Side Effects: Death

a reply to: Mary Rose

Star and Flag! Look at my threads to see the thread about the Pros and Cons of GMO insulin. Genetech owns the patents to all the genetically modified insulins around the world. They license their patents to companies like Eli-Lilly, much like Bill Gates used to license Windows products to the consumer.

There are some doctors who have gone on the record saying that the "insulin" manufactured by these companies is inferior because it lacks the C-Peptide part of the chain. See, insulin is a polypeptide. They typically say that it is too hard to include the C-peptide chain to the A and B peptide chain. If they can make the A and B chain, I say they should be able to throw in the C chain also! I am not a biochemist, doctor or anything of the sort, but I have had diabetes enough years (my whole life) to tell you that the products that Big Pharma supplies to diabetics are incredibly inferior.

There is a book that was written that addresses some of the things I mentioned above. It is called Insulin: A Voice for Choice. It was written by an author by the name of Teuscher A. (Bern). I have read the book, and it points out a lot of the excused shortcomings of Big-Pharma's insulin manufacturing practices. It also mentions that when this GMO "insulin" was released to the public in the 80's, Big-Pharma started LOBBYING to make it impossible to get insuln from beef or pigs (which had the C-Peptide, and worked in humans). Today, you cannot get a prescription in the USA for beef or pork insulin, and the pork insulin the Canadians can get has been stripped chemically of its C-Peptide, to "reduce the risk of inflammation at the injection site," Big Pharma tells the people that still use it. That is what the book is about, people should still have a choice!

I have also written a thread about a company that wants to cure diabetes. Honestly, I do not think that the FDA Big-Pharma revolving door will allow this to happen.

It all boils down to the agenda of TPTB wanting less "useless eaters" around. The reason that a lot of the biochemists out there have mysteriously died is because in many cases they were about to release something that would shift a paradigm by curing one disease or showing ways to prevent others(worldwide). Many others die because they were about to expose something that the Big Boys didn't want the public to know about.

Many drugs have been pulled of the market because they kill people too fast. Just look up Vioxx or any of the thousands of others that were pulled entirely, or doses cut drastically to prevent the side effect of death. Soft kill, to the max.

Not only are the pharmaceuticals poisonous more than they are helpful, but they often simply hide the symptoms rather than finding out what is really going on (bad diet, food allergies, autoimmune issues because of all the toxins we're loading the planet with?), but they've managed to make sure that any alternatives are demonized or made illegal.

What if we all found out that between hemp, ginseng, good healthy non GMO and pesticided foods, silver as an anti-bacterial and large vitamin C doses, we'd all be healthy as the proverbial horses?

And don't ever take Cipro, a fluoride based antibiotic - we're pretty sure my son ended up with disabling fibromyalgia from one course of it for a strep throat

And the doctors have a lot to answer for, not questioning this and fighting back against it.

a reply to: ketsuko

I just think that the testing should be paid for by tax payers, by career government employees working for the citizenry, and not by people answerable to any profit seeking corporation.

To me that is common sense.

There needs to be no conflict of interest.

a reply to: signalfire

It's an autoimmune issue that I have, have had the basic allergies etc all of my life, but a few years ago it just flared out of nowhere and I have been hospitalised a couple of times and have been on a never-ending round of medications ever since, but nothing seems to work, and although I have questioned food allergies, which I know I have, the doctors just don't want to know, and they don't seem to be interested in what has caused the flare, just how to keep it under control

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ThisIsMyRifle
a reply to: graceunderpressure

At some level you should hold the Dr. responsible as well. It is their job to know what they are prescribing and what effects it can have.

This is where getting a good doctor come in. My neurologist has never prescribed anything to me without sitting down and giving me a good discussion over the potential side effects of the drug in question as well as what to do should they become something I can't tolerate.

You also have to take some responsibility for yourself, too. Never just assume your doctors know everything. Never be afraid to ask your own questions.

You are lucky. We went through 3 neurologists, and supposedly "lucked out" to get the best one in the region. He was affiliated with Emory University and highly recommended. BTW, this was back in the day before there were online reviews. My son's previous neurologists were also supposedly the best in the field.

Ironically, I watched an episode of Drugs Inc. last night. They were talking about the ravages of Meth. I couldn't help thinking that legal drugs damage more people than the illicit drugs ever do.

Yup, this thread is mostly real. Everyday life in the USA. Take your pills and shut up. If you don't you are going to die shortly, if you do take them the suffering will make it seem like you lived longer. But the side effects need other pills to cover up so they have designed another pill for us.

Can't we just give them money to not take those pills?

Good thread and a good thing for people to know re: the pharmaceutical industry.

Good, balanced food, some supplements (esp. vitamins... most especially vit C ), hydration, occasional herbal remedies and simple human attention could take care of most people's maladies... but there's little money in it and marketing to "sick" people makes money.

However, there are serious illnesses and serious work being done to combat them with serious medicines and methods... it's just that the junk marketing is over-shadowing that lately. Corruption ... it's a never ending struggle against corruption in all facets of human life.

And vit C is surprising in that the data is out there, but it's been effectively nullified in the mainstream, for the most part.

Large doses of C against infection, and a plethora of other illnesses, works... and Linus Pauling's ideas about (most) heart disease being low level vit C deficiency is interesting. But it's an example of a fight over who's theory is right, and the monied interests won that one easily. There isn't as much money in vitamins.

So it's come to trying to find non-corrupt, non-ignorant health care pros and gathering what shaky bits of info one can about health from the internet... sigh.

Removing the profit motive from health care would help keep it honest ... and healing.

"they can not patent a plant or even it's extract". They are starting to do it now.a reply to: jrod

a reply to: roth1

That is true. Monsanto has managed to patent plant life, and has the Supreme Court on their payroll to keep their action legal.

The pharma industry does not want the common person to have the ability to grow and extract their own medicine. Cannabis is NOT the only plant in question here........

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: roth1

That is true. Monsanto has managed to patent plant life, and has the Supreme Court on their payroll to keep their action legal.

Is the supposed rationale that it's genetically modified plant life?

a reply to: Mary Rose

And they use that to claim ownership of any neighboring farmer's crops and seeds due to natural pollination.

In theory they can patent a genetic marker, intentionally pollinate all their rival farms with the marker and then claim ownership of their crop and seeds because now their neighbor's farm has that marker.

I do believe they have put that theory into practice.

A good medication has side effects that resembles the symptoms of the illness that it is prescribed for. That way you end up with a life time of taking your meds in increasing dosages and any new ones that are presented as being much more effective than the meds you are on.

If the illness doesn't kill you, then the medicine will. Sad but true.

originally posted by: Trikzta
A good medication has side effects that resembles the symptoms of the illness that it is prescribed for.

You mean "good" in a sarcastic way, correct?

a reply to: Mary Rose

Interesting subject, since quite some time it is my belief that the medical system is rotten to the bone. I'm not saying that all doctor are corrupted but most of them are spoon feeded by big pharma and a lot of of them are "usefull educated idiots". They are kept so busy that they will gladly accept the generous "help" from those who manage them...

However we shall not fall in the black or white trap, take the exemple of Cipro. This stuff is responsible for subsecant infection of C. difficile and exhibit (like many antibiotic) toxicity. However if prescribed correctly, following an anti-biogram, it can save your life.

Another exemple is Dr. Lanctot, I've read her book about the medical mafia. She is right on many issue and know the internal of the system, but she seem to have lost her rational thinking. Its like when someone become aware of somes awfull aspect of our world, they suddently flip over into some kind of madness.

Still, the fact that the medical system is dangerous by itself and more akind to a religious order is without a doubt in my mind. Take for exemple the double Nobel Linus Pauling, one of the most influential chemist of modern time. It was Pauling belief that one shall weight carefully his option before submitting itself to the medical practice when sick, as the risk involved is substancial. (sorry, I cannot find back the exact quote).

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Mary Rose
. . . Dr. Lanctot . . . she seem to have lost her rational thinking.

Can you be more specific about that?

a reply to: Mary Rose

"Can you be more specific about that?"

Its been a long time since I read her book and its no longer in my possession. I cannot give exact quote and analysis, but from memory the book is filled with exemple of reasonable thinking that suddently fall into fantasy realm.

It is frustrating to not have the book here and give exact quote. However don't consider I'm denigrating the main message conveyed by it but the logic used and many conclusion reached were simply irrationnal and a big deception to me, so much that I did not wanted to keep it.

This is just my personal opinion of the book: Very interesting subject, the author is in the known and has credencial. The described problems relate to many of my personnal experiences on the subject (a lots). However the developpment is very poor. The book was a big disappointment for me.

a reply to: PeterMcFly

Here's a video:





Are you talking about the fact that she could believe that the powers that be would do such a thing as kill off the population intentionally with vaccines?

a reply to: Mary Rose

As said before, long time since I read the book. But for sure such affirmation from dr. Lanctot does not help her credibility.

AFAIK vaccine exist to help peoples not to hurt them. As for population reduction, there exist a far simpler mean to acheive that, and it exist since very long time, we call it war... Surprisingly, lots of peoples are willing to proudly dies there, so no need for elaborate evil master plan.

It is my belief that such complex plan are not possible, there is always something going wrong when executing complex conspiracy planning. However what work well is called opportunistic exploitation, this is how the world work. Never ignore a good opportunity, thats how what we can call TPTBs are doing. They would poison their own mother for a couples of buck. Take adjuvant in vaccine, this is simply "dirt" added to potentiate the effect and thus reduce the quantity of vaccine required for the purpose of saving $$$. Mercury... a damn good preservative.

Also I heard stories of who decide which molecules will undergoes R&D and be produced as medication. This is not the PhD trying to cure some illness but the marketing department who make the decision based stricly on return on investment. So no conspiracy there but simply the true human nature of shoot oneself in the foot.

Another thing is that peoples who see "grand conspiracies" believe in hyper competence of the authorities and/or TPTB. In fact gov. and military are good example of hyper incompetence.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
AFAIK vaccine exist to help peoples not to hurt them.

Okay.

You and I disagree.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
As for population reduction, there exist a far simpler mean to acheive that, and it exist since very long time, we call it war... Surprisingly, lots of peoples are willing to proudly dies there, so no need for elaborate evil master plan.

Very true.

I believe the wars of history have been purposely created by the powers that be.

But I'm not sure that the motive has been population reduction. It seems it's more for the money from loans to nations to finance wars.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
They would poison their own mother for a couples of buck. Take adjuvant in vaccine, this is simply "dirt" added to potentiate the effect and thus reduce the quantity of vaccine required for the purpose of saving $$$. Mercury... a damn good preservative.

I'm a little confused by what you're saying.

"Potentiate" as in "to make potent or powerful" to save money - but then is mercury mentioned as an example of that?

We all know mercury is poisonous.

When you say it's a good preservative, do you mean that's the pretext for adding it, or what?

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
Also I heard stories of who decide which molecules will undergoes R&D and be produced as medication. This is not the PhD trying to cure some illness but the marketing department who make the decision based stricly on return on investment.

True.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
Another thing is that peoples who see "grand conspiracies" believe in hyper competence of the authorities and/or TPTB. In fact gov. and military are good example of hyper incompetence.

I would say the hyper incompetence is by design.

There are writings that show how the "elites" think. One example I learned from researcher Alan Watt.

Here's a quote from a transcript on Alan Watt's website:

. . . I’ve read the articles on the air where Bertrand Russell – Lord Bertrand Russell – that worked with the Frankfurt School and the Macy Group and all the other groups out there that were given charge of changing the cultures during and after World War II. And he said, eventually we shall use the needle. The needle, he says, in one of his books (I’ve read it on the air), to dumb the folk down.

www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com...

a reply to: Mary Rose

I'm a little confused by what you're saying.

"Potentiate" as in "to make potent or powerful" to save money - but then is mercury mentioned as an example of that?

We all know mercury is poisonous.

When you say it's a good preservative, do you mean that's the pretext for adding it, or what?

I should have split the paragraph in two. The idea within the second part is that they would do anything to save couples bucks. Adjuvant are used to allow a reduction in concentration of the active substance within the vaccine. They provide a good "kick" to the immune system. IMHO adjuvent may be the cause of many secondary long term reaction.

For the mercury content, again this is to save money. Thiomersal is used to protect the product from fungus and bacteria. It has the usefull property of not degrading vaccine active ingredient(s) unlike others preservative. Mercury is used ONLY in multidose "cheapo" vial. You will normally NOT find mercury in decent quality single dose vaccine, my spouse has worked in medical field and confirm this. In the past, I've been involved with some work in optics and I can tell you it were used within optical assembly to protect lens from mildew (fungus that eat glass). So mercury compound has outstanding antifungal and bacteriostatic properties.

Personally I don't trust the cheap stuff provided free by communist medical system here. When I want a vaccine I go to a pharmacy and ask for an order of a specific product of good quality (they usually does not stock them) then arrange for a practitioner to inject it in an environment were any bad reaction can be handled. Vaccine shall ONLY be used when there is reasonable benefit, like a trip to Africa were concrete risk exist, because vaccine have serious potential side effect (like all medication). Doctor usually don't tell the risk involved because they are professionnal liar.

As a final note: If your afraid of mercury like me, take a pill of selenium before a meal of tuna. Selenium will compete for the enzymatic binding that mercury irreversably do. You knew a tuna can possibly countain more mercury than a cheapo vaccine, don't you?