| Ramesh Shankar, Mumbai, PHARMABIZ.com Thursday, April 05, 2012, 08:00 Hrs [IST] |
| Medical experts in paediatrics in the country have lambasted the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Bill Gates Foundation for trumpeting India's polio eradication campaign which they knew 10 years back that it was never going to succeed. 'India was taken off the list of polio-endemic countries by the WHO on January 12, 2012 but the polio eradication campaign will have to be continued in some format for ever. The long promised monetary benefits from ceasing to vaccinate against poliovirus will never be achieved', the well known paediatricians said. “It was unethical for WHO and Bill Gates to flog this programme when they knew 10 years back that it was never to succeed. Getting poor countries to expend their scarce resources on an impossible dream over the last 10 years was unethical,” said Dr Neetu Vashisht and Dr Jacob Puliyel of the Department of Paediatrics at St Stephens Hospital in Delhi in their report in the April issue of 'Indian Journal of Medical Ethics'. January 12, 2012, marked a significant milestone for India as it was the first anniversary of the last reported wild polio case from India. The two doctors noted that it was long known to the scientific community that eradication of polio was impossible because scientists had synthesized poliovirus in a test-tube as early as in 2002. “The sequence of its genome is known and modern biotechnology allows it to be resurrected at any time in the lab,” they said and added, “Man can thus never let down his guard against poliovirus.” Dr Vashisht and Dr Puliyel said that another major ethical issue raised by the campaign is the failure to thoroughly investigate the increase in the incidence of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) in areas where many doses of vaccine were used. NPAFP is clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly. The authors noted that while India was polio-free in 2011, in the same year, there were 47500 cases of NPAFP. While data from India’s National Polio Surveillance Project showed NPAFP rate increased in proportion to the number of polio vaccine doses received, independent studies showed that children identified with NPAFP “were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection.” According to their report, nationally, the NPAFP rate is now twelve times higher than expected. In the states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar -- which have pulse polio rounds nearly every month--the NPAFP rate is 25 and 35 fold higher than the international norms. The authors point out that while the anti-polio campaign in India was mostly self-financed it started with a token donation of two million dollars from abroad. “The Indian government finally had to fund this hugely expensive programme, which cost the country 100 times more than the value of the initial grant.” “This is a startling reminder of how initial funding and grants from abroad distort local priorities,” the authors noted. “From India’s perspective the exercise has been an extremely costly both in terms of human suffering and in monetary terms. It is tempting to speculate what could have been achieved if the $2.5 billion spent on attempting to eradicate polio, were spent on water and sanitation and routine immunization.” In conclusion they say that “the polio eradication programme epitomizes nearly everything that is wrong with donor funded ‘disease specific’ vertical projects at the cost of investments in community-oriented primary health care (horizontal programmes).” The WHO's current policy calls for stopping oral polio vaccine (OPV) vaccination three years after the last case of poliovirus-caused poliomyelitis. Injectable polio vaccine (IPV), which is expensive, will replace OPV in countries which can afford it. “The risks inherent in this strategy are immense,” Dr Puliyel and Dr Vashisht warn. “Herd immunity against poliomyelitis will rapidly decline as new children are born and not vaccinated. Thus, any outbreak of poliomyelitis will be disastrous, whether it is caused by residual samples of virus stored in laboratories, by vaccine-derived polioviruses or by poliovirus that is chemically synthesized with malignant intent.” They argue that the huge costs of repeated rounds of OPV in terms of money and NPAFP shows that monthly administration of OPV must cease. “Our resources are perhaps better spent on controlling poliomyelitis to a locally acceptable level rather than trying to eradicate the disease.” |
Showing posts with label Modern Medicine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Modern Medicine. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Experts call WHO & Bill Gates Foundation's role in India's polio eradication campaign unethical
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Mumps outbreak spreads among people who got vaccinated against mumps
by Mike Adams
It's all part of the grand vaccine cover-up. Vaccines simply do not work as promised. Vaccines do not offer the level of protection against infectious disease that they promise. In fact, vaccines are far less effective than vitamin D in preventing infections!
There is a way to protect people from infectious disease: Give them the immune-boosting nutrients their immune systems need to defend themselves against disease. Outbreaks of infectious disease would plummet along with seasonal flu deaths.
Of course, so would sales of vaccines. And that's the whole reason you never hear health authorities recommending vitamin D even though it's far more effective than any vaccine at preventing infectious disease (http://www.naturalnews.com/027385_V...). The CDC, we now know, is little more than the marketing branch of Big Pharma's vaccine operations. That's why the former head of the CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding, is now suddenly the president of Merck's worldwide vaccine division (http://www.naturalnews.com/027789_D...).
Vaccines make lots of money, but they don't make people immune to disease. The fact that so many vaccinated people are being stricken with the very diseases they were vaccinated against is proof that vaccines fail to deliver what they promise.
Sources for this story include:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/...
[http://www.naturalnews.com/028142_mumps_vaccines.html]
(NaturalNews) To hear the vaccine pushers say it, all the recent outbreaks of mumps and measles are caused by too few people seeking out vaccinations. It's all those "non-vaccinated people" who are a danger to society, they say, because they can spread disease.
Reality tells a different story, however: It is the vaccinated people who are causing these outbreaks and spreading disease!
Just this week, an outbreak of mumps among more than 1,000 people in New Jersey and New York has raised alarm among infectious disease authorities. The outbreak itself is not unusual, though. What's unusual is that the health authorities slipped up and admitted that most of the people infected with mumps had already been vaccinated against mumps.
Reality tells a different story, however: It is the vaccinated people who are causing these outbreaks and spreading disease!
Just this week, an outbreak of mumps among more than 1,000 people in New Jersey and New York has raised alarm among infectious disease authorities. The outbreak itself is not unusual, though. What's unusual is that the health authorities slipped up and admitted that most of the people infected with mumps had already been vaccinated against mumps.
In Ocean County, New Jersey, county spokeswoman Leslie Terjesen told CNN that 77 percent of those who caught mumps had already been vaccinated against mumps.
77 percent of those infected had been vaccinated
Usually this information is censored out of the press. The vaccine industry wants the public to believe that vaccines are effective at preventing infection. So the media typically refrains from reporting what percentage of the infected people were already vaccinated against the infectious disease.
77 percent of those infected had been vaccinated
Usually this information is censored out of the press. The vaccine industry wants the public to believe that vaccines are effective at preventing infection. So the media typically refrains from reporting what percentage of the infected people were already vaccinated against the infectious disease.
But in this case, the 77 percent figure slipped out. And now intelligent observers are increasingly seeing the truth about these vaccines:
• Infectious disease vaccines simply don't work. If they did, then why did all these children who were already vaccinated still get mumps?
• Vaccines may actually increase your risk of disease. Notice that far more vaccinated children were stricken with mumps than non-vaccinated children?
• The people who administer vaccines never tell you that their vaccines don't really work. They tell you that you'll be "protected" with the vaccine, implying a near-100% level of protection (which is blatantly false).
• Even if you're vaccinated against a disease, you may still catch that disease anyway! So what's the point of the vaccine?
The lies of the CDC
The CDC claims the mumps vaccine is 76 to 95 percent effective, but they offer no scientific evidence whatsoever to support that claim. To date, there has never been a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study published on the mumps vaccine in humans. The so-called "scientific" evidence supporting these vaccines is purely imaginary.
I still have a $10,000 reward offered for anyone who can provide a single scientific study proving the safety and effectiveness of any H1N1 vaccine (http://www.naturalnews.com/027985_H...). To date, not a single person has stepped forward to claim that $10,000. I might as well raise the reward to a million dollars, because I'll never have to pay it: There is no scientific evidence proving the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines!
Does being vaccinated raise your risk of infection?
The CDC also says that 2009 was a bad year for mumps outbreaks. They blame all the people who refuse to be vaccinated for causing these outbreaks. Their theory, of course, is based on the imaginary idea that mumps vaccines halt mumps infections. But once again, it's all imaginary! As we saw this week in New Jersey, most of the people who get infected in these outbreaks are the very people who were vaccinated!
If mumps vaccines actually worked, then what you should see instead is the mumps infection spreading among those who refused the vaccines, right? It's only logical.
In fact, if vaccines really work, then why should the vaccinated people be bothered at all by those who don't get vaccinated? After all, if their vaccines protect themselves from disease, then non-vaccinated people are no threat to them, right? So why are vaccinated people so pushy about forcing non-vaccinated people to get vaccinated?
The shocking truth about infectious disease and vaccines, however, is very different from what you're told by the drug companies (and the health authorities who pander to their interests): Some vaccines may actually promote the very diseases they claim to prevent!
That may be why 77% of those who recently got mumps in New Jersey were, in fact, the very people who were vaccinated against mumps. The vaccine may, in fact, weaken your immune system against future infections, causing you to become more susceptible to future outbreaks.
Many thousands of Americans who died from H1N1 swine flu were the very people who got vaccinated against H1N1 (http://www.naturalnews.com/027956_H...).
The great vaccine hoax exposed
Take a look at nearly every outbreak of infectious disease in recent years and you'll find the same pattern. You'll either see that most of those who got infected were already vaccinated, or you'll see those statistics completely stripped out of all media reports.• Infectious disease vaccines simply don't work. If they did, then why did all these children who were already vaccinated still get mumps?
• Vaccines may actually increase your risk of disease. Notice that far more vaccinated children were stricken with mumps than non-vaccinated children?
• The people who administer vaccines never tell you that their vaccines don't really work. They tell you that you'll be "protected" with the vaccine, implying a near-100% level of protection (which is blatantly false).
• Even if you're vaccinated against a disease, you may still catch that disease anyway! So what's the point of the vaccine?
The lies of the CDC
The CDC claims the mumps vaccine is 76 to 95 percent effective, but they offer no scientific evidence whatsoever to support that claim. To date, there has never been a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study published on the mumps vaccine in humans. The so-called "scientific" evidence supporting these vaccines is purely imaginary.
I still have a $10,000 reward offered for anyone who can provide a single scientific study proving the safety and effectiveness of any H1N1 vaccine (http://www.naturalnews.com/027985_H...). To date, not a single person has stepped forward to claim that $10,000. I might as well raise the reward to a million dollars, because I'll never have to pay it: There is no scientific evidence proving the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines!
Does being vaccinated raise your risk of infection?
The CDC also says that 2009 was a bad year for mumps outbreaks. They blame all the people who refuse to be vaccinated for causing these outbreaks. Their theory, of course, is based on the imaginary idea that mumps vaccines halt mumps infections. But once again, it's all imaginary! As we saw this week in New Jersey, most of the people who get infected in these outbreaks are the very people who were vaccinated!
If mumps vaccines actually worked, then what you should see instead is the mumps infection spreading among those who refused the vaccines, right? It's only logical.
In fact, if vaccines really work, then why should the vaccinated people be bothered at all by those who don't get vaccinated? After all, if their vaccines protect themselves from disease, then non-vaccinated people are no threat to them, right? So why are vaccinated people so pushy about forcing non-vaccinated people to get vaccinated?
The shocking truth about infectious disease and vaccines, however, is very different from what you're told by the drug companies (and the health authorities who pander to their interests): Some vaccines may actually promote the very diseases they claim to prevent!
That may be why 77% of those who recently got mumps in New Jersey were, in fact, the very people who were vaccinated against mumps. The vaccine may, in fact, weaken your immune system against future infections, causing you to become more susceptible to future outbreaks.
Many thousands of Americans who died from H1N1 swine flu were the very people who got vaccinated against H1N1 (http://www.naturalnews.com/027956_H...).
The great vaccine hoax exposed
It's all part of the grand vaccine cover-up. Vaccines simply do not work as promised. Vaccines do not offer the level of protection against infectious disease that they promise. In fact, vaccines are far less effective than vitamin D in preventing infections!
Instead of shooting up our children with over 100 different vaccines (which is now standard practice, by the way), what we should be doing is boosting their immune function with vitamin D, zinc and immune-boosting nutrients from medicinal plants. That would protect them from all common infectious diseases at the same time, and it doesn't require needles or the use of dangerous chemical preservatives like thimerosal, which is linked to autism.
Don't believe the recent attacks on Dr. Wakefield. This was an organized smear campaign designed to discredit Dr. Wakefield before he could publish the results of his "14 monkeys" study that shows severe neurological harm caused by vaccines given to young primates (http://www.naturalnews.com/028109_A...).
There is a way to protect people from infectious disease: Give them the immune-boosting nutrients their immune systems need to defend themselves against disease. Outbreaks of infectious disease would plummet along with seasonal flu deaths.
Of course, so would sales of vaccines. And that's the whole reason you never hear health authorities recommending vitamin D even though it's far more effective than any vaccine at preventing infectious disease (http://www.naturalnews.com/027385_V...). The CDC, we now know, is little more than the marketing branch of Big Pharma's vaccine operations. That's why the former head of the CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding, is now suddenly the president of Merck's worldwide vaccine division (http://www.naturalnews.com/027789_D...).
Vaccines make lots of money, but they don't make people immune to disease. The fact that so many vaccinated people are being stricken with the very diseases they were vaccinated against is proof that vaccines fail to deliver what they promise.
Sources for this story include:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/...
[http://www.naturalnews.com/028142_mumps_vaccines.html]
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots
Mike Adams – Natural News January 17, 2010
The CDC is engaged in a very clever, statistically devious spin campaign, and nearly every journalist in the mainstream media has fallen for its ploy. No one has yet reported what I'm about to reveal here.
It all started with the CDC's recent release of new statistics about swine flu fatalities, infection rates and vaccination rates. According to the CDC:
• 61 million Americans were vaccinated against swine flu (about 20% of the U.S. population). The CDC calls this a "success" even though it means 4 out of 5 people rejected the vaccines.
• 55 million people "became ill" from swine flu infections.
• 246,000 Americans were hospitalized due to swine flu infections.
• 11,160 Americans died from the swine flu.
Base on these statistics, the CDC is now desperately urging people to get vaccinated because they claim the pandemic might come back and vaccines are the best defense.
But here's the part you're NOT being told.
The CDC statistics lie by omission. They do not reveal the single most important piece of information about H1N1 vaccines: How many of the people who died from the swine flu had already been vaccinated?
Many who died had already been vaccinated
The CDC is intentionally not tracking how many of the dead were previously vaccinated. They want you (and mainstream media journalists) to mistakenly believe that ZERO deaths occurred in those who were vaccinated. But this is blatantly false. Being vaccinated against H1N1 swine flu offers absolutely no reduction in mortality from swine flu infections.
And that means roughly 20% of the 11,160 Americans who died from the swine flu were probably already vaccinated against swine flu. That comes to around 2,200 deaths in people who were vaccinated!
How do I know that swine flu vaccines don't reduce infection mortality? Because I've looked through all the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that have ever been conducted on H1N1 vaccines. It didn't take me very long, because the number of such clinical trials is ZERO.
That's right: There is not a single shred of evidence in existence today that scientifically supports the myth that H1N1 vaccines reduce mortality from H1N1 infections. The best evidence I can find on vaccines that target seasonal flu indicates a maximum mortality reduction effect of somewhere around 1% of those who are vaccinated. The other 99% have the same mortality rate as people who were not vaccinated.
So let's give the recent H1N1 vaccines the benefit of the doubt and let's imagine that they work just as well as other flu vaccines. That means they would reduce the mortality rate by 1%. So out of the 2,200 deaths that took place in 2009 in people who were already vaccinated, the vaccine potentially may have saved 22 people.
61 million injections add up to bad public health policy
So let's see: 61 million people are injected with a potentially dangerous vaccine, and the actual number "saved" from the pandemic is conceivably just 22. Meanwhile, the number of people harmed by the vaccine is almost certainly much, much higher than 22. These vaccines contain nervous system disruptors and inflammatory chemicals that can cause serious health problems. Some of those problems won't be evident for years to come... future Alzheimer's victims, for example, will almost certainly those who received regular vaccines, I predict.
Injecting 61 million people with a chemical that threatens the nervous system in order to avoid 22 deaths – and that's the best case! – is an idiotic public health stance. America would have been better off doing nothing rather than hyping up a pandemic in order to sell more vaccines to people who don't need them.
Better yet, what the USA could have done that would have been more effective is handing out bottles of Vitamin D to 61 million people. At no more cost than the vaccines, the bottles of vitamin D supplements would have saved thousands of lives and offered tremendously importantly additional benefits such as preventing cancer and depression, too.
The one question the CDC does not want you to ask
Through its release of misleading statistics, the CDC wants everyone to believe that all of the people who died from H1N1 never received the H1N1 vaccine. That's the implied mythology behind the release of their statistics. And yet they never come right out and say it, do they? They never say, "None of these deaths occurred in patients who had been vaccinated against H1N1."
They can't say that because it's simply not true. It would be a lie. And if that lie were exposed, people might begin to ask questions like, "Well gee, if some of the people who were killed by the swine flu were already vaccinated against swine flu, then doesn't that mean the vaccine doesn't protect us from dying?"
That's the number one question that the CDC absolutely, positively does not want people to start asking.
So they just gloss over the point and imply that vaccines offer absolute protection against H1N1 infections. But even the CDC's own scientists know that's complete bunk. Outright quackery. No vaccine is 100% effective. In fact, when it comes to influenza, no vaccine is even 10% effective at reducing mortality. There's not even a vaccine that's 5% effective. And there's never been a single shred of credible scientific information that says a flu vaccine is even 1% effective.
So how effective are these vaccines, really? There are a couple thousand vaccinated dead people whose own deaths help answer that question: They're not nearly as effective as you've been led to believe.
They may not be effective at all.
Crunching the numbers: Why vaccines just don't add up
Think about this: 80% of Americans refused to get vaccinated against swine flu. That's roughly 240 million people.
Most of those 240 million people were probably exposed to the H1N1 virus at some point over the last six months because the virus was so widespread.
How many of those 240 million people were actually killed by H1N1? Given the CDC's claimed total of deaths at 11,160, if you take 80% of that (because that's the percentage who refused to be vaccinated), you arrive at 8,928. So roughly 8,900 people died out of 240 million. That's a death rate among the un-vaccinated population of .0000372
With a death rate of .0000372, the swine flu killed roughly 1 out of every 26,700 people who were NOT vaccinated. So even if you skipped the vaccine, you had a 26,699 out of 26,700 chance of surviving.
Those are pretty good odds. Ridiculously good. You have a 700% greater chance of being struck by lightning in your lifetime, by the way.
What it all means is that NOT getting vaccinated against the swine flu is actually a very reasonable, intelligent strategy for protecting your health. Mathematically, it is the smarter play.
Because, remember: Some of the dead victims of H1N1 got vaccinated. In fact, I personally challenge the CDC to release statistics detailing what percentage of the dead people had previously received such vaccines.
The headline to this article, "Thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots" is a direct challenge to the CDC, actually. If the CDC believes this headline is wrong -- and that the number of vaccinated Americans who died from H1N1 is zero -- then why don't they say so on the record?
The answer? Because they'd be laughed right out of the room. Everybody who has been following this with any degree of intelligence knows that the H1N1 vaccine was a medical joke from the start. There is no doubt that many of those who died from H1N1 were previously vaccinated. The CDC just doesn't want you to know how many (and they hope you'll assume it's zero).
Where are all the real journalists?
I find it especially fascinating that the simple question of "How many of the dead were previously vaccinated?" has never been asked in print by a single journalist in any mainstream newspaper or media outline across the country. Not the NY Times, not WashingtonPost.com, not the WSJ, LA Times or USA Today. (At least, not that I'm aware of. If you find one that does, let me know and I'll link to their article!)
Isn't there a single journalist in the entire industry that has the journalistic courage to ask this simple question of the CDC? Why do these mainstream journalists just reprint the CDC's statistics without asking a single intelligent question about them?
Why is all the intelligent, skeptical reporting about H1N1 found only in the alternative press or independent media sites?
You already know the answer, but I'll say it anyway: Because most mainstream media journalists are just part of the propaganda machine, blindly reprinting distorted statistics from "authorities" without ever stopping to question those authorities.
The MSM today, in other words, is often quite pathetic. Far from the independent media mindset that used to break big stories like Watergate, today's mainstream media is little more than a mouthpiece for the corporatocracy that runs our nation. The MSM serves the financial interests of the corporations, just as the CDC and WHO do. That's why they're all spouting the same propaganda with their distorted stories about H1N1 swine flu.
But those who are intelligent enough to ask skeptical questions about H1N1 already realize what an enormous con the pandemic was. In the end, it turned out to be a near-harmless virus that was hyped up by the CDC, WHO and drug companies in order to sell hundreds of millions of doses of vaccines that are now about to be dumped down the drain as useless.
The CDC is engaged in a very clever, statistically devious spin campaign, and nearly every journalist in the mainstream media has fallen for its ploy. No one has yet reported what I'm about to reveal here.
It all started with the CDC's recent release of new statistics about swine flu fatalities, infection rates and vaccination rates. According to the CDC:
• 61 million Americans were vaccinated against swine flu (about 20% of the U.S. population). The CDC calls this a "success" even though it means 4 out of 5 people rejected the vaccines.
• 55 million people "became ill" from swine flu infections.
• 246,000 Americans were hospitalized due to swine flu infections.
• 11,160 Americans died from the swine flu.
Base on these statistics, the CDC is now desperately urging people to get vaccinated because they claim the pandemic might come back and vaccines are the best defense.
But here's the part you're NOT being told.
The CDC statistics lie by omission. They do not reveal the single most important piece of information about H1N1 vaccines: How many of the people who died from the swine flu had already been vaccinated?
The CDC is intentionally not tracking how many of the dead were previously vaccinated. They want you (and mainstream media journalists) to mistakenly believe that ZERO deaths occurred in those who were vaccinated. But this is blatantly false. Being vaccinated against H1N1 swine flu offers absolutely no reduction in mortality from swine flu infections.
And that means roughly 20% of the 11,160 Americans who died from the swine flu were probably already vaccinated against swine flu. That comes to around 2,200 deaths in people who were vaccinated!
How do I know that swine flu vaccines don't reduce infection mortality? Because I've looked through all the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that have ever been conducted on H1N1 vaccines. It didn't take me very long, because the number of such clinical trials is ZERO.
That's right: There is not a single shred of evidence in existence today that scientifically supports the myth that H1N1 vaccines reduce mortality from H1N1 infections. The best evidence I can find on vaccines that target seasonal flu indicates a maximum mortality reduction effect of somewhere around 1% of those who are vaccinated. The other 99% have the same mortality rate as people who were not vaccinated.
So let's give the recent H1N1 vaccines the benefit of the doubt and let's imagine that they work just as well as other flu vaccines. That means they would reduce the mortality rate by 1%. So out of the 2,200 deaths that took place in 2009 in people who were already vaccinated, the vaccine potentially may have saved 22 people.
So let's see: 61 million people are injected with a potentially dangerous vaccine, and the actual number "saved" from the pandemic is conceivably just 22. Meanwhile, the number of people harmed by the vaccine is almost certainly much, much higher than 22. These vaccines contain nervous system disruptors and inflammatory chemicals that can cause serious health problems. Some of those problems won't be evident for years to come... future Alzheimer's victims, for example, will almost certainly those who received regular vaccines, I predict.
Injecting 61 million people with a chemical that threatens the nervous system in order to avoid 22 deaths – and that's the best case! – is an idiotic public health stance. America would have been better off doing nothing rather than hyping up a pandemic in order to sell more vaccines to people who don't need them.
Better yet, what the USA could have done that would have been more effective is handing out bottles of Vitamin D to 61 million people. At no more cost than the vaccines, the bottles of vitamin D supplements would have saved thousands of lives and offered tremendously importantly additional benefits such as preventing cancer and depression, too.
Through its release of misleading statistics, the CDC wants everyone to believe that all of the people who died from H1N1 never received the H1N1 vaccine. That's the implied mythology behind the release of their statistics. And yet they never come right out and say it, do they? They never say, "None of these deaths occurred in patients who had been vaccinated against H1N1."
They can't say that because it's simply not true. It would be a lie. And if that lie were exposed, people might begin to ask questions like, "Well gee, if some of the people who were killed by the swine flu were already vaccinated against swine flu, then doesn't that mean the vaccine doesn't protect us from dying?"
That's the number one question that the CDC absolutely, positively does not want people to start asking.
So they just gloss over the point and imply that vaccines offer absolute protection against H1N1 infections. But even the CDC's own scientists know that's complete bunk. Outright quackery. No vaccine is 100% effective. In fact, when it comes to influenza, no vaccine is even 10% effective at reducing mortality. There's not even a vaccine that's 5% effective. And there's never been a single shred of credible scientific information that says a flu vaccine is even 1% effective.
So how effective are these vaccines, really? There are a couple thousand vaccinated dead people whose own deaths help answer that question: They're not nearly as effective as you've been led to believe.
They may not be effective at all.
Think about this: 80% of Americans refused to get vaccinated against swine flu. That's roughly 240 million people.
Most of those 240 million people were probably exposed to the H1N1 virus at some point over the last six months because the virus was so widespread.
How many of those 240 million people were actually killed by H1N1? Given the CDC's claimed total of deaths at 11,160, if you take 80% of that (because that's the percentage who refused to be vaccinated), you arrive at 8,928. So roughly 8,900 people died out of 240 million. That's a death rate among the un-vaccinated population of .0000372
With a death rate of .0000372, the swine flu killed roughly 1 out of every 26,700 people who were NOT vaccinated. So even if you skipped the vaccine, you had a 26,699 out of 26,700 chance of surviving.
Those are pretty good odds. Ridiculously good. You have a 700% greater chance of being struck by lightning in your lifetime, by the way.
What it all means is that NOT getting vaccinated against the swine flu is actually a very reasonable, intelligent strategy for protecting your health. Mathematically, it is the smarter play.
Because, remember: Some of the dead victims of H1N1 got vaccinated. In fact, I personally challenge the CDC to release statistics detailing what percentage of the dead people had previously received such vaccines.
The headline to this article, "Thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots" is a direct challenge to the CDC, actually. If the CDC believes this headline is wrong -- and that the number of vaccinated Americans who died from H1N1 is zero -- then why don't they say so on the record?
The answer? Because they'd be laughed right out of the room. Everybody who has been following this with any degree of intelligence knows that the H1N1 vaccine was a medical joke from the start. There is no doubt that many of those who died from H1N1 were previously vaccinated. The CDC just doesn't want you to know how many (and they hope you'll assume it's zero).
I find it especially fascinating that the simple question of "How many of the dead were previously vaccinated?" has never been asked in print by a single journalist in any mainstream newspaper or media outline across the country. Not the NY Times, not WashingtonPost.com, not the WSJ, LA Times or USA Today. (At least, not that I'm aware of. If you find one that does, let me know and I'll link to their article!)
Isn't there a single journalist in the entire industry that has the journalistic courage to ask this simple question of the CDC? Why do these mainstream journalists just reprint the CDC's statistics without asking a single intelligent question about them?
Why is all the intelligent, skeptical reporting about H1N1 found only in the alternative press or independent media sites?
You already know the answer, but I'll say it anyway: Because most mainstream media journalists are just part of the propaganda machine, blindly reprinting distorted statistics from "authorities" without ever stopping to question those authorities.
The MSM today, in other words, is often quite pathetic. Far from the independent media mindset that used to break big stories like Watergate, today's mainstream media is little more than a mouthpiece for the corporatocracy that runs our nation. The MSM serves the financial interests of the corporations, just as the CDC and WHO do. That's why they're all spouting the same propaganda with their distorted stories about H1N1 swine flu.
But those who are intelligent enough to ask skeptical questions about H1N1 already realize what an enormous con the pandemic was. In the end, it turned out to be a near-harmless virus that was hyped up by the CDC, WHO and drug companies in order to sell hundreds of millions of doses of vaccines that are now about to be dumped down the drain as useless.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Autism, Eugenics and the split within Humanity
Throughout history there has been a strong sense of superiority within elite circles that was often responsible for their own downfall.
Almost every society has at one point in history had a caste system, in which the families that ruled the nation would only marry each other.
In ancient times the ruling elite went as far as claiming they were descended of Gods. Ptolemy, one of Alexander the Great's most trusted bodyguards, claimed that he was descended from Heracles and Dionysus. To keep his divine bloodline pure, his descendants only married each other. This resulted in a long line of brother-sister marriages that eventually gave rise to the now famous Cleopatra.
More recent examples include the Rothschild family and European royal families. Mayer Amschel Rothschild founded a prominent banking dynasty in the late 18th century. For more than a century, the descendants of his sons only married each other. Four of Mayer's granddaughters married grandsons, and one married her uncle.
The European Royal families would only marry eachother, a practice that went on for centuries. Their families were plagued by madness, infertility and various other deformities.
The last Habsburg King of Spain, Charles II was born physically disabled and disfigured.
Centuries of inbreeding within his family had left him unable to chew due to his enormous misshapen Habsburg jaw. As the last living member of his family he was expected to marry and have children, but none of his marriages ever resulted in any children. His death meant the end of Habsburg rule over Spain.
The British Queen Victoria had 9 children, most of whom married into other European Royal Houses. Because two of her daughters carried the gene that causes Haemophilia, soon royal families throughout Europe were plagued by Haemophilia. A famous photograph shows the British King George V next to his cousin, the Tzar Nicholas II. Due to generations of inbreeding the two men looked nearly identical. The gene was also introduced into the Russian royal family.
Nicholas' only son, Alexei suffered from Hemophilia due to his British Royal ancestry.
Even today, the British Queen is married to a member of her own family. Her husband Prince Philip is her third cousin through Queen Victoria and second cousin, once removed through Christian IX of Denmark.
In Britain, the Darwin family had been intermarrying with members of the Wedgewood family for generations. One of their descendants was the now famous Charles Darwin. His half-first Cousin Galton used his theory of Evolution to create the theory of Eugenics. Since natural selection created the species we see today through the evolution of one species into another, humanity must be evolving as well. He believed it must be possible to influence this process in humans, by allowing only certain people to breed. This theory is called eugenics.
The theory of Eugenics received strong support from other elite British families and some of the more prominent families decided to marry into the Galton-Wedgewood family as well. The Huxley family is one such example. Thomas Huxley was one of Darwin's first supporters, which led to his nickname, "Darwin's bulldog". Huxley had many prominent grandsons. One of these is named Andrew Huxley, a man who married Helen Bowen Wedgwood, which makes him related to the Galton-Wedgewood family I mentioned earlier. Two other grandsons are the famous Aldous Huxley and Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley is best known for writing the classic novel "Brave New World". Julian Huxley was a eugenicist who started the Trans humanist movement.
Another related eugenics family is the Keynes family. A granddaughter of Charles Darwin married Geoffrey Keynes. Geoffrey Keynes was the brother of the well known British economist and eugenicist John Maynard Keynes. At the time of his death in 1946, John Maynard Keynes declared eugenics "the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists."
Although the practice of marrying cousins stopped, the idea of superiority never went away. In fact, many prominent British intellectuals wrote about how human beings would evolve into two seperate species. H. G. Wells was one of the first prominent science fiction writers. One of his non-fiction books was called "The New World Order". This book is about a World Government that would end war. The term "New World Order" is still used by many prominent Western politicians today to describe a common goal they work towards. H. G. Wells also believed in the theory of Eugenics. He wrote:
"I believe that now and always the conscious selection of the best for reproduction will be impossible; that to propose it is to display a fundamental misunderstanding of what individuality implies. The way of nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born. It is in the sterilization of failure, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies."
Another one of his books is called "The Time Machine", and served as a warning to the public. In this book, the protagonist uses a time machine to travel to the future, and upon arrival finds out that humanity has split in two. One species called the Eloi lives above Earth and consists of the descendants of today's upper class. With no work to do, they have degenerated and no new art is created and no new inventions are made. The rest of humanity has degenerated and turned into aggressive spider like creatures called Morlock, that live underground where they do all the work that allows the Eloi to live in their Utopia. The warning is that with no more work to do, the descendants of the elite will degenerate, and with them, society as a whole as well. A last deleted chapter of the book shows tiny bunny like creatures, that the Eloi have evolved into. They are hunted and eaten by the Morlock who have turned into giant centipide like creatures. The message, filled with hatred for the common people, is clear.
Another prominent British intellectual, Bertrand Russel, also believed in a split within humanity, but did not feel the need for any of these allegories. In one of his books, The Impact of Science on Society, he wrote:
When such methods of modifying the congenital character of animals and plants have been pursued long enough to make their success obvious, it is probable that there will be a powerful movement for applying scientific methods to human propagation. There would at first be strong religious and emotional obstacles to the adoption of such a policy. But suppose (say) Russia were able to overcome these obstacles and to breed a race stronger, more intelligent, and more resistant to disease than any race of men that has hitherto existed, and suppose the other nations perceived that unless they followed suit they would be defeated in war, then either the other nations would voluntarily forgo their prejudices, or, after defeat, they would be compelled to forgo them. Any scientific technique, however beastly, is bound to spread if it is useful in war - until such time as men decide that they have had enough of war and will henceforth live in peace. As that day does seem to be at hand, scientific breeding of human beings must be expected to come about.
(...)
...Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.
A totalitarian government with a scientific bent might do things that to us would seem horrifying. The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia, and were more inclined towards the sort of atrocities that I have in mind. They were said - I do not know with what truth - to use prisoners in concentration camps as material for all kinds of experiments, some involving death after much pain. If they had survived, they would probably have soon taken to scientific breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice will, within a generation, secure great military advantages. The system, one may surmise, will be something like this: except possibly in the governing aristocracy, all but 5 per cent of males and 30 per cent of females will be sterilised. The 30 per cent of females will be expected to spend the years from eighteen to forty in reproduction, in order to secure adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemination will be preferred to the natural method. The unsterilised, if they desire the pleasures of love, will usually have to seek them with sterilised partners.
Sires will be chosen for various qualities, some for muscle others for brains. All will have to be healthy, and unless they are to be the fathers of oligarchs they will have to be of a submissive and docile disposition. Children will, as in Plato's Republic, be taken from their mothers and reared by professional nurses. Gradually, by selective breeding the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton. (The Aztecs kept a domesticated alien tribe for purposes of cannibalism. Their regime was totalitarian.)
To those accustomed to this system, the family as we know it would seem as queer as the tribal and totem organisation of Australian aborigines seems to us... The labouring class would have such long hours of work and so little to eat that their desires would hardly extend beyond sleep and food. The upper class, being deprived of the softer pleasures both by the abolition of the family and by the supreme duty of devotion to the State, would acquire the mentality of ascetics: they would care only for power, and in pursuit of it would not shrink from cruelty. By the practice of cruelty men would become hardened, so that worse and worse tortures would be required to give the spectators a thrill." [emphasis mine] - 61
This book was published in 1952. Similar ideas persist today.
The BBC reported in 2006 that Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects humanity to split in two as well. The "genetic upper class" will evolve into tall intelligent and good looking beings, while the rest of humanity will degenerate into "goblin-like creatures" as the BBC calls them. Like H. G. Wells, Oliver Curry is afraid that this new race will degenerate because there will be little work left to do due to innovations in technology. From the BBC article:
Almost every society has at one point in history had a caste system, in which the families that ruled the nation would only marry each other.
In ancient times the ruling elite went as far as claiming they were descended of Gods. Ptolemy, one of Alexander the Great's most trusted bodyguards, claimed that he was descended from Heracles and Dionysus. To keep his divine bloodline pure, his descendants only married each other. This resulted in a long line of brother-sister marriages that eventually gave rise to the now famous Cleopatra.
More recent examples include the Rothschild family and European royal families. Mayer Amschel Rothschild founded a prominent banking dynasty in the late 18th century. For more than a century, the descendants of his sons only married each other. Four of Mayer's granddaughters married grandsons, and one married her uncle.
The European Royal families would only marry eachother, a practice that went on for centuries. Their families were plagued by madness, infertility and various other deformities.
The last Habsburg King of Spain, Charles II was born physically disabled and disfigured.
Centuries of inbreeding within his family had left him unable to chew due to his enormous misshapen Habsburg jaw. As the last living member of his family he was expected to marry and have children, but none of his marriages ever resulted in any children. His death meant the end of Habsburg rule over Spain.
The British Queen Victoria had 9 children, most of whom married into other European Royal Houses. Because two of her daughters carried the gene that causes Haemophilia, soon royal families throughout Europe were plagued by Haemophilia. A famous photograph shows the British King George V next to his cousin, the Tzar Nicholas II. Due to generations of inbreeding the two men looked nearly identical. The gene was also introduced into the Russian royal family.
Nicholas' only son, Alexei suffered from Hemophilia due to his British Royal ancestry.
Even today, the British Queen is married to a member of her own family. Her husband Prince Philip is her third cousin through Queen Victoria and second cousin, once removed through Christian IX of Denmark.
In Britain, the Darwin family had been intermarrying with members of the Wedgewood family for generations. One of their descendants was the now famous Charles Darwin. His half-first Cousin Galton used his theory of Evolution to create the theory of Eugenics. Since natural selection created the species we see today through the evolution of one species into another, humanity must be evolving as well. He believed it must be possible to influence this process in humans, by allowing only certain people to breed. This theory is called eugenics.
The theory of Eugenics received strong support from other elite British families and some of the more prominent families decided to marry into the Galton-Wedgewood family as well. The Huxley family is one such example. Thomas Huxley was one of Darwin's first supporters, which led to his nickname, "Darwin's bulldog". Huxley had many prominent grandsons. One of these is named Andrew Huxley, a man who married Helen Bowen Wedgwood, which makes him related to the Galton-Wedgewood family I mentioned earlier. Two other grandsons are the famous Aldous Huxley and Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley is best known for writing the classic novel "Brave New World". Julian Huxley was a eugenicist who started the Trans humanist movement.
Another related eugenics family is the Keynes family. A granddaughter of Charles Darwin married Geoffrey Keynes. Geoffrey Keynes was the brother of the well known British economist and eugenicist John Maynard Keynes. At the time of his death in 1946, John Maynard Keynes declared eugenics "the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists."
Although the practice of marrying cousins stopped, the idea of superiority never went away. In fact, many prominent British intellectuals wrote about how human beings would evolve into two seperate species. H. G. Wells was one of the first prominent science fiction writers. One of his non-fiction books was called "The New World Order". This book is about a World Government that would end war. The term "New World Order" is still used by many prominent Western politicians today to describe a common goal they work towards. H. G. Wells also believed in the theory of Eugenics. He wrote:
"I believe that now and always the conscious selection of the best for reproduction will be impossible; that to propose it is to display a fundamental misunderstanding of what individuality implies. The way of nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born. It is in the sterilization of failure, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies."
Another one of his books is called "The Time Machine", and served as a warning to the public. In this book, the protagonist uses a time machine to travel to the future, and upon arrival finds out that humanity has split in two. One species called the Eloi lives above Earth and consists of the descendants of today's upper class. With no work to do, they have degenerated and no new art is created and no new inventions are made. The rest of humanity has degenerated and turned into aggressive spider like creatures called Morlock, that live underground where they do all the work that allows the Eloi to live in their Utopia. The warning is that with no more work to do, the descendants of the elite will degenerate, and with them, society as a whole as well. A last deleted chapter of the book shows tiny bunny like creatures, that the Eloi have evolved into. They are hunted and eaten by the Morlock who have turned into giant centipide like creatures. The message, filled with hatred for the common people, is clear.
Another prominent British intellectual, Bertrand Russel, also believed in a split within humanity, but did not feel the need for any of these allegories. In one of his books, The Impact of Science on Society, he wrote:
When such methods of modifying the congenital character of animals and plants have been pursued long enough to make their success obvious, it is probable that there will be a powerful movement for applying scientific methods to human propagation. There would at first be strong religious and emotional obstacles to the adoption of such a policy. But suppose (say) Russia were able to overcome these obstacles and to breed a race stronger, more intelligent, and more resistant to disease than any race of men that has hitherto existed, and suppose the other nations perceived that unless they followed suit they would be defeated in war, then either the other nations would voluntarily forgo their prejudices, or, after defeat, they would be compelled to forgo them. Any scientific technique, however beastly, is bound to spread if it is useful in war - until such time as men decide that they have had enough of war and will henceforth live in peace. As that day does seem to be at hand, scientific breeding of human beings must be expected to come about.
(...)
...Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.
A totalitarian government with a scientific bent might do things that to us would seem horrifying. The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia, and were more inclined towards the sort of atrocities that I have in mind. They were said - I do not know with what truth - to use prisoners in concentration camps as material for all kinds of experiments, some involving death after much pain. If they had survived, they would probably have soon taken to scientific breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice will, within a generation, secure great military advantages. The system, one may surmise, will be something like this: except possibly in the governing aristocracy, all but 5 per cent of males and 30 per cent of females will be sterilised. The 30 per cent of females will be expected to spend the years from eighteen to forty in reproduction, in order to secure adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemination will be preferred to the natural method. The unsterilised, if they desire the pleasures of love, will usually have to seek them with sterilised partners.
Sires will be chosen for various qualities, some for muscle others for brains. All will have to be healthy, and unless they are to be the fathers of oligarchs they will have to be of a submissive and docile disposition. Children will, as in Plato's Republic, be taken from their mothers and reared by professional nurses. Gradually, by selective breeding the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton. (The Aztecs kept a domesticated alien tribe for purposes of cannibalism. Their regime was totalitarian.)
To those accustomed to this system, the family as we know it would seem as queer as the tribal and totem organisation of Australian aborigines seems to us... The labouring class would have such long hours of work and so little to eat that their desires would hardly extend beyond sleep and food. The upper class, being deprived of the softer pleasures both by the abolition of the family and by the supreme duty of devotion to the State, would acquire the mentality of ascetics: they would care only for power, and in pursuit of it would not shrink from cruelty. By the practice of cruelty men would become hardened, so that worse and worse tortures would be required to give the spectators a thrill." [emphasis mine] - 61
This book was published in 1952. Similar ideas persist today.
The BBC reported in 2006 that Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects humanity to split in two as well. The "genetic upper class" will evolve into tall intelligent and good looking beings, while the rest of humanity will degenerate into "goblin-like creatures" as the BBC calls them. Like H. G. Wells, Oliver Curry is afraid that this new race will degenerate because there will be little work left to do due to innovations in technology. From the BBC article:
Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams. Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile. Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food. There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine, resulting in weak immune systems. Preventing deaths would also help to preserve the genetic defects that cause cancer.
Ideas like these can even be found in the highest circles of the British military. In 2006 a document was published called DCDC Strategic Trends to help prepare the military for any scenario's that we might see in the future. The document can be found here. It mentions among other things:
Globalization will result in critical interdependencies that will link members of a globalized society that includes a small super-rich elite and a substantial underclass of slum and subsistence dwellers, who will make up 20% of the world population in 2020.
(...)
Globalization will result in critical interdependencies that will link members of a globalized society that includes a small super-rich elite and a substantial underclass of slum and subsistence dwellers, who will make up 20% of the world population in 2020.
(...)
New Humans
The application of advanced genetics could challenge current assumptions about human nature and existence. Initially employed for medical purposes, breakthroughs in these areas could be put to ethically questionable uses, such as the super-enhancement of human attributes, including physical strength and sensory perception. Extreme variation in attributes could arise between individuals, or where enhancement becomes a matter of fashion, between societies, creating additional reasons for conflict.
(...)
(...)
Genetic Treatments to Prevent the Effects of Ageing
Developments in genetics might allow treatment of the symptoms of ageing and this would result in greatly increased life expectancy for those who could afford it. The divide between those that could afford to ‘buy longevity’ and those that could not, could aggravate perceived global inequality. Dictatorial or despotic rulers could potentially also ‘buy longevity’, prolonging their regimes and international security risks.
An article by Wired.com shows that ideas like these are prevalent in American Transhumanist circles as well. It begins by saying:
Bioethicists and scientists contemplating the future fear that genetic engineering and other technologies are going to divide human beings into classes that may one day try to destroy one another.
Rich, powerful people will use technology to make their kids smarter, they say. The poor and the disenfranchised, meanwhile, will become a kind of subhuman servant class, like the Yahoos in Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels.It goes on to quote multiple prominent biologists and bioethicists about their views in these development.
The belief in a coming split within humanity is widespread within academic circles. It ties into the ideas of Transhumanism, the philosphy of Julian Huxley that I mentioned earlier. Transhumanism is the belief that through genetic modification and/or technological enhancement, humanity will eventually take evolution into it's own hands, and redesign intself. Of course, like DCDC Strategic Trends says, if this will ever be possible, it will most likely only be available to those within the higher echelons of society.
Whether these are simply the delusions of men living in ivory towers or not, this is a worrying trend because these people are in control of many aspects of our society and they believe that part of the human race is destined to become a better species, while the rest of us degenerate. What's even more disturbing is that some, like Bertrand Russell, believe that this split will not come naturally, but will be brought about by a scientific oligarchy that only allows the docile and less intelligent members of the general populace to reproduce. In his 1952 book Russell gave a general picture of how the human race will be manipulated by this oligarchy. I've selected a few passages below:
The system, one may surmise, will be something like this: except possibly in the governing aristocracy, all but 5 per cent of males and 30 per cent of females will be sterilised. The 30 per cent of females will be expected to spend the years from eighteen to forty in reproduction, in order to secure adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemination will be preferred to the natural method. The unsterilised, if they desire the pleasures of love, will usually have to seek them with sterilised partners.
(...)
Sires will be chosen for various qualities, some for muscle others for brains. All will have to be healthy, and unless they are to be the fathers of oligarchs they will have to be of a submissive and docile disposition. Children will, as in Plato's Republic, be taken from their mothers and reared by professional nurses. Gradually, by selective breeding the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.
(...)
...Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.
As you can see, Russel believed that the vast majority of the population will be sterilized. Only those with a submissive and docile character will be allowed to reproduce. Furthermore, Diet Injections and Injunctions will be used to create the type of character the authorities will consider desirable. These policies would allow the scientific oligarchy to remain in control forever. This would come down to a war against those with a strong and independent mind. Those intelligent enough to be capable of understanding what is done to the population would have to be eliminated.
There is evidence that suggests a lot of these ideas are currently being carried out. In a previous report, I wrote about mass sterilization campaigns that are currently carried out in the 3rd world. This report did not mention however, that infertility is becoming epidemic in the 1st world as well. Studies done in Denmark, Finland, France and New Zealand among other countries show shocking declines in male fertility. A leading British fertility expert goes as far as claiming that in 2015, one in three British couples may require IVF therapy if current trends continue. It is not hard to see that within a few generations we may see massive infertility, but next to nothing is done about this by most governments. In fact, in the UK, dangerous man made chemicals that can cause hormonal problems in both fish and humans that will lead to infertility will not be filtered out of the water. The ridiculous excuse for this is that filtering out these chemicals would cause too much CO2 emissions.
Another trend we see that relates to the writings of Bertrand Russel is the increasing amount of soy we see in the Western diet. Soy contains so called phyto-estrogens (plant hormones) that have been proved to cause infertility in males, because they mimic the female hormone called estrogen. High levels of soy have been proven to reduce fertility in males. What's perhaps even more disturbing is that soy has been proven in studies to change the behavior of animals it was fed to. It produced the type of docile behavior that Russell believed the future elite would want to induce in the general populace among other ways through our food. A study done with rats showed that even moderate amounts of soy caused these animals to spend less time in social interaction with other rats. Another study down in adult male monkeys fed phyto-estrogens showed changes in their behavior as well. Time spend together with other monkeys was halved. Furthermore, the monkeys showed a threefold increase in submissive behavior. It is interesting to note that it can be assumed that intelligent people are mostly affected by the introduction of soy to the Western diet. Studies have shown that children of above average intelligence are more likely to become vegetarians. While it's easily possible for any vegetarian to avoid soy, most vegetarian diets include a high amount of soy. It is clear that soy in our diet creates both the infertility and the submissive character that Bertrand Russel believed the scientific elite would want to see in the common man. Furthermore, those targeted through the soy appear to be the people of above average intelligence that form the main source of opposition to the scientific oligarchy.
Many studies prove that the average intelligence has been dropping over the decades. But the most significant decline can be seen in the number of people that perform significantly above average in Intelligence tests.
Now, finally, let us look at autism. It would take an eternity to write down all the evidence connecting injections (vaccines to be more specific) to autism, but for now I'll direct you to this presentation by Dr. David Ayoub. The autism epidemic is changing the way our society works in many ways. Evidence shows that the children that are affected worst are those with high levels of testosterone. The reason for this is that estrogen protects against Thimerosal, a neurotoxic chemical found in many vaccines, while Testosterone worsens the effects. Multiple studies have shown that children of intelligent fathers are more likely to become autistic. Here are the links to just three of them:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6726195
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3372611
Without autism, these children would most likely have grown up to become highly intelligent, dominant males. Because of their disorder most of them will also never grow up to have children themselves. This new epidemic has taken away from us many people who could have formed the main source of opposition to the scientific dictatorship.
http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2009/03/autism-eugenics-and-split-within.html
http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2009/03/autism-eugenics-and-split-within.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)