If you are a Veteran and prefer not to get every adult vaccine recommended by the CDC for the adult schedule, then you need to read this and write your congressmen. Here is that link with the reason why: Link - written by a retired Major General.
Here is a Link comparing vaccinated populations to unvaccinated populations. They say in the U.S. they can't study this because they don't want to deprive people of getting vaccinated. Give me a break - I have no doubt when the comparison is made, that this is the real reason. Now it has been, without depriving anyone.
This one may amaze some people. It is from the CDC website, showing that those who got 3 vaccinations for Pertussis (aka Whooping Cough) also had the highest rates of the disease. Here is that Link. But what do they tell you - to be more effective, you need the booster shots.
About this year's flu shot - a few months ago they were saying it was a perfect match for this year's flu and should be 50-60% effective. Well, guess what? The flu virus mutated and now this flu shot is not a good match and it only 18% effective (if that) - here is that Link - I'm pretty sure they won't be publicizing that!
Some Vaccine Court case results with payment amounts. Notice what most of them are for. Here is that Link - just in case you should you have a reaction to the flu shot, or any other vaccination, you may want to keep this website handy.
Here is a website written by a doctor (Pediatrician) about vaccines, allergies, and inflammation - Link. He ends the article suggesting we follow the precautionary principle. Good advice.
Curious about how many injuries and deaths are caused by vaccines? And which ones? Then you can go to the government VAERS website, and check. Here is that Link. It should be noted that only a tiny fraction (less than 1 in 10, perhaps as low as 1 in a 100, maybe even less than that) actually gets reported to VAERS.
Here is a Link to a website with a post written by an E.R. Nurse (concerning VAERS) - about 1/3 of the way down the page, although you may want to read some of the other comments, too. I can't verify the accuracy of this one, but from everything else I've read and researched, I've pretty much come to the same conclusion.
I think that is enough links for this time. The first one is the most important for Veterans. The rest is information about why you should be concerned about the first link if you are a Veteran.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
No Photography Session Fee? Reasons Why.
1. To make your experience totally risk free, so you can be more relaxed during the session and not worry about whether you'll be happy with the results.
2. The most important thing is to create amazing images for you. Why would anyone not charge a session fee if they weren't confident they could create these kinds of images? Most photographers (and many businesses) don't even offer a 100% money back offer. The best they might do is offer a free re-shoot. If the photographer was at fault for creating poor images, why would you want a re-shoot (unless due to an equipment malfunction)?
3. It's the most ethical way to charge for a service of any kind.
4. The more confident a photographer is, and to do this, the photographer must be confident, the more likely it will be that you will get excellent images. If a photographer has over 30 years experience in photography, you can be confident, too, that you will receive beautiful images.
5. My invitation for anyone reading this is to consider this strategy and how it will benefit you and act on the opportunity, without any fear about poor results.
NOTE: If I begin doing this, there is one other thing you will need to be aware of, and it will be in our contract. And that is this: I will collect your credit card information, and should you fail to cancel or show up for your session, there will be a cancellation fee probably $100), as that time will have been reserved for you. Most likely you will be able to cancel with a 48 hour notice without any charge. Perhaps even less time with extremely extenuating circumstances, but that would be at my discretion.
In my next photography post, I'll explain why I don't sell digital images. When you order a print or several prints, you do receive the images of those prints only in digital format, both high and low resolution.
My next post will be some new vaccine information with links. After all, the more you know, the better decisions you can make.
2. The most important thing is to create amazing images for you. Why would anyone not charge a session fee if they weren't confident they could create these kinds of images? Most photographers (and many businesses) don't even offer a 100% money back offer. The best they might do is offer a free re-shoot. If the photographer was at fault for creating poor images, why would you want a re-shoot (unless due to an equipment malfunction)?
3. It's the most ethical way to charge for a service of any kind.
4. The more confident a photographer is, and to do this, the photographer must be confident, the more likely it will be that you will get excellent images. If a photographer has over 30 years experience in photography, you can be confident, too, that you will receive beautiful images.
5. My invitation for anyone reading this is to consider this strategy and how it will benefit you and act on the opportunity, without any fear about poor results.
NOTE: If I begin doing this, there is one other thing you will need to be aware of, and it will be in our contract. And that is this: I will collect your credit card information, and should you fail to cancel or show up for your session, there will be a cancellation fee probably $100), as that time will have been reserved for you. Most likely you will be able to cancel with a 48 hour notice without any charge. Perhaps even less time with extremely extenuating circumstances, but that would be at my discretion.
In my next photography post, I'll explain why I don't sell digital images. When you order a print or several prints, you do receive the images of those prints only in digital format, both high and low resolution.
My next post will be some new vaccine information with links. After all, the more you know, the better decisions you can make.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Vaccines - "You're Not An Expert" - and other Arguments
"YOU'RE NOT AN EXPERT" or "YOU DON'T HAVE A DEGREE IN IMMUNOLOGY."
I see this one in a lot of comments to articles on vaccine safety and promoting informed consent. Do these people not realize pretty much everyone has access to research and to those who are experts, immunologists, virologists, doctors, etc? And do that not realize data from the CDC and VAERS is also on the internet? This is even before we get to the anecdotal evidence of the possible (if not probable) harm that can come from vaccines, especially multiple vaccines given at the same time. I've certainly learned a lot by researching vaccines and have posted a lot of links in past posts to reputable sites.
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IS NO GOOD.
I've always thought this argument was completely wrong. Then recently found an article, written by a scientist, that said for certain things, anecdotal evidence is better than doing studies. This is even more true these days as studies can be completely manipulated to show whatever the person or company doing the study wants to show. With vaccines, there have been NO studies on long term or immediate effects of giving multiple vaccines at the same time. But they say they're safe. How can they possibly know that? Even with individual vaccines, most, if not all the studies, have design flaws. The biggest one is the use of a "placebo" that is really not a placebo. Let's use the MMR as an example of what they might do. The placebo in a study is supposed to be an inert substance, such as saline solution. What might they use? The same vaccine without the MMR particles, but with all the same adjuvants that are probably causing the negative reactions, or another vaccine. Then they compare this vaccine with this "placebo" and tell everyone there is no difference, so the vaccine is safe and doesn't cause autism or brain damage or death.
On the other hand, the anecdotal evidence shows over and over that shortly after vaccination, the child may have seizures, convulsions, behavioral changes, and perhaps die within a few hours or days. When this happens, are you going to believe the studies about how safe vaccines are, or believe what happened to your child is the result of the vaccine? Everyone reacts differently to medications; there is no way to know, without some kind of testing, who will be the unlucky ones who have a negative reaction. There is also no way to know what percent of people will have either short or long term problems due to being vaccinated as most are never reported, and long term it may be difficult to know it was caused by a vaccine. But at least anecdotal evidence gives us some idea of reality.
IT'S JUST A COINCIDENCE
I just read about a child who was vaccinated and died four hours later. They listed the death as "Cause Unknown." It was just a coincidence. NOT! How stupid do they think people are? It's like saying that if a person gets hit by a care and dies, well, a normal person wouldn't have died, he or she must have had an underlying condition, so cause of death is unknown. Maybe 1-2% could be coincidental (it's possible), but when these injuries keep repeating, there is cause and effect. The ones who want forced vaccination, of course, would try to get you to believe only 1-2% are not coincidental.
IT'S FOR THE GREATER GOOD
Soooo many things wrong with this argument. Even if we were to assume it was for the greater good, is it OK to sacrifice people for that, either killing them or giving them permanent brain damage or other injuries? Is it for the greater good when more people are dying from the vaccines than for the diseases the vaccines are for (in the U.S., not in a third world country)? If that argument is used for any purpose, what else might they use it for? Perhaps experiment on those in prison, like the Nazi's did? From all the research I've done, it's not for the greater good, it's for the greater money to the makers of vaccines, and those who benefit from the money, not from the vaccines.
YOU ARE ANTI-VAXX
You may think those who don't want to get vaccinated are anti-vaxx - most are not. Most are pro choice and pro freedom and pro health. If you feel you want or need a vaccine or a bunch of them, that is your decision. But please do your research and be informed of the possible dangers of the vaccines and the diseases they are meant to prevent. I hope I've helped you find some of that information with my past posts and links.
VETERAN'S DAY 2015
What did our veterans fight for, and what does our military continue to fight for? We are told for our freedom. Forced or mandatory vaccinations are not freedom. If they can take away this basic freedom, then what are we fighting for? During basic training in the Air Force, I received a mandatory flu shot (literally a shot from a flu gun). I was sick for the following three days. I never got another flu shot. And for the past 10+ years, haven't had the flu, thanks to a proper healthy diet and the right supplements. Neither of these has side effects.
Hope you all have a wonderful Veteran's Day and a Healthy Life!
I see this one in a lot of comments to articles on vaccine safety and promoting informed consent. Do these people not realize pretty much everyone has access to research and to those who are experts, immunologists, virologists, doctors, etc? And do that not realize data from the CDC and VAERS is also on the internet? This is even before we get to the anecdotal evidence of the possible (if not probable) harm that can come from vaccines, especially multiple vaccines given at the same time. I've certainly learned a lot by researching vaccines and have posted a lot of links in past posts to reputable sites.
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IS NO GOOD.
I've always thought this argument was completely wrong. Then recently found an article, written by a scientist, that said for certain things, anecdotal evidence is better than doing studies. This is even more true these days as studies can be completely manipulated to show whatever the person or company doing the study wants to show. With vaccines, there have been NO studies on long term or immediate effects of giving multiple vaccines at the same time. But they say they're safe. How can they possibly know that? Even with individual vaccines, most, if not all the studies, have design flaws. The biggest one is the use of a "placebo" that is really not a placebo. Let's use the MMR as an example of what they might do. The placebo in a study is supposed to be an inert substance, such as saline solution. What might they use? The same vaccine without the MMR particles, but with all the same adjuvants that are probably causing the negative reactions, or another vaccine. Then they compare this vaccine with this "placebo" and tell everyone there is no difference, so the vaccine is safe and doesn't cause autism or brain damage or death.
On the other hand, the anecdotal evidence shows over and over that shortly after vaccination, the child may have seizures, convulsions, behavioral changes, and perhaps die within a few hours or days. When this happens, are you going to believe the studies about how safe vaccines are, or believe what happened to your child is the result of the vaccine? Everyone reacts differently to medications; there is no way to know, without some kind of testing, who will be the unlucky ones who have a negative reaction. There is also no way to know what percent of people will have either short or long term problems due to being vaccinated as most are never reported, and long term it may be difficult to know it was caused by a vaccine. But at least anecdotal evidence gives us some idea of reality.
IT'S JUST A COINCIDENCE
I just read about a child who was vaccinated and died four hours later. They listed the death as "Cause Unknown." It was just a coincidence. NOT! How stupid do they think people are? It's like saying that if a person gets hit by a care and dies, well, a normal person wouldn't have died, he or she must have had an underlying condition, so cause of death is unknown. Maybe 1-2% could be coincidental (it's possible), but when these injuries keep repeating, there is cause and effect. The ones who want forced vaccination, of course, would try to get you to believe only 1-2% are not coincidental.
IT'S FOR THE GREATER GOOD
Soooo many things wrong with this argument. Even if we were to assume it was for the greater good, is it OK to sacrifice people for that, either killing them or giving them permanent brain damage or other injuries? Is it for the greater good when more people are dying from the vaccines than for the diseases the vaccines are for (in the U.S., not in a third world country)? If that argument is used for any purpose, what else might they use it for? Perhaps experiment on those in prison, like the Nazi's did? From all the research I've done, it's not for the greater good, it's for the greater money to the makers of vaccines, and those who benefit from the money, not from the vaccines.
YOU ARE ANTI-VAXX
You may think those who don't want to get vaccinated are anti-vaxx - most are not. Most are pro choice and pro freedom and pro health. If you feel you want or need a vaccine or a bunch of them, that is your decision. But please do your research and be informed of the possible dangers of the vaccines and the diseases they are meant to prevent. I hope I've helped you find some of that information with my past posts and links.
What did our veterans fight for, and what does our military continue to fight for? We are told for our freedom. Forced or mandatory vaccinations are not freedom. If they can take away this basic freedom, then what are we fighting for? During basic training in the Air Force, I received a mandatory flu shot (literally a shot from a flu gun). I was sick for the following three days. I never got another flu shot. And for the past 10+ years, haven't had the flu, thanks to a proper healthy diet and the right supplements. Neither of these has side effects.
Hope you all have a wonderful Veteran's Day and a Healthy Life!
Monday, November 9, 2015
Portrait, Beauty, Glamour, Boudoir Photography Session Fee
If anyone who is reading this has ever had a professional photography session, you probably paid a "session" or "creation" fee for that session. I was planning on doing that, too, but with a 100% money back guarantee. Then I just read about a very successful photographer who doesn't charge a session fee, and thought what a great idea. Then the photography session doesn't need a guarantee because if someone is not happy with the results, they won't order any products (prints, wall portraits, boxed prints, etc.). The only cost might be for your hair and make-up, but if you go out for a night on the town after the session, you might have paid that anyway.
Now, before you get too happy, and run to a photographer who runs his or her business this way, keep in mind that the photographer I'm basing this article on sells some of his wall portraits for close to $20,000. That does include a large size on the best papers or canvas, framed with museum quality frames, and one where you look like at least a million bucks. Don't worry, I won't be charging that much for a while. Also, because some of the types of photography you may want may not be appropriate for a wall size product, the cost would be corresponding less, say for boxed prints, or a book of several images from the session.
Speaking of books, I've just had two made as samples, and really like the results. These would be great for everyday portraits, but especially good for glamour, beauty, and boudoir photography.
If the "no session fee" sounds like a good idea to you, and you might be interested in a session at some point, please bookmark this page. Generally, a session fee would be around $400 and up. So this amount would be included in the first print. Please also note that I do not offer images on a CD, DVD, etc. However, any prints you order, you would also receive those digital images. If you would like a session, please email me (tonybel@gmail.com) with your name and phone or email.
Now, before you get too happy, and run to a photographer who runs his or her business this way, keep in mind that the photographer I'm basing this article on sells some of his wall portraits for close to $20,000. That does include a large size on the best papers or canvas, framed with museum quality frames, and one where you look like at least a million bucks. Don't worry, I won't be charging that much for a while. Also, because some of the types of photography you may want may not be appropriate for a wall size product, the cost would be corresponding less, say for boxed prints, or a book of several images from the session.
Speaking of books, I've just had two made as samples, and really like the results. These would be great for everyday portraits, but especially good for glamour, beauty, and boudoir photography.
If the "no session fee" sounds like a good idea to you, and you might be interested in a session at some point, please bookmark this page. Generally, a session fee would be around $400 and up. So this amount would be included in the first print. Please also note that I do not offer images on a CD, DVD, etc. However, any prints you order, you would also receive those digital images. If you would like a session, please email me (tonybel@gmail.com) with your name and phone or email.
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Medical Experiments, Vaccines, and Freedom
MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS
What is a medical experiment? This is the best definition that I could find: "If you manipulate something and see what happens as a result of the change you've made, that is an experiment." When each person is vaccinated, that person's health is being manipulated and no one knows what effect it will have, therefore it is an experiment on that person. And, of course, it is a medical procedure. If you put "when is something a medical experiment" in Google, "Nazi" and "Holocaust" come up at the top of the results. Here is a link about vaccines, GMO ingredients, and experimentation: Link. Although not all vaccines have GMO ingredients, it is really the second part of the article that's relevant to all vaccines. Here is a link to the California government website that is in the above link: CA Codes . According to these codes, it would seem that mandatory vaccination would be illegal, except for the fact that the code gives its own definition of Medical Experiment. I'm not an attorney, but with their definition, it would seem things are shades of gray (could it be 50), so to speak. Specifically the part that says, "in a manner not reasonably related to maintaining or improving the health of the subject or otherwise directly benefiting the subject." The question is whether it is reasonably related to maintaining or improving the health, or does it more often destroy health? It seems, based on all the evidence I have found, that vaccines are doing more harm than good (see my past articles and links, including to CDC and VAERS). So does California's SB277 conflict with the California Codes (24170 - 24179.5)?
FREEDOM
Let's forget whether you are pro or anti vaccine - most people fall somewhere in between anyway. Forget whether they do more harm than good, or whether they work.
Making vaccines mandatory is not about benefit vs risk, it is about freedom. It is about human rights. It goes against the Nuremberg Code. It's against the HHS Belmont Report (HHS.gov). It's against the AMA's medical ethics. And the Helsinki Accord. And perhaps the California Code in California. I'm sure most people have heard the phrase "Never Again" when referring to Nazi Germany's forced medical experiments. How can that suddenly be OK in the U.S.?
In the news I often hear about human rights violations in China, Russia, and many other countries. What is it called when they want to make it mandatory to inject you or your child with experimental neurotoxins and carcinogens (mercury, aluminum, MSG, formaldehyde, etc.) as well as aborted fetal cells, monkey cells, etc? Sounds like a human rights violation to me.
A society can't be free if it has mandatory medical interventions and experiments on its citizens. And if it's not free, then what else might they do? Forced drugs? Put tracking devices on everyone, or something they already carry with them, such as cell phones?
VACCINES
Did I miss seeing all the cases of the flu? I'm asking because on the news this past week (KNBC) they said that last year's flu vaccine was only 20% effective (I've heard it was even less than that), but that this year they say the vaccine is a good match (but just read this Link today (Oct 23)). How can they know that (if the flu season hasn't yet started)? What else did they leave out of this story? They didn't mention possible side effects of the vaccine, how to make sure your immune system is strong so you can either avoid the flu or recover quicker if you get it. Perhaps they could have suggested checking on Black Elderberry, Vitamin C, Oil of Oregano, garlic, echinacea, mushrooms, probiotics, etc. There are lots of other viruses that go around that aren't the flu for which the flu vaccine won't do anything. It may not do much to prevent the flu.
What do they leave out of the whooping cough commercials? As always, a lot of the possible side effects. And that you can be a carrier and spread it even if you are vaccinated - in fact, you won't know you are carrying it if you don't feel the symptoms (because you were vaccinated), even though you may be carrying it.
This was going to be my final comment here, but found some more information to share. To answer those who say you can't get good information from Googling information about vaccines. First, unlike the media and drug companies, you'll get BOTH the pros and cons. Second, you can check statistics on the CDC and VAERS websites, not to mention the websites of scientists, doctors, and others who may not have a conflict of interest and who may not be paid by the drug companies through their advertising or more directly. With this information you can then come to your own decision. In fact, many sites direct you to excellent further sources of information.
By researching independent sources and using a bit of logic there is only one conclusion - that vaccines are not safe for everyone. And if you are one of those who it is not safe for, it might kill you or cause permanent damage to you, as has been done to thousands of people.
Now, about the reporting to VAERS: You will find this quote (regarding vaccinations at school) at this LINK - "During the week following the delivery of the injections many serious events which are not related to the vaccination are expected: fainting, deaths and convulsions/fits. This needs to be taken into account. Even if it is not rational, if these events happen in class they may damage the general reputation of vaccinations."
From the above quote, we can assume none of these side effects would be reported to VAERS as they are all apparently "coincidental." So if you get vaccinated and die a few hours or a week later, sorry, it wasn't the vaccine. We can't blame the vaccine or people might not get vaccinated, and then maybe they wouldn't die, faint, or have convulsions. What kind of insane logic is that? Perhaps that's wwhy many people are pro-vaccine - they've been lied to and think vaccines are 100% safe and protect everyone. And if anything bad happens after vaccinating their children, they think it was a coincidence because that was what they were told. At least until they start doing some serious research, which by then may be too late to save their child.
One final comment (really) - you may hear the argument that the mercury, aluminum, MSG, formaldehyde, etc. are in amounts too small to do any harm. Some of these ingredients are known carcinogens. And neurotoxins. First problem with that argument is that by age 6, your child has gotten 49 injections, many of which include these adjuvants. Second problem, there is no amount that is too small. Between 1 and 100 nanograms (1/1,000 - 1/10 microgram) of urushiol (active ingredient in poison oak) is enough to cause skin eruptions. And Botulinum Toxin - 1 microgram can kill 250 people. You get a lot more adjuvants in all those vaccines.
Hope this helps some people, but more importantly, hope each person researches vaccines and asks their doctors for the vaccine inserts, and reads them. And ask if your doctor has read them. To your health!
What is a medical experiment? This is the best definition that I could find: "If you manipulate something and see what happens as a result of the change you've made, that is an experiment." When each person is vaccinated, that person's health is being manipulated and no one knows what effect it will have, therefore it is an experiment on that person. And, of course, it is a medical procedure. If you put "when is something a medical experiment" in Google, "Nazi" and "Holocaust" come up at the top of the results. Here is a link about vaccines, GMO ingredients, and experimentation: Link. Although not all vaccines have GMO ingredients, it is really the second part of the article that's relevant to all vaccines. Here is a link to the California government website that is in the above link: CA Codes . According to these codes, it would seem that mandatory vaccination would be illegal, except for the fact that the code gives its own definition of Medical Experiment. I'm not an attorney, but with their definition, it would seem things are shades of gray (could it be 50), so to speak. Specifically the part that says, "in a manner not reasonably related to maintaining or improving the health of the subject or otherwise directly benefiting the subject." The question is whether it is reasonably related to maintaining or improving the health, or does it more often destroy health? It seems, based on all the evidence I have found, that vaccines are doing more harm than good (see my past articles and links, including to CDC and VAERS). So does California's SB277 conflict with the California Codes (24170 - 24179.5)?
FREEDOM
Let's forget whether you are pro or anti vaccine - most people fall somewhere in between anyway. Forget whether they do more harm than good, or whether they work.
Making vaccines mandatory is not about benefit vs risk, it is about freedom. It is about human rights. It goes against the Nuremberg Code. It's against the HHS Belmont Report (HHS.gov). It's against the AMA's medical ethics. And the Helsinki Accord. And perhaps the California Code in California. I'm sure most people have heard the phrase "Never Again" when referring to Nazi Germany's forced medical experiments. How can that suddenly be OK in the U.S.?
In the news I often hear about human rights violations in China, Russia, and many other countries. What is it called when they want to make it mandatory to inject you or your child with experimental neurotoxins and carcinogens (mercury, aluminum, MSG, formaldehyde, etc.) as well as aborted fetal cells, monkey cells, etc? Sounds like a human rights violation to me.
A society can't be free if it has mandatory medical interventions and experiments on its citizens. And if it's not free, then what else might they do? Forced drugs? Put tracking devices on everyone, or something they already carry with them, such as cell phones?
VACCINES
Did I miss seeing all the cases of the flu? I'm asking because on the news this past week (KNBC) they said that last year's flu vaccine was only 20% effective (I've heard it was even less than that), but that this year they say the vaccine is a good match (but just read this Link today (Oct 23)). How can they know that (if the flu season hasn't yet started)? What else did they leave out of this story? They didn't mention possible side effects of the vaccine, how to make sure your immune system is strong so you can either avoid the flu or recover quicker if you get it. Perhaps they could have suggested checking on Black Elderberry, Vitamin C, Oil of Oregano, garlic, echinacea, mushrooms, probiotics, etc. There are lots of other viruses that go around that aren't the flu for which the flu vaccine won't do anything. It may not do much to prevent the flu.
What do they leave out of the whooping cough commercials? As always, a lot of the possible side effects. And that you can be a carrier and spread it even if you are vaccinated - in fact, you won't know you are carrying it if you don't feel the symptoms (because you were vaccinated), even though you may be carrying it.
This was going to be my final comment here, but found some more information to share. To answer those who say you can't get good information from Googling information about vaccines. First, unlike the media and drug companies, you'll get BOTH the pros and cons. Second, you can check statistics on the CDC and VAERS websites, not to mention the websites of scientists, doctors, and others who may not have a conflict of interest and who may not be paid by the drug companies through their advertising or more directly. With this information you can then come to your own decision. In fact, many sites direct you to excellent further sources of information.
By researching independent sources and using a bit of logic there is only one conclusion - that vaccines are not safe for everyone. And if you are one of those who it is not safe for, it might kill you or cause permanent damage to you, as has been done to thousands of people.
Now, about the reporting to VAERS: You will find this quote (regarding vaccinations at school) at this LINK - "During the week following the delivery of the injections many serious events which are not related to the vaccination are expected: fainting, deaths and convulsions/fits. This needs to be taken into account. Even if it is not rational, if these events happen in class they may damage the general reputation of vaccinations."
From the above quote, we can assume none of these side effects would be reported to VAERS as they are all apparently "coincidental." So if you get vaccinated and die a few hours or a week later, sorry, it wasn't the vaccine. We can't blame the vaccine or people might not get vaccinated, and then maybe they wouldn't die, faint, or have convulsions. What kind of insane logic is that? Perhaps that's wwhy many people are pro-vaccine - they've been lied to and think vaccines are 100% safe and protect everyone. And if anything bad happens after vaccinating their children, they think it was a coincidence because that was what they were told. At least until they start doing some serious research, which by then may be too late to save their child.
One final comment (really) - you may hear the argument that the mercury, aluminum, MSG, formaldehyde, etc. are in amounts too small to do any harm. Some of these ingredients are known carcinogens. And neurotoxins. First problem with that argument is that by age 6, your child has gotten 49 injections, many of which include these adjuvants. Second problem, there is no amount that is too small. Between 1 and 100 nanograms (1/1,000 - 1/10 microgram) of urushiol (active ingredient in poison oak) is enough to cause skin eruptions. And Botulinum Toxin - 1 microgram can kill 250 people. You get a lot more adjuvants in all those vaccines.
Hope this helps some people, but more importantly, hope each person researches vaccines and asks their doctors for the vaccine inserts, and reads them. And ask if your doctor has read them. To your health!
Friday, October 16, 2015
Risk Free High End Portraits
Wouldn't it be great if you went to the doctor and he or she offered a 100% money back guarantee? If you're not happy with their service, you don't pay. That probably will never happen with your doctor, but if I start a photography business again, that will the the cornerstone of it. And it will be very high end portraits.
I've asked myself why would anyone pay for photography anymore - everyone has a decent camera or cellphone these days and can certainly point it and shoot an image. The only way someone might pay is if they can't get the quality, lighting, composition, and beauty that a professional photographer is able to get. And with high end portraiture, it is unlikely people with cellphones, or even good cameras, would be able to get the same results as a professional.
What is high end portraiture? A portrait that you might see hanging in an art museum, in the White House, in a boardroom, or perhaps in a mansion. Unfortunately, I can't post a sample here because the computer screen would never be able to convey what the full sized and framed portrait would actually look like in your home or office. It's impact would be lost.
If it's portraiture of a more intimate nature, the same would apply, although you may not want it hanging on your wall. In that case, you would receive either an album, book, or boxed in a beautiful custom designed box.
Whether or not I will be doing this in the future is still uncertain, but if I do, it will be announced here. I could tell you I have the photographic skills with over 30 years experience, but you would be the judge of that, and you would pay nothing if you didn't receive what you were to expect. No Risk. If you do choose this type of portraiture, make sure your photographer offers it at no risk to you.
Now that you read this, here is a link to what a high end photo might look like: High End Photos
I've asked myself why would anyone pay for photography anymore - everyone has a decent camera or cellphone these days and can certainly point it and shoot an image. The only way someone might pay is if they can't get the quality, lighting, composition, and beauty that a professional photographer is able to get. And with high end portraiture, it is unlikely people with cellphones, or even good cameras, would be able to get the same results as a professional.
What is high end portraiture? A portrait that you might see hanging in an art museum, in the White House, in a boardroom, or perhaps in a mansion. Unfortunately, I can't post a sample here because the computer screen would never be able to convey what the full sized and framed portrait would actually look like in your home or office. It's impact would be lost.
If it's portraiture of a more intimate nature, the same would apply, although you may not want it hanging on your wall. In that case, you would receive either an album, book, or boxed in a beautiful custom designed box.
Whether or not I will be doing this in the future is still uncertain, but if I do, it will be announced here. I could tell you I have the photographic skills with over 30 years experience, but you would be the judge of that, and you would pay nothing if you didn't receive what you were to expect. No Risk. If you do choose this type of portraiture, make sure your photographer offers it at no risk to you.
Now that you read this, here is a link to what a high end photo might look like: High End Photos
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Why and How You Should Organize Your Photos
Have you ever taken a photo, filed it away on your computer, and then wanted to see it or post it for some reason? But couldn't find it? Maybe you wanted to share it on FB or show it to a friend, but there is no way to know where it might be. Well, there is software available to help you.
I use LightRoom. I had been using it for post production editing of photos originally, and it works great for that. But you can also give your photos keywords, and then search using those keywords. You can further use a rating system from 1 - 5 stars, 5 being best, to further narrow your searches.
So, for example, let's say I just shot this photo, imported it into LightRoom, and want to add keywords. One of them would be "Oz," another might be "HotAirBalloon," "Gondola," PurpleDress," "Hat," "BeautifulGirl," etc. I already have my folder for Halloween 2013, but if I didn't, I would also add that keyword - "Halloween2013." If I had several years of Halloween, and I do, I would have a folder with "All Halloween Years" and then the individual subfolders with the different years. Then I could search all the folders by searching the main folder, or the years individually.
I use LightRoom. I had been using it for post production editing of photos originally, and it works great for that. But you can also give your photos keywords, and then search using those keywords. You can further use a rating system from 1 - 5 stars, 5 being best, to further narrow your searches.
So, for example, let's say I just shot this photo, imported it into LightRoom, and want to add keywords. One of them would be "Oz," another might be "HotAirBalloon," "Gondola," PurpleDress," "Hat," "BeautifulGirl," etc. I already have my folder for Halloween 2013, but if I didn't, I would also add that keyword - "Halloween2013." If I had several years of Halloween, and I do, I would have a folder with "All Halloween Years" and then the individual subfolders with the different years. Then I could search all the folders by searching the main folder, or the years individually.
I just searched the My Pictures folder (19,582 photos) for "hotair," and this photo came up instantly. You can also add a picture "label," "title," and "caption" and search by those or by all three plus the keywords. But the keywords lets you get very specific.
There is a lot more to LightRoom, but this alone makes it worthwhile. Of course, you have to remember what, or who, was in the photo, so it's important to use any many keywords as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)