Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
+26
nowhereelsetogo
AlmightySavoisien88
Von_Emmy
Schpankme
MMDC
Oliver_Bestfall
Alpha
Real World
Irish O'African
Jonny1989
Captain Rocketblast
Torus_Ouroboros
Realearth
tristancobane
Admin
lotuseater
Lightning_Peasant
MaryMoon
csp
mitch
newflatearther2000
Foreverlearning
ladyvelveeta
Thinkforyourself
searching
lizardking
30 posters
IFERS - Exposing the 'Global' Conspiracy From Atlantis to Zion :: Other Conspiracies, Hoaxes, Myths and Lies
Page 4 of 9
Page 4 of 9 • 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:14 am
THE CANCER GENOCIDE
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:14 am
FLUORIDE
THE FLUORIDE POISONING RACKET
FLUORIDE ARTICLES
"In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical."
Dean Burk -- Congressional Record 21 July 1976
"We would not purposely add arsenic to the water supply. And we would not purposely add lead. But we do add fluoride. The fact is that fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic."
--Dr. John Yiamouyianni
"Fluoride is more toxic than Lead and only marginally less toxic than Arsenic."
--Clinical Toxicology of Commercial products, 5th Ed. 1984
"In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer deaths, and causes it faster, than any other chemical."
--Dean Burke, Former Chief Chemist Emeritus, US National Cancer Institute
"It is concluded that artificial fluoridation appears to cause or induce about 20-30 excess cancer deaths for every 100,000 persons exposed per year after about 15-20 years."
--Dean Burke
Dr. John Yiamouyiannis states that from 30,000-50,000 deaths/year are directly traceable to fluoridation; 10,000-20,000 of these deaths being from fluoride induced cancers.
"Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time."
--Robert Carton, Ph.D. former US EPA scientist.
THE FLUORIDE POISONING RACKET
FLUORIDE ARTICLES
"In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical."
Dean Burk -- Congressional Record 21 July 1976
"We would not purposely add arsenic to the water supply. And we would not purposely add lead. But we do add fluoride. The fact is that fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic."
--Dr. John Yiamouyianni
"Fluoride is more toxic than Lead and only marginally less toxic than Arsenic."
--Clinical Toxicology of Commercial products, 5th Ed. 1984
"In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer deaths, and causes it faster, than any other chemical."
--Dean Burke, Former Chief Chemist Emeritus, US National Cancer Institute
"It is concluded that artificial fluoridation appears to cause or induce about 20-30 excess cancer deaths for every 100,000 persons exposed per year after about 15-20 years."
--Dean Burke
Dr. John Yiamouyiannis states that from 30,000-50,000 deaths/year are directly traceable to fluoridation; 10,000-20,000 of these deaths being from fluoride induced cancers.
"Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time."
--Robert Carton, Ph.D. former US EPA scientist.
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:15 am
Over 100 Scientific Studies Agree: Cannabis Annihilates Cancer
Cannabis Oil Cures 8 Month Old Infant of Cancer, Dissolving Large Inoperable Tumor In 8 Months
Above: The progression of healing in the 8 month old infant as the tumor (large white center mass in upper left) gradually disappeared in 8 months through treatment with cannabinoids.
Cannabis Oil – Gathering Unstoppable Momentum As A World Class Healer
Cannabis oil is gathering an unstoppable momentum as a world class healer, and there is little or nothing Western Governments are going to be able to do stop it. Cases are popping up all over the world showing that cannabis oil has healed some very serious diseases, including anxiety disorders, epilepsy, MS (Multiple Sclerosis), cerebral palsy and cancer. This young man healed his stage IV throat, stomach and pancreatic cancer with cannabis oil.
This Australian women healed her terminal stage IV lung cancer with it. Wallace Rose in the video clip above explains how cannabis oil cured his stage IV pancreatic cancer. It is a fundamental human right, no matter where you live on the planet, to be able to access and use whatever medicine you want to heal yourself. And, thankfully, we are beginning to see that Governments worldwide will not have the power to stand in the way of this natural right any longer.
Microscopic Footage of Cancer Cells Being Eliminated by Cannabis Oil
Man Uses Cannabis Oil to Successfully Treat Another Incurable Disease – COPD
Older Terminal Cancer Patients Walk Away from Hospice with Cannabis Oil and More
Dr. Allan Frankel says, “As a short-term life-prolonging medicine and a long-term therapy for chronic conditions, medical cannabis is a miracle drug that is endorsed by countless doctors and nurses, as well as the patients whose lives are dramatically improved by its use.”
Tapping Medical Marijuana’s Potential
Dr. J. Michael Bostwick, a psychiatrist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said the classification was primarily political and ignored more than 40 years of scientific research, which has shown that cellular receptors for marijuana’s active ingredients are present throughout the body. Natural substances called cannabinoids bind to them to influence a wide range of body processes.
In a lengthy report entitled “Blurred Boundaries: The Therapeutics and Politics of Medical Marijuana,” published last year in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Dr. Bostwick noted that the so-called endocannabinoid system has an impact on the “autonomic nervous system, immune system, gastrointestinal tract, reproductive system, cardiovascular system and endocrine network.” There is evidence that several common disorders, including epilepsy, alcoholism and post-traumatic stress disorder, involve disruptions in the endocannabinoid system, suggesting that those patients might benefit from marijuana or its ingredients.
Woman Shrinks Inoperable Mass and Heals Her Thyroid Disease With Cannabis Oil
The Feds Finally Recognize the Anti-Cancer Potential of Cannabis – 36 Years Too Late!
Scientific trials have for decades documented the anti-cancer properties of cannabis and its constituents. Yet it took until this week for the website of the National Institute of Cancer, a component of the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health, to finally acknowledged the herb’s therapeutic utility for patients living with disease or suffering from the adverse side-effects of cancer treatment.
The Latest Cannabis Science The Mainstream Media Doesn’t Want You to Know
Scientific revelations are published almost daily in regard to the healing properties of the cannabis. But most of these findings appear solely in obscure, peer-reviewed journals and go largely unnoticed by the major media. Here are five new cannabis-centric studies that warrant mainstream attention.
Marijuana Use Is Associated With Decreased Mortality In TBI Patients
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with a history of cannabis use possess increased survival rates compared to non-users, according data published this month in the journal American Surgeon. UCLA Medical Center investigators conducted a three-year retrospective review of brain trauma patients. Data from 446 separate cases of similarly injured patients was assessed. Of those patients who tested positive for the presence of marijuana, 97.6 percent.
Active Ingredient in Hemp Has Anti-Cancer Effects, Study Says.
Why Cannnabis Is the Future Of Medicine
The Endocannabinoid System and How THC Cures Cancer
There are close to 20,000 studies on cannabinoids in the pubmed database, and few scientists who concentrate their work around cannabinoids can deny the tremendous therapeutic potential of cannabis. In fact, Dr. Christina Sanchez, a molecular biologist at Compultense University in Madrid Spain, has completed extensive research which led to one of the first discoveries that THC does indeed kill cancer cells.The endocannabinoid system is a group of receptors in the brain that are involved in a variety of physiological processes including appetite, pain-sensation, mood, and memory. It mediates many physiological processes, including motor learning, synaptic plasticity, and appetite.The Endocannabinoid System (ECS) maintains our biological systems by regulating each cell tissue. It uses Arachadonic acid/Omega 6 to make Endo-Cannabinoids: fatty molecules that communicate harm between cells. Dietary cannabis mimics the ECS by providing Cannabinoids when there is an Arachadonic acid deficiency or Clinical Cannabinoid Deficiency.
The Case For Cannabis
Another Child Saved By Cannabis Oil
War On Cancer Is War Against Finding A Cure
Dr. Santjay Gupta Backs Medicinal Help
"Looking forward, I am especially intrigued by studies like those in Spain and Israel looking at the anti-cancer effects of marijuana and its components."
War On Weed Coming To An End?
“I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof,” he wrote.
New Jersey Approves Medical Marijuana To Treat Seizures In Children
Millions Wrongly Treated For Cancer
Cannabis Cures Cancer And Government Knows It
Cannabis is labeled by the US Government as a Schedule One Narcotic, meaning little to no known medical value. (Even though the US Govt holds patents that state otherwise) Marinol, which is APPROVED BY THE FDA, is synthesized THC. Millions of people are sitting in jail for using Cannabis raw, but it’s ‘perfectly fine’ to use the plant if the Government and their corporate owners take most of the medicine out of it, then get to charge you an arm and a leg for it. Why is that? I shall explain. The US Government is well aware Cannabis has medicinal properties.
How could they not? It’s been used as a medicine for at least the past 10,000 years. Even in America, Cannabis was used as a medicine for over 100 years. It was in over a hundred over the counter medicines for a wide range of reasons. Everything from pain and nausea medication to sleeping tonics.
U.S. Government Repressed Marijuana-Tumour Research
Keep in mind.. The US Government also holds a Patent on Cannabis and it’s medicinal properties. US Patent 6630507 states unequivocally that cannabinoids are useful in the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of diseases including auto-immune disorders, stroke, trauma, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and HIV dementia. The patent, awarded in 2003, is based on research done by the National Institute of Health, and is assigned to the US Dept. of Health and Human Services. In the age of information, they can no longer keep their lies about Cannabis afloat.
Cannabis Oil Cures 8 Month Old Infant of Cancer, Dissolving Large Inoperable Tumor In 8 Months
Above: The progression of healing in the 8 month old infant as the tumor (large white center mass in upper left) gradually disappeared in 8 months through treatment with cannabinoids.
Cannabis Oil – Gathering Unstoppable Momentum As A World Class Healer
Cannabis oil is gathering an unstoppable momentum as a world class healer, and there is little or nothing Western Governments are going to be able to do stop it. Cases are popping up all over the world showing that cannabis oil has healed some very serious diseases, including anxiety disorders, epilepsy, MS (Multiple Sclerosis), cerebral palsy and cancer. This young man healed his stage IV throat, stomach and pancreatic cancer with cannabis oil.
This Australian women healed her terminal stage IV lung cancer with it. Wallace Rose in the video clip above explains how cannabis oil cured his stage IV pancreatic cancer. It is a fundamental human right, no matter where you live on the planet, to be able to access and use whatever medicine you want to heal yourself. And, thankfully, we are beginning to see that Governments worldwide will not have the power to stand in the way of this natural right any longer.
Microscopic Footage of Cancer Cells Being Eliminated by Cannabis Oil
Man Uses Cannabis Oil to Successfully Treat Another Incurable Disease – COPD
Older Terminal Cancer Patients Walk Away from Hospice with Cannabis Oil and More
Dr. Allan Frankel says, “As a short-term life-prolonging medicine and a long-term therapy for chronic conditions, medical cannabis is a miracle drug that is endorsed by countless doctors and nurses, as well as the patients whose lives are dramatically improved by its use.”
Tapping Medical Marijuana’s Potential
Dr. J. Michael Bostwick, a psychiatrist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said the classification was primarily political and ignored more than 40 years of scientific research, which has shown that cellular receptors for marijuana’s active ingredients are present throughout the body. Natural substances called cannabinoids bind to them to influence a wide range of body processes.
In a lengthy report entitled “Blurred Boundaries: The Therapeutics and Politics of Medical Marijuana,” published last year in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Dr. Bostwick noted that the so-called endocannabinoid system has an impact on the “autonomic nervous system, immune system, gastrointestinal tract, reproductive system, cardiovascular system and endocrine network.” There is evidence that several common disorders, including epilepsy, alcoholism and post-traumatic stress disorder, involve disruptions in the endocannabinoid system, suggesting that those patients might benefit from marijuana or its ingredients.
Woman Shrinks Inoperable Mass and Heals Her Thyroid Disease With Cannabis Oil
The Feds Finally Recognize the Anti-Cancer Potential of Cannabis – 36 Years Too Late!
Scientific trials have for decades documented the anti-cancer properties of cannabis and its constituents. Yet it took until this week for the website of the National Institute of Cancer, a component of the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Health, to finally acknowledged the herb’s therapeutic utility for patients living with disease or suffering from the adverse side-effects of cancer treatment.
The Latest Cannabis Science The Mainstream Media Doesn’t Want You to Know
Scientific revelations are published almost daily in regard to the healing properties of the cannabis. But most of these findings appear solely in obscure, peer-reviewed journals and go largely unnoticed by the major media. Here are five new cannabis-centric studies that warrant mainstream attention.
Marijuana Use Is Associated With Decreased Mortality In TBI Patients
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with a history of cannabis use possess increased survival rates compared to non-users, according data published this month in the journal American Surgeon. UCLA Medical Center investigators conducted a three-year retrospective review of brain trauma patients. Data from 446 separate cases of similarly injured patients was assessed. Of those patients who tested positive for the presence of marijuana, 97.6 percent.
Active Ingredient in Hemp Has Anti-Cancer Effects, Study Says.
Why Cannnabis Is the Future Of Medicine
The Endocannabinoid System and How THC Cures Cancer
There are close to 20,000 studies on cannabinoids in the pubmed database, and few scientists who concentrate their work around cannabinoids can deny the tremendous therapeutic potential of cannabis. In fact, Dr. Christina Sanchez, a molecular biologist at Compultense University in Madrid Spain, has completed extensive research which led to one of the first discoveries that THC does indeed kill cancer cells.The endocannabinoid system is a group of receptors in the brain that are involved in a variety of physiological processes including appetite, pain-sensation, mood, and memory. It mediates many physiological processes, including motor learning, synaptic plasticity, and appetite.The Endocannabinoid System (ECS) maintains our biological systems by regulating each cell tissue. It uses Arachadonic acid/Omega 6 to make Endo-Cannabinoids: fatty molecules that communicate harm between cells. Dietary cannabis mimics the ECS by providing Cannabinoids when there is an Arachadonic acid deficiency or Clinical Cannabinoid Deficiency.
The Case For Cannabis
Another Child Saved By Cannabis Oil
War On Cancer Is War Against Finding A Cure
Dr. Santjay Gupta Backs Medicinal Help
"Looking forward, I am especially intrigued by studies like those in Spain and Israel looking at the anti-cancer effects of marijuana and its components."
War On Weed Coming To An End?
“I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof,” he wrote.
New Jersey Approves Medical Marijuana To Treat Seizures In Children
Millions Wrongly Treated For Cancer
Cannabis Cures Cancer And Government Knows It
Cannabis is labeled by the US Government as a Schedule One Narcotic, meaning little to no known medical value. (Even though the US Govt holds patents that state otherwise) Marinol, which is APPROVED BY THE FDA, is synthesized THC. Millions of people are sitting in jail for using Cannabis raw, but it’s ‘perfectly fine’ to use the plant if the Government and their corporate owners take most of the medicine out of it, then get to charge you an arm and a leg for it. Why is that? I shall explain. The US Government is well aware Cannabis has medicinal properties.
How could they not? It’s been used as a medicine for at least the past 10,000 years. Even in America, Cannabis was used as a medicine for over 100 years. It was in over a hundred over the counter medicines for a wide range of reasons. Everything from pain and nausea medication to sleeping tonics.
U.S. Government Repressed Marijuana-Tumour Research
Keep in mind.. The US Government also holds a Patent on Cannabis and it’s medicinal properties. US Patent 6630507 states unequivocally that cannabinoids are useful in the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of diseases including auto-immune disorders, stroke, trauma, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and HIV dementia. The patent, awarded in 2003, is based on research done by the National Institute of Health, and is assigned to the US Dept. of Health and Human Services. In the age of information, they can no longer keep their lies about Cannabis afloat.
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:15 am
Award winning journalist Janine Roberts, author of Fear of the Invisible and a host of other papers developing into the truth behind vaccine development, discovered that "vaccines are not filtered clean, but suspension from the manufacturers incubation tanks in which the viruses are produced from substrates of mashed bird embryo, minced monkey kidneys, or the infamous cloned human diploid cells only scanned for a few known contaminates - while the unknowns remain just that -- unknown."
www.naturalnews.com/033834_vaccines_ingredients.html#
www.naturalnews.com/033834_vaccines_ingredients.html#
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:16 am
Posted by Admin on 07/03/2015
How to Look Pretty Without Poisoning Yourself!
How to Stay Sexy Into Your Seventies!
Vegan Power Plant-Based Diet Protein Myth Busted!
The Power of Positivity
The Power of Unlimited Beliefs
The Power of Pranayama Chi-Kung Life Force Energy
Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) Acupuncture & Chi
How to Cure the Common Cold, Allergies, Asthma and Sinus Problems
How to Quit Smoking Naturally
The Dangers of Vaccination
Decriminalize Mother Nature - Legalize All Plants!
The Most Important Thing in Your Life
Deep Breathing for Optimum Health
The Best Way to Prevent Death
The Health Conspiracy
The Fluoride Deception
Engineered AIDS (1)
Engineered AIDS (2)
The Essene Gospel of Peace
How to Look Pretty Without Poisoning Yourself!
How to Stay Sexy Into Your Seventies!
Vegan Power Plant-Based Diet Protein Myth Busted!
The Power of Positivity
The Power of Unlimited Beliefs
The Power of Pranayama Chi-Kung Life Force Energy
Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) Acupuncture & Chi
How to Cure the Common Cold, Allergies, Asthma and Sinus Problems
How to Quit Smoking Naturally
The Dangers of Vaccination
Decriminalize Mother Nature - Legalize All Plants!
The Most Important Thing in Your Life
Deep Breathing for Optimum Health
The Best Way to Prevent Death
The Health Conspiracy
The Fluoride Deception
Engineered AIDS (1)
Engineered AIDS (2)
The Essene Gospel of Peace
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:16 am
Posted by vortexkitten on 07/03/2015
I don't know if you all have heard of this guy, been hounded and chased all his life.
Been called Der Scharlatan, labeled Der Antisemit.
"The differentiation between the psyche, the brain, and the body is purely academic. In reality they are one. One without the other is inconceivable."
Ryke Geerd Hamer
On August 18, 1978, Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer, M.D., at the time head internist in the oncology clinic at the University of Munich, Germany, received the shocking news that his son Dirk had been shot. Dirk died in December 1978. A few months later, Dr. Hamer was diagnosed with testicular cancer. Since he had never been seriously ill, he immediately surmised that his cancer development might be directly related to the tragic loss of his son.
Dirk’s death and his own experience with cancer prompted Dr. Hamer to investigate the personal history of his cancer patients. He quickly learned that, like him, they all had gone through some exceptionally stressful episode prior to developing cancer. The observation of a mind-body connection was not really surprising. Numerous studies had already shown that cancer and other diseases are often preceded by a traumatic event. But Dr. Hamer took his research a momentous step further. Pursuing the hypothesis that all bodily events are controlled from the brain, he analyzed his patients’ brain scans and compared them with their medical records. Dr. Hamer discovered that every disease—not only cancer!—is controlled from its own specific area in the brain and linked to a very particular, identifiable, “conflict shock”. The result of his research is a scientific chart that illustrates the biological relationship between the psyche and the brain in correlation with the organs and tissues of the entire human body (the English “Scientific Chart of GNM”).
(a must read)
Dr. Hamer came to call his findings “The Five Biological Laws of the New Medicine”, because these biological laws, which are applicable to any patient’s case, offer an entirely new understanding of the cause, the development, and the natural healing process of diseases. (In response to the growing number of misrepresentations of his discoveries and to preserve the integrity and authenticity of his scientific work, Dr. Hamer has now legally protected his research material under the name German New Medicine® (GNM). The term “New Medicine” could not be copyrighted internationally).
In 1981, Dr. Hamer presented his findings to the Medical Faculty of the University of Tübingen as a post-doctoral thesis. But to this day, the University has refused to test Dr. Hamer’s research in spite of its legal obligation to do so. This is an unprecedented case in the history of universities. Similarly, official medicine refuses to approve his discoveries despite some 30 scientific verifications both by independent physicians and by professional associations.
Shortly after Dr. Hamer submitted his thesis, he was given the ultimatum to renounce his discoveries or have his contract renewal at the University clinic denied. In 1986, even though his scientific work had never been impeached, much less disproved, Dr. Hamer was stripped of his medical license on the grounds that he refused to conform to the principles of standard medicine. Yet he was determined to continue his work. By 1987 he was able to extend his discoveries to practically every disease known to medicine.
Dr. Hamer has been persecuted and harassed for over 25 years, in particular by the German and French authorities. Since 1997, Dr. Hamer has been living in exile in Spain, where he carries on with his research and where he continues to fight for official recognition of his “New Medicine”. But as long as the University of Tübingen’s medical faculty maintains its delay tactics, patients all over the world will be denied the benefit of Dr. Hamer’s revolutionary discoveries.
I don't know if you all have heard of this guy, been hounded and chased all his life.
Been called Der Scharlatan, labeled Der Antisemit.
"The differentiation between the psyche, the brain, and the body is purely academic. In reality they are one. One without the other is inconceivable."
Ryke Geerd Hamer
On August 18, 1978, Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer, M.D., at the time head internist in the oncology clinic at the University of Munich, Germany, received the shocking news that his son Dirk had been shot. Dirk died in December 1978. A few months later, Dr. Hamer was diagnosed with testicular cancer. Since he had never been seriously ill, he immediately surmised that his cancer development might be directly related to the tragic loss of his son.
Dirk’s death and his own experience with cancer prompted Dr. Hamer to investigate the personal history of his cancer patients. He quickly learned that, like him, they all had gone through some exceptionally stressful episode prior to developing cancer. The observation of a mind-body connection was not really surprising. Numerous studies had already shown that cancer and other diseases are often preceded by a traumatic event. But Dr. Hamer took his research a momentous step further. Pursuing the hypothesis that all bodily events are controlled from the brain, he analyzed his patients’ brain scans and compared them with their medical records. Dr. Hamer discovered that every disease—not only cancer!—is controlled from its own specific area in the brain and linked to a very particular, identifiable, “conflict shock”. The result of his research is a scientific chart that illustrates the biological relationship between the psyche and the brain in correlation with the organs and tissues of the entire human body (the English “Scientific Chart of GNM”).
(a must read)
Dr. Hamer came to call his findings “The Five Biological Laws of the New Medicine”, because these biological laws, which are applicable to any patient’s case, offer an entirely new understanding of the cause, the development, and the natural healing process of diseases. (In response to the growing number of misrepresentations of his discoveries and to preserve the integrity and authenticity of his scientific work, Dr. Hamer has now legally protected his research material under the name German New Medicine® (GNM). The term “New Medicine” could not be copyrighted internationally).
In 1981, Dr. Hamer presented his findings to the Medical Faculty of the University of Tübingen as a post-doctoral thesis. But to this day, the University has refused to test Dr. Hamer’s research in spite of its legal obligation to do so. This is an unprecedented case in the history of universities. Similarly, official medicine refuses to approve his discoveries despite some 30 scientific verifications both by independent physicians and by professional associations.
Shortly after Dr. Hamer submitted his thesis, he was given the ultimatum to renounce his discoveries or have his contract renewal at the University clinic denied. In 1986, even though his scientific work had never been impeached, much less disproved, Dr. Hamer was stripped of his medical license on the grounds that he refused to conform to the principles of standard medicine. Yet he was determined to continue his work. By 1987 he was able to extend his discoveries to practically every disease known to medicine.
Dr. Hamer has been persecuted and harassed for over 25 years, in particular by the German and French authorities. Since 1997, Dr. Hamer has been living in exile in Spain, where he carries on with his research and where he continues to fight for official recognition of his “New Medicine”. But as long as the University of Tübingen’s medical faculty maintains its delay tactics, patients all over the world will be denied the benefit of Dr. Hamer’s revolutionary discoveries.
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:16 am
Posted by harry on 07/03/2015
I've found GNM to be accurate for all the people i've met with cancer, major conflicts in their lives, it was trauma that caused their cancer. Brilliant man
I've found GNM to be accurate for all the people i've met with cancer, major conflicts in their lives, it was trauma that caused their cancer. Brilliant man
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:16 am
Posted by vortexkitten on 07/03/2015
Hi harry, I agree
We lost our sister about 4 years ago (she was only in her mid-30's and had just given birth to a lovely wee girl) She had a conflict for years we later discovered and tried to help her.
The establishment gave her 3 months max. We discovered GNM a month or so after her DIE agnosis and DIS ease and went through hamers RE-search with her.
It helped.
We managed 11 months, she was on about 1-3 grams of Oil every second day, we made it for her, like illegal moonshine.
Tough as Fuck she was.
The oil would make her slightly stoned but not very often considering the dose, it was as if the properties of the oil knew what they were there to do.
My dad wanted to try it purely for testing and control purposes ofcourse (he was a seasoned smoker and 70 years old then) so I gave him some on his fingertip, but after a halfhour or so, he was like a fucking zombie in the house, crawling on all fours, making noises. Lasted about 8 hours till he felt halfway normal
Me and my sister just couldn't stop laughing at what we were seeing
Hi harry, I agree
We lost our sister about 4 years ago (she was only in her mid-30's and had just given birth to a lovely wee girl) She had a conflict for years we later discovered and tried to help her.
The establishment gave her 3 months max. We discovered GNM a month or so after her DIE agnosis and DIS ease and went through hamers RE-search with her.
It helped.
We managed 11 months, she was on about 1-3 grams of Oil every second day, we made it for her, like illegal moonshine.
Tough as Fuck she was.
The oil would make her slightly stoned but not very often considering the dose, it was as if the properties of the oil knew what they were there to do.
My dad wanted to try it purely for testing and control purposes ofcourse (he was a seasoned smoker
and 70 years old then) so I gave him some on his fingertip, but after a halfhour or so, he was like a fucking zombie in the house, crawling on all fours, making noises. Lasted about 8 hours till he felt halfway normal Me and my sister just couldn't stop laughing at what we were seeing
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:16 am
The SSRI Issues
A Brief History of Prozac
Prozac, having failed as an antihypertensive then anti-obesity drug, was marketed as an antidepressant after it lifted the spirits of five mildly depressed volunteers according to this article in the U.K. Mail. The drug, 25 years later, is marketed as a near-panacea despite "warnings that it does not actually work for millions of patients, and can cause significant harm to adults, unborn children and the environment."
He Murdered a Friend After Taking This Best-Selling Drug
A Canadian judge has ruled that Prozac caused a teenage boy to murder his friend, as the drug caused him to overreact “in an impulsive, explosive and violent way”
Many drugs, particularly antidepressants, are associated with violence, including suicidal and homicidal tendencies. Of the top 10 drugs linked to violence, half are antidepressants. Recent research has discovered that certain genetic variations may predispose you to homicidal behavior following exposure to antidepressants, due to an inability to properly metabolize the drugs.
Studies have found that up to 75 percent of the benefits of antidepressants can be duplicated by a placebo. So not only are these drugs ineffective, but the evidence is clear that most of these drugs in fact increase your risk of suicide and violence, including homicide.
Diet and lifestyle factors such as sun exposure, exercise, and intestinal health are root causes of many mental health issues, and need to be addressed in order for healing and recovery to occur. Guidelines and recommendations included.
AMERICAN HOLOCAUST – ADVERSE DRUG REACTION (ADR) – PREVENTABLE DEATHS: Public Health Crisis – 440,000 Preventable Medical Deaths Per Year – 4.4 Million Deaths over 10 Years
“The major patent-based research pharmaceutical companies also nominally commit themselves to improving health and relieving suffering… But in fact, these companies are mostly developing drugs that are mostly little better than existing products but have the potential to cause widespread adverse reactions even when appropriately prescribed. This deviation from the principles of health care by institutions allegedly dedicated to health care is institutional corruption.
We present evidence that industry has a hidden business model to maximize profits on scores of drugs with clinically minor additional benefits. Physician commitment to better health is compromised as the industry spends billions to create what Lessig calls a “gift economy” of interdependent reciprocation.”
Contrary to popular belief and corporate sob-stories bewailing the high cost of innovation, pharmaceutical companies devote a miniscule 1.3 percent of their revenues to research and development (R&D) of new drugs. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies’ revenues have climbed six times faster than their investment in R&D over the past 15 years. Meanwhile, an average of 25 percent of revenues is spent on advertising and promotion of “new” drugs that are no better than their predecessors. So much for the claim that R&D costs are becoming increasingly “unsustainable.”
What’s really unsustainable is the industry’s blatant disregard for patients’ health and well being… Most new drugs offer minor clinical advantages over preexisting drugs at best, and no advantage but greater risks, at worst. For the past 35 years, very few drugs created represent any true advancement in drug therapy. According to the three authors, multiple reviews conducted between the mid-1970’s to the mid-1990’s have found that only 11 to 15.6 percent of new molecular entities (NMEs) created provide any kind of “important therapeutic gain.” According to the featured article:
“The independent drug bulletin, La revue Prescrire, analyzes the clinical value of every new drug product or new indication approved in France. From 1981 to 2001, it found that about 12 percent offered therapeutic advantages. But in the following decade, 2002-2011… only 8 percent offered some advantages and nearly twice that many—15.6 percent—were judged to be more harmful than beneficial. A mere 1.6 percent offered substantial advantages.” [Emphasis mine]
They note that similar findings have also been made by the Canadian advisory panel to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, and by a Dutch general practice drug bulletin. Interestingly enough, the US has not conducted any such review. Remarkably, studies have revealed that one in every five new drugs ended up causing such serious harm that they eventually received a severe warning label or were withdrawn from the market.
“Of priority drugs that were reviewed in slightly more than half the normal time, at least one in three of them caused serious harm,” the featured article states… [E]vidence suggests that commercial distortions of the review process and aggressive marketing contribute to both undermining beneficence as health care’s raison d’être and to the epidemic of harm to patients.”
"There Is No Such Thing As A Safe Drug, We Are Trained To Misinform"
As she explains, by the time a drug is approved and hits the general population, we don’t know even 50% of side effects that are involved with that drug, “We were being trained to misinform people,” she said.
But in 2004, a family tragedy that tied into the corruption of the pharma industry would change everything for Gwen.
“My niece was 20 years old, she was attending Indiana university and she was a pre-med student, an extremely intelligent, beautiful woman, and just a beautiful spirit inside and out. She was in a car accident, and was prescribed vicodin hydrocodone for the pain, and became addicted.“
Gwen says that the drug’s sedative properties were affecting her niece’s concentration, so she ended up taking the stimulant drug, ephedrine, to help her with studying.
“She had a drug interaction and ended up in the hospital, and they tagged her with a bipolar disorder, not a drug toxicity or a reaction to the drugs she was on. They started giving her more antipsychotics and mood stabilizers, and that set her on the road to becoming a mental patient.”
Sadly, Gwen’s niece eventually dropped out of school, after which she tried to wean herself off of the medications she was taking. Inevitably, a severe depression followed.
“Her mom was on her way home to take her back to the psychiatrist and get her back on drugs. [That is when] my niece walked into her younger sister’s room and took an angel lamp that was filled with oil, and poured it over herself and ignited it, burning herself alive.“
A Brief History of Prozac
Prozac, having failed as an antihypertensive then anti-obesity drug, was marketed as an antidepressant after it lifted the spirits of five mildly depressed volunteers according to this article in the U.K. Mail. The drug, 25 years later, is marketed as a near-panacea despite "warnings that it does not actually work for millions of patients, and can cause significant harm to adults, unborn children and the environment."
He Murdered a Friend After Taking This Best-Selling Drug
A Canadian judge has ruled that Prozac caused a teenage boy to murder his friend, as the drug caused him to overreact “in an impulsive, explosive and violent way”
Many drugs, particularly antidepressants, are associated with violence, including suicidal and homicidal tendencies. Of the top 10 drugs linked to violence, half are antidepressants. Recent research has discovered that certain genetic variations may predispose you to homicidal behavior following exposure to antidepressants, due to an inability to properly metabolize the drugs.
Studies have found that up to 75 percent of the benefits of antidepressants can be duplicated by a placebo. So not only are these drugs ineffective, but the evidence is clear that most of these drugs in fact increase your risk of suicide and violence, including homicide.
Diet and lifestyle factors such as sun exposure, exercise, and intestinal health are root causes of many mental health issues, and need to be addressed in order for healing and recovery to occur. Guidelines and recommendations included.
AMERICAN HOLOCAUST – ADVERSE DRUG REACTION (ADR) – PREVENTABLE DEATHS: Public Health Crisis – 440,000 Preventable Medical Deaths Per Year – 4.4 Million Deaths over 10 Years
“The major patent-based research pharmaceutical companies also nominally commit themselves to improving health and relieving suffering… But in fact, these companies are mostly developing drugs that are mostly little better than existing products but have the potential to cause widespread adverse reactions even when appropriately prescribed. This deviation from the principles of health care by institutions allegedly dedicated to health care is institutional corruption.
We present evidence that industry has a hidden business model to maximize profits on scores of drugs with clinically minor additional benefits. Physician commitment to better health is compromised as the industry spends billions to create what Lessig calls a “gift economy” of interdependent reciprocation.”
Contrary to popular belief and corporate sob-stories bewailing the high cost of innovation, pharmaceutical companies devote a miniscule 1.3 percent of their revenues to research and development (R&D) of new drugs. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies’ revenues have climbed six times faster than their investment in R&D over the past 15 years. Meanwhile, an average of 25 percent of revenues is spent on advertising and promotion of “new” drugs that are no better than their predecessors. So much for the claim that R&D costs are becoming increasingly “unsustainable.”
What’s really unsustainable is the industry’s blatant disregard for patients’ health and well being… Most new drugs offer minor clinical advantages over preexisting drugs at best, and no advantage but greater risks, at worst. For the past 35 years, very few drugs created represent any true advancement in drug therapy. According to the three authors, multiple reviews conducted between the mid-1970’s to the mid-1990’s have found that only 11 to 15.6 percent of new molecular entities (NMEs) created provide any kind of “important therapeutic gain.” According to the featured article:
“The independent drug bulletin, La revue Prescrire, analyzes the clinical value of every new drug product or new indication approved in France. From 1981 to 2001, it found that about 12 percent offered therapeutic advantages. But in the following decade, 2002-2011… only 8 percent offered some advantages and nearly twice that many—15.6 percent—were judged to be more harmful than beneficial. A mere 1.6 percent offered substantial advantages.” [Emphasis mine]
They note that similar findings have also been made by the Canadian advisory panel to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, and by a Dutch general practice drug bulletin. Interestingly enough, the US has not conducted any such review. Remarkably, studies have revealed that one in every five new drugs ended up causing such serious harm that they eventually received a severe warning label or were withdrawn from the market.
“Of priority drugs that were reviewed in slightly more than half the normal time, at least one in three of them caused serious harm,” the featured article states… [E]vidence suggests that commercial distortions of the review process and aggressive marketing contribute to both undermining beneficence as health care’s raison d’être and to the epidemic of harm to patients.”
"There Is No Such Thing As A Safe Drug, We Are Trained To Misinform"
As she explains, by the time a drug is approved and hits the general population, we don’t know even 50% of side effects that are involved with that drug, “We were being trained to misinform people,” she said.
But in 2004, a family tragedy that tied into the corruption of the pharma industry would change everything for Gwen.
“My niece was 20 years old, she was attending Indiana university and she was a pre-med student, an extremely intelligent, beautiful woman, and just a beautiful spirit inside and out. She was in a car accident, and was prescribed vicodin hydrocodone for the pain, and became addicted.“
Gwen says that the drug’s sedative properties were affecting her niece’s concentration, so she ended up taking the stimulant drug, ephedrine, to help her with studying.
“She had a drug interaction and ended up in the hospital, and they tagged her with a bipolar disorder, not a drug toxicity or a reaction to the drugs she was on. They started giving her more antipsychotics and mood stabilizers, and that set her on the road to becoming a mental patient.”
Sadly, Gwen’s niece eventually dropped out of school, after which she tried to wean herself off of the medications she was taking. Inevitably, a severe depression followed.
“Her mom was on her way home to take her back to the psychiatrist and get her back on drugs. [That is when] my niece walked into her younger sister’s room and took an angel lamp that was filled with oil, and poured it over herself and ignited it, burning herself alive.“
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:18 am
“The March 1999 ‘Vaccines’ feature in Parenting magazine provided all propaganda one would expect from a subsidiary of Time, Inc. Time-Warner, Inc., the parent company, is a corporate member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Time's president, Richard D. Parsons, and the Editor-in-Chief of TIME, Norman Pearlstine, are longstanding CFR members. One CFR published policy objective is substantial worldwide depopulation including half of the current U.S. population being targeted. This population reduction program is largely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Merck Fund, both financially and administratively linked to the Merck pharmaceutical company--the world's leading vaccine manufacturer.”
-Dr. Len Horowitz, “Parenting with Deadly Timely Propaganda”
-Dr. Len Horowitz, “Parenting with Deadly Timely Propaganda”
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:18 am
Dr. Stefan Lanka Exposes The "Viral Fraud"
Pictures of "Isolated Viruses" Debunked
Dr. Stefan Lanka, virologist and molecular biologist, is internationally mostly known as an "AIDS dissident" (and maybe "gentechnology dissident") who has been questioning the very existence of "HIV" since 1994. In the past years, however, he stumbled over a breathtaking fact: Not even ONE of the (medically relevant) viruses has ever been isolated; there is no proof of their existence. Actually, Dr. Lanka has already stated three years ago, in the almost "legendary" Zenger's interview: "So for a long time I studied virology, from the end to the beginning, from the beginning to the end, to be absolutely sure that there was no such thing as HIV. And it was easy for me to be sure about this because I realized that the whole group of viruses to which HIV is said to belong, the retroviruses -- as well as other viruses which are claimed to be very dangerous -- in fact do not exist at all." So he was thoroughly reading the literature on those "other viruses" again, and after he could still not find any paper which would provide the evidence, he encouraged people not to BELIEVE him but to ask the institutes and authorities themselves. This has actually taken place, mostly initiated by mothers. The responses were revealing. In September 2001 the German book "Impfen - Völkermord im dritten Jahrtausend?" (Vaccination - Genocide in the third millennium?) by Stefan Lanka and Karl Krafeld was published in which they state that there is still no proof of any (medically relevant) virus.
This movement (klein-klein-aktion ~ many little actions/steps) has a German website: www.klein-klein-aktion.de which I have taken (and translated) all the following texts from.
For almost one year we have been asking authorities, politicians and medical institutes after the scientific evidence for the existence of such viruses that are said to cause disease and therefore require "immunization". After almost one year we have not received even one concrete answer which provides evidence for the existence of those "vaccination viruses". The conclusion is inevitable that our children are still vaccinated on the basis of scientific standards of the 18th and 19th century. In the 19th century Robert Koch demanded in his generally accepted postulates evidence of the virus in order to prove infection; at Koch's time this evidence couldn't be achieved directly by visualization and characterization of the viruses, because adequate technology wasn't available at that time. Methods of modern medicine have profoundly changed over the past 60 years, in particular by the invention of the electron microscope. And still all these viruses we get immunized against have never been re-examined using this technology?
Several images and explanations that we were pointed to and that were said to show resp. describe (characterize) viruses, we showed to Dr. Lanka who gives his summarizing comments:
[The German original of the following text by Stefan Lanka you can find here (temporarily not available for technical reasons, Jan 11, 2003)]
All these photos have in common that they, resp. the authors, can't claim that they present a virus, as long as they do not also provide the original publications which describe how and what from the virus has been isolated. Such original publications are cited nowhere.
Indeed, in the entire scientific literature there's not even one publication, where for "viruses in the medicine" the fulfillment of Koch's first postulate is even claimed. That means, that there is no proof that from humans with certain diseases the viruses - which are held responsible for these diseases - have been isolated.
Nevertheless, this is precisely what they publicly claim. Now, regarding the photos submitted:
1. Many of the photos are colored. This is proof enough, that they are the (art)work of designers, because electron microscopic photos always appear in black and white.
2. The images of the so called HIV-, measles (Masern)- and smallpox (Pocken) viruses clearly show, as the image descriptions partly already indicate, that these are cells wherein the viruses can allegedly be found. Thus, nothing has been isolated. The photos actually show cells and typical endogenous particles in them. These structures are well known and serve the intra- and intercellular transport. Unlike viruses of the same kind - that are always the same size and same shape (consistency) -, they differ in size and shape (consistency) and therefore can't be isolated.
3. In the case of the influenza- herpes-, vaccinia-, polio-, adeno- and ebola-viruses each photo shows only a single particle; nobody claims that they're isolated particles, let alone particles that have been isolated from humans.
These particles are partially the cellular particles mentioned above (#2) resp. typical artifacts which means: structures that accrue after inappropriate fixing and drying of the probes, while being prepared for the electron microscope.
4. The "isolated" polio viruses are artificial particles, generated by suction of an indifferent mass through a very fine filter into a vacuum. Its structure (no characteristic structures) differ clearly from the ones of the "viruses" in the cells. Here the information is essential that a biochemical characterization of those "isolated" viruses, although "isolation" is claimed, has never been published anywhere nor has anybody even claimed such a characterization.
5. The photo of the hepatitis B "viruses" does not show isolated structures, but - as the image title already says, an agglutinate. This is the scientific/medical term for proteins from the blood that are clumped together, as is typical for coagulations. Typically, thereby round and also crystal structures accrue - depending on the condition of the blood sample.
In summary, it must be said that these photos are an attempt of fraud committed by the researchers and medical scientists involved, as far as they assert that these structures are viruses or even isolated viruses. To what extent the involved journalists and authors of textbooks have contributed to this fraud knowlingly or only out of gross negligence, I don't know. Everyone who starts a recherche in the medical literature, will quickly encounter statements and references that Koch's first postulate can't be fulfilled (i.e. Großgebauer: Eine kurze Geschichte der Mikroben, 1997 ["a little story of the microbes"]; editor: Verlag für angewandte Wissenschaft). How these authors who claim the existence of viruses could overlook that, remains a riddle.
Could it be that the term "Contagium" = "Gift" (poison/toxin) = "Virus" from the 18th and 19th century was applied in the 20th century to the cell components which were named "viruses" since the electron microscope was introduced in 1931? And in order to hide this, the "disease causing viruses" have often been described but never been isolated? And then they were used as seemingly logical explanation for poisonings and adverse affects of vaccination, as Luhmann (1995) (i.e.) writes about the symptomatic of Hepatitis B, which was observed for the first time in 1985 following smallpox vaccinations, and 1938 following measles vaccinations? The copies in the textbooks show only structures within cells and nothing that looks like isolation and thus homogenous. The biochemical characterization, which is crucial, lacks completely.
Robert Koch and colleagues, Prof. Rush, Prof. Max von Pettenkofer, Prof. Virchow have shown, for instance by experiments and by observation of the Henle-Koch's rules that by transmission of bacteria, the supposed contagium vivum, it was not possible to cause the same disease. So Robert Koch modified (weakened) the 3rd postulate of his teacher, the German anatomist Henle, in the form that the generation of a similar symptom in animal experiments would be sufficient to prove this hypothesis of disease cause, namely the hypothesis of infectious bacteria. (See Großgebauer: Eine kurze Geschichte der Mikroben).
So it does not surprise me that Prof. Alfred Fischer writes in his book "Vorlesungen über Bakterien" ("[academic] lectures on bacteria") from 1897 (!): "as is true for any infectious disease - the fact that it does not only take the addition of the bacteria but also the unknown something of individual predisposition, goes without saying."
Stefan Lanka, Dec 2001
(Translation Juergen Faas, Dec 2001)
SOURCE
Pictures of "Isolated Viruses" Debunked
Dr. Stefan Lanka, virologist and molecular biologist, is internationally mostly known as an "AIDS dissident" (and maybe "gentechnology dissident") who has been questioning the very existence of "HIV" since 1994. In the past years, however, he stumbled over a breathtaking fact: Not even ONE of the (medically relevant) viruses has ever been isolated; there is no proof of their existence. Actually, Dr. Lanka has already stated three years ago, in the almost "legendary" Zenger's interview: "So for a long time I studied virology, from the end to the beginning, from the beginning to the end, to be absolutely sure that there was no such thing as HIV. And it was easy for me to be sure about this because I realized that the whole group of viruses to which HIV is said to belong, the retroviruses -- as well as other viruses which are claimed to be very dangerous -- in fact do not exist at all." So he was thoroughly reading the literature on those "other viruses" again, and after he could still not find any paper which would provide the evidence, he encouraged people not to BELIEVE him but to ask the institutes and authorities themselves. This has actually taken place, mostly initiated by mothers. The responses were revealing. In September 2001 the German book "Impfen - Völkermord im dritten Jahrtausend?" (Vaccination - Genocide in the third millennium?) by Stefan Lanka and Karl Krafeld was published in which they state that there is still no proof of any (medically relevant) virus.
This movement (klein-klein-aktion ~ many little actions/steps) has a German website: www.klein-klein-aktion.de which I have taken (and translated) all the following texts from.
For almost one year we have been asking authorities, politicians and medical institutes after the scientific evidence for the existence of such viruses that are said to cause disease and therefore require "immunization". After almost one year we have not received even one concrete answer which provides evidence for the existence of those "vaccination viruses". The conclusion is inevitable that our children are still vaccinated on the basis of scientific standards of the 18th and 19th century. In the 19th century Robert Koch demanded in his generally accepted postulates evidence of the virus in order to prove infection; at Koch's time this evidence couldn't be achieved directly by visualization and characterization of the viruses, because adequate technology wasn't available at that time. Methods of modern medicine have profoundly changed over the past 60 years, in particular by the invention of the electron microscope. And still all these viruses we get immunized against have never been re-examined using this technology?
Several images and explanations that we were pointed to and that were said to show resp. describe (characterize) viruses, we showed to Dr. Lanka who gives his summarizing comments:
[The German original of the following text by Stefan Lanka you can find here (temporarily not available for technical reasons, Jan 11, 2003)]
All these photos have in common that they, resp. the authors, can't claim that they present a virus, as long as they do not also provide the original publications which describe how and what from the virus has been isolated. Such original publications are cited nowhere.
Indeed, in the entire scientific literature there's not even one publication, where for "viruses in the medicine" the fulfillment of Koch's first postulate is even claimed. That means, that there is no proof that from humans with certain diseases the viruses - which are held responsible for these diseases - have been isolated.
Nevertheless, this is precisely what they publicly claim. Now, regarding the photos submitted:
1. Many of the photos are colored. This is proof enough, that they are the (art)work of designers, because electron microscopic photos always appear in black and white.
2. The images of the so called HIV-, measles (Masern)- and smallpox (Pocken) viruses clearly show, as the image descriptions partly already indicate, that these are cells wherein the viruses can allegedly be found. Thus, nothing has been isolated. The photos actually show cells and typical endogenous particles in them. These structures are well known and serve the intra- and intercellular transport. Unlike viruses of the same kind - that are always the same size and same shape (consistency) -, they differ in size and shape (consistency) and therefore can't be isolated.
3. In the case of the influenza- herpes-, vaccinia-, polio-, adeno- and ebola-viruses each photo shows only a single particle; nobody claims that they're isolated particles, let alone particles that have been isolated from humans.
These particles are partially the cellular particles mentioned above (#2) resp. typical artifacts which means: structures that accrue after inappropriate fixing and drying of the probes, while being prepared for the electron microscope.
4. The "isolated" polio viruses are artificial particles, generated by suction of an indifferent mass through a very fine filter into a vacuum. Its structure (no characteristic structures) differ clearly from the ones of the "viruses" in the cells. Here the information is essential that a biochemical characterization of those "isolated" viruses, although "isolation" is claimed, has never been published anywhere nor has anybody even claimed such a characterization.
5. The photo of the hepatitis B "viruses" does not show isolated structures, but - as the image title already says, an agglutinate. This is the scientific/medical term for proteins from the blood that are clumped together, as is typical for coagulations. Typically, thereby round and also crystal structures accrue - depending on the condition of the blood sample.
In summary, it must be said that these photos are an attempt of fraud committed by the researchers and medical scientists involved, as far as they assert that these structures are viruses or even isolated viruses. To what extent the involved journalists and authors of textbooks have contributed to this fraud knowlingly or only out of gross negligence, I don't know. Everyone who starts a recherche in the medical literature, will quickly encounter statements and references that Koch's first postulate can't be fulfilled (i.e. Großgebauer: Eine kurze Geschichte der Mikroben, 1997 ["a little story of the microbes"]; editor: Verlag für angewandte Wissenschaft). How these authors who claim the existence of viruses could overlook that, remains a riddle.
Could it be that the term "Contagium" = "Gift" (poison/toxin) = "Virus" from the 18th and 19th century was applied in the 20th century to the cell components which were named "viruses" since the electron microscope was introduced in 1931? And in order to hide this, the "disease causing viruses" have often been described but never been isolated? And then they were used as seemingly logical explanation for poisonings and adverse affects of vaccination, as Luhmann (1995) (i.e.) writes about the symptomatic of Hepatitis B, which was observed for the first time in 1985 following smallpox vaccinations, and 1938 following measles vaccinations? The copies in the textbooks show only structures within cells and nothing that looks like isolation and thus homogenous. The biochemical characterization, which is crucial, lacks completely.
Robert Koch and colleagues, Prof. Rush, Prof. Max von Pettenkofer, Prof. Virchow have shown, for instance by experiments and by observation of the Henle-Koch's rules that by transmission of bacteria, the supposed contagium vivum, it was not possible to cause the same disease. So Robert Koch modified (weakened) the 3rd postulate of his teacher, the German anatomist Henle, in the form that the generation of a similar symptom in animal experiments would be sufficient to prove this hypothesis of disease cause, namely the hypothesis of infectious bacteria. (See Großgebauer: Eine kurze Geschichte der Mikroben).
So it does not surprise me that Prof. Alfred Fischer writes in his book "Vorlesungen über Bakterien" ("[academic] lectures on bacteria") from 1897 (!): "as is true for any infectious disease - the fact that it does not only take the addition of the bacteria but also the unknown something of individual predisposition, goes without saying."
Stefan Lanka, Dec 2001
(Translation Juergen Faas, Dec 2001)
SOURCE
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:18 am
Posted by tlef on 07/09/2015
Fake ingredients in supplements. Class action lawsuits filed against major retailers.
Most people don't seem to be aware that this occurred although it was reported in hundreds of newpapers, blogs and other media. Back in Feb/Mar, all the Walmart stores in my area removed their entire stock of supplements from shelves without notice or a posted explanation. I'm sure the same thing occurred with the other retailers, but I didn't check.
Top retailers sold bogus bottles of herbal supplements
Chains Pull Dietary Aids Off Shelves After Inquiry
Herbal Supplements Class Actions Piling Up
Fake ingredients in supplements. Class action lawsuits filed against major retailers.
Most people don't seem to be aware that this occurred although it was reported in hundreds of newpapers, blogs and other media. Back in Feb/Mar, all the Walmart stores in my area removed their entire stock of supplements from shelves without notice or a posted explanation. I'm sure the same thing occurred with the other retailers, but I didn't check.
Top retailers sold bogus bottles of herbal supplements
Chains Pull Dietary Aids Off Shelves After Inquiry
Herbal Supplements Class Actions Piling Up
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:18 am
RUN FROM THE CURE - The Rick Simpson Story
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:19 am
Mental disorders do not exist
Jon Rappoport
To say that a person should have a right to consider himself mentally ill and to take a drug is one thing. This is an argument from the principle of individual freedom.
To say that such a person knows what he is doing by some objective standard is quite another thing.
Objectively speaking, mental illnesses and disorders do not exist.
Officially, all mental disorders are said to be chemical imbalances in the brain. Not just any imbalances, but specific ones. This is assertion is unproven. There is no evidence for it.
For example, for any of the 297 so-called mental disorders listed in the official publication of the American Psychiatric Association, there are no defining physical tests. No blood tests, no urine tests, no saliva tests, no laboratory tests of any kind.
This is a fact.
Since it is a fact, it is odd that all psychiatrists are medical doctors. What are they doing that is medical?
Well, they are prescribing drugs. Yes. But I could prescribe drugs if I had a license to do so and a prescription pad.
The profession of psychiatry asserts that these drugs erase or alleviate “the brain chemical imbalances” that form the basis for all mental disorders. Yet the brain-imbalance hypothesis is unproven. It may “make sense” to some people, but that doesn’t constitute evidence.
People, of course, are free to believe the brain-chemical-imbalance hypothesis is true. Belief doesn’t make it true.
People are also free to believe the hypothesis that strange behavior emanates from the Devil or a Karmic curse.
A person says, “I was diagnosed with clinical depression and I took Prozac, and ever since then I’ve felt much happier.”
Yes. Fine. I have no interest in challenging that statement. I merely point out that there are people who have felt depressed and took a crystal they claimed was sacred, rubbed it on their heads, and felt better from then on.
There are people who have joined a church and prayed and felt better.
Why is the Prozac experience more compelling than crystals or prayer?
I’m not talking about what a person says makes him feel better. I’m talking about what psychiatrists claim is science. And when you scratch the surface of that, you come up with: no compelling evidence.
Yet, in courts and in doctors’ offices and at academic conferences and in the pages of professional journals and in political gulags, the science of discrete and separate and definable mental disorders is treated as settled, confirmed, verified, certain. That is a baldfaced lie.
All 297 official mental disorders, listed in the (DSM) publication of the American Psychiatric Association, are defined and approved by committees of psychiatrists. Whether it is schizophrenia or autism or ADHD or clinical depression or bipolar disease, the definitions consist wholly of described behaviors. That’s all.
Psychiatrists will tell you these symptomatic behaviors are signs of underlying chemical imbalances or genetic aberrations, but again, they have no tests to back up this assertion. Therefore, all they left with are the behaviors and their own menu-like collections of those behaviors.
Yes, people suffer in life, and they experience confusion and doubt. They have problems. They have trouble with relationships. They feel sad. They feel all sorts of things. They feel pain. They don’t know how to move ahead with plans. They sometimes feel their lives are at an impasse. Yes.
This is far different from claiming they have a specific and detectable chemical imbalance which can be tested for.
“Well,” many psychiatrists say, “the hypothesis of chemical balance is confirmed if the drugs work, because the drugs are, in fact, based on the idea that chemical imbalances underlie mental disorders.”
Let’s examine that approach. Take, for example, Ritalin.
The 1994 Textbook of Psychiatry, published by the American Psychiatric Press, contains this review (Popper and Steingard): “Stimulants [such as Ritalin] do not produce lasting improvements in aggressivity, conduct disorder, criminality, education achievement, job functioning, marital relationships, or long-term adjustment.”
Not a ringing endorsement.
How about, say, the antidepressants prescribed to children?
A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”
Here is a link to the official psychiatric definition of autism disorder. It’s worth reading:
www.firstsigns.org/screening/DSM4.htm
Notice that all the criteria for a diagnosis are behavioral. There is no mention of laboratory tests or test results. There is no definitive mention of chemical imbalance or genetic factors.
Despite public-relations statements issued by doctors and researchers, they have no laboratory findings to establish or confirm a diagnosis.
But, people say, this makes no sense, because children do, in fact, withdraw from the world, stop speaking, throw sudden tantrums. Common sense seems to dictate that these behaviors stem from serious neurological problems.
What could cause the behaviors listed in the official definition of autism disorder: vaccine injury; a head injury in an accident; ingestion of a neurological poison; an environmental chemical; a severe nutritional deficit; perhaps the emotional devastation accompanying the death of a parent…
However, in that case, why bother to call it “autism?” Why not just say vaccine injury or head injury? The answer should be clear. By establishing a label like autism, medical drugs can be sold. Studies can be funded. An industry can be created.
In fact, when it comes to the US government’s compensation program for parents whose children have suffered vaccine injury, the government can engage in a con game.The government can say, “In order to establish a cause for autism, we must find a single underlying factor that applies to all cases of autism. Since we know that some children who are diagnosed with autism have not received vaccines, or have not received vaccines containing a neurological poison (mercury), we do not compensate parents whose children are vaccine-injured on the basis that they have autism.”
But, of course, what is called autism (merely a label) is not one condition caused by one factor. It is a loose collection of behaviors that are caused by various traumas.
The official mental disorder called autism disorder does not exist.
People find such statements very unsettling. They argue, “My child’s life was stolen away from him. He must have autism.”
This proves that a label provides some measure of relief for the parents. It doesn’t prove that the label actually means something. In fact, the label can be a diversion from knowledge that would actually help the child. Suppose, for example, that after receiving the DPT vaccine, the child went into a screaming fit and then withdrew from the world. Calling that autism tends to put the parents and the child in the medical system, where there is no effective treatment. Outside that system, there might be some hope with vaccine detox or, say, hyperbaric oxygen treatments.
What is stated here about autism applies to all 297 official mental disorders. They are labels. There is no reason to suppose that, for each label, there is a single cause. There is no reason to suppose that the labels name actual conditions. Research that attempts to find a single cause for a label stands no better chance of succeeding than research designed to prove a man on the moon is selling land leases to citizens of Fiji.
Again, people have every right to believe they have been helped by a psychiatric diagnosis and a prescribed drug. But they also have the right to reject that paradigm and seek knowledge and help elsewhere. The whole thrust of official psychiatry and its allies is to monopolize their self-appointed territory and use all necessary means to eliminate the competition. This approach has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with profit and fascist control.
“But my cousin was depressed. He took Zoloft and felt much better.”
Read this article again. It neither denigrates your cousin nor makes your cousin’s experience the basis of actual far-reaching science. This article is about science.
RIP, psychiatry: the “chemical-imbalance” theory is dead
Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:
“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”
Boom.
Dead.
The point is, for decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”
The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.
In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to cover his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:
“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”
Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.
And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…
…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…
…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct an imbalance?
Here’s what’s happening. The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed. They’re taking heavy flack on many fronts.
The chemical imbalance theory is a fake. There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain damage.
Psychiatry is a pseudo-pseudo science.
So the shrinks have to move into another model, another con, another fraud. And they’re looking for one.
For example, genes plus “psycho-social factors.” A mish-mash of more unproven science.
“New breakthrough research on the functioning of the brain is paying dividends and holds great promise…” Professional gibberish.
Meanwhile, the business model demands drugs for sale.
So even though the chemical-imbalance nonsense has been discredited, it will continue on as a dead man walking, a zombie.
Big Pharma isn’t going to back off. Trillions of dollars are at stake.
And in the wake of Aurora, Colorado, and Sandy Hook, and the Naval Yard, the hype is expanding: “we must have new community mental-health centers all over America.”
More fake diagnosis of mental disorders, more devastating drug prescriptions.
As Dr. Peter Breggin explains in his classic, Toxic Psychiatry, half a century ago the psychiatric profession and the drug companies began to shape a deal.
Psychiatry was dying out. Patients didn’t want to talk about their problems to MD shrinks.
So the deal was this: psychiatry would go along with and promote chemical-imbalance propaganda. In turn, the drug companies would turn out the pharmaceuticals, and they would bankroll psychiatry, sponsoring conferences, taking out massive numbers of ads in journals, offering grants to universities.
The deal paid off.
Psychiatry experienced a resurgence. “Talk therapy is useless. Mental problems are all about the brain, and the brain must be drugged.”
But now, the charade is exposed.
You can be sure major Pharma players are meeting behind closed doors with leaders of the American Psychiatric Association (APA). The mafia is making a house call.
They are reminding the APA that they have a deal. No cancellation allowed.
“You guys promoted the chemical-imbalance theory. That was the arrangement. So keep promoting it. We don’t care how many lies you have to tell. Don’t try to develop a conscience all of a sudden. This is business.”
The mafia doesn’t like it when people try to interrupt business.
Why You Must Have A Mental Disorder
PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.
BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]
THAT’S CALLED THE SMOKING GUN.
Over the last ten years, I’ve established time and time again that psychiatry is a fraud. From every angle.
It’s a drug-dealing machine, and all the drugs are toxic and dangerous.
Not one single so-called mental disorder has ever, in any patient, been verified by a physical test, chemical or biological. That’s because there are no tests.
The 300 so-called disorders listed in the bible of psychiatry, the DSM, are invented by committees from menus of behaviors. It’s a con. It’s an embrace between the profession of psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry.
From the psy-op perspective, diagnosing people with these disorder labels means they can be debilitated by the drugs. That makes the nation weaker. That scrambles people’s brains. That sedates people. That makes people easier to control.
And from another angle, if a person is diagnosed, his thoughts and ideas are no longer considered legitimate.
Read that last sentence again.
Diagnosis is method of de-legitimizing ideas.
“Everything he thinks is really coming out of his CONDITION.”
Yes, and everything about his life is now defined as “recovery.”
On the other side of that coin, if a person is considered mentally healthy, then his thoughts and ideas could have power.
That’s one reason you never hear media talk about mental wellness. Never is talked about.
“He’s very healthy, mentally speaking. Let’s hear what he has to say.”
No. That doesn’t happen.
Here’s a story you’ll never, ever hear or see or read from major media:
“Well, John Parker has been diagnosed in the pink of mental health! Superb! This man is really mentally and emotionally in great shape! So he would be a model that we could all follow and learn from. Mr. Parker, what do you have to say?”
“Well, thanks for having me on, Oprah. I go by the rule of self-sufficiency. That’s why, in fact, I’m in such good shape. I rely on myself. I have goals and I pursue them. I think the basic ideas of freedom and responsibility as written in the Constitution are the basis of all mental health. Don’t assume dependance is good for your sanity. In fact, it’s just the opposite because—
BLACKOUT.
End of story.
No, it’s not good for the controllers to put up a standard of mental wellness. It doesn’t work for them. They need more diagnoses of mental disorders. They need more people focusing on their own mental and emotional problems. They need more “disorder” talk on television. They need people to accept the notion that we’re all, in some way, “disordered.”
That’s the psy-op. That’s the way it works.
That’s the way you get people to participate in their own reduction. You know, as in a recipe. You REDUCE a sauce down to an essence. In this case, the reduction is down to a mental condition.
“He’s BIPOLAR.”
End of story. End of a chapter of life.
“I’m functioning BIPOLAR. The drugs help. Of course, I’ve gained sixty pounds…”
The whole nation goes into a slow-motion crumble…behind the millions of diagnoses and the drugging of disorders.
B-o-o-m.
I’ve watched it expand since I grew up in the 1940s, when nobody was diagnosed with anything and the nation was much better off…to now, when everybody is diagnosed with everything, and things are much worse.
Part of the psy-op is The Up and Down. It goes this way: A person is diagnosed with a mental disorder. Now the stage is set for the “struggle back to normalcy.” He struggles, “makes progress,” and then there is a “setback.” But he keeps trying. Up and down, up and down. WITH A LIMITED CEILING. Get it?
It’s a redefinition of Possibility for that person. The space is made smaller. The potential is lessened. The ceiling is lowered.
In my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, I interview retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy (EM) a number of times. Here’s what he has to say about psychiatry:
EM: “I worked on that for a while. It was easy. It was a lot easier than some of the other areas I was involved in. Basically, what you do is expand and extend SYMPATHY.”
JR: “How do you mean that?”
EM: “You take the common and universal feeling of sympathy and blow it out so that it covers anybody who is diagnosed with anything, any disorder. That’s the key.”
JR: “Why?”
EM: “Because that’s how you enlist public support and turn the tide. You make people feel guilty if they don’t have sympathy for those who’ve been tagged with a mental disorder. Of course, all the diagnoses are a sham. They don’t exist. People have difficulties, but that’s different. These are supposed to be scientific diagnoses [of disorders], and they aren’t. But if you can enlist enough public sympathy and get leaders in the society to come out in favor of TREATMENT for the people who are diagnosed, it’s a breeze. You’ve won.”
JR: “This op goes after leaders?”
EM: “Hillary Clinton was fantastic. You see, you find a leader and you bring your sources to bear on that leader. You’ve already profiled the leader, and you know he or she will be receptive to your legend, to the story you’re inventing. And then that leader picks up the ball and runs with it. You’ve scored a touchdown.”
JR: “Why were you contracted to work on psychiatry?”
EM: “Because it’s a plan for control. Simple. You put more and people under that system and they fall into line. They develop a different concept of their lives. It shrinks. But here’s the thing. This is all about lower expectations. For the human race. That’s what you’re really doing to populations. You can’t just tell people to lower their sights, you have to give them a reason. And psychiatry is that reason. It’s one more fake science. When you get outside the whole system of psychiatry, that’s what you’re looking at: the ultimate rationalization to do less, to accomplish less, and most important, to envision less. It’s mind control. It’s a semantic system using one set of words to define other words. You substitute a technical vocabulary. Those are the names and the symptoms of disorders. There’s a great deal of propaganda that works this way. You introduce a new vocabulary. It’s very much like rewriting history. Instead of saying Van Gogh was wrestling with the fact that he saw a better future and nobody was interested—and that he quite possibly suffered from lead poisoning in the paints he was using—you say he was a paranoid schizophrenic.
“Here is a prediction for you. There will be whole host of labeled disorders that involve wording like ‘non-empathic.’ People who don’t have sufficient sympathy for OTHER people who are diagnosed with mental illnesses will be called mentally ill. It’ll be a closed system. You see?”
This is an OPERATION. In the Globalist world, everyone (except the leaders) will need adjusting. The list of disorders will expand to enormous proportions, as will the drugs.
And personal responsibility will be a legal item that can be manipulated to suit the authorities.
Just today, we have a story coming out of Canada that illustrates this perfectly. A Toronto-area man was convicted of killing his wife. But because he was diagnosed with a “psycho-affective disorder,” he was judged to be “NCR”—Not Criminally Responsible. Therefore, he did no jail time. He was placed in a treatment facility and then released after a short stint. Now, an appeals court has ruled that he can receive all the money from his wife’s estate, because, you see, he didn’t really commit a crime. The restriction against profiting from the proceeds of a crime was lifted, because the word “crime” doesn’t apply to him. He’s NCR. He’s “psycho-affective.” (thestar.com, April 24, 2012. “Insane man who killed wife entitled to her insurance benefits.”)
In psy-op terms, this is called “reordering values.” It’s all based on “the needs of the community,” an intentionally vague term that can be used like a sword to control, punish, or exonerate behavior.
Psychiatry is a leading edge of this operant-reconditioning program. People are taught that older systems of values are outmoded, in light of “scientific advances.”
This is the basic lie. “We understand so much more now than we ever did.” “We must diagnose everyone who has an undisclosed disorder.”
No. There are no disorders. Disorders are a complete fiction. People suffer, they experience pain, they may become confused, they may have severe nutritional deficits, they may be toxified, they may be under the gun of political repression, but there are no disorders.
There never were.
Here’s a real undisclosed problem:
People don’t find a way to discover their own first principles, their own philosophy, if you will. I’m not talking about some complex academic system. I’m talking about the vital ideas that can help launch a vision that then revolutionizes a life and a future. The lack of that could legitimately be called a problem. But there is no diagnosis and there is no externally applied treatment. There is only free will and the desire to remedy the lack.
In such a vacuum, you see, the professionals step in and make weighty pronouncements and fabricate a science that never existed and then try to mandate treatments.
You can submit or just say no.
As the title of this piece indicates, when elites fashion and impose a New World ORDER, they naturally need a way to classify the recalcitrant citizens and the rebellious and the independent. So they use the word DISORDER. “If you’re not for the new order, then you’re disordered.” That’s called a clue. It illustrates the building of a closed self-referential system. Nice and neat.
But life isn’t.
Jon Rappoport
To say that a person should have a right to consider himself mentally ill and to take a drug is one thing. This is an argument from the principle of individual freedom.
To say that such a person knows what he is doing by some objective standard is quite another thing.
Objectively speaking, mental illnesses and disorders do not exist.
Officially, all mental disorders are said to be chemical imbalances in the brain. Not just any imbalances, but specific ones. This is assertion is unproven. There is no evidence for it.
For example, for any of the 297 so-called mental disorders listed in the official publication of the American Psychiatric Association, there are no defining physical tests. No blood tests, no urine tests, no saliva tests, no laboratory tests of any kind.
This is a fact.
Since it is a fact, it is odd that all psychiatrists are medical doctors. What are they doing that is medical?
Well, they are prescribing drugs. Yes. But I could prescribe drugs if I had a license to do so and a prescription pad.
The profession of psychiatry asserts that these drugs erase or alleviate “the brain chemical imbalances” that form the basis for all mental disorders. Yet the brain-imbalance hypothesis is unproven. It may “make sense” to some people, but that doesn’t constitute evidence.
People, of course, are free to believe the brain-chemical-imbalance hypothesis is true. Belief doesn’t make it true.
People are also free to believe the hypothesis that strange behavior emanates from the Devil or a Karmic curse.
A person says, “I was diagnosed with clinical depression and I took Prozac, and ever since then I’ve felt much happier.”
Yes. Fine. I have no interest in challenging that statement. I merely point out that there are people who have felt depressed and took a crystal they claimed was sacred, rubbed it on their heads, and felt better from then on.
There are people who have joined a church and prayed and felt better.
Why is the Prozac experience more compelling than crystals or prayer?
I’m not talking about what a person says makes him feel better. I’m talking about what psychiatrists claim is science. And when you scratch the surface of that, you come up with: no compelling evidence.
Yet, in courts and in doctors’ offices and at academic conferences and in the pages of professional journals and in political gulags, the science of discrete and separate and definable mental disorders is treated as settled, confirmed, verified, certain. That is a baldfaced lie.
All 297 official mental disorders, listed in the (DSM) publication of the American Psychiatric Association, are defined and approved by committees of psychiatrists. Whether it is schizophrenia or autism or ADHD or clinical depression or bipolar disease, the definitions consist wholly of described behaviors. That’s all.
Psychiatrists will tell you these symptomatic behaviors are signs of underlying chemical imbalances or genetic aberrations, but again, they have no tests to back up this assertion. Therefore, all they left with are the behaviors and their own menu-like collections of those behaviors.
Yes, people suffer in life, and they experience confusion and doubt. They have problems. They have trouble with relationships. They feel sad. They feel all sorts of things. They feel pain. They don’t know how to move ahead with plans. They sometimes feel their lives are at an impasse. Yes.
This is far different from claiming they have a specific and detectable chemical imbalance which can be tested for.
“Well,” many psychiatrists say, “the hypothesis of chemical balance is confirmed if the drugs work, because the drugs are, in fact, based on the idea that chemical imbalances underlie mental disorders.”
Let’s examine that approach. Take, for example, Ritalin.
The 1994 Textbook of Psychiatry, published by the American Psychiatric Press, contains this review (Popper and Steingard): “Stimulants [such as Ritalin] do not produce lasting improvements in aggressivity, conduct disorder, criminality, education achievement, job functioning, marital relationships, or long-term adjustment.”
Not a ringing endorsement.
How about, say, the antidepressants prescribed to children?
A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”
Here is a link to the official psychiatric definition of autism disorder. It’s worth reading:
www.firstsigns.org/screening/DSM4.htm
Notice that all the criteria for a diagnosis are behavioral. There is no mention of laboratory tests or test results. There is no definitive mention of chemical imbalance or genetic factors.
Despite public-relations statements issued by doctors and researchers, they have no laboratory findings to establish or confirm a diagnosis.
But, people say, this makes no sense, because children do, in fact, withdraw from the world, stop speaking, throw sudden tantrums. Common sense seems to dictate that these behaviors stem from serious neurological problems.
What could cause the behaviors listed in the official definition of autism disorder: vaccine injury; a head injury in an accident; ingestion of a neurological poison; an environmental chemical; a severe nutritional deficit; perhaps the emotional devastation accompanying the death of a parent…
However, in that case, why bother to call it “autism?” Why not just say vaccine injury or head injury? The answer should be clear. By establishing a label like autism, medical drugs can be sold. Studies can be funded. An industry can be created.
In fact, when it comes to the US government’s compensation program for parents whose children have suffered vaccine injury, the government can engage in a con game.The government can say, “In order to establish a cause for autism, we must find a single underlying factor that applies to all cases of autism. Since we know that some children who are diagnosed with autism have not received vaccines, or have not received vaccines containing a neurological poison (mercury), we do not compensate parents whose children are vaccine-injured on the basis that they have autism.”
But, of course, what is called autism (merely a label) is not one condition caused by one factor. It is a loose collection of behaviors that are caused by various traumas.
The official mental disorder called autism disorder does not exist.
People find such statements very unsettling. They argue, “My child’s life was stolen away from him. He must have autism.”
This proves that a label provides some measure of relief for the parents. It doesn’t prove that the label actually means something. In fact, the label can be a diversion from knowledge that would actually help the child. Suppose, for example, that after receiving the DPT vaccine, the child went into a screaming fit and then withdrew from the world. Calling that autism tends to put the parents and the child in the medical system, where there is no effective treatment. Outside that system, there might be some hope with vaccine detox or, say, hyperbaric oxygen treatments.
What is stated here about autism applies to all 297 official mental disorders. They are labels. There is no reason to suppose that, for each label, there is a single cause. There is no reason to suppose that the labels name actual conditions. Research that attempts to find a single cause for a label stands no better chance of succeeding than research designed to prove a man on the moon is selling land leases to citizens of Fiji.
Again, people have every right to believe they have been helped by a psychiatric diagnosis and a prescribed drug. But they also have the right to reject that paradigm and seek knowledge and help elsewhere. The whole thrust of official psychiatry and its allies is to monopolize their self-appointed territory and use all necessary means to eliminate the competition. This approach has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with profit and fascist control.
“But my cousin was depressed. He took Zoloft and felt much better.”
Read this article again. It neither denigrates your cousin nor makes your cousin’s experience the basis of actual far-reaching science. This article is about science.
RIP, psychiatry: the “chemical-imbalance” theory is dead
Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:
“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.”
Boom.
Dead.
The point is, for decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”
The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.
In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to cover his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:
“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”
Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.
And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…
…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…
…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct an imbalance?
Here’s what’s happening. The honchos of psychiatry are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Their game has been exposed. They’re taking heavy flack on many fronts.
The chemical imbalance theory is a fake. There are no defining physical tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. All diagnoses are based on arbitrary clusters or menus of human behavior. The drugs are harmful, dangerous, toxic. Some of them induce violence. Suicide, homicide. Some of the drugs cause brain damage.
Psychiatry is a pseudo-pseudo science.
So the shrinks have to move into another model, another con, another fraud. And they’re looking for one.
For example, genes plus “psycho-social factors.” A mish-mash of more unproven science.
“New breakthrough research on the functioning of the brain is paying dividends and holds great promise…” Professional gibberish.
Meanwhile, the business model demands drugs for sale.
So even though the chemical-imbalance nonsense has been discredited, it will continue on as a dead man walking, a zombie.
Big Pharma isn’t going to back off. Trillions of dollars are at stake.
And in the wake of Aurora, Colorado, and Sandy Hook, and the Naval Yard, the hype is expanding: “we must have new community mental-health centers all over America.”
More fake diagnosis of mental disorders, more devastating drug prescriptions.
As Dr. Peter Breggin explains in his classic, Toxic Psychiatry, half a century ago the psychiatric profession and the drug companies began to shape a deal.
Psychiatry was dying out. Patients didn’t want to talk about their problems to MD shrinks.
So the deal was this: psychiatry would go along with and promote chemical-imbalance propaganda. In turn, the drug companies would turn out the pharmaceuticals, and they would bankroll psychiatry, sponsoring conferences, taking out massive numbers of ads in journals, offering grants to universities.
The deal paid off.
Psychiatry experienced a resurgence. “Talk therapy is useless. Mental problems are all about the brain, and the brain must be drugged.”
But now, the charade is exposed.
You can be sure major Pharma players are meeting behind closed doors with leaders of the American Psychiatric Association (APA). The mafia is making a house call.
They are reminding the APA that they have a deal. No cancellation allowed.
“You guys promoted the chemical-imbalance theory. That was the arrangement. So keep promoting it. We don’t care how many lies you have to tell. Don’t try to develop a conscience all of a sudden. This is business.”
The mafia doesn’t like it when people try to interrupt business.
Why You Must Have A Mental Disorder
PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.
BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]
THAT’S CALLED THE SMOKING GUN.
Over the last ten years, I’ve established time and time again that psychiatry is a fraud. From every angle.
It’s a drug-dealing machine, and all the drugs are toxic and dangerous.
Not one single so-called mental disorder has ever, in any patient, been verified by a physical test, chemical or biological. That’s because there are no tests.
The 300 so-called disorders listed in the bible of psychiatry, the DSM, are invented by committees from menus of behaviors. It’s a con. It’s an embrace between the profession of psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry.
From the psy-op perspective, diagnosing people with these disorder labels means they can be debilitated by the drugs. That makes the nation weaker. That scrambles people’s brains. That sedates people. That makes people easier to control.
And from another angle, if a person is diagnosed, his thoughts and ideas are no longer considered legitimate.
Read that last sentence again.
Diagnosis is method of de-legitimizing ideas.
“Everything he thinks is really coming out of his CONDITION.”
Yes, and everything about his life is now defined as “recovery.”
On the other side of that coin, if a person is considered mentally healthy, then his thoughts and ideas could have power.
That’s one reason you never hear media talk about mental wellness. Never is talked about.
“He’s very healthy, mentally speaking. Let’s hear what he has to say.”
No. That doesn’t happen.
Here’s a story you’ll never, ever hear or see or read from major media:
“Well, John Parker has been diagnosed in the pink of mental health! Superb! This man is really mentally and emotionally in great shape! So he would be a model that we could all follow and learn from. Mr. Parker, what do you have to say?”
“Well, thanks for having me on, Oprah. I go by the rule of self-sufficiency. That’s why, in fact, I’m in such good shape. I rely on myself. I have goals and I pursue them. I think the basic ideas of freedom and responsibility as written in the Constitution are the basis of all mental health. Don’t assume dependance is good for your sanity. In fact, it’s just the opposite because—
BLACKOUT.
End of story.
No, it’s not good for the controllers to put up a standard of mental wellness. It doesn’t work for them. They need more diagnoses of mental disorders. They need more people focusing on their own mental and emotional problems. They need more “disorder” talk on television. They need people to accept the notion that we’re all, in some way, “disordered.”
That’s the psy-op. That’s the way it works.
That’s the way you get people to participate in their own reduction. You know, as in a recipe. You REDUCE a sauce down to an essence. In this case, the reduction is down to a mental condition.
“He’s BIPOLAR.”
End of story. End of a chapter of life.
“I’m functioning BIPOLAR. The drugs help. Of course, I’ve gained sixty pounds…”
The whole nation goes into a slow-motion crumble…behind the millions of diagnoses and the drugging of disorders.
B-o-o-m.
I’ve watched it expand since I grew up in the 1940s, when nobody was diagnosed with anything and the nation was much better off…to now, when everybody is diagnosed with everything, and things are much worse.
Part of the psy-op is The Up and Down. It goes this way: A person is diagnosed with a mental disorder. Now the stage is set for the “struggle back to normalcy.” He struggles, “makes progress,” and then there is a “setback.” But he keeps trying. Up and down, up and down. WITH A LIMITED CEILING. Get it?
It’s a redefinition of Possibility for that person. The space is made smaller. The potential is lessened. The ceiling is lowered.
In my new collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, I interview retired propaganda master, Ellis Medavoy (EM) a number of times. Here’s what he has to say about psychiatry:
EM: “I worked on that for a while. It was easy. It was a lot easier than some of the other areas I was involved in. Basically, what you do is expand and extend SYMPATHY.”
JR: “How do you mean that?”
EM: “You take the common and universal feeling of sympathy and blow it out so that it covers anybody who is diagnosed with anything, any disorder. That’s the key.”
JR: “Why?”
EM: “Because that’s how you enlist public support and turn the tide. You make people feel guilty if they don’t have sympathy for those who’ve been tagged with a mental disorder. Of course, all the diagnoses are a sham. They don’t exist. People have difficulties, but that’s different. These are supposed to be scientific diagnoses [of disorders], and they aren’t. But if you can enlist enough public sympathy and get leaders in the society to come out in favor of TREATMENT for the people who are diagnosed, it’s a breeze. You’ve won.”
JR: “This op goes after leaders?”
EM: “Hillary Clinton was fantastic. You see, you find a leader and you bring your sources to bear on that leader. You’ve already profiled the leader, and you know he or she will be receptive to your legend, to the story you’re inventing. And then that leader picks up the ball and runs with it. You’ve scored a touchdown.”
JR: “Why were you contracted to work on psychiatry?”
EM: “Because it’s a plan for control. Simple. You put more and people under that system and they fall into line. They develop a different concept of their lives. It shrinks. But here’s the thing. This is all about lower expectations. For the human race. That’s what you’re really doing to populations. You can’t just tell people to lower their sights, you have to give them a reason. And psychiatry is that reason. It’s one more fake science. When you get outside the whole system of psychiatry, that’s what you’re looking at: the ultimate rationalization to do less, to accomplish less, and most important, to envision less. It’s mind control. It’s a semantic system using one set of words to define other words. You substitute a technical vocabulary. Those are the names and the symptoms of disorders. There’s a great deal of propaganda that works this way. You introduce a new vocabulary. It’s very much like rewriting history. Instead of saying Van Gogh was wrestling with the fact that he saw a better future and nobody was interested—and that he quite possibly suffered from lead poisoning in the paints he was using—you say he was a paranoid schizophrenic.
“Here is a prediction for you. There will be whole host of labeled disorders that involve wording like ‘non-empathic.’ People who don’t have sufficient sympathy for OTHER people who are diagnosed with mental illnesses will be called mentally ill. It’ll be a closed system. You see?”
This is an OPERATION. In the Globalist world, everyone (except the leaders) will need adjusting. The list of disorders will expand to enormous proportions, as will the drugs.
And personal responsibility will be a legal item that can be manipulated to suit the authorities.
Just today, we have a story coming out of Canada that illustrates this perfectly. A Toronto-area man was convicted of killing his wife. But because he was diagnosed with a “psycho-affective disorder,” he was judged to be “NCR”—Not Criminally Responsible. Therefore, he did no jail time. He was placed in a treatment facility and then released after a short stint. Now, an appeals court has ruled that he can receive all the money from his wife’s estate, because, you see, he didn’t really commit a crime. The restriction against profiting from the proceeds of a crime was lifted, because the word “crime” doesn’t apply to him. He’s NCR. He’s “psycho-affective.” (thestar.com, April 24, 2012. “Insane man who killed wife entitled to her insurance benefits.”)
In psy-op terms, this is called “reordering values.” It’s all based on “the needs of the community,” an intentionally vague term that can be used like a sword to control, punish, or exonerate behavior.
Psychiatry is a leading edge of this operant-reconditioning program. People are taught that older systems of values are outmoded, in light of “scientific advances.”
This is the basic lie. “We understand so much more now than we ever did.” “We must diagnose everyone who has an undisclosed disorder.”
No. There are no disorders. Disorders are a complete fiction. People suffer, they experience pain, they may become confused, they may have severe nutritional deficits, they may be toxified, they may be under the gun of political repression, but there are no disorders.
There never were.
Here’s a real undisclosed problem:
People don’t find a way to discover their own first principles, their own philosophy, if you will. I’m not talking about some complex academic system. I’m talking about the vital ideas that can help launch a vision that then revolutionizes a life and a future. The lack of that could legitimately be called a problem. But there is no diagnosis and there is no externally applied treatment. There is only free will and the desire to remedy the lack.
In such a vacuum, you see, the professionals step in and make weighty pronouncements and fabricate a science that never existed and then try to mandate treatments.
You can submit or just say no.
As the title of this piece indicates, when elites fashion and impose a New World ORDER, they naturally need a way to classify the recalcitrant citizens and the rebellious and the independent. So they use the word DISORDER. “If you’re not for the new order, then you’re disordered.” That’s called a clue. It illustrates the building of a closed self-referential system. Nice and neat.
But life isn’t.
Last edited by lizardking on Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:21 am; edited 2 times in total
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:19 am
Judging from what one reads and hears in the popular media, it is easy to conclude that the science is settled, that the benefits of each vaccine clearly outweigh the risks, and that vaccinations have played the critical role in the decline of deaths due to infectious diseases such as measles, whooping cough, and diphtheria, all of which claimed many lives in the past.
However even a cursory look at the available data quickly reveals that the mortality from almost all infectious disease was in steep decline well before the introduction of vaccination or antibiotics. Diphtheria mortality had fallen 60 percent by the time vaccination was introduced in the 1920s, deaths from pertussis/whooping cough had declined by 98 percent before vaccination was introduced in the late 1940s, measles mortality had dropped 98 percent from its peak in the U.S. by the time measles inoculation was introduced in 1963-and by an impressive 99.96 percent in England when measles vaccination was introduced in 1968. In 1960 there were 380 deaths from measles among a U.S. population of 180,671,000, a rate of 0.24 deaths per 100,000.
-Reason
HISTORICAL FACTS EXPOSING THE DANGERS AND INEFFECTIVENESS OF VACCINES
- In 1871-2, England, with 98% of the population aged between 2 and 50 vaccinated against smallpox, it experienced its worst ever smallpox outbreak with 45,000 deaths. During the same period in Germany, with a vaccination rate of 96%, there were over 125,000 deaths from smallpox. (The Hadwen Documents)
- In Germany, compulsory mass vaccination against diphtheria commenced in 1940 and by 1945 diphtheria cases were up from 40,000 to 250,000. (Don't Get Stuck, Hannah Allen)
- In the USA in 1960, two virologists discovered that both polio vaccines were contaminated with the SV 40 virus which causes cancer in animals as well as changes in human cell tissue cultures. Millions of children had been injected with these vaccines. (Med Jnl of Australia 17/3/1973 p555)
- In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organisation after 96% of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its highest ever mortality rate. (Dr H Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, March 1990)
- In the UK between 1970 and 1990, over 200,000 cases of whooping cough occurred in fully vaccinated children. (Community Disease Surveillance Centre, UK)
- In the 1970's a tuberculosis vaccine trial in India involving 260,000 people revealed that more cases of TB occurred in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. (The Lancet 12/1/80 p73)
- In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists, that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science 4/4/77 "Abstracts" )
- In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. (The People's Doctor, Dr R Mendelsohn)
- In 1979, Sweden abandoned the whooping cough vaccine due to its ineffectiveness. Out of 5,140 cases in 1978, it was found that 84% had been vaccinated three times! (BMJ 283:696-697, 1981)
-The February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 90% of obstetricians and 66% of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine.
- In the USA, the cost of a single DPT shot had risen from 11 cents in 1982 to $11.40 in 1987. The manufacturers of the vaccine were putting aside $8 per shot to cover legal costs and damages they were paying out to parents of brain damaged children and children who died after vaccination. (The Vine, Issue 7, January 1994, Nambour, Qld)
- In Oman between 1988 and 1989, a polio outbreak occurred amongst thousands of fully vaccinated children. The region with the highest attack rate had the highest vaccine coverage. The region with the lowest attack rate had the lowest vaccine coverage. (The Lancet, 21/9/91)
- In 1990, a UK survey involving 598 doctors revealed that over 50% of them refused to have the Hepatitis B vaccine despite belonging to the high risk group urged to be vaccinated. (British Med Jnl, 27/1/1990)
- In 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association had an article on measles which stated " Although more than 95% of school-aged children in the US are vaccinated against measles, large measles outbreaks continue to occur in schools and most cases in this setting occur among previously vaccinated children." (JAMA, 21/11/90)
- In the USA, from July 1990 to November 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration counted a total of 54,072 adverse reactions following vaccination. The FDA admitted that this number represented only 10% of the real total, because most doctors were refusing to report vaccine injuries. In other words, adverse reactions for this period exceeded half a million! (National Vaccine Information Centre, March 2, 1994)
- In the New England Journal of Medicine July 1994 issue a study found that over 80% of children under 5 years of age who had contracted whooping cough had been fully vaccinated.
- On November 2nd, 2000, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) announced that its members voted at their 57th annual meeting in St Louis to pass a resolution calling for an end to mandatory childhood vaccines. The resolution passed without a single "no" vote. (Report by Michael Devitt)
-vaccinationdebate
However even a cursory look at the available data quickly reveals that the mortality from almost all infectious disease was in steep decline well before the introduction of vaccination or antibiotics. Diphtheria mortality had fallen 60 percent by the time vaccination was introduced in the 1920s, deaths from pertussis/whooping cough had declined by 98 percent before vaccination was introduced in the late 1940s, measles mortality had dropped 98 percent from its peak in the U.S. by the time measles inoculation was introduced in 1963-and by an impressive 99.96 percent in England when measles vaccination was introduced in 1968. In 1960 there were 380 deaths from measles among a U.S. population of 180,671,000, a rate of 0.24 deaths per 100,000.
-Reason
HISTORICAL FACTS EXPOSING THE DANGERS AND INEFFECTIVENESS OF VACCINES
- In 1871-2, England, with 98% of the population aged between 2 and 50 vaccinated against smallpox, it experienced its worst ever smallpox outbreak with 45,000 deaths. During the same period in Germany, with a vaccination rate of 96%, there were over 125,000 deaths from smallpox. (The Hadwen Documents)
- In Germany, compulsory mass vaccination against diphtheria commenced in 1940 and by 1945 diphtheria cases were up from 40,000 to 250,000. (Don't Get Stuck, Hannah Allen)
- In the USA in 1960, two virologists discovered that both polio vaccines were contaminated with the SV 40 virus which causes cancer in animals as well as changes in human cell tissue cultures. Millions of children had been injected with these vaccines. (Med Jnl of Australia 17/3/1973 p555)
- In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organisation after 96% of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its highest ever mortality rate. (Dr H Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, March 1990)
- In the UK between 1970 and 1990, over 200,000 cases of whooping cough occurred in fully vaccinated children. (Community Disease Surveillance Centre, UK)
- In the 1970's a tuberculosis vaccine trial in India involving 260,000 people revealed that more cases of TB occurred in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. (The Lancet 12/1/80 p73)
- In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists, that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science 4/4/77 "Abstracts" )
- In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. (The People's Doctor, Dr R Mendelsohn)
- In 1979, Sweden abandoned the whooping cough vaccine due to its ineffectiveness. Out of 5,140 cases in 1978, it was found that 84% had been vaccinated three times! (BMJ 283:696-697, 1981)
-The February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 90% of obstetricians and 66% of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine.
- In the USA, the cost of a single DPT shot had risen from 11 cents in 1982 to $11.40 in 1987. The manufacturers of the vaccine were putting aside $8 per shot to cover legal costs and damages they were paying out to parents of brain damaged children and children who died after vaccination. (The Vine, Issue 7, January 1994, Nambour, Qld)
- In Oman between 1988 and 1989, a polio outbreak occurred amongst thousands of fully vaccinated children. The region with the highest attack rate had the highest vaccine coverage. The region with the lowest attack rate had the lowest vaccine coverage. (The Lancet, 21/9/91)
- In 1990, a UK survey involving 598 doctors revealed that over 50% of them refused to have the Hepatitis B vaccine despite belonging to the high risk group urged to be vaccinated. (British Med Jnl, 27/1/1990)
- In 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association had an article on measles which stated " Although more than 95% of school-aged children in the US are vaccinated against measles, large measles outbreaks continue to occur in schools and most cases in this setting occur among previously vaccinated children." (JAMA, 21/11/90)
- In the USA, from July 1990 to November 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration counted a total of 54,072 adverse reactions following vaccination. The FDA admitted that this number represented only 10% of the real total, because most doctors were refusing to report vaccine injuries. In other words, adverse reactions for this period exceeded half a million! (National Vaccine Information Centre, March 2, 1994)
- In the New England Journal of Medicine July 1994 issue a study found that over 80% of children under 5 years of age who had contracted whooping cough had been fully vaccinated.
- On November 2nd, 2000, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) announced that its members voted at their 57th annual meeting in St Louis to pass a resolution calling for an end to mandatory childhood vaccines. The resolution passed without a single "no" vote. (Report by Michael Devitt)
-vaccinationdebate
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:20 am
In 1984, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMRW) of the CDC reported a late 1983 early 1984 Illinois high school/junior high measles outbreak. The total student population was around 400, and ALL of them (100%) had complied with Illinois State Law requiring the complete MMR schedule. (1)
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm
In 1987, Pub Med Central reported another public school measles outbreak among a 98% MMR vaccinated population. This happened in another high school, this one in Massachusetts early in 1984. Another population with over 90% vaccinated again. (2)
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646939/
University of Helsinki Department of Public Health reported an "explosive outbreak" of measles in a rural community during 1989. Most of the infected had been vaccinated with the MMR vaccine. Those vaccinated who became infected anyway also managed to spread the measles to their siblings. So much for herd protection. (4)
www.vaccines.me/articles/jfdlf-explosive-school-based-measles-outbreak-in-vaccinated-students---finland.cfm
The CDC of USA, the vaccine watchdog, has publicly admitted that its much-publicized 2003 study denying any link between vaccines and autism is flawed. The Chief of CDC Dr Julie Gerberding (now head of the Vaccine Division of Merck) has confessed to the media (CNN) that vaccines can cause “autism like symptoms”. The Autism epidemic is found in all countries that have allowed mass vaccinations.
www.naturalnews.com/gallery/documents/Merck-False-Claims-Act.pdf
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm
In 1987, Pub Med Central reported another public school measles outbreak among a 98% MMR vaccinated population. This happened in another high school, this one in Massachusetts early in 1984. Another population with over 90% vaccinated again. (2)
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646939/
University of Helsinki Department of Public Health reported an "explosive outbreak" of measles in a rural community during 1989. Most of the infected had been vaccinated with the MMR vaccine. Those vaccinated who became infected anyway also managed to spread the measles to their siblings. So much for herd protection. (4)
www.vaccines.me/articles/jfdlf-explosive-school-based-measles-outbreak-in-vaccinated-students---finland.cfm
The CDC of USA, the vaccine watchdog, has publicly admitted that its much-publicized 2003 study denying any link between vaccines and autism is flawed. The Chief of CDC Dr Julie Gerberding (now head of the Vaccine Division of Merck) has confessed to the media (CNN) that vaccines can cause “autism like symptoms”. The Autism epidemic is found in all countries that have allowed mass vaccinations.
www.naturalnews.com/gallery/documents/Merck-False-Claims-Act.pdf
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:22 am
Oncologist Sentenced to 45 Years in Prison for Administering Unnecessary Chemo to Patients for Financial Kickbacks
Farid Fata has a long stay in jail ahead of him. The doctor, a hematologist-oncologist that once worked in the suburbs of Detroit was just sentenced to 45 years in prison for running a fraud scheme in which he prescribed unnecessary chemotherapy and other cancer treatments to patients that didn’t need it.
Some of Fata’s patients were even misdiagnosed with cancer, and others were told they needed chemotherapy when it wasn’t needed in order to scam Medicare and private insurance companies for more than $34 million in false claims.
Fata was also the head of Michigan Hematology Oncology, one of the state’s largest private cancer networks.
The ‘chemo mill’ as one of his whistle-blowing nurses, Angela Swantek, called his oncology practice was very busy. She observed up to a dozen patients getting chemotherapy treatments at any one time.
Swantek filed a complaint with the Michigan licensing regulators, but the state later determined that nothing was out of compliance.
It took three years and an FBI investigation to blow the lid of off Fata’s chemo fraud.
The FBI received a tip from George Karadsheh of Crittenton Cancer Center in Rochester Hills. He had heard from other doctors that Fata often insisted on aggressive chemotherapy for his patients, even when they sometimes did not require it.
Fata was arrested in 2013. He pled guilty to 13 counts of healthcare fraud which included money laundering and accepting kickbacks from Guardian Angel Hospice and Guardian Angel Home Health Care.
U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade of the Eastern District of Michigan says that no other case has been as egregious as Dr. Fata’s; however, individual doctors, through the persuasion of drug companies have been known to reward doctors who prescribe chemotherapy drugs.
GlobalResearch
Farid Fata has a long stay in jail ahead of him. The doctor, a hematologist-oncologist that once worked in the suburbs of Detroit was just sentenced to 45 years in prison for running a fraud scheme in which he prescribed unnecessary chemotherapy and other cancer treatments to patients that didn’t need it.
Some of Fata’s patients were even misdiagnosed with cancer, and others were told they needed chemotherapy when it wasn’t needed in order to scam Medicare and private insurance companies for more than $34 million in false claims.
Fata was also the head of Michigan Hematology Oncology, one of the state’s largest private cancer networks.
The ‘chemo mill’ as one of his whistle-blowing nurses, Angela Swantek, called his oncology practice was very busy. She observed up to a dozen patients getting chemotherapy treatments at any one time.
Swantek filed a complaint with the Michigan licensing regulators, but the state later determined that nothing was out of compliance.
It took three years and an FBI investigation to blow the lid of off Fata’s chemo fraud.
The FBI received a tip from George Karadsheh of Crittenton Cancer Center in Rochester Hills. He had heard from other doctors that Fata often insisted on aggressive chemotherapy for his patients, even when they sometimes did not require it.
Fata was arrested in 2013. He pled guilty to 13 counts of healthcare fraud which included money laundering and accepting kickbacks from Guardian Angel Hospice and Guardian Angel Home Health Care.
U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade of the Eastern District of Michigan says that no other case has been as egregious as Dr. Fata’s; however, individual doctors, through the persuasion of drug companies have been known to reward doctors who prescribe chemotherapy drugs.
GlobalResearch
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:22 am
Posted by csp on 07/22/2015
Beautiful stuff LK!
I can't believe the mental illness farce, imagine how many "truthers" they've subverted due to that.
Beautiful stuff LK!
I can't believe the mental illness farce, imagine how many "truthers" they've subverted due to that.
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:23 am
If Vaccines Don’t Cause Brain Damage, Why Is GlaxoSmithKline Paying Out $63 Million to Vaccine Victims?
By Jennifer Lilley
Since the swine flu panic that was widespread in 2009, prompting more than 60 million people to get vaccinated against it, countless amounts of individuals – predominantly children – have developed a range of health conditions. Mainly, brain damage has been the issue; everything from sleep disturbances and memory impairments to hallucinations and mental illness have been experienced by those who received the swine flu vaccine.
Most medical professionals and Big Pharma folks are quick to defend and recommend such vaccines; of course pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the manufacturers of the swine flu vaccine, Pandemrix, is a key player in this regard. However, they’ve come under fire recently and rather than sit under a protective you-can’t-touch-me cloak,the pharma giant has been ordered to pay about $60 million to the UK government after it was determined that Pandemrix played a role in causing brain damage in a range of cases.
“No doubt” swine flu vaccine linked to brain damage
“There’s no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Pandemrix increased the occurrence of narcolepsy onset in children in some countries – and probably in most countries,” says Emmanuelle Mignot, a specialist in sleep disorder at Stanford University who looked into the effects of the vaccine.
About 80 percent of those affected have been children, but GSK continually turned a blind eye. Even when a study came out showing that vaccinated children where 13 times more likely to develop narcolepsy, the company didn’t admit any link. Even when, in 2011, the European Medicines Agency issued a warning that people under 20 should refrain from getting the vaccine, GSK didn’t pay attention. They maintain that they are professionals dedicated to human health; the GSK website currently says, “At GSK responsible business is how we do business. Our mission is to improve the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better, live longer.”
Sure, tell that to eight-year-old Josh Hadfield, from Somerset, England. He took Pandemrix and guess what? He’s now on anti-narcolepsy drugs to help keep him awake in school, something which costs approximately $15,000 annually.
“If you make him laugh, he collapses. His memory is shot. There is no cure,” his mother says. “He says he wishes he hadn’t been born. I feel incredibly guilty about letting him have the vaccine.”
GSK web site puts emphasis on “delivering financial performance”
Interestingly, the same GSK website that talks about the company’s responsibility to help others feel good and live long lives also touches on a more pressing issue, at least for them – and it’s one that says a mouthful. Just a few sentences below its statement of health dedication, in larger font that stands out from the rest of the copy, it says, “How we operate is just as important to us as delivering financial performance.” The statement is attributed to Sir Andrew Witty, GSK CEO. So there you have it. That, my friends, is it in a nutshell, basically as close as we’ll come to “hearing” straight from the source itself that all Big Pharma truly has in mind is the health of their numbers.
Of course the fact that GSK will be paying the UK government millions of dollars to those who now have brain damage from taking Pandemrix also speaks volumes. It acts as an admission that taking the vaccine is indeed a health problem; otherwise, why would GSK be on board with giving money to those who are now hardly able to function in their daily lives? It they truly felt they were in the right, they’d stand firm and refuse to make any payments, right?
“There has never been a case like this before,” says Peter Todd, a lawyer who represented many of the claimants in the U.K. “The victims of this vaccine have an incurable and lifelong condition and will require extensive medication.”
It’s expected that even more people will develop brain injuries associated with taking the swine flu vaccine, especially narcolepsy and cataplexy, which makes a person lose consciousness whenever they experience deep emotions such as the basic act of laughing.
By Jennifer Lilley
Since the swine flu panic that was widespread in 2009, prompting more than 60 million people to get vaccinated against it, countless amounts of individuals – predominantly children – have developed a range of health conditions. Mainly, brain damage has been the issue; everything from sleep disturbances and memory impairments to hallucinations and mental illness have been experienced by those who received the swine flu vaccine.
Most medical professionals and Big Pharma folks are quick to defend and recommend such vaccines; of course pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the manufacturers of the swine flu vaccine, Pandemrix, is a key player in this regard. However, they’ve come under fire recently and rather than sit under a protective you-can’t-touch-me cloak,the pharma giant has been ordered to pay about $60 million to the UK government after it was determined that Pandemrix played a role in causing brain damage in a range of cases.
“No doubt” swine flu vaccine linked to brain damage
“There’s no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Pandemrix increased the occurrence of narcolepsy onset in children in some countries – and probably in most countries,” says Emmanuelle Mignot, a specialist in sleep disorder at Stanford University who looked into the effects of the vaccine.
About 80 percent of those affected have been children, but GSK continually turned a blind eye. Even when a study came out showing that vaccinated children where 13 times more likely to develop narcolepsy, the company didn’t admit any link. Even when, in 2011, the European Medicines Agency issued a warning that people under 20 should refrain from getting the vaccine, GSK didn’t pay attention. They maintain that they are professionals dedicated to human health; the GSK website currently says, “At GSK responsible business is how we do business. Our mission is to improve the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better, live longer.”
Sure, tell that to eight-year-old Josh Hadfield, from Somerset, England. He took Pandemrix and guess what? He’s now on anti-narcolepsy drugs to help keep him awake in school, something which costs approximately $15,000 annually.
“If you make him laugh, he collapses. His memory is shot. There is no cure,” his mother says. “He says he wishes he hadn’t been born. I feel incredibly guilty about letting him have the vaccine.”
GSK web site puts emphasis on “delivering financial performance”
Interestingly, the same GSK website that talks about the company’s responsibility to help others feel good and live long lives also touches on a more pressing issue, at least for them – and it’s one that says a mouthful. Just a few sentences below its statement of health dedication, in larger font that stands out from the rest of the copy, it says, “How we operate is just as important to us as delivering financial performance.” The statement is attributed to Sir Andrew Witty, GSK CEO. So there you have it. That, my friends, is it in a nutshell, basically as close as we’ll come to “hearing” straight from the source itself that all Big Pharma truly has in mind is the health of their numbers.
Of course the fact that GSK will be paying the UK government millions of dollars to those who now have brain damage from taking Pandemrix also speaks volumes. It acts as an admission that taking the vaccine is indeed a health problem; otherwise, why would GSK be on board with giving money to those who are now hardly able to function in their daily lives? It they truly felt they were in the right, they’d stand firm and refuse to make any payments, right?
“There has never been a case like this before,” says Peter Todd, a lawyer who represented many of the claimants in the U.K. “The victims of this vaccine have an incurable and lifelong condition and will require extensive medication.”
It’s expected that even more people will develop brain injuries associated with taking the swine flu vaccine, especially narcolepsy and cataplexy, which makes a person lose consciousness whenever they experience deep emotions such as the basic act of laughing.
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:23 am
AIDS Hoax: The truth behind the virus that never was
It has been dubbed the incurable disease caused by an elusive virus called the HIV/AIDS virus. However, scientists have presented compelling evidence showing that HIV/AIDS is nothing more than a pseudo-science hoax and the real culprits are the AIDS medications like AZT that do more harm than good.
Every case of AIDS includes one of the 29 pre-existing illnesses that were defined by the Center for Disease Control. These include the three additional conditions namely: Pulmonary Tuberculosis, Pneumonia and Cervical cancer that were added on October 28, 1992. James Curran, CDC’s associate director for AIDS justified the addition by saying, “We expect this expansion to result in more comprehensive monitoring of the epidemic of HIV infection and related disease in the United States.”
What is most remarkable is that the addition of just those three categories brought in an additional 160,000 HIV-infected people who were not yet seriously ill and were not now considered to have AIDS. With these additions Virologists, researchers, and clinics can now receive huge grants and funding for research. We can therefore make the inference that AIDS is not a new disease, it is simply a collection of designated illnesses already known to the scientific community and the general public.
A good example is the flu vaccine which could also render you HIV positive. A control study of 101 blood donors who had been vaccinated against influenza and 191 matched controls showed that recent inoculation with any brand of influenza vaccine was significantly associated with a false positive screening assay for HIV antibodies. Guidelines of both Johns Hopkins and the New York State Department of Health list influenza vaccination as a known cause of indeterminate results on Western blotting for HIV antibodies. On March 30, 2006, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article titled “Influenza Vaccination and False Positive HIV Results” You may read the article in its entirety.
You will be surprised to learn that there has never been an actual photograph released showing what this make-believe virus looks like.I challenge any scientist to produce an image of a “stand-alone” AIDS virus that is original from an AIDS patient.
Not a single one of the colorful pictures originated directly from one single AIDS patient! They ALL originated from complex cell cultures prepared in various laboratories. All these images shown to us of fake AIDS viruses with antennae eating healthy cells are simulations of what scientists believe the virus does and how it replicates.
I personally can use my multimedia knowledge to create a 3D model and animation using 3D Studio Max, or Maya or Poser or Rhino, to create such animations. That’s how I created the DNA strand above. There is nothing special or genius about that.
In Vol 3 No 5, of Continuum Magazine published in 1996, Dr. Val Turner says “The HIV antibody tests do not detect a virus. They test for any antibodies that react with an assortment of proteins experts claim are specific to HIV. The fact is that an antibody test, even if repeated and found positive a thousand times, does not prove the presence of viral infection.”
The reason you don’t hear much about this is because journalists tend to shy away from scientific topics and would rather pursue political or community events. If they do launch an investigation into a scientific subject, they normally are directed to the Public Relations department where they are fed pseudo-science, and such reports don’t expose the true lies behind the fraud being committed.
In the 80s when AIDS was allegedly discovered, Max Essex a colleague of Dr. Robert C. Gallo of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, came up with a colorful theory that AIDS originated from monkeys. Max Essex of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, claimed that the virus was linked to one found in African green monkeys. On page 245 of the journal Science dating back to April 20, 1985, Essex hypothesized that the AIDS virus made its way into Africans who ate or were bitten by primates infected with a closely related virus. Robert C. Gallo then made a name for himself when his lab, at National Institutes of Health and another the lab of researcher and French scientist Luc Montagnier at the Pasteur Institute in Paris-began working to track down the cause of the mysterious disease striking homosexual men. The first to publish results was Montagnier, who described finding a virus he dubbed LAV in an AIDS patient in May 1983. Montagnier, however, stopped short of claiming it was the cause of AIDS. In April 1984, Gallo went further. He announced that he had identified a virus-which he called HTLV III-and proposed it was the cause of AIDS. Gallo also reported developing a test to detect it in blood.
A lawsuit was filed by the Frenchman who believed Gallo had used his sample to falsely take credit for his work. Gallo and Montagnier agreed to share equally the credit for discovering the AIDS virus. Part of the settlement was to create a new name for the virus. Gallo’s HTLV-III (human T-cell lymphotropic virus) and Montagnier’s LAV (lymphadenopathy associated virus) became HIV (human immunodeficiency virus).
On May 25, 1995 the Albany Times Union reported that this same Gallo was offered $12 million in incentives, to establish a virus research center in Baltimore, Maryland. As you can see there is a serious conflict in interest. How can Gallo possibly deliver objective results with such vast sums of money pouring into his lab? When fellow scientists objected to what they viewed as an arrangement by Gallo and the state driven by profit, Gallo lashed out and said, “I can do whatever I want. The state asked us to form a company to create jobs and fund the institute. If I made profit out of it, would that be wrong? Absolutely not.”
In October 2008 Gallo was snubbed for a Nobel prize which was awarded to Luc Montagnier and Francoise Barre-Sinoussi. The reason was obvious. In his book How A Virus That Never Was Deceived The World, Neville Hodgkinson a leading medical journalist in the UK demonstrates and asserts , “HIV is not a virus but a collection of gene products that can appear when immune system cells are chronically stimulated in the body or drastically manipulated in the laboratory. No two identical HIVs have been isolated, even from the same individual.”
Andrew Neil’s column in the UK Sunday Times dated June 23, 1996, reads, “AIDS has become an industry, a job- creation scheme for the caring classes: at one stage there were three times as many AIDS counselors as AIDS victims . . . . the duplicity of the AIDS establishment has been fatal. Hundreds of millions of pounds that could have been spent on far greater risks to life – such as breast cancer – from which more die every year than have died of AIDS in 14 years – was siphoned off and squandered. Money that should have been targeted at the real risk groups was spread uselessly across the population instead.”
On April 3, 2000, South Africa’s President Mbeki wrote Clinton this letter disputing the findings of AIDS. Mbeki argued that HIV does not cause AIDS and that treatment with drugs such as AZT does more harm than good. This five-page Mbeki letter shocked Washington, they thought it was a hoax. It was leaked to the Washington Post that printed it on April 21, 2000, later the New York Times printed its analysis of the letter on May 14, 2000 explaining that the letter was not a hoax, Mbeki meant everything he said.
Dr. Peter Duesberg a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, explained so eloquently to an AIDS panel on June 22, 2000 why HIV does not cause AIDS and why Mbeki had a problem with the numbers from the CDC.
“In Africa 23 million HIV-positives generate per year 75,000 AIDS patients, ie. 1AIDS case per 300 HIV-positives. But in the US, 0.9 million HIV-positives (WHO, Weekly Epidemiological Record 73, 373-380, 1998) now generate per year about 45,000 AIDS cases (Centers for Disease Control, 1999), ie. 1 AIDS case per 20 HIV-positives. Thus the AIDS risk of an American HIV-positive is about 15-times higher than that of an African! Since over 150,000 healthy HIV-positive Americans are currently treated with DNA chain-terminating and other anti-HIV drugs (Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998), and since American HIV-positives have a 15-fold higher AIDS risk than African HIV-positives, President Mbeki must be warned about American advice on “treatments” of HIV-positives.
The discrepancies between African AIDS and infectious disease, and the discrepancies between the high AIDS risk of American compared to African HIV-positives can both be readily explained by the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by non-contagious risk factors and that HIV is a harmless passenger virus.”
AZT and AIDS Medications The Culprits:
AZT is a toxic chain terminator of DNA developed 30 years ago as cancer chemotherapy drug. Duesberg’s research indicates that the long-term consumption of recreational drugs (such as cocaine, heroin, nitrite inhalants, and amphetamines) and prescriptions of DNA chain-terminating and other anti-HIV drugs, cause all AIDS diseases in America and Europe that exceed their long-established, national backgrounds, i.e. >95%. Chemically distinct drugs cause distinct AIDS-defining diseases; for example, nitrite inhalants cause Kaposi’s sarcoma, cocaine causes weight loss, and AZT causes immunodeficiency, lymphoma, muscle atrophy, and dementia. The anti-HIV drug cocktails are failing in the US. A front page article of the New York Times, showing dying AIDS patients, issued a first warning in August 1997:
“Despite powerful new AIDS drugs many are still losing battle (NYT, August 22, 1997). By September 1997 the American press already reported that “AIDS drug cocktails fail 53%” (San Francisco Examiner, September 29, 1997).
In regard to whether condoms protect against AIDS Dr. Duesberg says,”The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta were the first to publish in 1989 in the New England Journal of Medicine that it takes about 1,000 unprotected sexual contacts with an HIV-positive person to become positive. The CDC’s numbers are based on thousands of “discordant” hemophilia couples, in which the husband was positive from a transfusion and some of their wives became positive over time. Recent studies on homosexual couples, other heterosexual couples and singles have confirmed the CDC’s original number.
With regard to the question about the usefulness of condoms in preventing AIDS my answer is twofold: (1) Since AIDS is caused by drugs, not by HIV, condoms do not prevent AIDS. (2) However, since many doctors prescribe DNA chain terminators such as AZT as anti-HIV drugs to healthy HIV-positives, and since DNA chain terminators cause AIDS – condoms are useful after all. They protect people who have an average of 1,000 sexual contacts with HIV-positives from infection, and thus from AIDS caused by anti-HIV medication.”
As for the difference between African AIDS and American/European AIDS Duesberg says, “The African AIDS epidemic has only one thing in common with the American/European AIDS epidemic – the name. African AIDS is caused by malnutrition, parasitic infection and poor sanitation. There are no risk groups in Africa, like drug addicts and homosexuals. It is for this reason that African AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes. Moreover, practically no African AIDS patients have pneumocystis pneumonia, dementia or Kaposi’s sarcoma – the signal diseases of AIDS in the US and Europe. Above all, African AIDS is diagnosed without even attempting an HIV test, which is too expensive for Africa. Thus there is no scientific evidence for the correlation between HIV and African AIDS, only guesses.”
False Positives and lawsuits filed
On August 13, 2004, The Oakland Tribune reported that for eight years, a 59-year-old war veteran was led to believe he was HIV-positive. After living with what he thought was the virus for almost a decade he went to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Oakland clinic, and his doctor told him that he actually isn’t HIV-positive and presumably never has been.
The Chicago Sun-Times reported on December 18, 1994, that for nearly a year, a Florida man lived day to day, not sure when he would get sick and die, after he was falsely diagnosed as being HIV positive. He said people treated him “like nuclear waste.” Friends in his suburban Fort Lauderdale community wouldn’t shake his hand. Many “always had an excuse” not to see him. The diagnosis stunned him. He says he hadn’t engaged in risky sex or drug use. But it wasn’t until almost a year later – after his friends abandoned him and his thoughts turned to suicide – that he found out the test result was wrong.
On March 29, 1999, Davis Marc, a staff writer at The Virginian-Pilot reported that a 41-year-old shipyard electrician who was a good father took a routine blood test, ordered by the insurance company, and the results came back with shocking news: He had the AIDS virus. His life disintegrated. He started drinking. He missed work. His wife left with their three children. His in-laws harassed him. He thought he was dying. His wife thought she was dying. Then came a second shock: The blood test was wrong. Goddard did not have HIV after all. It was a false positive. Today, Goddard and his wife are back together, but they are furious. They want to know why the blood test was wrong. They want to know why the insurance company refused to retest Goddard and clear his medical record for six months – until Goddard provided three negative blood tests from his own doctor.
The Telegram & Gazette reported on December 5, 2007 that 45-year old Audrey Serrano still has not shaken off the impact of living for years convinced that the virus that causes AIDS was steadily wreaking havoc inside her body. Ms. Serrano filed a lawsuit against a doctor who treated her after she was misdiagnosed as HIV positive in. She said the powerful combination of drugs she took for almost nine years triggered a string of ailments, including depression, chronic fatigue, the loss of weight and appetite, and an inflammation of the intestine. On January 28, 2008, Lawyers USA reported that a jury awarded Ms. Serrano $2.5 million in damages. Based on the research conducted, it wouldn’t shock me if people draw the conclusion that AIDS is a collection of medical and political lies peddled around as actual Science by the medical and pharmaceutical cartel.
newscastmedia.com/aids-hoax.html
Sources:
* Alive and Well: www.aliveandwell.org
* Dr. Peter Duesberg: www.duesberg.com/
* US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
* May 14, 2000. New York Times – The World: AIDS in South Africa
* October 28, 1992. James Curran, CDC’s Associate Director For AIDS
* March 30, 2006, New England Journal of Medicine “Influenza Vaccination and False
Positive HIV Results” www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc053417
* Luc Montagnier Pasteur Institute in Paris
* Andrew Neil’s Column in UK Sunday Times June 23, 1996
* The Albany Times Union May 25, 1995 – Robert Gallo’s $12m offer
* South Africa’s President Mbeki’s letter to President Bill Clinton dated April 3, 2000
* Hodgkinson N. “The Failure of Contemporary Science – How a Virus that Never Was
Deceived the World”. Fourth Estate, 1996
It has been dubbed the incurable disease caused by an elusive virus called the HIV/AIDS virus. However, scientists have presented compelling evidence showing that HIV/AIDS is nothing more than a pseudo-science hoax and the real culprits are the AIDS medications like AZT that do more harm than good.
Every case of AIDS includes one of the 29 pre-existing illnesses that were defined by the Center for Disease Control. These include the three additional conditions namely: Pulmonary Tuberculosis, Pneumonia and Cervical cancer that were added on October 28, 1992. James Curran, CDC’s associate director for AIDS justified the addition by saying, “We expect this expansion to result in more comprehensive monitoring of the epidemic of HIV infection and related disease in the United States.”
What is most remarkable is that the addition of just those three categories brought in an additional 160,000 HIV-infected people who were not yet seriously ill and were not now considered to have AIDS. With these additions Virologists, researchers, and clinics can now receive huge grants and funding for research. We can therefore make the inference that AIDS is not a new disease, it is simply a collection of designated illnesses already known to the scientific community and the general public.
A good example is the flu vaccine which could also render you HIV positive. A control study of 101 blood donors who had been vaccinated against influenza and 191 matched controls showed that recent inoculation with any brand of influenza vaccine was significantly associated with a false positive screening assay for HIV antibodies. Guidelines of both Johns Hopkins and the New York State Department of Health list influenza vaccination as a known cause of indeterminate results on Western blotting for HIV antibodies. On March 30, 2006, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article titled “Influenza Vaccination and False Positive HIV Results” You may read the article in its entirety.
You will be surprised to learn that there has never been an actual photograph released showing what this make-believe virus looks like.I challenge any scientist to produce an image of a “stand-alone” AIDS virus that is original from an AIDS patient.
Not a single one of the colorful pictures originated directly from one single AIDS patient! They ALL originated from complex cell cultures prepared in various laboratories. All these images shown to us of fake AIDS viruses with antennae eating healthy cells are simulations of what scientists believe the virus does and how it replicates.
I personally can use my multimedia knowledge to create a 3D model and animation using 3D Studio Max, or Maya or Poser or Rhino, to create such animations. That’s how I created the DNA strand above. There is nothing special or genius about that.
In Vol 3 No 5, of Continuum Magazine published in 1996, Dr. Val Turner says “The HIV antibody tests do not detect a virus. They test for any antibodies that react with an assortment of proteins experts claim are specific to HIV. The fact is that an antibody test, even if repeated and found positive a thousand times, does not prove the presence of viral infection.”
The reason you don’t hear much about this is because journalists tend to shy away from scientific topics and would rather pursue political or community events. If they do launch an investigation into a scientific subject, they normally are directed to the Public Relations department where they are fed pseudo-science, and such reports don’t expose the true lies behind the fraud being committed.
In the 80s when AIDS was allegedly discovered, Max Essex a colleague of Dr. Robert C. Gallo of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, came up with a colorful theory that AIDS originated from monkeys. Max Essex of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, claimed that the virus was linked to one found in African green monkeys. On page 245 of the journal Science dating back to April 20, 1985, Essex hypothesized that the AIDS virus made its way into Africans who ate or were bitten by primates infected with a closely related virus. Robert C. Gallo then made a name for himself when his lab, at National Institutes of Health and another the lab of researcher and French scientist Luc Montagnier at the Pasteur Institute in Paris-began working to track down the cause of the mysterious disease striking homosexual men. The first to publish results was Montagnier, who described finding a virus he dubbed LAV in an AIDS patient in May 1983. Montagnier, however, stopped short of claiming it was the cause of AIDS. In April 1984, Gallo went further. He announced that he had identified a virus-which he called HTLV III-and proposed it was the cause of AIDS. Gallo also reported developing a test to detect it in blood.
A lawsuit was filed by the Frenchman who believed Gallo had used his sample to falsely take credit for his work. Gallo and Montagnier agreed to share equally the credit for discovering the AIDS virus. Part of the settlement was to create a new name for the virus. Gallo’s HTLV-III (human T-cell lymphotropic virus) and Montagnier’s LAV (lymphadenopathy associated virus) became HIV (human immunodeficiency virus).
On May 25, 1995 the Albany Times Union reported that this same Gallo was offered $12 million in incentives, to establish a virus research center in Baltimore, Maryland. As you can see there is a serious conflict in interest. How can Gallo possibly deliver objective results with such vast sums of money pouring into his lab? When fellow scientists objected to what they viewed as an arrangement by Gallo and the state driven by profit, Gallo lashed out and said, “I can do whatever I want. The state asked us to form a company to create jobs and fund the institute. If I made profit out of it, would that be wrong? Absolutely not.”
In October 2008 Gallo was snubbed for a Nobel prize which was awarded to Luc Montagnier and Francoise Barre-Sinoussi. The reason was obvious. In his book How A Virus That Never Was Deceived The World, Neville Hodgkinson a leading medical journalist in the UK demonstrates and asserts , “HIV is not a virus but a collection of gene products that can appear when immune system cells are chronically stimulated in the body or drastically manipulated in the laboratory. No two identical HIVs have been isolated, even from the same individual.”
Andrew Neil’s column in the UK Sunday Times dated June 23, 1996, reads, “AIDS has become an industry, a job- creation scheme for the caring classes: at one stage there were three times as many AIDS counselors as AIDS victims . . . . the duplicity of the AIDS establishment has been fatal. Hundreds of millions of pounds that could have been spent on far greater risks to life – such as breast cancer – from which more die every year than have died of AIDS in 14 years – was siphoned off and squandered. Money that should have been targeted at the real risk groups was spread uselessly across the population instead.”
On April 3, 2000, South Africa’s President Mbeki wrote Clinton this letter disputing the findings of AIDS. Mbeki argued that HIV does not cause AIDS and that treatment with drugs such as AZT does more harm than good. This five-page Mbeki letter shocked Washington, they thought it was a hoax. It was leaked to the Washington Post that printed it on April 21, 2000, later the New York Times printed its analysis of the letter on May 14, 2000 explaining that the letter was not a hoax, Mbeki meant everything he said.
Dr. Peter Duesberg a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, explained so eloquently to an AIDS panel on June 22, 2000 why HIV does not cause AIDS and why Mbeki had a problem with the numbers from the CDC.
“In Africa 23 million HIV-positives generate per year 75,000 AIDS patients, ie. 1AIDS case per 300 HIV-positives. But in the US, 0.9 million HIV-positives (WHO, Weekly Epidemiological Record 73, 373-380, 1998) now generate per year about 45,000 AIDS cases (Centers for Disease Control, 1999), ie. 1 AIDS case per 20 HIV-positives. Thus the AIDS risk of an American HIV-positive is about 15-times higher than that of an African! Since over 150,000 healthy HIV-positive Americans are currently treated with DNA chain-terminating and other anti-HIV drugs (Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998), and since American HIV-positives have a 15-fold higher AIDS risk than African HIV-positives, President Mbeki must be warned about American advice on “treatments” of HIV-positives.
The discrepancies between African AIDS and infectious disease, and the discrepancies between the high AIDS risk of American compared to African HIV-positives can both be readily explained by the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by non-contagious risk factors and that HIV is a harmless passenger virus.”
AZT and AIDS Medications The Culprits:
AZT is a toxic chain terminator of DNA developed 30 years ago as cancer chemotherapy drug. Duesberg’s research indicates that the long-term consumption of recreational drugs (such as cocaine, heroin, nitrite inhalants, and amphetamines) and prescriptions of DNA chain-terminating and other anti-HIV drugs, cause all AIDS diseases in America and Europe that exceed their long-established, national backgrounds, i.e. >95%. Chemically distinct drugs cause distinct AIDS-defining diseases; for example, nitrite inhalants cause Kaposi’s sarcoma, cocaine causes weight loss, and AZT causes immunodeficiency, lymphoma, muscle atrophy, and dementia. The anti-HIV drug cocktails are failing in the US. A front page article of the New York Times, showing dying AIDS patients, issued a first warning in August 1997:
“Despite powerful new AIDS drugs many are still losing battle (NYT, August 22, 1997). By September 1997 the American press already reported that “AIDS drug cocktails fail 53%” (San Francisco Examiner, September 29, 1997).
In regard to whether condoms protect against AIDS Dr. Duesberg says,”The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta were the first to publish in 1989 in the New England Journal of Medicine that it takes about 1,000 unprotected sexual contacts with an HIV-positive person to become positive. The CDC’s numbers are based on thousands of “discordant” hemophilia couples, in which the husband was positive from a transfusion and some of their wives became positive over time. Recent studies on homosexual couples, other heterosexual couples and singles have confirmed the CDC’s original number.
With regard to the question about the usefulness of condoms in preventing AIDS my answer is twofold: (1) Since AIDS is caused by drugs, not by HIV, condoms do not prevent AIDS. (2) However, since many doctors prescribe DNA chain terminators such as AZT as anti-HIV drugs to healthy HIV-positives, and since DNA chain terminators cause AIDS – condoms are useful after all. They protect people who have an average of 1,000 sexual contacts with HIV-positives from infection, and thus from AIDS caused by anti-HIV medication.”
As for the difference between African AIDS and American/European AIDS Duesberg says, “The African AIDS epidemic has only one thing in common with the American/European AIDS epidemic – the name. African AIDS is caused by malnutrition, parasitic infection and poor sanitation. There are no risk groups in Africa, like drug addicts and homosexuals. It is for this reason that African AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes. Moreover, practically no African AIDS patients have pneumocystis pneumonia, dementia or Kaposi’s sarcoma – the signal diseases of AIDS in the US and Europe. Above all, African AIDS is diagnosed without even attempting an HIV test, which is too expensive for Africa. Thus there is no scientific evidence for the correlation between HIV and African AIDS, only guesses.”
False Positives and lawsuits filed
On August 13, 2004, The Oakland Tribune reported that for eight years, a 59-year-old war veteran was led to believe he was HIV-positive. After living with what he thought was the virus for almost a decade he went to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Oakland clinic, and his doctor told him that he actually isn’t HIV-positive and presumably never has been.
The Chicago Sun-Times reported on December 18, 1994, that for nearly a year, a Florida man lived day to day, not sure when he would get sick and die, after he was falsely diagnosed as being HIV positive. He said people treated him “like nuclear waste.” Friends in his suburban Fort Lauderdale community wouldn’t shake his hand. Many “always had an excuse” not to see him. The diagnosis stunned him. He says he hadn’t engaged in risky sex or drug use. But it wasn’t until almost a year later – after his friends abandoned him and his thoughts turned to suicide – that he found out the test result was wrong.
On March 29, 1999, Davis Marc, a staff writer at The Virginian-Pilot reported that a 41-year-old shipyard electrician who was a good father took a routine blood test, ordered by the insurance company, and the results came back with shocking news: He had the AIDS virus. His life disintegrated. He started drinking. He missed work. His wife left with their three children. His in-laws harassed him. He thought he was dying. His wife thought she was dying. Then came a second shock: The blood test was wrong. Goddard did not have HIV after all. It was a false positive. Today, Goddard and his wife are back together, but they are furious. They want to know why the blood test was wrong. They want to know why the insurance company refused to retest Goddard and clear his medical record for six months – until Goddard provided three negative blood tests from his own doctor.
The Telegram & Gazette reported on December 5, 2007 that 45-year old Audrey Serrano still has not shaken off the impact of living for years convinced that the virus that causes AIDS was steadily wreaking havoc inside her body. Ms. Serrano filed a lawsuit against a doctor who treated her after she was misdiagnosed as HIV positive in. She said the powerful combination of drugs she took for almost nine years triggered a string of ailments, including depression, chronic fatigue, the loss of weight and appetite, and an inflammation of the intestine. On January 28, 2008, Lawyers USA reported that a jury awarded Ms. Serrano $2.5 million in damages. Based on the research conducted, it wouldn’t shock me if people draw the conclusion that AIDS is a collection of medical and political lies peddled around as actual Science by the medical and pharmaceutical cartel.
newscastmedia.com/aids-hoax.html
Sources:
* Alive and Well: www.aliveandwell.org
* Dr. Peter Duesberg: www.duesberg.com/
* US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
* May 14, 2000. New York Times – The World: AIDS in South Africa
* October 28, 1992. James Curran, CDC’s Associate Director For AIDS
* March 30, 2006, New England Journal of Medicine “Influenza Vaccination and False
Positive HIV Results” www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc053417
* Luc Montagnier Pasteur Institute in Paris
* Andrew Neil’s Column in UK Sunday Times June 23, 1996
* The Albany Times Union May 25, 1995 – Robert Gallo’s $12m offer
* South Africa’s President Mbeki’s letter to President Bill Clinton dated April 3, 2000
* Hodgkinson N. “The Failure of Contemporary Science – How a Virus that Never Was
Deceived the World”. Fourth Estate, 1996
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:23 am
The Massive Fraud Behind HIV Tests
by Jon Rappoport
This article is largely based on material originally published in AIDS Inc.: Scandal of the Century. It was updated in 2006 for publication at Hank's "You Bet Your Life".
On July 12, 2006, ABC News ran a story about testing all adults in America for HIV:
Along with Washington's new screening program, the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] is expected to release similar guidelines this summer that would expand HIV screening to all adults in the United States.
If this happens, it means that just about anybody over the age of 13 could be asked by their doctor, ‘Would you like an HIV test?’
Although this would not be a compulsory program, it would be another step in that direction. And of course, in a doctor’s office or in a hospital, many patients simply go along with doctors’ recommendations.
If a doctor says, “Would you like to get tested for AIDS? It’s very important, it could save your life,” the patient will often give his/her consent.
The CDC is also claiming that today’s HIV tests are much more accurate than the tests done in the early years of AIDS. However, in the early years, US health authorities asserted that standard HIV tests were 99.78% accurate, which is to say they very, very rarely called a patient HIV positive when he/she wasn’t. Were US health authorities lying then, or are they lying now – or both?
In 1988, my book, AIDS INC., was published. It was the first book that challenged the assumption that HIV causes AIDS.
I also devoted an entire chapter to proving that routine HIV tests were unscientific, useless, misleading, and produced devastating results, since those tests were (and are) the gateway into highly toxic drugs – to say nothing of the horrendous consequences of telling a person he has contracted an ultimately fatal disease.
In the years since 1988, a great deal of information has come to light regarding HIV tests.
For example, last year (2005), the following explosive lead paragraph appeared in a KTVU/Associated Press story:
Anxiety Triggered By AIDS Test/False Positive Results
SAN FRANCISCO – “A promising new oral HIV test that uses fluid swabbed from the mouth to quickly and easily detect the virus that causes AIDS incorrectly diagnosed a quarter of the people who tested positive in San Francisco, city health officials found.”
People were tested for HIV, told they were positive, when in fact this was false. The article continues:
”Forty-seven people who tested positive after using the OraQuick Advance HIV test in city clinics were not infected at all, the San Francisco Department of Public Health said this week.”
So apparently, not all HIV tests are “much more accurate today.”
At the end of the article, a scientist at the California Office of AIDS made a telling admission:
"One explanation for the spate of false positives might be that there is something unique about the San Francisco group, such as a high number of people with hepatitis, that may unexpectedly interfere with the test results," said Deanne Sykes, a research scientist for the California Office of AIDS.
"’We will watch it,’ she said. ‘We will monitor it to see if there is something consistent we can pinpoint.’"
Sykes was stating that hepatitis might cause the HIV blood test to register positive when it was really negative. This is called a cross-reaction.
Actually, blood products given to treat hepatitis, as well as the hepatitis B vaccine, can both cause a false-positive HIV test. This has been known for a long time.
See, for example
• Lee, D, Eby W, Molinaro, G. 1992. "HIV false positivity after Hepatitis B vaccination", Lancet 339: 1060.
There is a great deal of useful information you can find on HIV tests, if you go to Christine Maggiore's excellent site, www.aliveandwell.com.
Here are some citations assembled at Alive and Well:
"The only way to distinguish between real reactions and cross-reactions is to use HIV isolation. All claims of HIV isolation are based on a set of phenomena detected in tissue culture, none of which are isolation and none of which are even specific for retroviruses... We don't know how many positive tests occur in the absence of HIV infection. There is no specificity of the HIV antibody tests for HIV infection." — Bio/Technology, 11:696-707, 1993
"The HIV antibody tests do not detect a virus. They test for any antibodies that react with an assortment of proteins experts claim are specific to HIV. The fact is that an antibody test, even if repeated and found positive a thousand times, does not prove the presence of viral infection." — Val Turner, MD, Continuum magazine, Vol 3 No 5, 1996
"HIV tests are notoriously unreliable in Africa. A 1994 study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases concluded that HIV tests were useless in central Africa, where the microbes responsible for tuberculosis, malaria and leprosy were so prevalent that they [cross reacted] and registered over 70% false positive [for HIV]." — Sacramento Bee, October 30, 1994
"With public health officials and politicians thrashing out who should be tested for HIV, the accuracy of the test itself has been nearly ignored. A study last month by Congress' Office of Technology Assessment found that HIV tests can be very inaccurate indeed. For groups at very low risk – people who don't use IV drugs or have sex with gay or bisexual men – 9 in 10 positive findings are called false positives, indicating infection where none exists." — US News & World Report, November 23, 1987
"People who receive gamma globulin shots for chicken pox, measles and hepatitis could test positive for HIV even if they've never been infected [with HIV]. The Food and Drug Administration says that a positive test could be caused by antibodies found in most of America's supply of gamma globulin. Gamma globulin is made from blood collected from thousands of donors and is routinely given to millions of people each year as temporary protection against many infectious diseases. Dr. Thomas Zuck of the FDA's Blood and Blood Products Division says the government didn't release the information because 'we thought it would do more harm than good.'" — USA Today, October 2, 1987
"Two weeks ago, a 3-year-old child in Winston Salem, North Carolina, was struck by a car and rushed to a nearby hospital. Because the child's skull had been broken and there was a blood spill, the hospital performed an HIV test. As the traumatized mother was sitting at her child's bedside, a doctor came in and told her the child was HIV-positive. Both parents are negative. The doctor told the mother that she needed to launch an investigation into her entire family and circle of friends because this child had been sexually abused. There was no other way, the doctor said, that the child could be positive. A few days later, the mother demanded a second test. It came back negative. The hospital held a press conference where a remarkable admission was made. In her effort to clear the hospital of any wrongdoing, a hospital spokesperson announced that 'these HIV tests are not reliable; a lot of factors can skew the tests, like fever or pregnancy. Everybody knows that.'" — Celia Farber, Impression Magazine, June 21, 1999
"A Vancouver woman is suing St. Paul's Hospital and several doctors because she was diagnosed as carrying the AIDS virus, when in fact she wasn't. In a BC Supreme Court writ, Lisa Lebed claims when she was admitted to the hospital in late 1995 to give birth to a daughter, a blood sample was taken without her consent. It revealed she was HIV positive, so she gave up the baby girl for adoption and decided to have a tubal ligation. A year and a half later, while undergoing AIDS treatment, she found out she was not HIV positive. The explanation she was given was a lab error. She says because of the negligence of the hospital, she's now sterile and has lost a daughter." — "Woman Sues St. Paul's", CKNW Radio 98, June 10, 1999
While writing AIDS INC., I was told by an employee of the FDA that the universally used Elisa blood test for HIV was, in fact, designed to cast a very wide net and catch possible HIV contamination in the overall stored blood supply. The tests were not designed for individuals. The tests were too broad and too unreliable for individuals.
The FDA is the federal licensing agency for all US AIDS testing. In 1987, a person from their Washington office sent me a rather stunning document simply titled “Summary and Explanation of the Test,” dated July 23, 1987 (and not on Agency letterhead): “In order to afford maximum protection of the blood supply, the EIA [Elisa] test was designed to be extremely sensitive. As a result, non-specific [falsely positive] reactions may be seen in samples from some people...due to prior pregnancy, blood transfusions, or other exposure...”
Remember, in those days, US medical authorities were touting the Elisa test as extremely accurate for individuals – 99.78% accurate in being able to find true HIV-negative people.
I recently made several phone calls to the FDA. On July 17, 2006, the FDA press office connected me to Paul Richards. He consulted an FDA spreadsheet. He found that the FDA had approved and licensed a blood test for HIV in 1985 (shortly after the test was developed). But that license was for screening donors who were giving blood at clinics. It wasn’t for diagnosing HIV in a patient. The earliest approval license Richards could find for diagnostic purposes was 1990 – a full six years after the Elisa test was developed. As far as I can determine, the Elisa test was in use for diagnostic purposes roughly five years before FDA approved it. This certainly raises red flags.
The Elisa test is, by far, the most widely used instrument for determining whether an individual is HIV positive or negative. Conventional wisdom has it that the ultimate backup for the Elisa is the Western Blot test, which has been called the gold standard. In other words, to verify (or negate) a positive Elisa, a person should get a confirmatory Western Blot.
However, while writing AIDS INC. and searching the medical literature, I found a paper published in the March 1987 issue of the Journal of Clinical Microbiology. The author, James Carlson, of the University of California at Davis School of Pathology, dropped a bombshell. He stated that in low-risk groups, the false-positive rate in Elisa tests was an overwhelming “84.2% in our study and 77.1% recently reported by the American Red Cross...”
In plain English, this means that, of all the individuals from low-risk groups who were Elisa tested for HIV, the overwhelming number of those who tested positive were not really positive at all.
Carlson continues: “It must be noted that even though we feel the Western Blot technique is presently the most acceptable method...Western Blot analysis is a subjective method with quality control limitations; the possibility of false-positive results still exists...”
The January 9, 1986, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine contained a report on a 34-year-old woman from rural Alabama who tested positive for HIV on an Elisa test. The woman had four more Elisa tests. They, too, came up positive. Next, a Western Blot test was done. It was strongly positive. What else could one ask for?
But then new blood was drawn from the woman and sent to a handful of prestigious labs for analysis. Now all the Elisa and Western Blot tests were NEGATIVE.
Then the Elisa tests were repeated at two of these labs. They were both POSITIVE.
“Western Blot tests,” the authors conclude, “have been used as the gold standard by which other tests [the Elisas] are judged to be falsely positive [or truly positive]...the need for improved confirmatory tests...is evident.” This is a polite way of saying Western Blot is unreliable.
British researcher LJ Oldham, writing in the Journal of Medical Virology (January, 1987), concludes: “Our findings suggest that Western Blot cannot be depended upon as the sole confirmatory test for [HIV].”
In the same paper, Oldham states: “As has been shown, Western Blot lacks full sensitivity and specificity.” Sensitivity would enable the test to discover people who were HIV positive, and specificity would keep the tests from calling people HIV positive who weren’t.
Evelyn Lennette, writing in the February 1987 Journal of Clinical Microbiology, indicates that “both of these assays [Elisa and Western Blot] have drawbacks...[there are] reports of both false-positive and false-negative results with the Elisa, necessitating the use of a second confirmatory test... The immunoblot [Western Blot] is also not free from false results.”
Perhaps the most devastating analysis of HIV testing was offered by Dr. Harvey Fineberg. When I interviewed Fineberg in 1988, he was Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health. Later, he went on to become Provost of Harvard University, and then was appointed president of the very prestigious Institute of Medicine. A man with impeccable conventional credentials, Fineberg had, in the spring of 1987, published a statistical analysis of HIV testing in Law, Medicine, and Healthcare.
“To begin with,” Fineberg told me on the phone, “in the study, we accepted the advertised accuracy ratings of the Elisa test. It’s reportedly able to find true [HIV] positives at a rate of 93.4 percent, and it supposedly can detect true [HIV] negatives correctly 99.78 percent of the time.
"So let’s say that three out of 10,000 people in the US are really infected with the HIV virus. If we consider a sample of 100,000 people, that means 30 will actually be infected with HIV. The Elisa test will be able to pinpoint 93.4 percent, or 28 of those people."
"On the other side of the ledger, that leaves 99,970 out of 100,000 who are truly not infected with the AIDS virus."
"If the Elisa test is 99.78 percent capable of finding these real [HIV] negatives, it will locate 99,750 of these people without fail. That leaves 220 [HIV] negatives it missed.” How did it miss? By calling those 220 people [HIV] positive."
Fineberg stated, “So now you have, out of every 100,000 people, 28 truly [HIV] positive and 220 falsely positive test results. That means the statistical chances are about 90 percent that [an HIV] positive-reading Elisa is wrongly positive [false-positive].”
Fineberg continued: “A second Elisa won’t change that either. If you do a Western Blot, the odds might, at best, be lowered to 25 percent. In other words, a fourth of the time, a positive AIDS test would be false-positive.”
Fineberg’s analysis was largely ignored by the mainstream press, medical researchers, and of course the US government, which was funding most of the major research on AIDS.
In fact, as you can see from reading what I’ve presented so far in this article, a great deal of CONVENTIONAL medical assessment of the crippling problems associated with AIDS testing was ignored.
The reason for this avoidance was obvious. There existed (and continues to exist) a network of government funders, government labs, private AIDS fund-raising agencies, PR groups, “star researchers,” medical journals, compliant and superficial medical reporters, and drug companies – to say nothing of the FDA and the World Health Organization – devoted to presenting HIV testing as an entirely reliable instrument.
An admission that this whole testing system was (and is) scientifically bankrupt and dangerous would collapse the certainty of the whole AIDS structure.
And this is just the beginning of the problem with AIDS tests.
So far, I have been discussing what is called antibody testing. In both the Elisa and Western blot techniques, the patient’s blood is analyzed to discover whether he has been producing antibodies, which are part of the overall immune response against any given germ.
What does the presence of these antibodies mean?
Perhaps we can glean a clue from a rather astonishing mainstream comment on the current bird-flu hysteria. Near the end of a NY Times article (“Hazards in the hunt for flu bug”) by medical reporter Gina Kolata (November 9, 2005), we find the following reference to Dr. Peter Palese, of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York:
"Some experts like Peter Palese of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York said the H5N1 viruses are a false alarm. He notes that studies of serum collected in 1992 from people in rural China indicated that millions there had antibodies to the H5N1 strain. That means they had been infected with an H5N1 bird virus and recovered, apparently without incident."
Until AIDS testing took off in earnest in the mid-1980s, it was generally assumed that the presence of antibodies in a patient signified good health. The patient had contacted a germ, mounted an immune response, and the germ was neutralized. There was certainly no consensus that antibodies meant present or future disease across the board.
In other words, if millions of people in China had encountered H5N1 (bird flu) viruses and showed antibodies to these viruses, it would be expected that they would remain healthy.
Except that with the onset of AIDS research, everything was stood on its head. People who were tested and called HIV-positive – meaning they had antibodies to the virus – were said to be sick or on a sure road to becoming sick.
So now we have another level of the AIDS testing hoax. Why were people being tested for antibodies to HIV? Why was that method presumed to be significant at all? Why wasn’t the presence of antibodies to HIV taken as a sign of health?
Millions of people all over the world have been subjected to the Elisa and Western Blot HIV tests – both of which have the sole objective of finding antibodies to HIV. Why have these tests been elevated to the status of present or future disease detectives?
While writing AIDS INC. in 1988, I had a very interesting conversation with a doctor at the US National Institutes of Health. He told me that when an HIV vaccine eventually went into testing (and when it was later released for use on the public), every person who got the vaccine would be given a special letter.
The letter would say that the person had received the vaccine. The letter would say that if, at any time, the person was subsequently tested for HIV and came up positive – meaning he had antibodies to HIV – this should NOT be taken as a sign of present or future illness. In this case, the person was actually immune to HIV, because he had “received” his antibodies from the vaccine.
I almost fell off my chair. I said, “Let me get this straight. If a person develops antibodies naturally to HIV, he is told he is either sick now or will get sick. But if gets his antibodies – the same antibodies – to HIV from a vaccine, he is told he is immune to the virus.”
The doctor gave me no clear response.
This explosive contradiction has been studiously ignored by the mainstream press and by the entire AIDS establishment network.
By conventional standards (not mine), the whole point of a vaccine is to confer immunity to a germ by producing antibodies to that germ in the body. That is the essence and the standard of a “good vaccine.”
And yet, in the case of AIDS research, all this was turned upside down. Suddenly, HIV positive meant: the patient has antibodies to HIV and this is a sign that he will become very ill and most likely die.
To sum up: not only are both HIV antibody tests (Elisa and Western Blot) unreliable in finding true positives, as opposed to false positives, the WHOLE IDEA of using the presence of antibodies as an unmistakable sign of present or future illness is without merit.
Two levels of madness.
Add to this the question of whether a germ called HIV has anything to do with what has been called AIDS, and you have yet a third level. For reasons of space, I’m not taking up that question in this article. But in my book, AIDS INC., I have offered much evidence that HIV has nothing to do with the various immune deficiencies that have been lumped together and called AIDS.
To bolster the assumption that a positive HIV test does lead to grave illness, studies have been done to track healthy people who test positive. This method, it is thought, would establish that being HIV positive is, in fact, a predictor of illness and death.
The most comprehensive such study, taking in several thousand gay men, the San Francisco Men’s Study, is often cited to prove that being HIV positive leads to full-blown AIDS. However, the study has many flaws. Perhaps most importantly, it has failed to track accurately a group of men who started off as HIV negative. In other words, if enough men from that HIV-negative group also developed severe immune deficiency (the hallmark of what is called AIDS), then a positive HIV test would not be a predictor of illness.
Furthermore, it turned out that there was a group of men in the San Francisco Men’s Study who were HIV positive, who had declined the (highly toxic) AIDS drugs like AZT, or had gone off them. As reported in the press, these men had remained healthy for eight years or longer and were still going strong.
I queried one of the researchers in the San Francisco Study. I asked her why she and her colleagues hadn’t trumpeted these findings as highly significant. She said they just didn’t think it was all that important.
In conventional terms, under the most rigorous of conditions, if you want to do a tracking study that proves HIV-positive status leads to full-blown disease and death, you must have a control group: a group of people who are HIV negative to begin with. And most importantly, you must choose both groups according to the same relevant factors. For example, all the people in the study, from both groups, must have a very similar nutritional status. They must be taking similar recreational drugs in similar quantities (or not taking them at all). They must have similar medical histories. They must be having sex with a similar number of partners. They must show a similar profile of, for example, intestinal parasites. They must reveal a similar level of exposure to environmental chemicals. And so on and so forth.
Why? Because all of the above factors and more (for instance, aspartame ingestion, and number and type of vaccines received) can be implicated in immune-system compromise. And at the heart of it, what is being called AIDS, from Uganda to New York, is nothing more and nothing less than immune-system deterioration.
No tracking study which adheres to these rigorous standards has ever been done.
There is one other point to be made. The very act of diagnosing a person as HIV positive carries with it a kind of hypnotic power. This effect, of course, is downplayed by mainstream researchers. But it certainly can produce a thorough expectation of future illness and/or death. It does induce great fear and disorientation. And these factors, acting within what could be called the mind-body complex, have sharply negative consequences, to say the least.
When analyzing how this whole HIV testing hoax came into being, and why it is being sustained, I have, at different times, cut into the stratified layers of motive at different levels.
Here are some of those motives: to profit from selling drugs and HIV test kits; to gain and upgrade individual status as a researcher; to protect an employment position; to go along with the herd; to cover up past mistakes; to avoid criminal charges; to use a cover story (HIV) to obscure the actual and simple reasons for widespread death in the so-called Third World – systematic starvation, water contamination, overcrowding, poverty, stolen land, and toxic vaccines: an entire system that has been installed, for a very long time, in order to allow large numbers of people to die and keep the rest in a weakened state...
There are a whole host of motives for supporting the past and current HIV testing apparatus.
In addition to antibody testing for HIV, there is another method, less popular, that relies on what is called PCR. PCR stands for Polymerase Chain Reaction. Some proponents of HIV testing point to PCR as the new gold standard, the final backup, the ultimate tool.
PCR takes, from a patient’s blood, a very tiny amount of genetic material that is suspected of being a component of a virus, and “amplifies it,” “blows it up” to a size where it can be identified and studied.
Much can be said about PCR, but here is the crux: if technicians can only find a miniscule amount of material (in a patient) that may be HIV, no matter how much “amplification” is applied to that sample, there is no reliable way of inferring that the patient is carrying a large number (millions and millions) of HIVs.
And why is that important? Because, in order for some germ to be called a cause of illness, millions of those germs must be in the body, and they must be doing some real damage to cells. Otherwise, the inference drawn is meaningless.
Our bodies contain who knows how many germs? Mostly, they have no negative effect on health. The presence of a tiny, tiny amount of what may be viral material is irrelevant, unless otherwise proven. And the “otherwise” has not been proven.
Many people will read this article and fall back on the old saw: “Thousands of qualified medical experts couldn’t be wrong about HIV testing; there is enormous medical consensus about the reliability of such tests.”
I would point out that the elementary rules of logic and inference are rarely taught in schools anymore. But when they were, any beginning student would have seen through such an absurd assertion. Numbers of people who say X is true have nothing to do with whether X is true.
Example: Millions of atheists say God does not exist. Billions of believers say God does exist. Shall we say the atheists are correct purely because there are millions of them? Shall we say the believers are right because there are billions of them? Do we weigh truth on such a scale of numbers?
Finally, those among the “professional consensus” occasionally try to discredit people who refute HIV as the cause of AIDS or point out huge flaws in HIV testing. This attempt to discredit dissidents usually takes the form of personal attacks, worthy of a ten-year-old who is denied a candy bar by his mother.
Referring again to the elementary texts on logic, such attacks are called ad hominem – “against the man” and not against his arguments.
“X doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He just wants publicity.”
“X once refused to pay a parking ticket in Uganda. Or maybe it was Chicago.”
“X has been married three times.”
“X must be working for a Secret Vegetarian Alliance. How can anybody believe what he says?”
“X says he once saw a UFO. What else do we need to know?”
Some of what else we need to know, at least about HIV testing, is in this article.
by Jon Rappoport
This article is largely based on material originally published in AIDS Inc.: Scandal of the Century. It was updated in 2006 for publication at Hank's "You Bet Your Life".
On July 12, 2006, ABC News ran a story about testing all adults in America for HIV:
Along with Washington's new screening program, the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] is expected to release similar guidelines this summer that would expand HIV screening to all adults in the United States.
If this happens, it means that just about anybody over the age of 13 could be asked by their doctor, ‘Would you like an HIV test?’
Although this would not be a compulsory program, it would be another step in that direction. And of course, in a doctor’s office or in a hospital, many patients simply go along with doctors’ recommendations.
If a doctor says, “Would you like to get tested for AIDS? It’s very important, it could save your life,” the patient will often give his/her consent.
The CDC is also claiming that today’s HIV tests are much more accurate than the tests done in the early years of AIDS. However, in the early years, US health authorities asserted that standard HIV tests were 99.78% accurate, which is to say they very, very rarely called a patient HIV positive when he/she wasn’t. Were US health authorities lying then, or are they lying now – or both?
In 1988, my book, AIDS INC., was published. It was the first book that challenged the assumption that HIV causes AIDS.
I also devoted an entire chapter to proving that routine HIV tests were unscientific, useless, misleading, and produced devastating results, since those tests were (and are) the gateway into highly toxic drugs – to say nothing of the horrendous consequences of telling a person he has contracted an ultimately fatal disease.
In the years since 1988, a great deal of information has come to light regarding HIV tests.
For example, last year (2005), the following explosive lead paragraph appeared in a KTVU/Associated Press story:
Anxiety Triggered By AIDS Test/False Positive Results
SAN FRANCISCO – “A promising new oral HIV test that uses fluid swabbed from the mouth to quickly and easily detect the virus that causes AIDS incorrectly diagnosed a quarter of the people who tested positive in San Francisco, city health officials found.”
People were tested for HIV, told they were positive, when in fact this was false. The article continues:
”Forty-seven people who tested positive after using the OraQuick Advance HIV test in city clinics were not infected at all, the San Francisco Department of Public Health said this week.”
So apparently, not all HIV tests are “much more accurate today.”
At the end of the article, a scientist at the California Office of AIDS made a telling admission:
"One explanation for the spate of false positives might be that there is something unique about the San Francisco group, such as a high number of people with hepatitis, that may unexpectedly interfere with the test results," said Deanne Sykes, a research scientist for the California Office of AIDS.
"’We will watch it,’ she said. ‘We will monitor it to see if there is something consistent we can pinpoint.’"
Sykes was stating that hepatitis might cause the HIV blood test to register positive when it was really negative. This is called a cross-reaction.
Actually, blood products given to treat hepatitis, as well as the hepatitis B vaccine, can both cause a false-positive HIV test. This has been known for a long time.
See, for example
• Lee, D, Eby W, Molinaro, G. 1992. "HIV false positivity after Hepatitis B vaccination", Lancet 339: 1060.
There is a great deal of useful information you can find on HIV tests, if you go to Christine Maggiore's excellent site, www.aliveandwell.com.
Here are some citations assembled at Alive and Well:
"The only way to distinguish between real reactions and cross-reactions is to use HIV isolation. All claims of HIV isolation are based on a set of phenomena detected in tissue culture, none of which are isolation and none of which are even specific for retroviruses... We don't know how many positive tests occur in the absence of HIV infection. There is no specificity of the HIV antibody tests for HIV infection." — Bio/Technology, 11:696-707, 1993
"The HIV antibody tests do not detect a virus. They test for any antibodies that react with an assortment of proteins experts claim are specific to HIV. The fact is that an antibody test, even if repeated and found positive a thousand times, does not prove the presence of viral infection." — Val Turner, MD, Continuum magazine, Vol 3 No 5, 1996
"HIV tests are notoriously unreliable in Africa. A 1994 study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases concluded that HIV tests were useless in central Africa, where the microbes responsible for tuberculosis, malaria and leprosy were so prevalent that they [cross reacted] and registered over 70% false positive [for HIV]." — Sacramento Bee, October 30, 1994
"With public health officials and politicians thrashing out who should be tested for HIV, the accuracy of the test itself has been nearly ignored. A study last month by Congress' Office of Technology Assessment found that HIV tests can be very inaccurate indeed. For groups at very low risk – people who don't use IV drugs or have sex with gay or bisexual men – 9 in 10 positive findings are called false positives, indicating infection where none exists." — US News & World Report, November 23, 1987
"People who receive gamma globulin shots for chicken pox, measles and hepatitis could test positive for HIV even if they've never been infected [with HIV]. The Food and Drug Administration says that a positive test could be caused by antibodies found in most of America's supply of gamma globulin. Gamma globulin is made from blood collected from thousands of donors and is routinely given to millions of people each year as temporary protection against many infectious diseases. Dr. Thomas Zuck of the FDA's Blood and Blood Products Division says the government didn't release the information because 'we thought it would do more harm than good.'" — USA Today, October 2, 1987
"Two weeks ago, a 3-year-old child in Winston Salem, North Carolina, was struck by a car and rushed to a nearby hospital. Because the child's skull had been broken and there was a blood spill, the hospital performed an HIV test. As the traumatized mother was sitting at her child's bedside, a doctor came in and told her the child was HIV-positive. Both parents are negative. The doctor told the mother that she needed to launch an investigation into her entire family and circle of friends because this child had been sexually abused. There was no other way, the doctor said, that the child could be positive. A few days later, the mother demanded a second test. It came back negative. The hospital held a press conference where a remarkable admission was made. In her effort to clear the hospital of any wrongdoing, a hospital spokesperson announced that 'these HIV tests are not reliable; a lot of factors can skew the tests, like fever or pregnancy. Everybody knows that.'" — Celia Farber, Impression Magazine, June 21, 1999
"A Vancouver woman is suing St. Paul's Hospital and several doctors because she was diagnosed as carrying the AIDS virus, when in fact she wasn't. In a BC Supreme Court writ, Lisa Lebed claims when she was admitted to the hospital in late 1995 to give birth to a daughter, a blood sample was taken without her consent. It revealed she was HIV positive, so she gave up the baby girl for adoption and decided to have a tubal ligation. A year and a half later, while undergoing AIDS treatment, she found out she was not HIV positive. The explanation she was given was a lab error. She says because of the negligence of the hospital, she's now sterile and has lost a daughter." — "Woman Sues St. Paul's", CKNW Radio 98, June 10, 1999
While writing AIDS INC., I was told by an employee of the FDA that the universally used Elisa blood test for HIV was, in fact, designed to cast a very wide net and catch possible HIV contamination in the overall stored blood supply. The tests were not designed for individuals. The tests were too broad and too unreliable for individuals.
The FDA is the federal licensing agency for all US AIDS testing. In 1987, a person from their Washington office sent me a rather stunning document simply titled “Summary and Explanation of the Test,” dated July 23, 1987 (and not on Agency letterhead): “In order to afford maximum protection of the blood supply, the EIA [Elisa] test was designed to be extremely sensitive. As a result, non-specific [falsely positive] reactions may be seen in samples from some people...due to prior pregnancy, blood transfusions, or other exposure...”
Remember, in those days, US medical authorities were touting the Elisa test as extremely accurate for individuals – 99.78% accurate in being able to find true HIV-negative people.
I recently made several phone calls to the FDA. On July 17, 2006, the FDA press office connected me to Paul Richards. He consulted an FDA spreadsheet. He found that the FDA had approved and licensed a blood test for HIV in 1985 (shortly after the test was developed). But that license was for screening donors who were giving blood at clinics. It wasn’t for diagnosing HIV in a patient. The earliest approval license Richards could find for diagnostic purposes was 1990 – a full six years after the Elisa test was developed. As far as I can determine, the Elisa test was in use for diagnostic purposes roughly five years before FDA approved it. This certainly raises red flags.
The Elisa test is, by far, the most widely used instrument for determining whether an individual is HIV positive or negative. Conventional wisdom has it that the ultimate backup for the Elisa is the Western Blot test, which has been called the gold standard. In other words, to verify (or negate) a positive Elisa, a person should get a confirmatory Western Blot.
However, while writing AIDS INC. and searching the medical literature, I found a paper published in the March 1987 issue of the Journal of Clinical Microbiology. The author, James Carlson, of the University of California at Davis School of Pathology, dropped a bombshell. He stated that in low-risk groups, the false-positive rate in Elisa tests was an overwhelming “84.2% in our study and 77.1% recently reported by the American Red Cross...”
In plain English, this means that, of all the individuals from low-risk groups who were Elisa tested for HIV, the overwhelming number of those who tested positive were not really positive at all.
Carlson continues: “It must be noted that even though we feel the Western Blot technique is presently the most acceptable method...Western Blot analysis is a subjective method with quality control limitations; the possibility of false-positive results still exists...”
The January 9, 1986, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine contained a report on a 34-year-old woman from rural Alabama who tested positive for HIV on an Elisa test. The woman had four more Elisa tests. They, too, came up positive. Next, a Western Blot test was done. It was strongly positive. What else could one ask for?
But then new blood was drawn from the woman and sent to a handful of prestigious labs for analysis. Now all the Elisa and Western Blot tests were NEGATIVE.
Then the Elisa tests were repeated at two of these labs. They were both POSITIVE.
“Western Blot tests,” the authors conclude, “have been used as the gold standard by which other tests [the Elisas] are judged to be falsely positive [or truly positive]...the need for improved confirmatory tests...is evident.” This is a polite way of saying Western Blot is unreliable.
British researcher LJ Oldham, writing in the Journal of Medical Virology (January, 1987), concludes: “Our findings suggest that Western Blot cannot be depended upon as the sole confirmatory test for [HIV].”
In the same paper, Oldham states: “As has been shown, Western Blot lacks full sensitivity and specificity.” Sensitivity would enable the test to discover people who were HIV positive, and specificity would keep the tests from calling people HIV positive who weren’t.
Evelyn Lennette, writing in the February 1987 Journal of Clinical Microbiology, indicates that “both of these assays [Elisa and Western Blot] have drawbacks...[there are] reports of both false-positive and false-negative results with the Elisa, necessitating the use of a second confirmatory test... The immunoblot [Western Blot] is also not free from false results.”
Perhaps the most devastating analysis of HIV testing was offered by Dr. Harvey Fineberg. When I interviewed Fineberg in 1988, he was Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health. Later, he went on to become Provost of Harvard University, and then was appointed president of the very prestigious Institute of Medicine. A man with impeccable conventional credentials, Fineberg had, in the spring of 1987, published a statistical analysis of HIV testing in Law, Medicine, and Healthcare.
“To begin with,” Fineberg told me on the phone, “in the study, we accepted the advertised accuracy ratings of the Elisa test. It’s reportedly able to find true [HIV] positives at a rate of 93.4 percent, and it supposedly can detect true [HIV] negatives correctly 99.78 percent of the time.
"So let’s say that three out of 10,000 people in the US are really infected with the HIV virus. If we consider a sample of 100,000 people, that means 30 will actually be infected with HIV. The Elisa test will be able to pinpoint 93.4 percent, or 28 of those people."
"On the other side of the ledger, that leaves 99,970 out of 100,000 who are truly not infected with the AIDS virus."
"If the Elisa test is 99.78 percent capable of finding these real [HIV] negatives, it will locate 99,750 of these people without fail. That leaves 220 [HIV] negatives it missed.” How did it miss? By calling those 220 people [HIV] positive."
Fineberg stated, “So now you have, out of every 100,000 people, 28 truly [HIV] positive and 220 falsely positive test results. That means the statistical chances are about 90 percent that [an HIV] positive-reading Elisa is wrongly positive [false-positive].”
Fineberg continued: “A second Elisa won’t change that either. If you do a Western Blot, the odds might, at best, be lowered to 25 percent. In other words, a fourth of the time, a positive AIDS test would be false-positive.”
Fineberg’s analysis was largely ignored by the mainstream press, medical researchers, and of course the US government, which was funding most of the major research on AIDS.
In fact, as you can see from reading what I’ve presented so far in this article, a great deal of CONVENTIONAL medical assessment of the crippling problems associated with AIDS testing was ignored.
The reason for this avoidance was obvious. There existed (and continues to exist) a network of government funders, government labs, private AIDS fund-raising agencies, PR groups, “star researchers,” medical journals, compliant and superficial medical reporters, and drug companies – to say nothing of the FDA and the World Health Organization – devoted to presenting HIV testing as an entirely reliable instrument.
An admission that this whole testing system was (and is) scientifically bankrupt and dangerous would collapse the certainty of the whole AIDS structure.
And this is just the beginning of the problem with AIDS tests.
So far, I have been discussing what is called antibody testing. In both the Elisa and Western blot techniques, the patient’s blood is analyzed to discover whether he has been producing antibodies, which are part of the overall immune response against any given germ.
What does the presence of these antibodies mean?
Perhaps we can glean a clue from a rather astonishing mainstream comment on the current bird-flu hysteria. Near the end of a NY Times article (“Hazards in the hunt for flu bug”) by medical reporter Gina Kolata (November 9, 2005), we find the following reference to Dr. Peter Palese, of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York:
"Some experts like Peter Palese of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York said the H5N1 viruses are a false alarm. He notes that studies of serum collected in 1992 from people in rural China indicated that millions there had antibodies to the H5N1 strain. That means they had been infected with an H5N1 bird virus and recovered, apparently without incident."
Until AIDS testing took off in earnest in the mid-1980s, it was generally assumed that the presence of antibodies in a patient signified good health. The patient had contacted a germ, mounted an immune response, and the germ was neutralized. There was certainly no consensus that antibodies meant present or future disease across the board.
In other words, if millions of people in China had encountered H5N1 (bird flu) viruses and showed antibodies to these viruses, it would be expected that they would remain healthy.
Except that with the onset of AIDS research, everything was stood on its head. People who were tested and called HIV-positive – meaning they had antibodies to the virus – were said to be sick or on a sure road to becoming sick.
So now we have another level of the AIDS testing hoax. Why were people being tested for antibodies to HIV? Why was that method presumed to be significant at all? Why wasn’t the presence of antibodies to HIV taken as a sign of health?
Millions of people all over the world have been subjected to the Elisa and Western Blot HIV tests – both of which have the sole objective of finding antibodies to HIV. Why have these tests been elevated to the status of present or future disease detectives?
While writing AIDS INC. in 1988, I had a very interesting conversation with a doctor at the US National Institutes of Health. He told me that when an HIV vaccine eventually went into testing (and when it was later released for use on the public), every person who got the vaccine would be given a special letter.
The letter would say that the person had received the vaccine. The letter would say that if, at any time, the person was subsequently tested for HIV and came up positive – meaning he had antibodies to HIV – this should NOT be taken as a sign of present or future illness. In this case, the person was actually immune to HIV, because he had “received” his antibodies from the vaccine.
I almost fell off my chair. I said, “Let me get this straight. If a person develops antibodies naturally to HIV, he is told he is either sick now or will get sick. But if gets his antibodies – the same antibodies – to HIV from a vaccine, he is told he is immune to the virus.”
The doctor gave me no clear response.
This explosive contradiction has been studiously ignored by the mainstream press and by the entire AIDS establishment network.
By conventional standards (not mine), the whole point of a vaccine is to confer immunity to a germ by producing antibodies to that germ in the body. That is the essence and the standard of a “good vaccine.”
And yet, in the case of AIDS research, all this was turned upside down. Suddenly, HIV positive meant: the patient has antibodies to HIV and this is a sign that he will become very ill and most likely die.
To sum up: not only are both HIV antibody tests (Elisa and Western Blot) unreliable in finding true positives, as opposed to false positives, the WHOLE IDEA of using the presence of antibodies as an unmistakable sign of present or future illness is without merit.
Two levels of madness.
Add to this the question of whether a germ called HIV has anything to do with what has been called AIDS, and you have yet a third level. For reasons of space, I’m not taking up that question in this article. But in my book, AIDS INC., I have offered much evidence that HIV has nothing to do with the various immune deficiencies that have been lumped together and called AIDS.
To bolster the assumption that a positive HIV test does lead to grave illness, studies have been done to track healthy people who test positive. This method, it is thought, would establish that being HIV positive is, in fact, a predictor of illness and death.
The most comprehensive such study, taking in several thousand gay men, the San Francisco Men’s Study, is often cited to prove that being HIV positive leads to full-blown AIDS. However, the study has many flaws. Perhaps most importantly, it has failed to track accurately a group of men who started off as HIV negative. In other words, if enough men from that HIV-negative group also developed severe immune deficiency (the hallmark of what is called AIDS), then a positive HIV test would not be a predictor of illness.
Furthermore, it turned out that there was a group of men in the San Francisco Men’s Study who were HIV positive, who had declined the (highly toxic) AIDS drugs like AZT, or had gone off them. As reported in the press, these men had remained healthy for eight years or longer and were still going strong.
I queried one of the researchers in the San Francisco Study. I asked her why she and her colleagues hadn’t trumpeted these findings as highly significant. She said they just didn’t think it was all that important.
In conventional terms, under the most rigorous of conditions, if you want to do a tracking study that proves HIV-positive status leads to full-blown disease and death, you must have a control group: a group of people who are HIV negative to begin with. And most importantly, you must choose both groups according to the same relevant factors. For example, all the people in the study, from both groups, must have a very similar nutritional status. They must be taking similar recreational drugs in similar quantities (or not taking them at all). They must have similar medical histories. They must be having sex with a similar number of partners. They must show a similar profile of, for example, intestinal parasites. They must reveal a similar level of exposure to environmental chemicals. And so on and so forth.
Why? Because all of the above factors and more (for instance, aspartame ingestion, and number and type of vaccines received) can be implicated in immune-system compromise. And at the heart of it, what is being called AIDS, from Uganda to New York, is nothing more and nothing less than immune-system deterioration.
No tracking study which adheres to these rigorous standards has ever been done.
There is one other point to be made. The very act of diagnosing a person as HIV positive carries with it a kind of hypnotic power. This effect, of course, is downplayed by mainstream researchers. But it certainly can produce a thorough expectation of future illness and/or death. It does induce great fear and disorientation. And these factors, acting within what could be called the mind-body complex, have sharply negative consequences, to say the least.
When analyzing how this whole HIV testing hoax came into being, and why it is being sustained, I have, at different times, cut into the stratified layers of motive at different levels.
Here are some of those motives: to profit from selling drugs and HIV test kits; to gain and upgrade individual status as a researcher; to protect an employment position; to go along with the herd; to cover up past mistakes; to avoid criminal charges; to use a cover story (HIV) to obscure the actual and simple reasons for widespread death in the so-called Third World – systematic starvation, water contamination, overcrowding, poverty, stolen land, and toxic vaccines: an entire system that has been installed, for a very long time, in order to allow large numbers of people to die and keep the rest in a weakened state...
There are a whole host of motives for supporting the past and current HIV testing apparatus.
In addition to antibody testing for HIV, there is another method, less popular, that relies on what is called PCR. PCR stands for Polymerase Chain Reaction. Some proponents of HIV testing point to PCR as the new gold standard, the final backup, the ultimate tool.
PCR takes, from a patient’s blood, a very tiny amount of genetic material that is suspected of being a component of a virus, and “amplifies it,” “blows it up” to a size where it can be identified and studied.
Much can be said about PCR, but here is the crux: if technicians can only find a miniscule amount of material (in a patient) that may be HIV, no matter how much “amplification” is applied to that sample, there is no reliable way of inferring that the patient is carrying a large number (millions and millions) of HIVs.
And why is that important? Because, in order for some germ to be called a cause of illness, millions of those germs must be in the body, and they must be doing some real damage to cells. Otherwise, the inference drawn is meaningless.
Our bodies contain who knows how many germs? Mostly, they have no negative effect on health. The presence of a tiny, tiny amount of what may be viral material is irrelevant, unless otherwise proven. And the “otherwise” has not been proven.
Many people will read this article and fall back on the old saw: “Thousands of qualified medical experts couldn’t be wrong about HIV testing; there is enormous medical consensus about the reliability of such tests.”
I would point out that the elementary rules of logic and inference are rarely taught in schools anymore. But when they were, any beginning student would have seen through such an absurd assertion. Numbers of people who say X is true have nothing to do with whether X is true.
Example: Millions of atheists say God does not exist. Billions of believers say God does exist. Shall we say the atheists are correct purely because there are millions of them? Shall we say the believers are right because there are billions of them? Do we weigh truth on such a scale of numbers?
Finally, those among the “professional consensus” occasionally try to discredit people who refute HIV as the cause of AIDS or point out huge flaws in HIV testing. This attempt to discredit dissidents usually takes the form of personal attacks, worthy of a ten-year-old who is denied a candy bar by his mother.
Referring again to the elementary texts on logic, such attacks are called ad hominem – “against the man” and not against his arguments.
“X doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He just wants publicity.”
“X once refused to pay a parking ticket in Uganda. Or maybe it was Chicago.”
“X has been married three times.”
“X must be working for a Secret Vegetarian Alliance. How can anybody believe what he says?”
“X says he once saw a UFO. What else do we need to know?”
Some of what else we need to know, at least about HIV testing, is in this article.
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:24 am
Posted by aleksandar2015 on 07/25/2015
Vitamin C - importance as medicine
Vitamin C - importance as medicine
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:24 am
Posted by aleksandar2015 on 07/25/2015
No microbes or bacteria are responsible for disease. Our body is producing them as scavenges. Very nice explained:
No microbes or bacteria are responsible for disease. Our body is producing them as scavenges. Very nice explained:
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:24 am
Posted by vortexkitten on 07/26/2015
Jul 25, 2015 14:15:36 GMT aleksandar2015 said:
Vitamin C - importance as medicine
Hi, aleksander2015 and All,
I am sure you will find this of interest, we did when we were trying to help loved ones who had cancer.
Clinical Guide to the Use of Vitamin C The Clinical Experiences of Frederick R. Klenner, M.D.,
A Few Quotes form The Clinical Study below:
He reminds us of Hippocrates. He felt that of several remedies physicians would choose the least sensational. Vitamin C meets those requirements.
“Adults taking at least ten grams of ascorbic acid daily and children under ten at least one gram for each year of life will find that the brain will be clearer, the mind more active, the body less wearied, and the memory more retentive.”
Another summary by Dr. Klenner: “I have never seen a patient that Vitamin C would not benefit.”
He discovered the tremendous therapeutic power of Vitamin C to aid the immune system, to act as an antihistamine, and to neutralize toxins. Again, let us not forget what comes through after examining all these published reports: “Vitamin C should be given to the patient while the doctors ponder the diagnosis.”
link:
Clinical Guide to the Use of Vitamin C The Clinical Experiences of Frederick R. Klenner, M.D.,
Jul 25, 2015 14:15:36 GMT aleksandar2015 said:
Vitamin C - importance as medicine
Hi, aleksander2015 and All,
I am sure you will find this of interest, we did when we were trying to help loved ones who had cancer.
Clinical Guide to the Use of Vitamin C The Clinical Experiences of Frederick R. Klenner, M.D.,
A Few Quotes form The Clinical Study below:
He reminds us of Hippocrates. He felt that of several remedies physicians would choose the least sensational. Vitamin C meets those requirements.
“Adults taking at least ten grams of ascorbic acid daily and children under ten at least one gram for each year of life will find that the brain will be clearer, the mind more active, the body less wearied, and the memory more retentive.”
Another summary by Dr. Klenner: “I have never seen a patient that Vitamin C would not benefit.”
He discovered the tremendous therapeutic power of Vitamin C to aid the immune system, to act as an antihistamine, and to neutralize toxins. Again, let us not forget what comes through after examining all these published reports: “Vitamin C should be given to the patient while the doctors ponder the diagnosis.”
link:
Clinical Guide to the Use of Vitamin C The Clinical Experiences of Frederick R. Klenner, M.D.,
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Re: Big Pharma and the Medical Health Industry
by lizardking Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:25 am
School Diet Change Brings Improved Behavior, Healthier, More Focused Students
The informative article below clearly demonstrates the importance of a healthy school diet for our children. Diet is being shown to clearly influence both behavior and mood. A healthy diet fosters calmer, healthier, more focused behavior. Studies like the one below demonstrate that excessive amounts of fast food can lead to severe behavior changes, and suggest that avoiding genetically modified foods may be a very healthy option. Links at the bottom of the article provide lots more information on this topic for those interested.
Why Schools Should Remove GE-Tainted Foods from Their Cafeterias
Institute for Responsible Technology
Newsletter on GM Foods, Spilling the Beans
By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception
Before the Appleton Wisconsin high school replaced their cafeteria's processed foods with wholesome, nutritious food, the school was described as out-of-control. There were weapons violations, student disruptions, and a cop on duty full-time. After the change in school meals, the students were calm, focused, and orderly. There were no more weapons violations, and no suicides, expulsions, dropouts, or drug violations. The new diet and improved behavior has lasted for seven years, and now other schools are changing their meal programs with similar results.
Years ago, a science class at Appleton found support for their new diet by conducting a cruel and unusual experiment with three mice. They fed them the junk food that kids in other high schools eat everyday. The mice freaked out. Their behavior was totally different than the three mice in the neighboring cage. The neighboring mice had good karma; they were fed nutritious whole foods and behaved like mice. They slept during the day inside their cardboard tube, played with each other, and acted very mouse-like.
The junk food mice, on the other hand, destroyed their cardboard tube, were no longer nocturnal, stopped playing with each other, fought often, and two mice eventually killed the third and ate it. After the three month experiment, the students rehabilitated the two surviving junk food mice with a diet of whole foods. After about three weeks, the mice came around.
Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every year in her second grade class in Cudahy, Wisconsin, but mercifully, for only four days. Even on the first day of junk food, the mice's behavior "changes drastically." They become lazy, antisocial, and nervous. And it still takes the mice about two to three weeks on unprocessed foods to return to normal. One year, the second graders tried to do the experiment again a few months later with the same mice, but this time the animals refused to eat the junk food.
Across the ocean in Holland, a student fed one group of mice genetically modified (GM) corn and soy, and another group the non-GM variety. The GM mice stopped playing with each other and withdrew into their own parts of the cage. When the student tried to pick them up, unlike their well-behaved neighbors, the GM mice scampered around in apparent fear and tried to climb the walls. One mouse in the GM group was found dead at the end of the experiment.
It's interesting to note that the junk food fed to the mice in the Wisconsin experiments also contained genetically modified ingredients. And although the Appleton school lunch program did not specifically attempt to remove GM foods, it happened anyway. That's because GM foods such as soy and corn and their derivatives are largely found in processed foods. So when the school switched to unprocessed alternatives, almost all ingredients derived from GM crops were taken out automatically.
Does this mean that GM foods negatively affect the behavior of humans or animals? It would certainly be irresponsible to say so on the basis of a single student mice experiment and the results at Appleton. On the other hand, it is equally irresponsible to say that it doesn't.
We are just beginning to understand the influence of food on behavior. A study in Science in December 2002 concluded that "food molecules act like hormones, regulating body functioning and triggering cell division. The molecules can cause mental imbalances ranging from attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder to serious mental illness." The problem is we do not know which food molecules have what effect.
The bigger problem is that the composition of GM foods can change radically without our knowledge. Genetically modified foods have genes inserted into their DNA. But genes are not Legos; they don't just snap into place. Gene insertion creates unpredicted, irreversible changes. In one study, for example, a gene chip monitored the DNA before and after a single foreign gene was inserted. As much as 5 percent of the DNA's genes changed the amount of protein they were producing. Not only is that huge in itself, but these changes can multiply through complex interactions down the line.
In spite of the potential for dramatic changes in the composition of GM foods, they are typically measured for only a small number of known nutrient levels. But even if we could identify all the changed compounds, at this point we wouldn¹t know which might be responsible for the antisocial nature of mice or humans. Likewise, we are only beginning to identify the medicinal compounds in food. We now know, for example, that the pigment in blueberries may revive the brain¹s neural communication system, and the antioxidant found in grape skins may fight cancer and reduce heart disease. But what about other valuable compounds we don¹t know about that might change or disappear in GM varieties?
Consider GM soy. In July 1999, years after it was on the market, independent researchers published a study showing that it contains 12-14 percent less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. What else has changed that we don¹t know about? [Monsanto responded with its own study, which concluded that soy¹s phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis. They failed to disclose, however, that the laboratory that conducted Monsanto¹s experiment had been instructed to use an obsolete method to detect phytoestrogens results.]
In 1996, Monsanto published a paper in the Journal of Nutrition that concluded in the title, "The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans." The study only compared a small number of nutrients and a close look at their charts revealed significant differences in the fat, ash, and carbohydrate content. In addition, GM soy meal contained 27 percent more trypsin inhibitor, a well-known soy allergen. The study also used questionable methods. Nutrient comparisons are routinely conducted on plants grown in identical conditions so that variables such as weather and soil can be ruled out. Otherwise, differences in plant composition could be easily missed. In Monsanto's study, soybeans were planted in widely varying climates and geography.
Although one of their trials was a side-by-side comparison between GM and non-GM soy, for some reason the results were left out of the paper altogether. Years later, a medical writer found the missing data in the archives of the Journal of Nutrition and made them public. No wonder the scientists left them out. The GM soy showed significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid. Also, toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin that may block the body's ability to assimilate other nutrients. Furthermore, the toasted GM soy contained as much as seven times the amount of trypsin inhibitor, indicating that the allergen may survive cooking more in the GM variety. (This might explain the 50 percent jump in soy allergies in the UK, just after GM soy was introduced.)
We don't know all the changes that occur with genetic engineering, but certainly GM crops are not the same. Ask the animals. Eyewitness reports from all over North America describe how several types of animals, when given a choice, avoided eating GM food. These included cows, pigs, elk, deer, raccoons, squirrels, rats, and mice. In fact, the Dutch student mentioned above first determined that his mice had a two-to-one preference for non-GM before forcing half of them to eat only the engineered variety.
Differences in GM food will likely have a much larger impact on children. They are three to four times more susceptible to allergies. Also, they convert more of the food into body-building material. Altered nutrients or added toxins can result in developmental problems. For this reason, animal nutrition studies are typically conducted on young, developing animals. After the feeding trial, organs are weighed and often studied under magnification. If scientists used mature animals instead of young ones, even severe nutritional problems might not be detected. The Monsanto study used mature animals instead of young ones.
They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein ten- or twelve-fold before feeding the animals. And they never weighed the organs or examined them under a microscope. The study, which is the only major animal feeding study on GM soy ever published, is dismissed by critics as rigged to avoid finding problems.
Unfortunately, there is a much bigger experiment going on one which we are all a part of. We're being fed GM foods daily, without knowing the impact of these foods on our health, our behavior, or our children. Thousands of schools around the world, particularly in Europe, have decided not to let their kids be used as guinea pigs. They have banned GM foods.
The impact of changes in the composition of GM foods is only one of several reasons why these foods may be dangerous. Other reasons may be far worse (see .
With the epidemic of obesity and diabetes and with the results in Appleton, parents and schools are waking up to the critical role that diet plays. When making changes in what kids eat, removing GM foods should be a priority.
www.wanttoknow.info/050520schooldietchange
The informative article below clearly demonstrates the importance of a healthy school diet for our children. Diet is being shown to clearly influence both behavior and mood. A healthy diet fosters calmer, healthier, more focused behavior. Studies like the one below demonstrate that excessive amounts of fast food can lead to severe behavior changes, and suggest that avoiding genetically modified foods may be a very healthy option. Links at the bottom of the article provide lots more information on this topic for those interested.
Why Schools Should Remove GE-Tainted Foods from Their Cafeterias
Institute for Responsible Technology
Newsletter on GM Foods, Spilling the Beans
By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception
Before the Appleton Wisconsin high school replaced their cafeteria's processed foods with wholesome, nutritious food, the school was described as out-of-control. There were weapons violations, student disruptions, and a cop on duty full-time. After the change in school meals, the students were calm, focused, and orderly. There were no more weapons violations, and no suicides, expulsions, dropouts, or drug violations. The new diet and improved behavior has lasted for seven years, and now other schools are changing their meal programs with similar results.
Years ago, a science class at Appleton found support for their new diet by conducting a cruel and unusual experiment with three mice. They fed them the junk food that kids in other high schools eat everyday. The mice freaked out. Their behavior was totally different than the three mice in the neighboring cage. The neighboring mice had good karma; they were fed nutritious whole foods and behaved like mice. They slept during the day inside their cardboard tube, played with each other, and acted very mouse-like.
The junk food mice, on the other hand, destroyed their cardboard tube, were no longer nocturnal, stopped playing with each other, fought often, and two mice eventually killed the third and ate it. After the three month experiment, the students rehabilitated the two surviving junk food mice with a diet of whole foods. After about three weeks, the mice came around.
Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every year in her second grade class in Cudahy, Wisconsin, but mercifully, for only four days. Even on the first day of junk food, the mice's behavior "changes drastically." They become lazy, antisocial, and nervous. And it still takes the mice about two to three weeks on unprocessed foods to return to normal. One year, the second graders tried to do the experiment again a few months later with the same mice, but this time the animals refused to eat the junk food.
Across the ocean in Holland, a student fed one group of mice genetically modified (GM) corn and soy, and another group the non-GM variety. The GM mice stopped playing with each other and withdrew into their own parts of the cage. When the student tried to pick them up, unlike their well-behaved neighbors, the GM mice scampered around in apparent fear and tried to climb the walls. One mouse in the GM group was found dead at the end of the experiment.
It's interesting to note that the junk food fed to the mice in the Wisconsin experiments also contained genetically modified ingredients. And although the Appleton school lunch program did not specifically attempt to remove GM foods, it happened anyway. That's because GM foods such as soy and corn and their derivatives are largely found in processed foods. So when the school switched to unprocessed alternatives, almost all ingredients derived from GM crops were taken out automatically.
Does this mean that GM foods negatively affect the behavior of humans or animals? It would certainly be irresponsible to say so on the basis of a single student mice experiment and the results at Appleton. On the other hand, it is equally irresponsible to say that it doesn't.
We are just beginning to understand the influence of food on behavior. A study in Science in December 2002 concluded that "food molecules act like hormones, regulating body functioning and triggering cell division. The molecules can cause mental imbalances ranging from attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder to serious mental illness." The problem is we do not know which food molecules have what effect.
The bigger problem is that the composition of GM foods can change radically without our knowledge. Genetically modified foods have genes inserted into their DNA. But genes are not Legos; they don't just snap into place. Gene insertion creates unpredicted, irreversible changes. In one study, for example, a gene chip monitored the DNA before and after a single foreign gene was inserted. As much as 5 percent of the DNA's genes changed the amount of protein they were producing. Not only is that huge in itself, but these changes can multiply through complex interactions down the line.
In spite of the potential for dramatic changes in the composition of GM foods, they are typically measured for only a small number of known nutrient levels. But even if we could identify all the changed compounds, at this point we wouldn¹t know which might be responsible for the antisocial nature of mice or humans. Likewise, we are only beginning to identify the medicinal compounds in food. We now know, for example, that the pigment in blueberries may revive the brain¹s neural communication system, and the antioxidant found in grape skins may fight cancer and reduce heart disease. But what about other valuable compounds we don¹t know about that might change or disappear in GM varieties?
Consider GM soy. In July 1999, years after it was on the market, independent researchers published a study showing that it contains 12-14 percent less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. What else has changed that we don¹t know about? [Monsanto responded with its own study, which concluded that soy¹s phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis. They failed to disclose, however, that the laboratory that conducted Monsanto¹s experiment had been instructed to use an obsolete method to detect phytoestrogens results.]
In 1996, Monsanto published a paper in the Journal of Nutrition that concluded in the title, "The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans." The study only compared a small number of nutrients and a close look at their charts revealed significant differences in the fat, ash, and carbohydrate content. In addition, GM soy meal contained 27 percent more trypsin inhibitor, a well-known soy allergen. The study also used questionable methods. Nutrient comparisons are routinely conducted on plants grown in identical conditions so that variables such as weather and soil can be ruled out. Otherwise, differences in plant composition could be easily missed. In Monsanto's study, soybeans were planted in widely varying climates and geography.
Although one of their trials was a side-by-side comparison between GM and non-GM soy, for some reason the results were left out of the paper altogether. Years later, a medical writer found the missing data in the archives of the Journal of Nutrition and made them public. No wonder the scientists left them out. The GM soy showed significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid. Also, toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin that may block the body's ability to assimilate other nutrients. Furthermore, the toasted GM soy contained as much as seven times the amount of trypsin inhibitor, indicating that the allergen may survive cooking more in the GM variety. (This might explain the 50 percent jump in soy allergies in the UK, just after GM soy was introduced.)
We don't know all the changes that occur with genetic engineering, but certainly GM crops are not the same. Ask the animals. Eyewitness reports from all over North America describe how several types of animals, when given a choice, avoided eating GM food. These included cows, pigs, elk, deer, raccoons, squirrels, rats, and mice. In fact, the Dutch student mentioned above first determined that his mice had a two-to-one preference for non-GM before forcing half of them to eat only the engineered variety.
Differences in GM food will likely have a much larger impact on children. They are three to four times more susceptible to allergies. Also, they convert more of the food into body-building material. Altered nutrients or added toxins can result in developmental problems. For this reason, animal nutrition studies are typically conducted on young, developing animals. After the feeding trial, organs are weighed and often studied under magnification. If scientists used mature animals instead of young ones, even severe nutritional problems might not be detected. The Monsanto study used mature animals instead of young ones.
They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein ten- or twelve-fold before feeding the animals. And they never weighed the organs or examined them under a microscope. The study, which is the only major animal feeding study on GM soy ever published, is dismissed by critics as rigged to avoid finding problems.
Unfortunately, there is a much bigger experiment going on one which we are all a part of. We're being fed GM foods daily, without knowing the impact of these foods on our health, our behavior, or our children. Thousands of schools around the world, particularly in Europe, have decided not to let their kids be used as guinea pigs. They have banned GM foods.
The impact of changes in the composition of GM foods is only one of several reasons why these foods may be dangerous. Other reasons may be far worse (see .
With the epidemic of obesity and diabetes and with the results in Appleton, parents and schools are waking up to the critical role that diet plays. When making changes in what kids eat, removing GM foods should be a priority.
www.wanttoknow.info/050520schooldietchange
lizardking- Posts : 1673
Points : 7600
Reputation : 2604
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 31
Location : United Kingdom
Page 4 of 9 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Similar topics» CoronaVirus and Forced Vaccination Manipulation
» CoronaVirus and Forced Vaccination Manipulation
» Freemasons and the music industry.
» ISS Hoax - The International Space Station Does Not Exist!
» Media & Entertainment Industry Manipulation
» CoronaVirus and Forced Vaccination Manipulation
» Freemasons and the music industry.
» ISS Hoax - The International Space Station Does Not Exist!
» Media & Entertainment Industry Manipulation
IFERS - Exposing the 'Global' Conspiracy From Atlantis to Zion :: Other Conspiracies, Hoaxes, Myths and Lies
Page 4 of 9
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum