN, ZULLEN BLIJ ZIJN. WAAR EENS DORENS GROEIDEN, ZAL EEN CIPRES STAAN; IN PLAATS VAN DISTELS ZULLEN MIRTES UIT DE AARDE OPSCHIETEN. 
 
DIT WONDER ZAL DE NAAM VAN DE HERE BEROEMD MAKEN EN ZAL EEN EEUWIG TEKEN ZIJN VAN GOD’S MACHT EN LIEFDE, WAARAAN NOOIT MEER EEN EINDE KOMT.!!!!!”
 
”Plichtsbesef” ”Grondwet” ”Internationale verantwoordelijkheid” ”Klimaatbeheersing” ”NWO” ”Internationaal recht”
 
http://www.volkskrant.nl/alle-nieuws-over-top-200-van-de-macht/

https://jakobinfo.wordpress.com/

En Uw Naaste Als Uzelf

”En uw naaste als uzelf”

Die opdracht is voor ons te zwaar gebleken,

aan deze eis konden wij niet voldoen.

Wij hebben ons vaak op onszelf verkeken,

wij dachten klaar te zijn met goed fatsoen.

 

Voor elk goed doel hebben wij geld gegeven,

de derde wereld altijd goed bedacht,

een eenzaam mens wel eens een brief geschreven,

een zieke wel eens een bezoek gebracht.

 

Maar was het wel de mens waaraan wij dachten,

is door ons wel in God’s naam leed verzacht?

Was ‘t liefde, of was het enkel plicht betrachten?

Had God misschien iets meer van ons verwacht?

 

Wij staan beschaamd Heer, voor uw heilige ogen,

want, als U onze daden samenvat,

blijkt, dat wij wel elkander lijden mogen,

maar slecht ons zelven hebben liefgehad.

 

Vergeef ons onze schuld, en al ons falen

waarvoor Uw zoon aan ‘t kruis zijn bloed vergoot,

om onze zonden stervend te betalen.

Hij heeft ons liefgehad tot in de dood.

# Enny IJskes-Kooger/ In zijn Schaduw

UNESCO CALL  

(DE WEG, DE WAARHEID EN BEVESTIGD DOOR ONDERTEKENDE)

Citizens of the world have been in the lead to create a New Humanism for the twenty-first century in keeping with the UNESCO call for “the development of a universal global consciousness based on dialogue in a climate of trust and mutual understanding.” World Citizens welcome the UNESCO-led Decade for the Rapprochement of Cultures (2013-2022). Thus we will highlight the creative efforts of individuals who have built bridges of understanding over the divides of cultures, social classes and ethnicity to create a foundation for the New Humanism.

Abraham H. Maslow(1908-1970) A Cultural-Bridge-builder through Psychology

Abraham Maslow was a US professor of psychology, most of his career at Brandeis University in Massachusetts.(1) Maslow’s writings cover a wide range from an early interest in anthropology to his later applications of humanistic psychology to business and education. His mature views are presented in a posthumous work The Farther Reaches of Human Nature (2). However, it is his work on the hierarchy of inborn needs and the concept of self-actualization which are most directly related to the Basic Needs Approach to Development Planning.

Maslow constructed what he called a “Needs Hierarchy” which he believed was trans-cultural, appearing in all human beings, in all cultures. His model is a six-level model which depicts a human energy flowing upward with each need leading to the next level when fulfilled:

Physical Needs: food, water, clothing, shelter, hygiene, and health care.

Safety-Security Needs: the need for psychological and physical safety, freedom from fear.

Belonging Needs: the need for human relationship, affiliation to others, affection and psychological warmth.

Esteem Needs: the need for a positive image of self, a sense of inner dignity and value, respêct and recognition from others.

Self- Actualization Needs: the need to develop one’s potential, for creative expression, a sense of direction of one’s life.

Transcendent Needs: the need to commune with Nature, to become enlightened, to live in harmony with universal principles. The transcendent needs, what Maslow also calls the “value life” (spiritual, religious, philosophical) “is an aspect of human biology and is on the same continuum with the ‘lower’ animal life (tather than being in separated, dichotomized or mutually exclusive realms). It is probably therefore species-wide, supracultural even though it must be actualized by culture in order to exist.”

Maslow held that these needs are an unfolding, evolving process in all human beings everywhere. The ways in which needs are fulfilled are influenced by specific cultures, but the needs are universal, and society must be structured so that all these needs can be met. His emphasis is on the oneness of humanity.

If needs are not fulfilled, Maslow held, this will lead an individual or a larger group to “metapathologies” such as meaninglessness, despair, apathy, resignation and fatalism. Thus we need to design and implement new social and economic arrangements that more closely fit the needs of human nature.

The first three levels of needs − Physical Needs,; Safety-Security Needs, and Belonging Needs − can be met within the household-family. It is on these three levels of needs that the ILO Basic Needs Approach is focused. Esteem Needs and Self-Actualization Needs are linked to the wider society and require cooperation with and action in the wider society.

Transcendent Needs are fulfilled both individually − a confidence that we are basically one with the cosmos instead of strangers to it − and within society as a person needs access to philosophical currents of thought in order to express to others this confidence in harmony.

Abraham Maslow provides a useful framework for using the Basic Needs Approach to Development Planning as based on the deepest nature of the person. Each person is an active, self-governing mover, chooser and center of his own life.

Notes
For an overview of Maslow’s life and writings see Edward Hoffman (Ed.) The Right to be Human: A Bibliography of Abraham Maslow (Los Angeles, CA: Tarcher Publishers, 1988)
Abraham H. Maslow. The Father Reaches of Human Nature (New York: The Viking Press, 1971)

Rene Wadlow, President Benevolent Earth Federation, President, Association of World Citizens

Compiled With Warm Wishes Omni Love & Planetary Service
Dr Tony Sunil VERMA

HELE FIJNE KERSTDAGEN EN EEN GELUKKIG NIEUW JAAR EN EEUWIGE VOORSPOED

MET VRIENDELIJKE GROETEN, WARM REGARDS,

JORN JAKOB ALBERT BOOR

ECONAMIC GLOBAL ORGANIZATIONS

DREAM AVENUE CORP.

PHANG ‘NDAWO COMMUNICATIONS AND PROJECTS (SA)

ECONAMICGLOBAL@GMAIL.COM

JORNBOOR@LIVE.CO.ZA

ZEEWOLDE, FLEVOLAND, KONINKRIJK DER NEDERLANDEN (LEEUW VAN JUDA 😉

Advertisements

Published by

Jakob_EGO

Jorn Jakob Albert Boor. (36) Ik heb mijn leven lang menselijke interactie, tegenstellingen en tegenstrijdigheden geobserveerd en hieruit een conclusie getrokken. Theorie, ervaring en ondersteuning vanuit de vele verscheidene vriendschappen en gebeurtenissen hebben het mogelijk gemaakt tot de kern van het menselijk bestaan en evolutie van het bewustzijn op individueel en collectieve zingeving en progressie. De verschillende specialisaties, hierarchische levels van behoeften (egoisme) en non verbale en verbale intentie's en communicatie eigenschappen (egocentrisch) zijn een fundamentele doelstelling en persoonlijke ontwikkeling die ik graag wil delen en ten dienste wil stellen zodat het de creatie en evolutie van ons natuurlijke zijnsvorm transcends in het geestelijke/spirituele zijnsvorm in ons aller belang en zoals het gedetaileerd in allerlei verscheidene historische takken van sport is benoemd en vastgelegd op feiten en profetisch onderbouwde geschriften. wijsheden en legacies. Defragmentatie van deze inzet, inzichten, kennis en opofferingen ten behoeve van ons aller belang en bestaansrecht. Via het informeren en verzamelen van kennis verwacht ik de chaos en verbroken connectie's weer samen te brengen en hiermee de macht over vrede, begrip, diversiteit en samenwerkings verbanden naar een resonerende en gebalanceerde bestaansrechtelijke fundering terug te brengen en mijzelf en mijn service van toegevoegde waarde te laten zijn. Vanuit mijn eigen ervarings deskundigheid en relatieve overzichten op globaal niveau. Creativiteit. Spontaniteit en Probleemoplossende eigenschappen en de bij behorende communicatieve vaardigheden zouden het varkentje moeten wassen. UNESCO onderschrijft een groot deel van de conclusie en bestaansrecht van deze theorie/evolutie model en symboliek voortgebracht via de grootheden en culturen en eerder bestaansvormen uit het verleden. Dit is de finishing touch en de start van een nieuw begin met rust. vrede en creatieve ontwikkelingen en rechtvaardige basis berustende op eenwording en ware identiteit van de mensheid. De overwinning welke onze wederzijdse verantwoordelijkheid in alle facetten van het bestaan vrijheid en zijn bevierd zal worden! # Het zal geschieden. # Mijn thuis is waar liefde zegeviert # Huis van Jakob / Rechtvaardigheid # Jakob 's Ladder / Vigilant. .. http://jornboor.blogspot.nl https://jakobinfo.wordpress.com @Jakob_EGO "Oil To The Fire Submitted In Respect For The Sacred Dance On Infinity. "

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s