A collection of three hand made vase in interesting free form shapes. All time favorite colors of blue and white which attractively decorate each piece. Select a wave pattern, solid blue with white top, or wave & dot pattern - sold separately. Made in Portugal.
Designed to offer a splash of color where needed and its interesting shape makes it beautiful even as a stand alone piece. Available in two sizes. Made in Portugal.
A ceramic cachepot in a rich curry yellow color has been designed to show off any flower or plant. The gourd shaped body gives a nice design element and the color is truly inspired by Indian spices. Available in large and small sizes. Made in Portugal.
The wonderful gemstones of India are great color inspirations. The beautiful turquoise color of this cache pot is the epitome of this. Very versatile. Available in two sizes, made in Portugal.
Turquoise seems to be a color that is truly neutral. Fill this lovely cachepot with red dahlias or try with soft white hydrangeas. Either way it's a winner. Available in two sizes. Made in Portugal.
An elegant footed cachepot in a cool gray with white accents covered in a clear, shiny glaze. This larger size is perfect for a flowering plant or even a small evergreen during the holidays.
A new, lighter version of our popular Jaipur cachepots. The cool gray with white accents creates a refreshing neutral that will easily blend with most any decor. Makes a great house warming or hostess gift. Made in Portugal.
A handy container for fresh flowers or to use with a plant. Good size with just a touch of gold to dress it up. Very popular item . Made in Portugal
An easy to use cachepot that is on of our best sellers. Ideal when just a pop of color is needed. Made in Portugal of ceramic and trimmed with gold touches. Available in two sizes.
I think the issue is taken too lightly, overall. Most will see gullibiity in others but themselves feel confident that they can tell info from misinfo. This over-confidence, that de-activates critical thinking, is uncalled for imo.	
I hope so. Because for a moment there I thought our brains were hardwired to seeking entertainment, being right, being important, getting money and sex.
The web has the potential to educate the world and the only controls are those imposed by governments with something to hide. Even in cases where the controls are the strictest, the web still allows leaks and that's good news. Think about the tidbits out of Iran and Tibet (among others) and you can see a new global freedom of speech evolving before your very eyes.
The Freedom-of-Speech for all aspect is powerful. Its why we all embrace the Internet. But in our loving embrace any possible drawbacks are easily overlooked. Some of them havent even been considered yet - such as, what happens to the mind when it is preoccupied with 2-Dimensional-Screen-Reality rather than 3-Dimensional-Reality-and-Nature?
Not sure about this one, Redoubt. To use a neutral example, we're all very likely to take dental advice from an a dentist and reject it from anon38xd4.	
Great thread! It is a big problem. Information is more readily available but there is no way to know who is behind the information. I do believe that news sights should not be allowed to hide the identities of those posting the info because too much info is wrong or inaccurate. At the same time someone that wishes to remain anonymous could post to a “Rumor Blog” or “Rumor Sight” and then responsible reporters could investigate the story and follow up leads without compromising the source. People that libel others should be held accountable on the internet just as they would be held accountable anywhere else. It’s a fine line and could destroy what we now know as the internet meaning the flow of information could be harmed but I believe accuracy is more important. And when it is wriiten it is usually with someones name attached so there is at least recourse.
I for one would think, being forced to be non anonymous, would cause more problems then it solved. The fear of speaking one's own mind in public and the censorship and other manipulations that is blatant in that venue, points to the crux of my position here.
I wouldnt force being non-anonymous. Of course not. I´ll just say that anonymity is overrated. Its easy to spread slander while hiding behind it.
I used to think Anonymous is the way to go, because that way all information can come to light. In with things like WikiLeaks it does.
But remember back when this site had this "Anonymous Posting" thing? In thousands and thousands of posts there was not one special revelation that rocked the boat.	
The Freedom-of-Speech for all aspect is powerful. Its why we all embrace the Internet. But in our loving embrace any possible drawbacks are easily overlooked.
Absolutely. The net is chock-a-block with drawbacks and you've outlined a few of them very neatly in your OP. In particular, to me anyways, is viral marketing a scary phenom. It puts me in mind of Orson Welles and his original radio broadcast War of the Worlds. People commited suicide over that, apparently.
Some of them havent even been considered yet - such as, what happens to the mind when it is preoccupied with 2-Dimensional-Screen-Reality rather than 3-Dimensional-Reality-and-Nature?
Print, in all its forms, has always been 2-dimensional. I can't really see a difference between what I see on a screen from what I see in a magazine for example.
If I were to speculate on what might have a great influence on minds, I'd have to look at gaming in particular. 3-D images of people, aliens or machines getting torn to shreds through the dexterity of ones aim and trigger finger can easily be seen to have a psychological effect on the users.
Before anyone flames me, I have my own Galaxians game from the '70's. I loved it then and I still do, so I'm not anti-gaming at all.
Another danger is using the internet to self-diagnose medical symptoms. I've done it myself and thought I was fine until things got worse and I had to visit the real doc.
Not sure about this one, Redoubt. To use a neutral example, we're all very likely to take dental advice from an a dentist and reject it from anon38xd4.
Well, I was addressing the issue of the type of information we get from media/blog sources. I would not even suggest taking the advice of the street corner, amateur physician...
I do think we tend to often ignore a message based on who we get it from without a lot of thought to what the information may be.
Natural News...?! This site is always printing crap like this. Ill believe it more if a real science journal picks it up.
Why would a "real" medical science journal pick something like this up, even if they knew it was true? Especially considering one of the biggest funding sources in the medical industry is big pharma. Best not to bite the hand that feeds you. IMHO.	
I've had personal experience with the questionable mainstream treatments to cancer, including chemo.
My ex-girlfriend had a grandmother whom she really loved. We'd visit her often, and though she was old she was lively and her mind was agile. You would never be under the impression that she was in any way afflicted with some sort of disease.
Then one day she announced that she went to the doctor and they told her she had some sort of cancer (can't remember the precise one). It had been present in her body for a long time, and so they were going to have to take drastic measures.
Within the space of ONE MONTH, she went from being a robust and lively person to totally feeble and incoherent person who could barely walk and would hallucinate. I couldn't help but think that only a week before this announcement had been made we were at her house for a BBQ and she was totally normal. Now she was unable to even walk to the bathroom by herself.
What is even more bizarre is that NO ONE in her family thought this was odd. The doctors had announced that the cancer had been present for a long time, which was the justification for the advanced measures they took to combat it, and yet she had shown NO symptoms whatsoever of being sick before the "treatment" was administered.
Honestly the idea that all doctors and medical journals are secretly trying to kill us all for money is slightly paranoid thinking. I think if there is a real breakthrough in understanding then it will get reported on and studied. Lets hope im not wrong on that.
It's morons like Mike Adams who take an article like this and twist it into something completely different.
It's difficult to read and understand for us Layman's but we have a nice summary written by one of the principal authors, Peter S. Nelson:
Cancer therapies are increasingly evolving to be very specific, targeting key molecular engines that drive the cancer rather than more generic vulnerabilities, such as damaging DNA. Our findings indicate that the tumor microenvironment also can influence the success or failure of these more precise therapies." In other words, the same cancer cell, when exposed to different "neighborhoods," may have very different responses to treatment.
Ok ive read a bit more into this and it seems its not chemo as a whole that is bad its the dosage!! They are reporting very large doses may be bad. So the title of the OP is wrong and misleading,.
So not all Chemo just "extremely aggressive" types. Already i see people in this thread saying they are thinking twice about doing chemo. This is very dangerous.
Please try not to make strawman arguments, NO ONE here is arguing that "all doctors and medical journals are secretly trying to kill us all for money".
There is no reason whatsoever to assume a massive doctor conspiracy, that is clearly unreasonable. Doctors are just doing their job, following orders and getting their paychecks, just like everyone else.
The people at fault are generally people at the top of corporations and their lawyers, and those people aren't even "secretly conspiring to kill everyone". They are simply making money, and they do not have to personally experience the effects of their actions so the consequences do not concern them.
Honestly the idea that all doctors and medical journals are secretly trying to kill us all for money is slightly paranoid thinking.
I would agree with this statement the way it is phrased. Which is why I didn't say that. If they want to kill us all, they can do that whenever they want. Of course, their money wouldn't have much value then, would it?
Maybe this is why Willson didn't beat his cancer in the TV series House. He gave himself massive amounts of chemotherapy.