Monday, February 25, 2013
Have You Heard This? N.C.R?
http://leiryllheart.blogspot.com/2007/07/have-you-heard-this-ncr.html
*What is Neuro-Cranial Restructuring?
“Neuro Cranial Restructuring literally means restoring the skull to it’s intended shape so that pressure is removed from the nerves of the brain causing them to rehydrate and begin to function properly.”
“Neuro-Cranial Restructuring (NCR) is a leading edge technique which produces the most dramatic health changes in the shortest period of time of any physical therapy known to man!” “NCR therapy reduces abnormal pressure which builds up inside the skull and causes headaches.
*Who needs NCR therapy?
“Everyone”
*Why?
“When we are born the brain is 90% water. As we age our brains begin to dehydrate. Each year the brain loses about .5% of moisture. Every ten years the brain dehydrates by as much as 5%. In twenty years it dehydrates about 10%. By the age of forty the brain has dehydrated by 20%. This means that by age forty the brain has gone from 90% water down to 70% water. At this point brain fog sets in! When the brain dehydrates down to 55%, the person develops Parkinson's disease, Multiple Sclerosis, or Senile Dementia. People with Parkinson's disease and Multiple Sclerosis are only showing symptoms of a dehydrated brain and a very slowly functioning Central Nervous System. They also have an accumulation of toxic minerals such as aluminum from anti-perspirants.
The brain is made up of nerves. These nerves are like spaghetti. When the noodles are wet the spaghetti can be stretched, bent, or even tied in knots and you can’t hurt it. Water conducts electricity very quickly, and a wet nerve will process information quicker than a dry nerve. A dry nerve is like a dry noodle. It is easily injured! It cannot be stretched and if you try to bend it then it gets injured. A dry nerve will conduct electricity like a dead stick. As we get older our brains begin to dry out and slow down. It is like being used to using a Pentium III computer for a brain when you are young and slowly going backwards until you have to begin using a 486 computer when you become old..
*Are you saying that NCR therapy somehow re-hydrates the brain and spinal cord?
“Yes! NCR therapy will rehydrate the brain and spinal cord by at least 10 percent. NCR therapy unlocks the joints of the skull and restores the normal flow of the cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF) to the brain. This rehydrates the brain and spinal cord and returns the person to optimum brain function.” As the brain rehydrates, brain function actually improves and the whole process is reversed. The person will feel like their brain has gone from a 486 PC to a Pentium III computer even if their skull has been locked up all of their life.
*Does this actually cause a person to be smarter?
“Yes. As the brain rehydrates, the nerves and the neurotransmitters actually begin to work faster. Then the person is actually able to think faster, process information faster, and make decisions quicker and with less effort.” The central nervous system becomes like a high speed bus in a super fast computer in less than six months. People begin to read faster, type faster, concentrate better, multi task easier, and remember more. In other words, Learning, Comprehension, and Retention become Easier!
*What else does NCR therapy do?
NCR therapy causes the pituitary gland, which sits right behind the bridge of the nose, to re-hydrate. This causes the pituitary to begin to make the proper amount of growth hormone to be used by your body. When the pituitary gland is dry it cannot function properly and production of hormones dry up. People lose their ability to focus and become easily tired and chronic fatigue begins to set in because the thyroid gland and the adrenal glands which make energy are not receiving stimulation from the pituitary. Women begin to experience problems with their monthly cycle. Men develop prostate problems and high blood pressure. The blood pressure becomes an issue because the posterior pituitary produces hormones which control water balance. Rehydrating the pituitary corrects most problems associated with the monthly cycle, blood pressure, energy, and focus.
*What causes the skull to lock up?
“Trauma to the head or tailbone affects the entire central nervous system (CNS--brain and spinal cord). Sudden impacts such as falling on your tailbone or hitting your head results in a shock like wave of pressure that travels through the cerebro spinal fluid to the skull and can lock up any of the small joints of the face and the large joints of the skull. Sudden impacts cause concussions. Being hit on the head during a fight or being in a car accident causes compression to the skull. It also breaks blood vessels. The broken blood vessels cause inflammation which results in scar tissue. Scar tissue contracts over a period of weeks to years and slows down the flow of the CSF (cerebro-spinal fluid). The cerebro-spinal fluid is made in the brain and is pumped down to the tailbone every time you breathe. When the CSF hits the scar tissue, the CSF has to go over, under, or around the scar tissue. The nerves just the other side of the scar tissue begins to dry out. When nerves dry out the transmission of the nerve impulse begins to slow down. If the nerve goes to the pancreas, then diabetes results. If the nerve goes to the stomach, then stomach ulcers begin to develop.
*Are injuries to the head the only thing that slows down the flow of the cerebro spinal fluid?
Viruses can do the same thing as trauma. A virus can settle in the fluid that surrounds the spine and irritate the meninges. This is where the term spinal meningitis comes from. The meninges is like saran wrap. It is very thin but very tough. There are three layers of meninges that surround the brain and spinal cord. The virus causes irritation to the meninges. This causes swelling. When the meninges swell enough to touch, then they stick together like flypaper. This causes adhesions. Adhesions is just another name for scar tissue. Scar tissue will contract over time. This is what happens with polio. This is what causes post-polio syndrome. It can happen twenty to forty years after the initial episode of the virus. The same thing happens when we get exposed to chicken pox. The virus hibernates in the cerebro-spinal fluid forever. Any new trauma to the spine can release the hibernating virus which then becomes an active case of the shingles!”
*How does this cause headaches?
“The brain has a left and a right side. When the CSF does not flow evenly, the pressure begins to back up on one side of the brain. This uneven pressure of the CSF affects the flow of blood in the brain. Then the brain does not get enough oxygen or glucose. Any of these things such as not enough oxygen, not enough glucose, or too much pressure in the brain will cause headaches.
Neuro Cranial Restructuring unlocks the joints of the skull plates and allows them to shift just like the tectonic plates of the earth during an earthquake. Then the cerebro-spinal fluid begins to flow normally and headaches disappear!”
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Why We Don't Need Vaccines with Dr. Joel Wallach
We have been supporting Dr Wallach 2 years now.
This is the main product that is being promoted with the focus on the 90 essential nutrients. Great product. My hubby and I take this too.
CLASSIC 90 PAK Item #: 10215 Our convenient Classic 90™ Pak delivers all of the “Essential 90” nutrients that Dr. Wallach recommends for good health.* Each pack contains ultimate classic - 32 oz (1) and Ultimate™ EFA™ - 180 capsules
- Retail Price: $117.43
To get the whole sale join with a $10 one time as a distributor.
- Wholesale Price $82.20
http://rcarrillo.youngevityonline.com
Yes indeed, Dr Wallach is awesome with his research and discoveries.
This is the main product that is being promoted with the focus on the 90 essential nutrients. Great product. My hubby and I take this too.
CLASSIC 90 PAK Item #: 10215 Our convenient Classic 90™ Pak delivers all of the “Essential 90” nutrients that Dr. Wallach recommends for good health.* Each pack contains ultimate classic - 32 oz (1) and Ultimate™ EFA™ - 180 capsules
- Retail Price: $117.43
To get the whole sale join with a $10 one time as a distributor.
- Wholesale Price $82.20
http://rcarrillo.youngevityonline.com
Yes indeed, Dr Wallach is awesome with his research and discoveries.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Teen dies from flu after receiving flu shot
Teen dies from flu after receiving flu shot
Monday, February 18, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
A second Minnesota teenager has reportedly died from complications of infection with influenza Type A during this current flu season, prompting health officials across the state to urge the public to get flu shots for their own protection. But missing from many of the news reports on this traged...y is the fact that the child in question, 14-year-old Carly Christenson, had already been vaccinated for influenza before flu season even started, proving the utter failure of flu shots to protect against the flu.
As reported by CBS 4 News in Minnesota, young Carly passed away on January 8, 2013, not long after she was admitted to urgent care with a bad sore throat. Believing the symptoms to stem from a mild infection, doctors at the response center gave Carly a prescription for Prednisone, a powerful steroid drug used to treat inflammation, and sent her on her way. But by the next morning, things for Carly took a serious turn for the worse.
According to reports, Carly's sore throat evolved into a serious fever that included shortness of breath and wheezing. Her lungs filled with fluid not long after that, and she had to be rushed to the hospital to have a heart and lung bypass with an ACMO machine. In the days that followed, Carly was given regular blood transfusions, but these were ultimately not enough -- she died just a few days later.
Misplaced faith in the flu shot
On the first day when Carly was admitted to urgent care, both her parents and the doctors at the clinic were reportedly not all that concerned about the child's mild throat infection, as she had reportedly already been vaccinated for the flu back in August. The fact that Carly had gotten a flu shot, in other words, was seen by Carly's family and her doctors as a shield of protection for the girl -- after all, authorities would not recommend flu shots if they did not actually work, right?
This misplaced faith in flu shots ultimately provided a false hope for Carly's family that she would be protected against the flu, a faith that was ultimately shattered by the reality of the complete ineffectiveness of the flu shot. Immediately after Carly's death, authorities actually tried to deny that Carly died from the flu, referring to her condition as "flu-like." The head of the Minnesota Health Department, Kris Ehresmann, even went so far as to claim that she "could not confirm" that Carly had ever even had a flu shot, even though other sources had already confirmed that she had, indeed, gotten the shot.
Still others have since tried to reassure the public that flu shots still work, and that Carly's death is some kind of medical anomaly. But the science speaks for itself -- in a best case scenario, flu shots provide protection for only about 1.5 out of every 100 people. The other 98.5 people who get flu shots are needlessly exposed to toxic adjuvants and viral materials that could cause them to develop the flu, or worse.
Consider the case of seven-year-old Kaylynne Matten of Vermont as evidence of the dangers of the flu shot. As reported by investigative journalist Christina England over at Vactruth.com, young Kaylynne died last year in her mother's arms just four days after receiving a flu shot at an annual checkup. According to Kaylynne's parents, the young girl, who had no pre-existing health conditions and was a very healthy child, developed a serious headache and fever the day after getting her flu shot. Three days later, Kaylynne suddenly stopped breathing and died without warning in her mother's arms.
Sources for this article include:
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/01/08/minn-teen-dies-from-complications-of-flu/
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/186090761.html
http://vactruth.com/2012/01/14/dies-in-mothers-arms/
http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.html
http://www.7dvt.com/2012flu-shot-or-not-state-health-officials-warn-against-alarmist-reaction-young-girls-death
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039140_flu_shot_teens_death_risk.html
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Friday, February 15, 2013
Meteorite Hits Russia! [HD] Feb 15th 2013
Here is an entire list of videos with footage: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLx0y_xxEQ4_fBHB_x4tSujJNcgcjporba
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic
Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic
by Jon Rappoport
February 5, 2013
www.nomorefakenews.com
I've written articles attacking the theory and practice of vaccination from a variety of angles. But the whole issue also needs to be approached from the perspective of logic.
Unfortunately, generations of people have been shut out of learning logic in school. They don't know what it is. Therefore, vaccine advocates have been able to peddle their basic theory without much challenge.
It's time to put an end to that free ride.
First of all, I need to point out a massive contradiction. When a person receives a vaccine, it's said that his body produces antibodies against a particular germ and this is a good thing. Vaccination thus prepares the body for the day when that germ will really make its attack, at which point the immune system (including antibodies) will mount a successful defense.
However, let's look at another venue: for many diseases, when a person is given a blood test to see if he is infected, quite often the standard for infection is "presence of antibodies."
This makes no sense at all. If vaccination produces those antibodies, it is heralded as protection. But if a diagnostic blood test reveals those same antibodies, it's a signal of infection and disease.
Vaccine-produced antibodies=health. Antibodies naturally produced by the body=illness.
Logically speaking, you resolve a contradiction by dropping one of the two sides and admitting it is false. Or you go deeper and reject some prior premise that led to the contradiction in the first place.
So let's go deeper. What does vaccination supposedly do to "prepare" the body against the future invasion of a particular germ? It stimulates the production of antibodies against that germ.
Antibodies are immune-system scouts that move through the body, identify germs, and paint them for destruction by other immune-system troops.
However, since the entire immune system is involved in wreaking that destruction, why is bulking up one department of the immune system---antibodies---sufficient to guarantee future protection?
On what basis can we infer that bulking up antibodies, through vaccination, is enough?
There is no basis. It's a naked assumption. It's not a fact. Logic makes a clear distinction between assumptions and facts. Confusing the two leads to all sorts of problems, and it certainly does in the case of vaccination.
Furthermore, why does the body need a vaccine in order to be prepared for the later invasion of germs? The whole structure/function of the immune system is naturally geared to launch its multifaceted counter-attack against germs whenever trouble arises. The antibodies swing into action when a potentially harmful germ makes its appearance, at age five, eight, 10, 15.
It's said that vaccination is a rehearsal for the real thing. But no need for rehearsal has been established.
And why are we supposed to believe that such a rehearsal works? The usual answer is: the body remembers the original vaccination and how it produced antibodies, and so it's better prepared to do it again when the need is real. But there is no basis for this extraordinary notion of "remembering."
It's another assumption sold as fact.
The terms "prepared for the real thing," "rehearsal," and "remember" aren't defined. They're vague. One of the first lessons of logic is: define your terms.
A baby, only a few days old, receives a Hepatitis B vaccine. This means the actual Hep-B germ, or some fraction of it, is in the vaccine.
The objective? To stimulate the production of antibodies against Hep-B. Assuming the baby can accomplish this feat, the antibodies circulate and paint those Hep-B germs for destruction now.
From that moment on, the body is ready to execute the same mission, if and when Hep-B germs float in the door.
But when they float in the door, why wouldn't the body produce antibodies on its own, exactly as it did after the vaccination was given? Why did it need the vaccination to teach it how to do what it naturally does?
And why should we infer the baby body is undergoing an effective rehearsal when vaccinated, and will somehow remember that lesson years later?
The logic of this is tattered and without merit.
To these arguments of mine, some vaccine advocates would say, "Well, it doesn't matter because vaccines work. They do prevent disease."
Ah, but that is a different argument, and it should be assessed separately. There are two major ways of doing that. One, by evaluating claims that in all places and times, mass vaccination has drastically lowered or eliminated those diseases it was designed to prevent. And two, by a controlled study of two groups of volunteers, in which one group is vaccinated and the other isn't, to gauge the outcome.
Let's look at the first method of assessment. Those who claim that vaccines have been magnificently effective in wiping out disease have several major hurdles to overcome. They have to prove, for each disease in question, that when a vaccine for that disease was first introduced, the prevalence of the disease was on the rise or was at a high steady rate in the population.
Why? Because, as many critics have stated, some or all of these diseases were already in sharp decline when the vaccines were introduced for the first time.
For example: "The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition." Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977
In other words, for reasons having nothing to do with vaccination, the diseases were on the way out. Nutrition had improved, sanitation was better, etc.
So let's see the proof, for every disease which vaccines are supposed to prevent, that those diseases were significantly raging in the population when the vaccines were first introduced.
Then let's also see proof that, after the introduction of vaccines, the diseases in question weren't merely given new labels (or redefined) to hide the fact that they weren't really going away. There is testimony, for example, that in America, the definition of paralytic polio was changed after the introduction of the Salk vaccine, and by the new more restricted definition, far fewer cases of polio could be diagnosed---thus making it seem the vaccine was effective.
There are also questions about the success of the famous smallpox vaccine campaign in Africa and Latin America. When all was said and done, were new cases of smallpox then diagnosed as meningitis? Was destruction wreaked by the vaccine then called AIDS?
Researchers, including Robert Gallo, have warned that the smallpox vaccine, when given to people whose immune systems are already grossly weakened, can destroy what's left of the immune system---and immune-defense destruction is the hallmark of the definition of AIDS.
The second major way of assessing the success of mass vaccination is through a proper controlled study.
For any vaccine, this is how it would be done. Assemble two large groups of people. Total, at least eight thousand. Make sure these two groups are very well matched. That means: similar in age; very similar in medical history and medical drug history; similar exposure levels to environmental chemicals; very close nutritional levels, status, and dietary habits.
The first group gets the vaccine. The second group doesn't. They are tracked, with very few dropouts, for a period of at least eight years. The INDEPENDENT researchers note how many from each group get the disease the vaccine is supposed to prevent. They note what other diseases or health challenges the volunteers encounter.
Such a study, using these proper standards, has never been done for any vaccine.
If that fact seems rather illogical, you're right. It is.
Finally, vaccine advocates need to prove that substances in vaccines like mercury, formaldehyde, and aluminum, although classified as toxic when studied alone, are somehow exonerated when shot directly into the body through a needle. The (absurd) logic of this needs to be explained fully.
This is not a matter of claiming that "a particular disease," like autism, isn't caused by a particular chemical, like mercury. That's a logical ruse all on its own. We are talking about harm caused by toxins under any name or no name. When a person ingests cyanide, do we say he has a disease? Of course not.
Children in school, their parents, and teachers have never been exposed to logic, so it's easy to sell them vaccines as valid. But selling is not the same thing as science.
And "being a scientist" is not the same thing as knowing what science and logic actually are. The same fact can be applied to news anchors, public health officials, and politicians. They can say "the evidence for vaccinating is overwhelming," but so can a parrot in a cage, with enough training.
Of course, these so-called experts won't come out and engage in a serious debate about the theory and practice of vaccination. They refuse to.
Millions of people around the world would eagerly watch a true extended debate on the subject. Such debate used to be a standard practice when logic was studied, when it was understood to be vital for deciding the truth or falsity of a position.
Now, it's all about PR and propaganda, the modern version of logic for the dumbed-down crowd. ~
Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
by Jon Rappoport
February 5, 2013
www.nomorefakenews.com
I've written articles attacking the theory and practice of vaccination from a variety of angles. But the whole issue also needs to be approached from the perspective of logic.
Unfortunately, generations of people have been shut out of learning logic in school. They don't know what it is. Therefore, vaccine advocates have been able to peddle their basic theory without much challenge.
It's time to put an end to that free ride.
First of all, I need to point out a massive contradiction. When a person receives a vaccine, it's said that his body produces antibodies against a particular germ and this is a good thing. Vaccination thus prepares the body for the day when that germ will really make its attack, at which point the immune system (including antibodies) will mount a successful defense.
However, let's look at another venue: for many diseases, when a person is given a blood test to see if he is infected, quite often the standard for infection is "presence of antibodies."
This makes no sense at all. If vaccination produces those antibodies, it is heralded as protection. But if a diagnostic blood test reveals those same antibodies, it's a signal of infection and disease.
Vaccine-produced antibodies=health. Antibodies naturally produced by the body=illness.
Logically speaking, you resolve a contradiction by dropping one of the two sides and admitting it is false. Or you go deeper and reject some prior premise that led to the contradiction in the first place.
So let's go deeper. What does vaccination supposedly do to "prepare" the body against the future invasion of a particular germ? It stimulates the production of antibodies against that germ.
Antibodies are immune-system scouts that move through the body, identify germs, and paint them for destruction by other immune-system troops.
However, since the entire immune system is involved in wreaking that destruction, why is bulking up one department of the immune system---antibodies---sufficient to guarantee future protection?
On what basis can we infer that bulking up antibodies, through vaccination, is enough?
There is no basis. It's a naked assumption. It's not a fact. Logic makes a clear distinction between assumptions and facts. Confusing the two leads to all sorts of problems, and it certainly does in the case of vaccination.
Furthermore, why does the body need a vaccine in order to be prepared for the later invasion of germs? The whole structure/function of the immune system is naturally geared to launch its multifaceted counter-attack against germs whenever trouble arises. The antibodies swing into action when a potentially harmful germ makes its appearance, at age five, eight, 10, 15.
It's said that vaccination is a rehearsal for the real thing. But no need for rehearsal has been established.
And why are we supposed to believe that such a rehearsal works? The usual answer is: the body remembers the original vaccination and how it produced antibodies, and so it's better prepared to do it again when the need is real. But there is no basis for this extraordinary notion of "remembering."
It's another assumption sold as fact.
The terms "prepared for the real thing," "rehearsal," and "remember" aren't defined. They're vague. One of the first lessons of logic is: define your terms.
A baby, only a few days old, receives a Hepatitis B vaccine. This means the actual Hep-B germ, or some fraction of it, is in the vaccine.
The objective? To stimulate the production of antibodies against Hep-B. Assuming the baby can accomplish this feat, the antibodies circulate and paint those Hep-B germs for destruction now.
From that moment on, the body is ready to execute the same mission, if and when Hep-B germs float in the door.
But when they float in the door, why wouldn't the body produce antibodies on its own, exactly as it did after the vaccination was given? Why did it need the vaccination to teach it how to do what it naturally does?
And why should we infer the baby body is undergoing an effective rehearsal when vaccinated, and will somehow remember that lesson years later?
The logic of this is tattered and without merit.
To these arguments of mine, some vaccine advocates would say, "Well, it doesn't matter because vaccines work. They do prevent disease."
Ah, but that is a different argument, and it should be assessed separately. There are two major ways of doing that. One, by evaluating claims that in all places and times, mass vaccination has drastically lowered or eliminated those diseases it was designed to prevent. And two, by a controlled study of two groups of volunteers, in which one group is vaccinated and the other isn't, to gauge the outcome.
Let's look at the first method of assessment. Those who claim that vaccines have been magnificently effective in wiping out disease have several major hurdles to overcome. They have to prove, for each disease in question, that when a vaccine for that disease was first introduced, the prevalence of the disease was on the rise or was at a high steady rate in the population.
Why? Because, as many critics have stated, some or all of these diseases were already in sharp decline when the vaccines were introduced for the first time.
For example: "The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition." Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977
In other words, for reasons having nothing to do with vaccination, the diseases were on the way out. Nutrition had improved, sanitation was better, etc.
So let's see the proof, for every disease which vaccines are supposed to prevent, that those diseases were significantly raging in the population when the vaccines were first introduced.
Then let's also see proof that, after the introduction of vaccines, the diseases in question weren't merely given new labels (or redefined) to hide the fact that they weren't really going away. There is testimony, for example, that in America, the definition of paralytic polio was changed after the introduction of the Salk vaccine, and by the new more restricted definition, far fewer cases of polio could be diagnosed---thus making it seem the vaccine was effective.
There are also questions about the success of the famous smallpox vaccine campaign in Africa and Latin America. When all was said and done, were new cases of smallpox then diagnosed as meningitis? Was destruction wreaked by the vaccine then called AIDS?
Researchers, including Robert Gallo, have warned that the smallpox vaccine, when given to people whose immune systems are already grossly weakened, can destroy what's left of the immune system---and immune-defense destruction is the hallmark of the definition of AIDS.
The second major way of assessing the success of mass vaccination is through a proper controlled study.
For any vaccine, this is how it would be done. Assemble two large groups of people. Total, at least eight thousand. Make sure these two groups are very well matched. That means: similar in age; very similar in medical history and medical drug history; similar exposure levels to environmental chemicals; very close nutritional levels, status, and dietary habits.
The first group gets the vaccine. The second group doesn't. They are tracked, with very few dropouts, for a period of at least eight years. The INDEPENDENT researchers note how many from each group get the disease the vaccine is supposed to prevent. They note what other diseases or health challenges the volunteers encounter.
Such a study, using these proper standards, has never been done for any vaccine.
If that fact seems rather illogical, you're right. It is.
Finally, vaccine advocates need to prove that substances in vaccines like mercury, formaldehyde, and aluminum, although classified as toxic when studied alone, are somehow exonerated when shot directly into the body through a needle. The (absurd) logic of this needs to be explained fully.
This is not a matter of claiming that "a particular disease," like autism, isn't caused by a particular chemical, like mercury. That's a logical ruse all on its own. We are talking about harm caused by toxins under any name or no name. When a person ingests cyanide, do we say he has a disease? Of course not.
Children in school, their parents, and teachers have never been exposed to logic, so it's easy to sell them vaccines as valid. But selling is not the same thing as science.
And "being a scientist" is not the same thing as knowing what science and logic actually are. The same fact can be applied to news anchors, public health officials, and politicians. They can say "the evidence for vaccinating is overwhelming," but so can a parrot in a cage, with enough training.
Of course, these so-called experts won't come out and engage in a serious debate about the theory and practice of vaccination. They refuse to.
Millions of people around the world would eagerly watch a true extended debate on the subject. Such debate used to be a standard practice when logic was studied, when it was understood to be vital for deciding the truth or falsity of a position.
Now, it's all about PR and propaganda, the modern version of logic for the dumbed-down crowd. ~
Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
Monday, February 4, 2013
The Daily Messenger: Oh yeah....
The Daily Messenger: Oh yeah....
And now we all have to clean up the mess. It's all of our responsibility to do our part to make our world a better place. The devils are still going to be devils, no matter what, but we don't have to be.
By doing the right things as best as we can, others will see and begin to do their part eventually. We set the example. We pretty much boycott the mainstream. Go organic, refuse vaccines, refuse fluoride, refuse this and that, etc..., refuse to buy junk stuff from corporations when we can, and support locally to our local shops. And use only natural products as much as possible.
We see it daily. More and more people are finally waking up to the horrors of vaccines, chemtrails, fluoride, the entire scam, etc... and are doing their part to share the info by passing it on. They are changing their ways by supporting the right people, etc.. We appreciate it, because hey, we need all the help we can get.
We like gifting others too and help out when we can, whether it's money, time or other things. Even though we too are limited, we still manage to. I like to show family and friends the ins and outs of how to work affiliate programs, how to work them, how to incorporate them into blogs, etc.... I have two friends in the anti-vaccine network, and I'm in the process of teaching them how to make a few extra $$$, take classes to learn new skills, etc.. The two gals need help and I'm willing to give my time to help teach them. My hubby does the same with his circle of personal friends and contacts. You can find alot of free or low priced local classes on crafts, carpentry, sewing, jewelry, etc... if you look hard enough. I like to learn new skills and turn around teach others some of the things when possible. For example: I have a professional microderm machine which I use, but I also like to give friends a nice facial and barter with them for products, etc... That's one example.
My hubby always says, if we hit the lottery, we have a list of family and friends that we will gift and help out.
My family sometimes think I'm precocious, but it's because they have yet to see the bigger picture, and what's behind it all. You know, the true history of how things got this way, as described in DB's Indian picture and even long before then. I just ignore their criticisms and keep on. I know what I'm supposed to do. However the most critical one in my family is still beginning to start making better food choices. She dropped dairy and started using almond milk. I told her she will drop 5 or 10 lbs just doing that. If she would drop grains, it would be even more. You know things like that. We do get discouraged, but we presevere and keep going and do our best to make better choices.
We probably can't get rid of money and prisons, etc... but we can share, teach, gift, etc... and be of service to others and help make their lives easier if possible.
Thank you DB for that post/picture.
And now we all have to clean up the mess. It's all of our responsibility to do our part to make our world a better place. The devils are still going to be devils, no matter what, but we don't have to be.
By doing the right things as best as we can, others will see and begin to do their part eventually. We set the example. We pretty much boycott the mainstream. Go organic, refuse vaccines, refuse fluoride, refuse this and that, etc..., refuse to buy junk stuff from corporations when we can, and support locally to our local shops. And use only natural products as much as possible.
We see it daily. More and more people are finally waking up to the horrors of vaccines, chemtrails, fluoride, the entire scam, etc... and are doing their part to share the info by passing it on. They are changing their ways by supporting the right people, etc.. We appreciate it, because hey, we need all the help we can get.
We like gifting others too and help out when we can, whether it's money, time or other things. Even though we too are limited, we still manage to. I like to show family and friends the ins and outs of how to work affiliate programs, how to work them, how to incorporate them into blogs, etc.... I have two friends in the anti-vaccine network, and I'm in the process of teaching them how to make a few extra $$$, take classes to learn new skills, etc.. The two gals need help and I'm willing to give my time to help teach them. My hubby does the same with his circle of personal friends and contacts. You can find alot of free or low priced local classes on crafts, carpentry, sewing, jewelry, etc... if you look hard enough. I like to learn new skills and turn around teach others some of the things when possible. For example: I have a professional microderm machine which I use, but I also like to give friends a nice facial and barter with them for products, etc... That's one example.
My hubby always says, if we hit the lottery, we have a list of family and friends that we will gift and help out.
My family sometimes think I'm precocious, but it's because they have yet to see the bigger picture, and what's behind it all. You know, the true history of how things got this way, as described in DB's Indian picture and even long before then. I just ignore their criticisms and keep on. I know what I'm supposed to do. However the most critical one in my family is still beginning to start making better food choices. She dropped dairy and started using almond milk. I told her she will drop 5 or 10 lbs just doing that. If she would drop grains, it would be even more. You know things like that. We do get discouraged, but we presevere and keep going and do our best to make better choices.
We probably can't get rid of money and prisons, etc... but we can share, teach, gift, etc... and be of service to others and help make their lives easier if possible.
Thank you DB for that post/picture.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Cat Rescue and The Great Cat Rescue of 1995
I'm very resourceful when it comes to urgent matters such as this.
This pic is of Rebecca Ventouris cat rescues. She or they were able to get this cat down. I have a similar story of my own mamma cat back in 1995. My story is below this pic.
The Great Cat Rescue of 1995
I had a mamma cat (yellow long haired tabby named Jasmine) that got stuck way up in a tree like that. She had kittens who needed her.
So we call the fire dept and they said we don't rescue cats from trees. I'm like "then why do you guys get depicted as cat rescuers"? So then I'm trying to figure out how to get her down. I put her kittens and food in a basket and take it out there for her to hear and see them. She was not coming down.
The man across the street was a painter, and he had several scaffolding things, so he got to work stacking several layers of them, with us hoping that maybe Jasmine would jump down. He was still a few short and she still didn't want to attempt a jump.
We somehow tied her laundry basket of kittens and food securely to the end of one of those long ladders which reached the branch perfectly right under her. I was on the top scaffold steadying the ladder while not looking down and poking the limb she was on with it.
After poking the branch several times. She finally jumped right in the basket and I nearly lost it, but I held on hard and kept it steady, thank God. I then lowered the ladder rung by rung until I got to the basket and then took her out and handed her to someone on the level below me. I handed the basket of kittens down too and worked my way back down to the ground. The whole neighborhood knew about it. That was referred to the Great Cat Rescue of 1995.
Too bad there were no digital cameras or cams back then, and I didn't own a regular camera either, so I wasn't able to capture those moments on film.
This pic is of Rebecca Ventouris cat rescues. She or they were able to get this cat down. I have a similar story of my own mamma cat back in 1995. My story is below this pic.
The Great Cat Rescue of 1995
I had a mamma cat (yellow long haired tabby named Jasmine) that got stuck way up in a tree like that. She had kittens who needed her.
So we call the fire dept and they said we don't rescue cats from trees. I'm like "then why do you guys get depicted as cat rescuers"? So then I'm trying to figure out how to get her down. I put her kittens and food in a basket and take it out there for her to hear and see them. She was not coming down.
The man across the street was a painter, and he had several scaffolding things, so he got to work stacking several layers of them, with us hoping that maybe Jasmine would jump down. He was still a few short and she still didn't want to attempt a jump.
We somehow tied her laundry basket of kittens and food securely to the end of one of those long ladders which reached the branch perfectly right under her. I was on the top scaffold steadying the ladder while not looking down and poking the limb she was on with it.
After poking the branch several times. She finally jumped right in the basket and I nearly lost it, but I held on hard and kept it steady, thank God. I then lowered the ladder rung by rung until I got to the basket and then took her out and handed her to someone on the level below me. I handed the basket of kittens down too and worked my way back down to the ground. The whole neighborhood knew about it. That was referred to the Great Cat Rescue of 1995.
Too bad there were no digital cameras or cams back then, and I didn't own a regular camera either, so I wasn't able to capture those moments on film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)