1

General Science / Scientists Discover Human Hands Emit Light Energy

« on: 12/07/2006 21:55:04 »

From Life Technology News http://www.lifetechnology.org/blog/index.html

Human hands glow, but fingernails release the most light, according to a recent study that found all parts of the hand emit detectable levels of light.

The findings support prior research that suggested most living things, including plants, release light. Since disease and illness appear to affect the strength and pattern of the glow, the discovery might lead to less-invasive ways of diagnosing patients.

Mitsuo Hiramatsu, a scientist at the Central Research Laboratory at Hamamatsu Photonics in Japan, who led the research, told Discovery News that the hands are not the only parts of the body that shine light by releasing photons, or tiny, energized increments of light.

"Not only the hands, but also the forehead and bottoms of our feet emit photons," Hiramatsu said, and added that in terms of hands "the presence of photons means that our hands are producing light all of the time."

The light is invisible to the naked eye, so Hiramatsu and his team used a powerful photon counter to "see"it.

The detector found that fingernails release 60 photons, fingers release 40 and the palms are the dimmest of all, with 20 photons measured.

The findings are published in the current Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology.

Hiramatsu is not certain why fingernails light up more than the other parts of the hand, but he said, "It may be because of the optical window property of fingernails," meaning that the fingernail works somewhat like a prism to scatter light.

To find out what might be creating the light in the first place, he and colleague Kimitsugu Nakamura had test subjects hold plastic bottles full of hot or cold water before their hand photons were measured. The researchers also pumped nitrogen or oxygen gas into the dark box where the individuals placed their hands as they were being analyzed.

Warm temperatures increased the release of photons, as did the introduction of oxygen. Rubbing mineral oil over the hands also heightened light levels.

Based on those results, the scientists theorize the light "is a kind of chemiluminescence," a luminescence based on chemical reactions, such as those that make fireflies glow. The researchers believe 40 percent of the light results from the chemical reaction that constantly occurs as our hand skin reacts with oxygen.

Since mineral oil, which permeates into the skin, heightens the light, they also now think 60 percent of the glow may result from chemical reactions that take place inside the skin.

Fritz-Albert Popp, a leading world expert on biologically related photons at The International Institute of Biophysics in Germany, agrees with the findings and was not surprised by them.

Popp told Discovery News, "One may find clear correlations to kind and degree (type and severity) of diseases."

Popp and his team believe the light from the forehead and the hands pulses out with the same basic rhythms, but that these pulses become irregular in unhealthy people. A study he conducted on a muscular sclerosis patient seemed to validate the theory.

Both he and Hiramatsu hope future studies will reveal more about human photon emissions, which could lead to medical diagnosis applications.

2

General Science / A MOST PROFOUND ESSAY OF THE WORLD

« on: 02/02/2006 00:02:55 »

Deconstructing Sartre: Modernist presemantic theory in the works of Ese Callum.

Department of Ontology, Carnegie-Mellon University
1. Ese Callum and cultural discourse

If one examines the submaterial paradigm of consensus, one is faced with a choice: either reject modernist presemantic theory or conclude that sexual identity, perhaps paradoxically, has intrinsic meaning. The primary theme of Scuglia’s[1] essay on the submaterial paradigm of consensus is a subdialectic paradox. However, if cultural discourse holds, we have to choose between modernist presemantic theory and cultural neocapitalist theory.

“Class is fundamentally meaningless,” says Debord; however, according to Long[2] , it is not so much class that is fundamentally meaningless, but rather the defining characteristic, and some would say the futility, of class. Derrida promotes the use of the submaterial paradigm of consensus to modify sexual identity. Thus, McElwaine[3] suggests that we have to choose between modernist presemantic theory and postcapitalist constructive theory.

In the works of Ese Callum, a predominant concept is the concept of subcapitalist reality. The premise of the submaterial paradigm of consensus implies that context is created by the collective unconscious. Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a modernist presemantic theory that includes truth as a reality.

If one examines textual Marxism, one is faced with a choice: either accept the submaterial paradigm of consensus or conclude that art has objective value, given that narrativity is distinct from truth. The main theme of the works of Rushdie is the rubicon, and therefore the stasis, of neoconceptualist sexual identity. However, Sartre uses the term ‘the dialectic paradigm of narrative’ to denote the role of the participant as reader.

“Class is responsible for hierarchy,” says Foucault. The primary theme of Porter’s[4] critique of cultural discourse is the common ground between sexual identity and class. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a submaterial paradigm of consensus that includes language as a whole.

Sontag’s model of cultural discourse holds that the raison d’etre of the writer is deconstruction. Therefore, an abundance of deappropriations concerning not sublimation per se, but subsublimation may be discovered.

The subject is interpolated into a modernist presemantic theory that includes art as a totality. It could be said that the main theme of the works of Rushdie is the collapse, and some would say the rubicon, of neotextual society.

Marx uses the term ‘cultural discourse’ to denote a mythopoetical reality. But if modernist presemantic theory holds, the works of Rushdie are postmodern.

The subject is contextualised into a submaterial paradigm of consensus that includes culture as a whole. Thus, Lacan uses the term ‘cultural discourse’ to denote the difference between sexual identity and class.

The premise of the submaterial paradigm of consensus suggests that language is used to disempower minorities. However, several narratives concerning cultural discourse exist.

The futility, and subsequent rubicon, of cultural discourse depicted in Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children emerges again in The Ground Beneath Her Feet, although in a more predialectic sense. Thus, Prinn[5] implies that we have to choose between modernist presemantic theory and textual subcultural theory.
2. Contexts of fatal flaw

In the works of Ese Callum, a predominant concept is the distinction between figure and ground. An abundance of theories concerning not, in fact, narrative, but prenarrative may be found. But if semantic theory holds, we have to choose between cultural discourse and the neotextual paradigm of consensus.

If one examines the submaterial paradigm of consensus, one is faced with a choice: either reject modernist presemantic theory or conclude that society, somewhat surprisingly, has intrinsic meaning. The submaterial paradigm of consensus states that reality is part of the paradigm of truth, given that the premise of cultural discourse is invalid. It could be said that Foucault suggests the use of constructivist materialism to deconstruct class divisions.

Any number of depatriarchialisms concerning modernist presemantic theory exist. Therefore, Sartre uses the term ‘the submaterial paradigm of consensus’ to denote the rubicon of pretextual sexual identity.

Cultural discourse holds that the goal of the artist is social comment. However, Debord uses the term ‘modernist presemantic theory’ to denote the bridge between society and sexual identity.

The primary theme of Reicher’s[6] essay on the submaterial paradigm of consensus is the economy, and subsequent meaninglessness, of capitalist society. It could be said that in Four Rooms, Tarantino affirms postdialectic narrative; in Pulp Fiction, however, he denies the submaterial paradigm of consensus.
3. Tarantino and modernist presemantic theory

In the works of Ese Callum, a predominant concept is the concept of cultural language. Bataille’s critique of cultural discourse implies that narrativity has significance. Thus, the without/within distinction intrinsic to Tarantino’s Jackie Brown is also evident in Four Rooms.

“Society is used in the service of sexism,” says Baudrillard; however, according to Hamburger[7] , it is not so much society that is used in the service of sexism, but rather the genre of society. Drucker[8] holds that we have to choose between modernist presemantic theory and textual theory. However, if cultural discourse holds, the works of Tarantino are modernistic.

The main theme of the works of Tarantino is a self-justifying reality. Many narratives concerning the common ground between class and consciousness may be discovered. But Bataille promotes the use of modernist presemantic theory to read and analyse sexual identity.

Drucker[9] suggests that we have to choose between cultural discourse and material libertarianism. In a sense, in Pulp Fiction, Tarantino deconstructs the submaterial paradigm of consensus; in Jackie Brown he affirms cultural discourse.

The characteristic theme of Geoffrey’s[10] essay on Sartreist existentialism is the failure, and subsequent meaninglessness, of dialectic society. Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a modernist presemantic theory that includes culture as a whole.

The subconstructivist paradigm of expression states that narrativity may be used to entrench class divisions. In a sense, if modernist presemantic theory holds, the works of Tarantino are postmodern.

The primary theme of the works of Tarantino is the role of the participant as artist. However, Lyotard uses the term ‘textual postcapitalist theory’ to denote the fatal flaw, and some would say the defining characteristic, of textual sexual identity.

Marx suggests the use of modernist presemantic theory to challenge sexism. It could be said that Hamburger[11] implies that we have to choose between the textual paradigm of narrative and neoconstructive patriarchialist theory.
4. Contexts of stasis

In the works of Ese Callum, a predominant concept is the distinction between destruction and creation. The example of the submaterial paradigm of consensus depicted in Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction emerges again in Jackie Brown, although in a more submaterial sense. But any number of deappropriations concerning modernist presemantic theory exist.

Lacan promotes the use of the submaterial paradigm of consensus to modify reality. It could be said that Derrida uses the term ‘cultural discourse’ to denote a mythopoetical totality.

The premise of Lacanist obscurity states that the State is capable of significance, but only if language is interchangeable with sexuality. But Baudrillard suggests the use of the submaterial paradigm of consensus to attack the status quo.
5. Tarantino and cultural discourse

If one examines the submaterial paradigm of consensus, one is faced with a choice: either accept the cultural paradigm of narrative or conclude that consciousness is intrinsically unattainable. The main theme of Humphrey’s[12] critique of modernist presemantic theory is the bridge between sexual identity and art. Therefore, several theories concerning the failure, and subsequent genre, of neocapitalist class may be found.

In the works of Ese Callum, a predominant concept is the concept of cultural sexuality. If precapitalist patriarchialist theory holds, we have to choose between cultural discourse and the postcapitalist paradigm of discourse. In a sense, in Pulp Fiction, Tarantino denies cultural destructuralism; in Reservoir Dogs, although, he deconstructs modernist presemantic theory.

Subconstructivist cultural theory suggests that the task of the poet is significant form. It could be said that the masculine/feminine distinction which is a central theme of Tarantino’s Four Rooms is also evident in Reservoir Dogs.

Reicher[13] holds that we have to choose between the submaterial paradigm of consensus and the pretextual paradigm of expression. Thus, Sartre’s essay on cultural discourse states that the collective is capable of intent.

If the submaterial paradigm of consensus holds, we have to choose between capitalist theory and postsemioticist dialectic theory. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a modernist presemantic theory that includes culture as a whole.
6. Consensuses of rubicon

“Society is part of the absurdity of language,” says Sontag; however, according to Long[14] , it is not so much society that is part of the absurdity of language, but rather the defining characteristic, and eventually the genre, of society. Cultural discourse holds that narrativity is fundamentally a legal fiction, but only if the premise of neocapitalist narrative is valid; otherwise, we can assume that expression comes from communication. Thus, the subject is interpolated into a modernist presemantic theory that includes sexuality as a totality.

The characteristic theme of the works of Gibson is a self-supporting whole. Lacan’s model of materialist subdeconstructive theory states that consciousness is used to oppress the Other, given that reality is distinct from sexuality. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a cultural discourse that includes narrativity as a paradox.

“Class is dead,” says Foucault. Any number of theories concerning modernist presemantic theory exist. Therefore, Parry[15] implies that the works of Gibson are not postmodern.

The main theme of Scuglia’s[16] critique of cultural discourse is the futility, and subsequent defining characteristic, of semioticist sexual identity. Bataille uses the term ‘the submaterial paradigm of consensus’ to denote the common ground between society and reality. But Baudrillard promotes the use of predialectic capitalist theory to read and analyse sexual identity.

The submaterial paradigm of consensus suggests that the significance of the artist is social comment. However, Derrida suggests the use of cultural discourse to challenge capitalism.

A number of narratives concerning the role of the observer as reader may be discovered. Thus, the subject is interpolated into a submaterial paradigm of consensus that includes language as a whole.

The example of Lacanist obscurity prevalent in Gibson’s Neuromancer emerges again in Idoru, although in a more mythopoetical sense. Therefore, Derrida uses the term ‘cultural discourse’ to denote the rubicon, and hence the defining characteristic, of subdeconstructivist class.

The subject is contextualised into a capitalist posttextual theory that includes culture as a paradox. But Lyotard promotes the use of cultural discourse to deconstruct society.

If modernist presemantic theory holds, we have to choose between semioticist discourse and subcultural dialectic theory. However, Baudrillard uses the term ‘cultural discourse’ to denote the role of the observer as writer.

This can be distilled into a simple form for people with simple minds such that:-

I am Ese Callum
by The Aggregate Kid

i am the mountain of
torture, that was in love, now she
has a broken heart my life
sucks, i look so dumb i can’t stop
these thoughts are the sun, the
moon, and the children run to
their rooms, for they must do work
all day; and as butterful as a
bird who cannot yet fly? or am i
there or am i in here or am i your
love? am i to be someday… he
will always be there.

hbz is my friendship with you
when you look around you seem to
understand my hopes and dreams. you
dont know your wish, and so
that’s why a child’s right is that
the people by you mad made them
hate and want to go further. the
pull of gravity, keeps me here.
i’m too weak to touch reality. i
never met you i am the sun for
rising and bringing us another day
of my goal i am without love
i’m without love then i
realized, it wasn’t i needed to touch
reality.

3

Physiology & Medicine / TAMIFLU JAB KILLS 12 KIDS - ALERT

« on: 19/12/2005 12:34:58 »

NEWS REPORTS ON CNN CONFIRMED 12 KIDS IN JAPAN HAVE BEEN KILLED BY TAMIFLU JAB SIDE EFFECTS!.
 
MANY HUNDREDS ARE SUFFERING FROM LIVER FAILURE.
 
WITHOUT A LIVER YOU ARE GOOD AS DEAD.
 
AFTER INVESTIGATING FOR 1 DAY THE FDA SAID TAMIFLU DID NOT CAUSE THE DEATHS.
THEY INVESTIGATED FOR 1 DAY.
 
YOU GOT THAT?
 
1 DAY.
 
THE FDA IS STAFFED BY DRUG COMPANIES AND HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
 
REMEMBER HOW I WARNED EVERONE AND YOU ALL STUCK YOUR NOSES THE AIR IN DISDAIN.
 
A SOTTISH DOCTOR ON A LIVE TV INTERVIEW WAS ABRUPTLY CUT OFF WHEN HE STARTED SAYING PEOPLE SHOULD AVOID IT AND NOT TAKE IT.  
 
ALSO HE WARNED PEOPLE NOT TO TAKE IT BUT HAS BEEN SILENCED.
 
I HAVE BEEN VINDICATED AGAIN.
 
IN MY OPINION THE TAMIFLU SCARE WAS NOTHING MORE THAN SHARE RAMPING EXRCISE BY RUMSFELD AND HIS PHARMA CRONIES.
 
RUMSFELD OWES $30 MILLION WORTH OF STOCK NOW IN TAMIFLU.
 
YOU CAN READ MORE ABOUT TAMIFLU AT THE BELOW LINK:-
 
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread183282/pg1
 
REMEMBER IT WILL BE YOUR KIDS NEXT.

4

General Science / DERELICTION OF DUTY BY NURSES

« on: 15/12/2005 22:38:25 »

As many people will have seen by the vast explosion of MRSA forumson the internet MRSA is a very serious plague rampant in hospitals and more than 30000 are dying as a direct and CONTRIBUTERY cause of their death.

The nurses who are supposed to be looking afer the patients have stopped doing so as evidenced by reports from the relatives and victims of mrsa.

Nurses attentions seem to be focused on "last night" every time you hear them conversing.

Todays so called nurses in the NHS are very sloppy and seem to be mentally else where when come to work.

They simply dont care about their patients.This is why mrsa is rampant through all the hospitals.This dereliction of duty has been promoted by text and mobile phones and fostered a culture of "I could not care less attitude".

They seem very busy gossiping about "last night' meaning who shagged who and how much binge drinking they did and who they vomited over.

They sit in their cubicles reading magazines and papers and manicuring their nails whinging about their latest moronic boyfriend who beats them up after coming home from the pub.

These nurses are paid £33000  annuelly for doing very little work.They are always whining about their 'low pay'.

They should be charged with murder or at the very least manslaughter every time a patient dies in their "care".

That should help them focus their minds on the job instead of their sordid sexploits.

Its possible some mrsa may be caused by their promiscous behaviour spreading it in the hospital also.

Its time you people took these 'nurses' to task for not caring for their patients.

You should shout at them and demand that they do their job for which they are paid a king's ransom and which mostly goes on binge drinking and 'nights out'.

You should demand decisive action and minute by minute accountability of how they spent their day every day.Remember it could be you.

YOU at their mercy next time.

Thats right You will very probably get mrsa next time YOU go into hospital and the drugs have nearly stopped working.Even Vanco.....

You will suffer a horrible death if you dont act now!!!

Be very scared when you go into hospital.

5

General Science / BIRD FLUE VACCINES CONDEMNED-IMPORTANT

« on: 17/10/2005 12:27:05 »

DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS CONDEMN VACCINATION

"There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of
children does more harm than good." Dr J Anthony Morris, former Chief
Vaccine Control Officer, US Food and Drug Administration

"The greatest threat of childhood disease lies in the dangerous and
ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunisation." Dr
R. Mendelsohn, Author and Professor of Paediatrics (How To Raise A
Healthy Child In Spite Of Your Doctor)

"In our opinion, there is now sufficient evidence of immune malfunction
following current vaccination programmes to anticipate growing public
demands for research investigation into alternative methods of
prevention of infectious disease." Dr's H. Buttram and J. Hoffman
(Vaccinations and Immune Malfunctions)

"All vaccination has the effect of directing the three values of the
blood into or toward the zone characteristics of cancer and
leukemia...Vaccines DO predispose to cancer and leukaemia." Professor
L.C. Vincent, Founder of Bioelectronics

"Every vaccine carries certain hazards and can produce inward reactions
in some people...in general, there are more vaccine complications than
is generally appreciated." Professor George Dick, London University

"Official data have shown that the large-scale vaccinations undertaken
in the US have failed to obtain any significant improvement of the
diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection." Dr A.
Sabin, developer of the Oral Polio vaccine (lecture to Italian doctors
in Piacenza, Italy, Decemebr 7th 1985)

"In addition to the many obvious cases of mortality from these
practises, there are also long-term hazards which are almost impossible
to estimate accurately...the inherent danger of of all vaccine
procedures should be a deterrent to their unnecessary or unjustifiable
use." Sir Graham Wilson (The Hazards of Immunisation)

"Laying aside the very real possibility that the various vaccines are
contaminated with animal viruses and may cause serious illness later in
life (multiple sclerosis, cancer, leukaemia, etc) we must consider
whether the vaccines really work for their intended purpose." Dr W.C.
Douglas (Cutting Edge, May 1990)

"The only wholly safe vaccine is a vaccine that is never used" Dr James
A. Shannon, National Institute of Health, USA

With reference to Smallpox;

"Vaccination is a monstrosity, a misbegotten offspring of error and
ignorance, it should have no place in either hygiene or
medicine...Believe not in vaccination, it is a world-wide delusion, an
unscientific practise, a fatal superstition with consequences measured
today by tears and sorrow without end." Professor Chas Rauta, University
of Perguia, Italy , (New York Medical Journal July 1899)

"Vaccination does not protect, it actually renders its subjects more
susceptible by depressing vital power and diminishing natural
resistance, and millions of people have died of smallpox which they
contracted after being vaccinated." Dr J.W. Hodge (The Vaccination
Superstition)

"It is nonsense to think that you can inject pus - and it is usually
from the pustule end of the dead smallpox victim … it is unthinkable
that you can inject that into a little child and in any way improve its
health. What is true of vaccination is exactly as true of all forms of
serum immunisation, if we could by any means build up a natural
resistance to disease through these artificial means, I would applaud it
to the echo, but we can't do it." Dr William Howard Hay (lecture to
Medical Freedom Society, June 25th 1937)

"Immunisation against smallpox is more hazardous than the disease
itself." Professor Ari Zuckerman, World Health Organisation

With reference to Whooping Cough;

"There is no doubt in my mind that in the UK alone some hundreds, if not
thousands of well infants have suffered irreparable brain damage
needlessly and that their lives and those of their parents have been
wrecked in consequence." Professor Gordon Stewart, University of Glasgow
(Here's Health, March 1980)

"My suspicion, which is shared by others in my profession, is that the
nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths that occur in the US each year are related to
one or more of the vaccines that are routinely given to children. The
pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine is the most likely villain , but it
could also be one or more of the others." Dr R Mendelsohn, Author and
Professor of Paediatrics (How To Raise A Healthy Child In Spite Of Your
Doctor)

"The worst vaccine of all is the whooping cough vaccine...it is
responsible for a lot of deaths and for a lot of infants suffering
irreversible brain damage.." Dr Archie Kalokerinos, Author and Vaccine
Researcher (Natural Health Convention, Stanwell Tops, NSW, Australia
1987)

With reference to Polio;

"Many here voice a silent view that the Salk and Sabin polio vaccine,
being made of monkey kidney tissue has been directly responsible for the
major increase in leukaemia in this country." Dr F. Klenner, Polio
Researcher, USA

"No batch of vaccine can be proved to be safe before it is given to
children" Surgeon General Leonard Scheele (AMA Convention 1955, USA)

"Live virus vaccines against influenza and paralytic polio, for example,
may in each instance cause the disease it is intended to prevent..." Dr
Jonas Salk, developer of first polio vaccine (Science 4/4/77 Abstracts)

6

General Science / VACCINES INTERVIEW

« on: 18/10/2005 09:20:06 »

SUMMARY   ...no long-term studies are done on any vaccines.
    Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way.  Why?  
    Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not
    cause problems.  So why should anyone check?  On top of
    that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad
    reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is
    given. But that does not make sense... Because the vaccine
    obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after
    it is given.  A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can
    be gradual.  Neurological problems can develop over time.
    They do in various conditions...


Jon Rappoport interview of ex vaccine researcher


Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of
good medicine.

A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say
which ones.  

Q: Why not?  

A: I want to preserve my privacy.  

Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into
the open?  

A: I believe I could lose my pension.  

Q: On what grounds?  

A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causing
you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one
or two people who were put under surveillance, who were
harassed.  

Q: Harassed by whom?  

A: The FBI.  

Q: Really?  

A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come
calling too.  

Q: So much for free speech.  

A: I was "part of the inner circle."  If now I began to name
names and make specific accusations against researchers, I
could be in a world of trouble.  

Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?  

A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines
are the ultimate justification for the overall "brilliance" of
modern medicine.  

Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose
whether they should get vaccines?  

A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people
need information, so that they can choose well. It's one thing
to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies,
how can you choose?  Also, if the FDA were run by honorable
people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They
would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.  

Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall
decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.  

A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.  

Q: Why?  

A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the
business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on
continuing that work.  

Q: And then?  

A: I did my own investigation.  

Q: What conclusions did you come to?  

A: The decline of disease is due to improved living
conditions.  

Q: What conditions?  

A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher
food.  A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but
when you are healthy, you don't contract the diseases as
easily.  

Q: What did you feel when you completed your own
investigation?  

A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a
collection of lies.  

Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?  

A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a
vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same
vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.  

Q: Why?  

A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a
process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually
cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause
other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.  

Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that
vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out
diseases?  

A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful.
If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like
measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But,
under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system
itself. And if it causes other diseases -- say, meningitis --
that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine
can do that. The connection is overlooked.  

Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in
England.  

A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get
another picture.  

Q: Which is?  

A: There were cities in England where people who were not
vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where
people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And
smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was
introduced.  

Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false
history.  

A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a history that
has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are
invariably safe and effective.  

Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.  

A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing
facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not
true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of
debris introduced into vaccines.  

Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio
vaccine.  

A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I mean. The
SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made
by using monkey kidneys.  But I'm talking about something
else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless
errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors -- that
was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted
part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys,
you open the door to germs which you don't know are in those
kidneys.  

Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between different
types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you
find in your many years of work with vaccines?  

A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and
I'll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a
partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various
chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba,
which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba.  

Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in
the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine.
Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found
potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines.
Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian
leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR
vaccine.  

Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which
don't belong in the vaccines.  

A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these
contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know, because no
testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of
roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know
that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep
A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal
tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments
and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time -- which
may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for
contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that
IS puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't
know exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was
a very small "fragment" of human hair and also human mucus. I
have found what can only be called "foreign protein," which
could mean almost anything.  It could mean protein from
viruses.  

Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.  

A: How do you think I felt?  Remember, this material is going
into the bloodstream without passing through some of the
ordinary immune defenses.  

Q: How were your findings received?  

A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this can't be helped. In
making vaccines, you use various animals' tissue, and that's
where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm not
even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde,
mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines.  

Q: This information is pretty staggering.  

A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological
contaminants. Who knows how many others there are?  Others we
don't find because we don't think to look for them. If tissue
from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible
germs can be in that tissue?  We have no idea. We have no idea
what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.  

Q: And beyond the purity issue?  

A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about
vaccines.  That they intricately stimulate the immune system
to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is
the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is
supposed to "create" antibodies which, indirectly, offer
protection against disease. However, the immune system is much
larger and more involved than antibodies and their related
"killer cells."  

Q: The immune system is?  

A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all immune
system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle
of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.  

Q: So the level of general health is important.  

A: More than important. Vital.  

Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?  

A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people
who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with
hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call
liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then,
you've concealed the root cause of the problem.  

Q: And that happens?  

A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors
automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come
down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected
from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's
circular reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault.
No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against
hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the
automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the
disease.  

Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how
many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were
a problem?  

A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they
were doing. But they would never go public, even within their
companies.  

Q: What was the turning point for you?  

A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.  

Q: Did you investigate?  

A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely
healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his
death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course,
I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a
bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was
not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral
of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate.
I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not
tested in a scientific way.  

Q: What do you mean?  

A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines.
Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why?  
Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not
cause problems. So why should anyone check?  On top of that, a
vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said
to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not
make sense.  

Q: Why doesn't it make sense?  

A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long
period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual.
Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can
develop over time. They do in various conditions, even
according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be
the case with vaccines?  If chemical poisoning can occur
gradually, why couldn't that be the case with a vaccine which
contains mercury?  

Q: And that is what you found?  

A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the time.
Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose
children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year
period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to
spark off an intense investigation.  

Q: Has it been enough?  

A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.  

Q: Which is?  

A: The people doing the investigation are not really
interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the
vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they
invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines.  They
say, "This vaccine is safe."  But what do they base those
judgments on?  They base them on definitions and ideas which
automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.  

Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has
failed.  Where people have come down with the disease against
which they were vaccinated.  

A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence
is simply ignored. It's discounted. The experts say, if they
say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation,
but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you
add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have
occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations.  

Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with
colleagues,  when you were still working in the vaccine
establishment?  

A: Yes I did.  

Q: What happened?  

A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear
that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a
few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid
me. They felt they could be labeled with "guilt by
association."  All in all, though, I behaved myself. I made
sure I didn't create problems for myself.  

Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?  

A: First of all, there is no "if."  They do harm. It becomes a
more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in
those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing
with the kind of research which should be done, but isn't.
Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or
flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body
from the moment they enter. This research has not been done.
As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and
discuss all the reasons. As you've said many times, at
different layers of the system people have their motives.
Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points,
prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking
habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical
cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a
weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to
accept, but it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest
level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to
weaken them.  To kill them.  At one point in my career, I had
a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government
position in an African nation. He told me that he was well
aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these
depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say,
in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly
trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people
knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been
used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make
them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the
opportunity to speak with several of these people from this
network.  

Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the
situation?  

A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not
utterly convinced, but he is on the way to realizing the whole
truth. He already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the
AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system. He
also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the
vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has enough
trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue.  

Q: This network you speak of.  

A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about
vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going
to be mounted?  For these people, that is a difficult issue.  

Q: And in the industrialized nations?  

A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is
diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to
question medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to
take or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these
coming mandates about vaccines against biowarefare germs are
going to win out. This is an important time.  

Q: The furor over the hepatitis B vaccine seems one good
avenue.  

A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine
-- and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets
hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles -- is a
ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover
themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get
hep B every year from "unknown causes," and that's why every
baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and
the so-called studies that back it up.  

Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link
between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from
his job in a London hospital.  

A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations
between the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know
that Tony Blair's wife is involved with alternative health.
There is the possibility that their child has not been given
the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press
interviews, and made it seem that he was simply objecting to
invasive questioning of his "personal and family life."  In
any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if
given the chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to
all the families who have come forward and stated that their
children were severely damaged by the MMR.  

Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.  

A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with
her husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a
great deal of good if she breaks her promise. I have been told
she is under pressure, and not just from her husband. At the
level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get
into the act. It is thought of as a matter of national
security.  

Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the
medical cartel.  

A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation.
It zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning
these vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop
questioning the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist in
the Catholic Church.  

Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he
will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.  

A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel.
There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an
actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he
says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration
against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors
spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard
pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against
the medical cartel.  

Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood,
what is the basic frame of mind?  

A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing
they think about is challenging the status quo. They are
already in an intramural war for that money. They don't need
more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on
the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very
successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in
any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might
therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think
about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If
five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting
of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to
know what real health benefits have been conferred on the
public from the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that
facility, something might start.  A spark might go off. You
might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out.
Researchers -- a few -- might start leaking information.  

Q: A good idea.  

A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the
police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits,
mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of
people.  

Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of
vaccines given to babies these days?  

A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of
any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption
is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of
vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is,
vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage
increases when you give many of them in a short time period.  

Q: Then we have the fall flu season.  

A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to
the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it
happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October,
it is the flu.  

Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine
field?  

A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll regret it a little
less.  And I work in other ways. I give out information to
certain people, when I think they will use it well.  

Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?  

A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and
efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and
license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is
not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed
long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to
interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about
their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You
need all these things.  The things that are not there.  

Q: The things that are not there.  

A: Yes.  

Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to review, once more,
the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases,
how that happens.  

A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful
outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine.
He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect
him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the
vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn't get THAT disease,
but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he
develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine.
That condition could be autism, what's called autism, or it
could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become
mentally disabled.  

Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these
different outcomes?  

A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If
you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children
who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how
many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no
reliable answer. That is what I'm saying. Vaccines are
superstitions. And with superstitions, you don't get facts you
can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to
enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we
can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very
disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real,
and it can be deep and it can mean death.  The harm is NOT
limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe. In the
US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about
autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and
standing up at meetings. They are essentially trying to fill
in the gap that has been created by the researchers and
doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.  

Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston
and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he
exercised every day and he was loved by his parents, and he
didn't get the measles vaccine, what would be his health
status compared with the average child in Boston who eats
poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles
vaccine?  

A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet
on the better health status for the first child. If he gets
measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it
will be much lighter than the measles the second child might
get. I would bet on the first child every time.  

Q: How long did you work with vaccines?  

A: A long time. Longer than ten years.  

Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say
that vaccines are successful?  

A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the last thing I would
allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had
to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my
family. I'm not saying it would come to that. There are ways
to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act.
There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on
religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove,
I would go on the move.  

Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines
and appear to be healthy.  

A: The operative word is "appear."  What about all the
children who can't focus on their studies?  What about the
children who have tantrums from time to time?  What about the
children who are not quite in possession of all their mental
faculties?  I know there are many causes for these things, but
vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no
reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to
allow the government to have the last word. Government
medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in
terms. You get one or the other, but not both.  

Q: So we come to the level playing field.  

A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow
the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said
earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is
strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have
parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy
dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from
the DPT shot?  What information did his parents act on?  I can
tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information.  

Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the
hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen
if their kids don't get shots.  

A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They
equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better
information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities.
And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person's
responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes
that bet. It is betting that the fear will win.  

_______


Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a vaccine researcher who
worked for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical
houses and the US government's National Institutes of Health.  

Mark retired during the last decade. He says he was "disgusted
with what he discovered about vaccines."  

As you know, since the beginning of nomorefakenews, I have
been launching an attack against non-scientific and dangerous
assertions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.  

Mark has been one of my sources.  

He is a little reluctant to speak out, even under the cover of
anonymity, but with the current push to make vaccines
mandatory -- with penalties like quarantine lurking in the
wings -- he has decided to break his silence.  

He lives comfortably in retirement, but like many of my
long-time sources, he has developed a conscience about his
former work. Mark is well aware of the scope of the medical
cartel and its goals of depopulation, mind control, and
general debilitation of populations.  

7

General Science / OIL SHORTAGE PROBLEM SOLUTION

« on: 25/09/2005 19:13:35 »

ROBERT KRUPA'S FIRESTORM SPARKPLUG-

I would advise all people worried about carbon emissions,global warming and the rising price of oil as well as the rising price of peak oil to investigate Robert Krupas's new spark plug design which increases engine efficiency,and elininates internal combustion engines emissions altogether.

This almost doubles fuel efficiency therefore halving fuel use.

This spark plug design does not use electrode points but has a dome shaped point and the the high voltage generates a plasma between the electrodes instead of a spark. The engine burn is very clean.

40 parts air to 1 part of fuel.

Its been tested by Bosch and confirmed to work but it would compete with their own spark plugs and also lasts much longer as no wear and tear on the electrodes due to absence of sharp pointed electrodes.

Do not be frightened by the word plasma.You see plasmas every day in flourescent light tubes.

Every one who is interested in global warming,carbon emissions and global oil supplies and the rising cost of fuel should see the interview on the website and Robert Krupa being interviewed by Robert Stanley.

You will see the Firestorm spark plug in action compared to a standard spark plug using pictures and photographs and all your questions will be answered.

To get to this webpage type :-

Robert Krupa Robert Stanley firestorm spark plug in google search and click on second entry from top.

or click on the below link:-

http://www.robertstanley.biz/firestorm.htm

You will be astonished.

8

Physiology & Medicine / WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU CONTRACT RESISTANT MRSA

« on: 15/09/2005 11:50:28 »

WHAT TO DO IF YOU CONTRACT ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT MRSA.

With MRSA infections increasing rapidly in and out of hospitals the below information will save your life and limb if followed carefully after other options like pharamaceutical drugs have failed you.

You should always consult a registered health practitioner and use the below information as a last resort although using it earlier may help you to avoid complications as the treatment is not harmful if followed as below.
 
It is non-patentable , non-drug based and therefore not profitable for established pharmaceutical companies.

Your doctor will dismiss it automatically but you should do your own research using a search engine like google.


If you are infected with antibiotic resistant MRSA and wish to save your limb and life then the following set of instructions will save your life.I suggest you save this information and pass it around.

If a limb has become infected with MRSA and your doctor suggests amputation and if you dont want it amputated then wash the effected limp in warm water and scrub gently away any dead surface skin cells.

While the limb is still wet put it in a thick plastic bag and seal it in with sellotape around the edges so thats its airtight.

Next get a the hose from an Ozone generator and make a small hole in the bag and seal it with sellotape to make it airtight.

Then switch on the ozone generator and leave it on for from 1 to 4 hours depending on severity of infection.

You can repeat the treatment over a few days for very acute cases.

The ozone gas will kill any MRSA on the skin and transdermal zxone will go through the skin and kill any MRSA inside the limb.

Its a good idea to open the windows while you are ozonating the limp as ozone is not good for the lungs.


If the infection is not in a limb which can be easily wrapped in a plastic bag then do the up to the neck ozone bagging again using sellotape to seal the bag at the neck so its airtight.Use a large thick binliner and stand in it while a friend/relation seals you up.Again open the windows.

But have a warm bath prior to ozone bagging and again to speed things up a gentle scrubbing to remove dead skin before bagging.

You will find this saves your limb and life.

Ozone generators can be purchased from google and can cost from £160 upwards and last a very long time.

The generator costing around £160 or $200  will be more then adequate as long as the ozone output is around 200 to 300 mg/hour.

Drinking ozonated cold water will increase the elimination of the MRSA infection and associated toxins even more quickly.

I suggest you all look up medical ozone in google or transdermal ozone or ozone bagging or variations thereof.

This will give you additional research materiels

I already have an ozone generator and routinely drink ozonated water to keep healthy.The water gives you a slightly heady feeling as if you had too much oxygen for a few seconds after you drink it.

The point of this information is to enable you to save your own life  and limb after other options have failed you.

You should save this information as a text file and spread it around.

9

General Science / Has colloidal silver been tested in clinical trials?

« on: 01/08/2005 22:51:48 »

These recent trials were done using NON-IONIC 50 nm silver particles suspended in distilled water.

The method uses 10500 alternating voltage to deposit these silver particle from pure silver electrodes very close to the water surface contained in a vessal and being rapidly stirred.

The method is similar to high voltage metal  deposition but no vacuam is required.

The method has been patented.

Here are the results for various illnesses:-

Summary Report of the First African Human Trials of
American Biotech Labs’ Silver BioticsTM
The Hospitals

The first series of 58 trials was accomplished at three (3) hospitals in Ghana, West Africa. The three hospitals were: the Air Force Station Hospital under the direction of Dr. Kwabiah, The Kone-Bu Teaching Hospital under the direction of Dr. Sackey, and the Justab Clinic/Maternity under the direction of Dr. Abraham.
Diversity Of Use
Silver Biotics~ was tried on a wide diversity of human problems, including malaria, upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, sinusitis infections, vaginal yeast infections, eye, nose and ear infections, cuts and fungal skin infections and even for sexually transmitted diseases like gonorrhea etc. Silver BioticsTM was used as both an internal and external antibiotic alternative.
The Product
All treatments were performed using the American Biotech Labs’ Silver BioticsTM at a strength of 10 parts per million.
Summary Data
The data will summarize the type of human ailment the product was used to treat, the average time it took to see signs of recovery, average time under treatment to obtain full recovery (as deemed by the doctors), and the average dosage used during the time of treatment.
The Results
Abdominal Pain & Diarrhea: One patient was diagnosed with this condition. The patient received 10 ml. (two teaspoons) of Silver Biotics~ three times in one day. The patient was reported fully recovered in 1 day.

Bronchitis: Two patients were diagnosed with this condition. The patients were given 5 ml (one teaspoon) of Silver Biotics~ twice daily. Both patients showed signs of recovery within 1-2 days and both were reported fully recovered within 3 days.

Candida Vaginal Yeast Infection: Five patients were diagnosed with this condition. The patients received 10 ml (two teaspoons) of Silver Biotics~ twice daily as a vaginal douche. The patients showed signs of recovery in an average of 3 days and were reported fully recovered in an average of 5.6 days.

Conjunctivitis (Eve Infection): Two patients were diagnosed with this condition. The patients received several drops of Silver Biotics~ in the infected eye, twice daily. Both patients were reported fully recovered within 1 day.

External Cuts & Infection: Six patients were diagnosed with this condition. The conditions included: Staph skin infections, septic ulcers, and infected abscesses. The patients received 5 ml of Silver Biotics~ twice daily. The patients showed signs of recovery within an average of 2.16 days and were reported fully recovered within an average of 3 days.

External Otitis (Ear Infection): Six patients were diagnosed with this condition. The patients received two drops of Silver Bioticsm in the infected ear three times daily. The patients showed signs of recovery within an average of 1.66 days and were reported fully recovered within an average of 3.5 days.

Otitis Media (Middle Ear Infection): One patient was diagnosed with this condition. The patient received 2 drops of Silver Biotics~ in the infected ear, three times daily. The patient showed signs of recovery in 2 days and was reported fully recovered in 4 days. Fungal Skin Infection: Two patients were diagnosed with fungal skin infections. The patients received 10 ml of Silver Bioticsm three times daily. The patients showed signs of recovery in an average of 4.5 days and were reported fully recovered in 8 days.

Gonorrhea: Two patients were diagnosed as having gonorrhea. The patients received lOml (two teaspoons) of Silver Bioticsm two times daily. The patients showed signs of recovery in an average of 3.5 days and were reported fully recovered in an average of 6 days.

Malaria: Eleven patients were diagnosed as having malaria. The patients received 10 ml (two teaspoons) of Silver Bioticsm three times daily. The patients showed signs of recovery in an average of 2.4 days and were reported fully recovered in an average of 5 days.

Mouth Problems: Two patients were diagnosed as having mouth problems. One case was gingivitis and the other was halitosis. Botti patients were given Silver BioticSm as a mouth wash. The case of gingivitis was reported recovered in 3 days. The case of halitosis was reported recovered in I day.

Pelvic Inflammatory Disease: One patient was diagnosed with this disease. The patient received 5 ml of Silver Bioticslu (one teaspoon) two times daily as a vaginal douche. The patient showed signs of recovery in 2 days and was reported fully recovered in 5 days.

Pharvnaitis (Sore Throat): Four patients were diagnosed with phaiyngitis. The patients received 10 ml (two teaspoons) of Silver Bioticsm, three times daily as a gargle. The patients showed signs of recovery in an average of 3.75 days and were reported fully recovered in an average of 5.25 days.

Retro Viral Infection. HIV: One patient was diagnosed with a retro viral infection. The patient received 5 ml (one teaspoon) of Silver Bioticsm two times daily. The patient showed signs of recovery in 4 days and was reported fully recovered 5 days.

Sinusitis/ Rhinitis (Nasal Infections): Six patients were reported with sinus problems. Four patients were reported with sinusitis and two patients were reported with rhinitis. The patients received two drops of Silver Bioticsm in their nasal passages, three times daily. The patients showed signs of recovery in an average of 1.6 days and were reported fully recovered in an average of 3.2 days.

Tonsilitis: One patient was diagnosed with tonsilitis. The patient received 10 ml of Silver Biotics TIA three times daily as a gargle. The patient showed signs of recovery in 2 days and was reported fully recovered in 7 days.

Upper Respiratory Tract Infection: Two patients were diagnosed with upper respiratory tract infections. The patients received 5 ml of Silver Bioticsm (one teaspoon) three times daily. The patients showed signs of recovery in an average of 3 days and were reported fully recovered in 6 days.

Urinary Tract Infections: Three patients were diagnosed with Urinary Tract Infections. The patients received 10 ml of Silver Bioticsm (two teaspoons) two to three times daily. The patients showed signs of recovery in an average of 3.33 days and were reported fully recovered within an average of 5.6 days.

Summary
The human studies summarized herein were completed in Ghana, West Africa. This report summarizes 50% of the 120 patients who participated in the study. Some patients were suffering from more than one ailment or problem at the time of treatment. These patients were treated for one or two of 18 different human ailments or problems. In almost every case, the doctors using Silver Biotics~ in l0ppm as an antibiotic alternative reported that their patients achieved full recovery within just seven days or less of treatment. At this time, the testing is ongoing.


 

10

New Theories / BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%

« on: 29/06/2005 12:32:59 »

Wearing a bra and breast cancer

Reseaching a national library of medicine database over a year ago. That article documented an increase in breast cancer rates between women who do wear bras versus those that do not.

That harvard study fascinated me and I searched the medical literature for possible explanations.

In essence, what singer and grismaijer study found was that the odds of getting breast cancer dramatically increased with bra-wearing over 12 hours per day.

* women who wore their bras 24 hours per day had a 3 out of 4 chance of developing breast cancer (in their study, n=2056 for the cancer group and n=2674 for the standard group).
* women who wore bras more than 12 hour per day but not to bed had a 1 out of 7 risk.
* women who wore their bras less than 12 hours per day had a 1 out of 152 risk.
* women who wore bras rarely or never had a 1 out of 168 chance of getting breast cancer. The overall difference between 24 hour wearing and not at all was a 125-fold difference.

A 125 fold difference is 12500%

(The MTV generation might not understand that a 125 fold increases=12500% NOT 125% so I repeated this.)

Lifestyle and diet studies for cancer always have differences in the region of 20 to 60% usually.

This is a 12500% difference.

4700 women took part in the study.

The results of this study are compelling, even considering that it was not a "controlled study" for other risk factors. Bear in mind that known (published in medical journals) risk factors for breast cancer are mostly in the range of less than three-fold differences. It should also be noted that singer and grismaijer surveyed bra-wearing behavior of the past, which is excellent for a disease with such a long development period. The authors show how most of the known risk factors can be related to bra-wearing behavior and/or the lymphatic system.

For example, breast feeding and pregnancy cause full development of the mammary lymphatics. Also, women of higher economic status have higher breast cancer rates, and one would expect that they would wear their bras more hours per day. Women who excercise have lower risk, which could relate to better lymphatic circulation (and I would add, more breast movement).

To this discussion, I would like to add that lymphatic circulation in many tissues (especially the primary lymphatics) are highly dependent on movement. When you sit for a long time on an airplane flight, your feet and ankles can swell, because lymphatic circulation goes to near zero. Wearing a bra, especially a constricting one with underwires, and especially to bed, prevents normal lymphatic flow and would likely lead to anoxia (lower than normal oxygen content), which has been related to fibrosis, which has been linked to increased cancer risk.

Women evolved under conditions where there was breast movement with every step that they took when they walked or ran. My reading of the scientific literature about lymphatic flow shows me that this may be as important as the constriction factor. Every subtle bounce of the breast while moving, walking, running, etc. Gently massages the breast and increases lymphatic flow and thus cleans the breast of toxins and wastes that arise from cellular metabolism.

Of course, there may be other mechanisms for the damage that bras apparently cause. One such mechanism could be temperature. Breasts are external organs and have a naturally lower temperature. Cancers can be temperature-dependent. Breast cancer is hormone-dependent. Temperature can alter hormone function. Breast temperature changes throughout the monthly cycle.

All these facts are from the medical literature. By whatever mechanism, someone will eventually explain why singer and grismaijer found a 125-fold difference in cancer rates between bra-free breasts and those constricted by 24-hour-per-day bra-wearing.

Also, just for an interesting experiment, the next time you walk down the street, notice visually how constricting bras are. On many women you can actually see "dents" around the sides of their chests where there bras are, even in something as opaque as a black t-shirt.

A physical therapist friend of mine, said that she was amazed at what she saw in her practice at a local medical clinic. She noticed how many women have red creases and grooves on the their bodies caused by their bras. Singer and grismajer also suggest that you simply stop wearing one for two weeks and see how you feel.

By the way, I have heard that they are currently working on a new study. The research is to study whether benign fibrocystic breast disease can be treated by stopping bra-wearing for eight weeks. That should be very interesting; this time they are involving medical doctors, from what i've heard.

Years ago, many people thought that the idea of cigarettes causing lung cancer was funny. Even if further research with highly controlled studies only shows a difference of 5-fold, or even 2-fold, it will be no laughing matter.

40000 women get breast cancer annually and over 10000 die from it in the uk.

Treating 40000 women for breast cancer annully generates revenues of about #65533;1billion from the use of cancer drugs.

Bra sales generate #65533;3 billion annuellyin the Uk alone.



http://forum.aidworkers.net/messages/141/22670.html?1105057020