As for vaccines,
we each have a Will to make our own choice. As it's difficult to break free of the
weight of state education, I wish you well with your escape.
...
My
choice? ... to stay clear of them all. Rather than lay my trust on dark practices,
I go with Hippocrates, and put it into the nutrition and balanced emotional
state that lets the body intelligence do what is appropriate for maintaining
its health.
...
Meanwhile,
pharmacy companies set about using G.M.d, immortalised, chicken parts and G.M.d,
aborted human foetuses which is more like sorcery than science. Witches would
have been burnt at the stake for life tamperings. Fortunately for them, the Aquarian
Age of Science, of memory, protects the white coated microscope-peering 'scientists'
from such dark age practices.
...
I suggest
with Shakespeare
that they
go the whole hog, with
"Fillet
of a fenny snake,
In the
cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of
newt and toe of frog,
Wool of
bat and tongue of dog,
Adder’s
fork and blind-worm’s sting,
Lizard’s
leg and owlet’s wing,
For a
charm of powerful trouble,
Like a
hell-broth boil and bubble."
...
All pharmaceutical drugs are toxic. That's why they come
with a list of side-effects, which are in reality effects. When the liver
becomes congested and operates less effectively as a toxin filter, the toxins
are free to travel anywhere in the body that's been a little compromised. The
following is worth bearing in mind. It is a damning critique of the state of
medical research.
The plan is to get EVERYONE ON EARTH on a vaccine schedule by 2030. Doing well, aren't they?
When you receive a prescription for any drug, remember this
from the Lancet, the leading medical magazine:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext?rss%3Dyes
"The case against
science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half,
may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny
effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest,
together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious
importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put
it, “poor methods get results”.
The Academy of Medical
Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation
into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad
research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story,
scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or
they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data.
Journal editors
deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst
behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy
competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance”
pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important
confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a
perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive
metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such
as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual
scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research
culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct."
No comments:
Post a Comment