Showing posts with label AIDS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AIDS. Show all posts
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Outside the Box
I thought that this was a great video with a lot of good information. Leonard Horowitz is a great researcher. Although this is about a year old, it is still some vital information of which people need to be aware. It's about an hour long though, but you need to watch it. It is important to be aware of what is REALLY going on out there...
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Vaccination Revisited
I found an article that discusses the effectiveness of vaccines that revived my interest in the topic. Although we hear a lot of opinions and talk from the alleged health care experts that support compulsory vaccinations, in my research and experience it would appear that vaccines are:
1. ineffective in treating or preventing diseases,
2. dangerous, especially to young children and infants who have undeveloped immune systems,
3. simply a tool for the medical establishment to extract more money from its patients/victims
The beginning of the vaccination theory was with Edward Jenner, an unschooled, uneducated man who had a theory that he stubbornly stuck to even though he was constantly starting epidemics of cowpox in the livestock in England. He was so incorrigible that the authorities had targeted him in order to get him to stop inoculating the cattle with cowpox.
Later experience with vaccines has demonstrated that they don't prevent disease. In fact, it would appear that they actually cause many of the diseases that they are alleged to prevent! I've seen numerous instances of vaccinated populations experiencing epidemics that do not affect the unvaccinated. Even simple logic would dictate that if the vaccines really worked as claimed, the unvaccinated people would experience the epidemics. Also, the vaccinated would have no danger of infection from the unvaccinated, nor would they have any danger of infection from people who were currently sick from the disease of interest. But from the data I've seen, it would appear that these inductive conclusions are not valid.
On the subject of vaccines, I'd also like to introduce you to another article that is related to the vaccine issue. It is about AIDS/HIV. The 'Green Monkey" theory of the origin of AIDS/HIV appears to be as much of a fairy tale as the 19 hijackers theory of the 911/WTC/Pentagon attacks. The word from thinking people is that AIDS/HIV was man-made in origin, and that it was introduced to humans through the Hepatitis B Vaccination trials in San Francisco and New York City in America (circa 1979), and the WHO Smallpox Vaccination program in Africa (circa 1981).
The AIDS/HIV issue is highly relevant to the vaccination issue because it demonstrates that vaccines can be utilized as a method to inoculate large groups of people in an unsuspecting manner. This is even more sinister when you realize that the government and medical establishment control the dissemination of information by the mass media. In this manner, these powerful groups can be used to squelch dissent and those who question their methods. This has already been the case with AIDS/HIV. We need to wake up and begin to tenaciously question the authorities about these issues so that we do not have any more incidents like this in the future.
1. ineffective in treating or preventing diseases,
2. dangerous, especially to young children and infants who have undeveloped immune systems,
3. simply a tool for the medical establishment to extract more money from its patients/victims
The beginning of the vaccination theory was with Edward Jenner, an unschooled, uneducated man who had a theory that he stubbornly stuck to even though he was constantly starting epidemics of cowpox in the livestock in England. He was so incorrigible that the authorities had targeted him in order to get him to stop inoculating the cattle with cowpox.
Later experience with vaccines has demonstrated that they don't prevent disease. In fact, it would appear that they actually cause many of the diseases that they are alleged to prevent! I've seen numerous instances of vaccinated populations experiencing epidemics that do not affect the unvaccinated. Even simple logic would dictate that if the vaccines really worked as claimed, the unvaccinated people would experience the epidemics. Also, the vaccinated would have no danger of infection from the unvaccinated, nor would they have any danger of infection from people who were currently sick from the disease of interest. But from the data I've seen, it would appear that these inductive conclusions are not valid.
On the subject of vaccines, I'd also like to introduce you to another article that is related to the vaccine issue. It is about AIDS/HIV. The 'Green Monkey" theory of the origin of AIDS/HIV appears to be as much of a fairy tale as the 19 hijackers theory of the 911/WTC/Pentagon attacks. The word from thinking people is that AIDS/HIV was man-made in origin, and that it was introduced to humans through the Hepatitis B Vaccination trials in San Francisco and New York City in America (circa 1979), and the WHO Smallpox Vaccination program in Africa (circa 1981).
The AIDS/HIV issue is highly relevant to the vaccination issue because it demonstrates that vaccines can be utilized as a method to inoculate large groups of people in an unsuspecting manner. This is even more sinister when you realize that the government and medical establishment control the dissemination of information by the mass media. In this manner, these powerful groups can be used to squelch dissent and those who question their methods. This has already been the case with AIDS/HIV. We need to wake up and begin to tenaciously question the authorities about these issues so that we do not have any more incidents like this in the future.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Is There a Cure for Cancer?
Do you believe that after many billions (maybe even trillions) have been spent on cancer research, after numerous Ph.D. scientists, the finest minds in academia, have been studying this disease for at least 3-4 decades, that they are now no closer to a cure for cancer than when they started? I find it incredulous, an insult to my intelligence. Is it really possible that microorganisms are smarter than all the medical scientists of modern civilization? Our advanced knowledge and technology is unable to stop a disease like cancer? Or is it the result of obfuscation of the true nature of this malady? With all of the celebrated advancements in medical science, are we supposed to just accept as fact that the only effective treatments for this disease are:
A) toxic chemotherapy, which is known to use highly poisonous compounds that are lethal to perfectly healthy people,
B) toxic radiation exposure, which is also known to have extremely deleterious effects upon all people (even healthy people),
C) surgery, which can be characterized as butchery, similar to some sort of medieval torture.
The most curious aspect of this situation is that these have been the only American Medical Association (AMA)-approved treatments for cancer for at least the last 30 years! Does this fact really fall in line with all of the scientific advancements that have (allegedly) been made in medical science? We do not have any better response to this disease besides poison and butchery. I find this to be laughable and grossly ridiculous.
In my experience, I haven't seen any serious efforts by the AMA to explore any other treatment modalities. If we are to believe the 'truth' as given by AMA and the medical establishment here in America, there is no other valid approach to disease treatment besides the allopathic (i.e., M.D.) philosophy. I find this to be an untenable holding, given the nature of the Scientific Method that is (allegedly) utilized in all science to find truth and to get the best results from our efforts in all scientific endeavors. I chose science as a field of study because I once believed that it was less inclined to be affected by politics and other forms of corruption and intrigue, but I was mistaken. I have uncovered a lot of fraud, corruption, intrigue and politics in science and medicine in my research. Here, I will share with you some links to information that you may examine as your time permits.
The article that brought me back to this topic was an article that was written by an alternative medical researcher named Dr. Alan Cantwell who has written a few books on AIDS and the microbe that is said to cause cancer. He spoke about one physician named Dr. Virginia Livingston-Wheeler who used various 'non-mainstream' methods to characterize a microbe that has been shown to be found in all tumor tissue that has been examined. Dr. Livingston-Wheeler was not the first researcher to find this ubiquitous microbe. There are reports of researchers finding this microbe in cancerous tissue as early as the late 1800's using what is termed dark-field microscopy. Most microbiologist do not use this form of microscopy in their studies.
On this topic, the most prolific researchers that I have learned about on this topic are Dr. Raymond Royal Rife and Gaston Naessens. Dr. Rife was a genius researcher who identified the cancer microbe with a special microscope that he designed and built, found its resonant frequency and destroyed it with his frequency instrument. He was working with some of the most esteemed researchers from the best universities in that era. You can do a Google search for him online.
Gaston Naessens was another researcher who had actually identified the 16-stage life cycle of the pleomorphic (multiple forms with a life cycle) cancer organism. He could predict the stage of development of disease in people, and could tell whether or not they would become cancerous over a year before the symptoms and disease would manifest. His findings confirm the theories of Antoine Béchamp, a proponent of the pleomorphic theory of microbiology, in contradistinction to Louis Pasteur's theory of monomorphism (one microbe-one disease). Even on his deathbed, Pasteur admitted that Béchamp was correct, and that he was wrong about the pleomorphism of microbes.
I would implore you to do your own study of the topic. It probably won't be easy, as it does take effort and a knowledge of the language of science and medicine. It appears to me that the various disciplines use language and technical language to keep outsiders from understanding what they say and what they do. But you can take some time to learn their language and then understand what they are really saying. If you are a medical professional, you will need to remove the preconceived notions that you have in your mind from previous indoctrination. Be open to the possibility that the things you believe to be true may be wrong. This is the only way that progress is made in life. You cannot embrace truth if you do not examine your beliefs rigorously and completely. Just because something sounds outlandish or ridiculous does not mean that it isn't true. Remember, sense perception assured many people that the Sun revolved around the Earth.. It was 100% self-evident, and 100% wrong! Remember, the life you save may be your own or the life of a loved one. We owe it to ourselves to take control of our lives and to take back our own personal power! You can do it.
A) toxic chemotherapy, which is known to use highly poisonous compounds that are lethal to perfectly healthy people,
B) toxic radiation exposure, which is also known to have extremely deleterious effects upon all people (even healthy people),
C) surgery, which can be characterized as butchery, similar to some sort of medieval torture.
The most curious aspect of this situation is that these have been the only American Medical Association (AMA)-approved treatments for cancer for at least the last 30 years! Does this fact really fall in line with all of the scientific advancements that have (allegedly) been made in medical science? We do not have any better response to this disease besides poison and butchery. I find this to be laughable and grossly ridiculous.
In my experience, I haven't seen any serious efforts by the AMA to explore any other treatment modalities. If we are to believe the 'truth' as given by AMA and the medical establishment here in America, there is no other valid approach to disease treatment besides the allopathic (i.e., M.D.) philosophy. I find this to be an untenable holding, given the nature of the Scientific Method that is (allegedly) utilized in all science to find truth and to get the best results from our efforts in all scientific endeavors. I chose science as a field of study because I once believed that it was less inclined to be affected by politics and other forms of corruption and intrigue, but I was mistaken. I have uncovered a lot of fraud, corruption, intrigue and politics in science and medicine in my research. Here, I will share with you some links to information that you may examine as your time permits.
The article that brought me back to this topic was an article that was written by an alternative medical researcher named Dr. Alan Cantwell who has written a few books on AIDS and the microbe that is said to cause cancer. He spoke about one physician named Dr. Virginia Livingston-Wheeler who used various 'non-mainstream' methods to characterize a microbe that has been shown to be found in all tumor tissue that has been examined. Dr. Livingston-Wheeler was not the first researcher to find this ubiquitous microbe. There are reports of researchers finding this microbe in cancerous tissue as early as the late 1800's using what is termed dark-field microscopy. Most microbiologist do not use this form of microscopy in their studies.
On this topic, the most prolific researchers that I have learned about on this topic are Dr. Raymond Royal Rife and Gaston Naessens. Dr. Rife was a genius researcher who identified the cancer microbe with a special microscope that he designed and built, found its resonant frequency and destroyed it with his frequency instrument. He was working with some of the most esteemed researchers from the best universities in that era. You can do a Google search for him online.
Gaston Naessens was another researcher who had actually identified the 16-stage life cycle of the pleomorphic (multiple forms with a life cycle) cancer organism. He could predict the stage of development of disease in people, and could tell whether or not they would become cancerous over a year before the symptoms and disease would manifest. His findings confirm the theories of Antoine Béchamp, a proponent of the pleomorphic theory of microbiology, in contradistinction to Louis Pasteur's theory of monomorphism (one microbe-one disease). Even on his deathbed, Pasteur admitted that Béchamp was correct, and that he was wrong about the pleomorphism of microbes.
I would implore you to do your own study of the topic. It probably won't be easy, as it does take effort and a knowledge of the language of science and medicine. It appears to me that the various disciplines use language and technical language to keep outsiders from understanding what they say and what they do. But you can take some time to learn their language and then understand what they are really saying. If you are a medical professional, you will need to remove the preconceived notions that you have in your mind from previous indoctrination. Be open to the possibility that the things you believe to be true may be wrong. This is the only way that progress is made in life. You cannot embrace truth if you do not examine your beliefs rigorously and completely. Just because something sounds outlandish or ridiculous does not mean that it isn't true. Remember, sense perception assured many people that the Sun revolved around the Earth.. It was 100% self-evident, and 100% wrong! Remember, the life you save may be your own or the life of a loved one. We owe it to ourselves to take control of our lives and to take back our own personal power! You can do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)