Christmas! (By Peter. Also in OUT OF THE MOULD)
That so-called festive season. Weeks of clamouring voices persuading all and sundry that this, that and the other thing is essential to celebrate Christmas in the approved way; to eat, drink, and be merry, and when it’s all over and the hang-ups have dissipated sufficiently, to finally count the cost and the consequences and make the appropriate New Year’s resolutions!
What lies behind the lead up to the 25th December? Is there a documented story which can be followed?
Yes there is!
But you’ll have to go to the Bible to check it out!
At the beginning of Matthew’s gospel there are 1 ½ chapters and at the beginning of Luke’s gospel there are another 1 ½ chapters, - brief and clear. There is also a verse in Galatians chapter four, which says in part: “But when the right time came, the time God decided on, He sent His Son, born of a woman… to buy freedom for us.”
Contained in those few chapters there are some key elements:
angels – God’s messengers.
Mary and Joseph,
a baby born to a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit,
a decree by the Roman Governor, which told the people where to go to be taxed,
a stable and a manger (feeding trough),
some wise men (or magi),
King Herod and the slaughter of boys 2 years and under.
To this list we could add other characters such as an inn keeper, a midwife and a donkey.
The birth of Jesus took place according to God’s perfect timing and provision. Let’s focus on a few practical specifics.
The Roman Governor’s decree had to be obeyed. That meant a lot of travelling on rough, winding, dusty roads by a lot of people.
Mary and Joseph had to travel 75 miles from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Remember that Mary’s time to give birth was very close. Days of travelling on a donkey would have been far from comfortable.
The town of Bethlehem was crowded with hundreds – possibly thousands – of other people. Most of them probably crammed together outside. Where could Mary find shelter and privacy? Imagine Joseph’s concern for his wife.
Think about the urgency, and the offer of a stable in which Jesus could be born: the physical conditions, the animal occupants, the smell, the lack of cleanliness, the rearrangement of straw to make things more comfortable.
Think about the finding of a midwife and the amazement of delivering the baby of a virgin; the pains of child birth.
Think about Joseph’s protective instincts for his wife and this unusual baby boy, and then the sudden appearance of a group of excited shepherds who had been told by angels to seek out this child who had been born in a stable.
Think about the practical needs of this family and the provision of those needs day by day. Did Joseph have to find work? What were Mary’s thoughts every time she looked into the face of Jesus?
And then there was the arrival of the Wise Men. Strangers from another country, who had been led to a very special child by a special star. A newly born king? Their gifts were exactly right for future needs.
Think about King Herod’s anger and jealousy at the Wise Men’s failure to report back to him. Now how could he deal with any threat to his throne?
Think of the speed at which Joseph, Mary with the baby Jesus, were told to pack up and go to Egypt. Think of the anguish suffered by the parents whose baby boys were slaughtered, by order of Herod in a cruel attempt to safeguard his own kingship.
The joy of Jesus’ birth was tempered by considerable discomfort, pain and real everyday learning experiences. God in human flesh began tasting daily life just as we do. The Creator God identified with us in every way.
Think about the facts that:
Christmas is not a Bible word.
No exact date is given for His birth.
There is no mention in the Bible that it was to be a day to be especially remembered.
Contrast what you and I are subjected to at “Christmas” time, with the details above. There’s not much similarity. The more deeply you think, the more questions there are that need answers.
Why is there so much difference?
Humankind is very good at changing things if it results in gaining “advantages” from those changes. By manipulating dates, pagan festivals and commercial activities with a range of traditions from various cultures, etc, it is possible to create new mindsets and new societal attitudes, especially if you make this an on-going strategy.
One of the first things to do is to eliminate God altogether or to introduce substitutes that neutralise Him. Using Santa Claus, the character with the red suit and the white-whiskered face, his sack of goodies and all the other tinsel and glitter, new technology and keeping up with the Joneses, has been very successful. The fact that parents (and others) have to lie to their children to retain the secret of Santa’s identity is unacceptable. Surely this is hypocrisy. If a foot is allowed in the door, what will follow? So much more could be added on this subject!
Another person who has publicly said something similar is Frank Haden, who said this in 1995, and this in 2001. You might find his views interesting.
For many people Christmas is a sad time.
The following is an example that illustrates this:
Author Jon Walker writes:
“I am sitting in a fast food restaurant observing a young girl celebrating an early Christmas with her mother. Her presents are spread out across a table and she just said, “I miss you Mummy.”
“I miss you too, baby,” her mother says. Beyond the table a woman casually, but carefully watches them. Using my journalist’s eye I put it all together. The watching woman is a social worker supervising a structured visit for a mother and child who are doing their best to celebrate Christmas. A few minutes later foster parents arrive and take the little girl home. The mother leaves alone. There’s a darker side to Christmas we rarely acknowledge.
We create this fantasy which seldom matches reality, even in the best of homes.
Many Christmas memories are full of tension – not tinsel. The holiday is just another excuse for Mummy to get drunk, or Daddy to be with his new family … yet another reminder that the one we love is far away or perhaps is never coming back. The suicide rate is extraordinarily high in December. Depression is as common as “Joy to the World”. More people hurt at Christmas than we initially imagine. For those tired of the hollow hope and false fantasies of Christmas, the good news is that God loves us.”
(Source not known) Continue Reading
Christmas! (By Peter. Also in OUT OF THE MOULD)
On the 27th of November, the Malaghan Institute put out a press release, which reads in part:
Professor Graham Le Gros, Director of the Malaghan Institute, says immunology is a field in which there is still much to uncover.
“Your immune system does so much more than simply fighting infection. It scrutinises all cells in the body for signs of imperfection, and eliminates those not working properly. Our immune system also detoxifies and harmonises our body with the environment, the bugs that grow on us, and the toxins in the food that we eat. And it does so with minimal interruption to our daily lives.”
However, Professor Le Gros says it is becoming clear that the human immune system needs to be educated from the early months of life to know what it should, or shouldn’t, be attacking.
“Our team of scientists at the Institute are working on applying this knowledge to the development of natural therapies that educate the immune system to stimulate the right type of immune responses for the treatment of cancer, asthma, allergy and other inflammatory diseases,” he says.
The assumption is that the immune system isn't being educated in the early months of life.
Medical articles on neonatal immunity, habitually refer to a baby’s immune system as "defective"; "impaired"; "slow"; "inadequate"; "compromised" or "deficient". Usually they end with the suggestion to add exogenous compounds to “correct X defect”. Even better, to manipulate and correct them all, making a baby’s immune system “perfect” in their human understanding.
Arstechnica editorialised on a letter in Nature, in which doctors had figured out that, “ Keeping the immune system in check helps the development of healthy gut bacteria.”
The authors were surprised to find that….
“For their part, the infants seem to be tamping down their immune response to allow the beneficial bacteria to establish themselves. Obviously, this also makes them more susceptible to infection from dangerous bacteria as well, so developing a healthy microbiome is a bit of a tradeoff. The authors of the Cincinnati hospital study call it "unfortunate by-product of the greater benefits of active suppression during this crucial developmental period, when tolerance to commensal microbes is more uniformly advantageous."
Having realised there is a good reason for this immune system tamping down, they swept on to a new grand fallacy that hyporesponsiveness to infection is itself, still a defect!
A quote from an article in a Canadian magazine, "Alive".
"A carefully controlled media has established "science" in our minds as fact... Science is merely an investigation, logically arranged and systematized. Science changes it's mind regularly and no-one seems to care. We believe the new hypothesis just as devoutly as we followed the first."
Pertussis (whooping cough) is a good example. In 1981, the brochure said, three jabs would make you immune for life. Then as time went on, they dropped to two. Then suddenly went back to three jabs. Then the next brochure decreed four, .... then five, .... then six, ....and in some countries, seven.
Now the “truth” adds on to that, "every pregnancy" and everyone around the new baby, "every pregnancy".
Next it will be your dog as well. Continue Reading
Merck’s next problem - Japan. A culture that is very much into compliance and obedience in many ways... is the first country whose parents have had the guts to ..... say......
Cervical cancer vaccine victims urge permanent halt to vaccination
TOKYO, August 24, 2013. KYODO.
Eight teenage sufferers of severe side effects of cervical cancer vaccines and their parents called on Health Minister Norihisa Tamura on Friday, to permanently end the Government’s subsidy program for the vaccines.
The schoolgirls aged between 14 and 18, including four in wheelchairs, and their parents, are members of the Nationwide Liaison Association of Cervical Cancer Vaccine Victims and Parents. They made the request in a meeting with the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare, at the Ministry Building, Association Chief Mika Matsufuji told a news conference.
Sotaro Sato, a medical doctor who has examined many cervical vaccine victims, told the news conference that the convulsions, inability to walk, and involuntary movements of the hands and toes were caused by encephalomyelitis, or inflammation of the brain and spinal cord.
“Cervical cancer vaccines, which are chemically bound to special types of adjuvants, often trigger encephalomyelitis,” he said.
“since the vaccine caused autoantibodies against the brain’s neuronal fibers to be produced in many cases, they have triggered demyelinating disorders,” he said, adding, “They have also induced many cases of cerebral vascultitis”.
In a cerebral Vasculitis, the body’s immune system attacks blood vessels in the brain, often leading to brain hemorrhage”, said Sato, who runs a hospital in Osaki, Miyagi Prefecture.***
____ for more information go to SANEvax.
I wonder if The New Zealand Coroner, Judge Ian Smith, will be told the findings of a Japanese doctor given at a news conference a few days ago? After all, many of the Japanese victims had exactly the same symptoms as Jasmine, and other New Zealand girls whose parents have ALL had the doors slammed on their backsides, as they walked out of the doctor’s surgery.
What is the difference between New Zealand and Japan?
First up, Japan seems to be one of the few countries where parents are still listened to by doctors, and scientists don’t appear to have been bought out by Merck. Parents in Japan have not had quite the same problems as New Zealand parents have when they girls have reacted to Gardasil. As a society, Japan is very different. While the Japanese are generally compliant, honesty and integrity are held in much higher regard than in New Zealand, and parents are not “flicked off” by doctors, there, to the same extent as they are in New Zealand.
The Japanese medical profession doesn’t treat childhood vaccines like a compulsory religion, so there is not the intense pressure to vaccinate like there is in New Zealand. Japanese parents are taken seriously, and have contacted each other, organised themselves and they are determined to get something done to have the Government halt all HPV vaccinations. Both Gardasil and Cervarix have caused reactions in Japan. Remember too, that Japan also banned MMR I, and MMR II, because in their populations, both resulted in unacceptable reactions. That fact alone will result in some people saying something like, "That must mean there is something about Japanese genes that means they are "susceptible".....". Except for one thing. There is nothing different to what is happening in the UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand, than there is happening in Japan in terms of reactions. What is different, is the attitude of the medical profession.
In New Zealand, when a child has a reaction to a vaccine, children and parents are rarely listened to. Excuses abound, and it requires monumental determination to get anywhere. What’s worse, is that we KNOW there are children in New Zealand who have had serious reactions to Gardasil, who are now on the streets. More on that later....
On 7th August, 2012, Rhonda Renata went for a haircut to look respectable for the Coroner’s hearing on 8 – 9th August 2012. She was sitting in the chair talking to the hairdresser about who was going to be giving evidence, and the testing results etc. Leaning on the reception desk listening was a young girl looking very upset. She spoke to Rhonda and told her that she was very scared, because she had had two Gardasil vaccines, and while she hadn’t had warts after them, everything else Rhonda described as symptoms that her daughter Jasmine had, was what was happening to her. She also said that her mother wouldn’t listen to her, and she didn’t know what to do. Rhonda was so beside herself, she rang me up in tears…. What happened to the girl? She couldn’t find out.
Over the next week, as Rhonda spoke to more people, yet more cases of problems after Gardasil, came out of the woodwork. Girls in the Wellington region “suddenly” developing seizures. And their parents being told that of course, they aren’t related to Gardasil. Girls whose periods just… stopped. Girls complaining of headaches… inability to sleep, nausea, extra heart beats... incredible arm and leg pain... the list just gets longer all the time.
And then, there are all the girls complaining of massive “pain” throughout their bodies. “Hypochondriacs” one and all, appears to be the view of most New Zealand doctors.
I caught up with the family of one of the girls who first complained of intense whole body pain amongst a constellation of symptoms, only to find that she was now a street kid, in a drug and alcohol induced stupor. She hated her family and the doctor because they couldn't help her. Only street drugs bury the pain, but they also bury her brain. Yet, when her parents went to CYPS for help, they were told that they were bad parents – of a model kid who before Gardasil, had no previous social, behavioural or academic issues.
Parents of a vaccine injured girl in the heart of the North Island told me of their adolescents' friends who were now having horrendous issues post Gardasil, which are, just the “usual teenagers going off the rails” issues – according to their family doctors. A few of those children were now with gangs and on the streets. Never anything to do with vaccines, least of all Gardasil! .... Yet guess what? The kids who hadn’t had Gardasil, weren’t having the same sorts of issues. Yes, they were having the usual stupid brainless NZ adolescent peer rubbish relating to alcohol etc, but none of the pain, the headaches, chest pains, heart issues, brain-fog and gut aches.
While the Renata family waits an eternity for a coroner’s decision on the case of Jasmine Renata, it’s just as well for New Zealand girls that there is such a low Gardasil vaccine uptake in this country.
Not that that helps the girls who have already received the vaccine. Particularly those girls who have not been helped by the medical profession. Their parents are distraught and broken people - their hopes for their children dashed.
One of the big problems in New Zealand – which Japan does NOT appear to suffer from, is that the medical profession here has preconceived ideas of what are “normal” issues when it comes to adolescents, and utter disregard for parents who say, "But this is NOT my child!"... Japanese doctors don't do that.
Nine years ago, I took an adolescent who was living with us, to a doctor because she had health issues, but didn’t know where to go with them. I could plainly see it wasn’t an adolescent issue. I’d sat back and watched, and this was different. A local doctor, supposedly very good with the elderly, listened to her with a pan face, and then told her to “pull your thumb out, your socks up, and get on with life.” The girl and I were shocked.
The appointment was immediately transferred through to my (non-NZ) doctor. We sat down with him, detailing the story again, and he took the girl seriously. Blood tests then revealed that the young girl had hemochromatosis, so the whole family had to be tested and counselled.
What is it like today in 2013? The telephones tell me the same thing as in 1987. Mention the phrase, “it started after the vaccine” and the eyes glaze over, and the trite words run off the tongue like froth off a sheep dog's tongue while rounding up stubborn renegade sheep.
At least the Japanese doctors have listened and are attempting to investigate AND find out why. Which is more than you can say for the New Zealand sheep dogs. Continue Reading
These are important thinking points which come out of this case, which readers with an indepth knowledge of Merck's litany of lies in the past will appreciate.
There are the main issues:
1) The more you investigate the legal history of Merck, you wonder how anyone can have any faith in medical articles, data sheets or information presented by Merck to the public. As far as I’m concerned Merck has never had any ethics, and the way their top staff is ‘selected’ is proof of that. Jobs for the boys who ring the tills. Or girls, as it is in the case of Dr Julie Gerberding, responsible for fast-tracking Gardasil, and now head of Merck’s vaccines division. You scratch my back, I’ll pay you handsomely.
Question: When is a legal case really newsworthy?
Answer: When it’s never covered by the mainstream media. Yet the on-going Merck MMR case - which no-one is being told about - is even more important than VIOXX was.
I wonder how Merck has managed to so skillfully keep it out of mainstream media....
So let’s update the news, …. that isn’t being told.
An article planted recently in the pro-corporate website Law360 says pretty much what Merck’s lawyers wanted it to say. Naturally, it was ignored by mainstream media. It said:
‘Eric Sitarchuk of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP emphasized that the suit brought by two former employees of the company does not hold up because they failed to demonstrate that the label of its mumps vaccine was false and that the FDA was misled about the efficacy of the vaccine….. “They’re asking the court to muscle the FDA out of the way and decide on the science,” Sitarchuk said. “It’s precisely that problem that’s why an Fair Claims Act case can’t be based on the alleged falsity of the label.”….. Sitarchuk argued that for the pair to succeed in their case they would have to allege that the government was the victim of active misrepresentations by Merck and show that the efficacy of the vaccine was less than what the company claimed.’
In two previous blogs about this case, I outlined the primary issues, and uploaded the original complaint:
Part 1: June 23, 2012. Former Merck Scientists File Suit Against Merck Under The False Claims Act
Part 2: June 24, 2012. Merck's Money Racket
What’s happened since then?
SRKW LAW is the co-lead counsel for the class action lawsuit which runs parallel to the core case.
It took a while to find all subsequent relevant documents, which I will not upload here, for obvious reasons - but here are my summaries from the three documents which provide the Judge with core arguments from relevant parties:
On 31st August 2012, Merck filled a 50 page “Motion to dismiss.” (Case 2:10-cv-04374-CDJ Document 45) which simply attempted to rewrite the original complaint with willful inaccuracies, disregarding all allegations, while inventing new circuitous ones. Here are key omissions, and highlights:
1) Merck does NOT deny that they crossed out the numbers and wrote in new ones.
2) Merck does NOT deny that they committed the alleged multiple acts of fraud, but instead try to pretend that the allegations merely involved a misbranded label.
3) Merck attempts to argue that the case is only alleged to be a fraudulent label. Were the issue a fraudulent label, that would remove the case from the False Claims Act to another act laying blame on the FDA, not Merck.
4) Merck then takes another tack, bizarrely arguing for an illegal application of the False Claims Act, limiting or barring cases for fraudulent conduct which violates FDA or federal laws and regulations, and legally requiring whistle-blowers to FIRST exhaust all administrative remedies stating in exhaustive detail, who, what, where, when and how - ignoring the fact that in cases of corporate fraud it’s impossible for plaintiffs to have full personal knowledge of malfeasance occurring further up the hierarchy, where sophisticated means of concealment are used. This judicial demand, would rip the heart out of the statute’s application, and make the False Claims Act pointless.
5) Merck then argues that the case should be dismissed because the False Claims Act doesn’t allow private citizens to challenge the FDA’s determination.
6) Merck indulges in pure make-believe by asserting that allowing the case would unduly interfere, usurp and intrude on the FDA’s expertise, judgment and discretion to enforce its own rules and regulations.
7) Merck tries to claim that the relators are first required to file a citizen’s petition with the Fda and exhaust all administrative remedies that might have been available even though there is no requirement for any such legal pre-requisite.
8) Merck asserts that the case should be dismissed because the relators waited nine years to lodge a case, and in that time, never utilized any processes with the USA FDA. So Merck is insinuating that because the two scientists should have complained harder, and they didn’t, there can’t possibly be a case.
9) Merck also infers that because the FDA let Merck get away with it, they couldn’t have done anything wrong.
10) Merck says is that the case has no merit because the DOJ decision not to intervene proves Merck’s innocence. (I said at the end of this blog in June 2012, that Merck couldn’t be silly enough to claim this but obviously Merck’s lawyers are sillier than I thought.)
Merck’s lawyers wasted 74 pages filled with incredibly weirdly wending waffle, constant obfuscation, with a shot gun approach for various differing reasons, and in the process, repeatedly used dismissive phrases like, “minor shortcomings” “relator’s speculate” or “sleight of hand”.
Every possible attempt was made to shoot the messenger and not address any actual issues. Perhaps they thought if they were lucky, the Judge would be sleeping on the job.
Merck’s stated on page 35 of their “Motion to Dismiss” that “…relators must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistakes, including the “time, place and substance of the defendant’s alleged conduct. This they failed to do.”
At this point you’d think that Merck’s lawyers would clearly realize the ridiculous paucity of their case – but in reality, what else could Merck lawyers do, if Merck is actually unable to deny any of the original allegations? Their only course of action was to hope that the judge was dumb enough to be easily confused by their illogic.
Which of course played right into the hands of the relators.
On 9th October 2012, the relators handed to the court, a 74 page “Memorandum to oppose Merck’s motion to dismiss” (Case 2:10-cv-04374-CDJ Document 47) in which they restated their original complaints, and listed clearly how they had actually fulfilled all Merck’s page 35 criteria, and more besides.
The relators gave a brief history and gave blow by blow evidence showing that the case against Merck centred around provable:
1) Improper efficacy testing.
2) Falsifying efficacy test data.
3) Destroying evidence of the fraud.
4) Lying to the FDA.
5) Putting fraudulent labeling on datasheets and bottles.
6) Making fraudulent Government submissions, fraudulent CDC purchase contracts, false certification of compliance, thereby fraudulently inducing CDC to enter into contracts.
7) Violating Merck’s subsequent multiple ongoing duties of government and public disclosures in order to maintain its marketing monopoly with CDC, while foreclosing the government from access to high quality and less expensive vaccines.
8) Subsequently lying to the European Medical Agency in 2004, stating that mumps component had more than 95% efficacy with the label stating 96.7%.
9) Merck lied to the FDA regarding MMRII, saying that it would actually reduce the amount of virus in the vaccine and maintain it’s 95% efficacy.
10) Merck did not tell its own funded puppet (Immunisation Action Coalition) these facts.
11) Merck did nothing to stop any third party repeating what Merck knows to be lies.
12) Merck continues to tell USA healthcare professionals in its websites that vastly outdated studies put the mumps component at 96% seroconversion rate.
13) Merck’s actions render false all certification by Merck since at least 1999.
On 25th May, 2013, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a 54 page document, (Case 2:10-cv-04374-CDJ Document 54) delivering a swift winkle-picker up the backsides of Merck’s lawyers, by incisively demolishing Merck’s arguments. The highlights of this document are:
1) The DOJ continues to remain a real party in interest with a strong interest in the outcome.
2) Merck's argument that suits by private citizens are not allowed, “is not supported by statutory text or case law and is inconsistent with the purposed of the False Claims Act”.
3) That the relators stand in the “government’s shoes”
4) That Merck’s illegal application interpretation of the of the False Claims Act, seeking to limit or bar cases for fraudulent conduct which violates FDA or federal laws and regulations, is inconsistent with the purposes of the Act.
5) That “it is no surprise that Merck cites to no decisions that only the Government and not a relator can litigate this type of False Claims Act suit” and that” the government is aware of no such holding in a False Claims Act”.
6) DOJ successively trashes the use of the cases argued by the Merck lawyers, making the Merck legal team look like a bunch on bunnies caught in headlights.
7) DOJ then took apart the other spurious arguments of Merck, in such a way that pretty much backs up the relators, stating “allowing relators to prosecute such False Claims Act suits (as long as sufficiently pleaded) serves the primary purposes of the qui tam provisions”.
8) And finally, the DOJ, opposed all Merck’s reasoning to dismiss the case.
For those with eyes to see, what this case is about is blindingly obvious.
The DOJ is practically telling the judge that Merck is guilty. Continue Reading
Part One: Words from Memory Lane.
Part Two: Who controls the rhetoric?
Part Three: The name of the game.
Part Four: The get out of jail card.
Part Five: Blaming Muggins.
And here is where the Ministry of Medical Truth's reformulating the meaning of the world nocebo, is the new scientific paradigm. Their aim is to rescue an industry annually teetering on the edge of the next scandal.
On the one hand, they need definable effects, and credible proof which is difficult, because as Manfred Schedlowski says, "… we know the nocebo effect can be really really large… this hinders development of new drugs.” And “the nocebo effect may also have a really worrisome effect on vaccine use". Oh yes, you can create fear, to make people use vaccines, but when parents say that vaccines cause reactions, you can’t study that, because It's all "nocebo" caused by parents reading the facts from the vaccine datasheets. And as Dr Bernadine Healy stated:
“Healy said: "There is a completely expressed concern that they don't want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people. "First of all," Healy said, "I think the public's smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I don't think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you're afraid of what it might show."
Yet that’s exactly what they have done. The medical system has turned their backs on FACTS because they are afraid of the truth that those facts might confirm that it's not nocebo at all, but that being biologicals, meaning that they do affect the biology of the person, vaccines do indeed have the potential to wreck lives. THEREFORE they invoke the placatory placebo principles and make sure that all research only asks questions and uses methods designed to dismiss what parents see, return to business as normal, and not to get to the bottom of any of the issues.
"Worried Sick" tells us that nocebo increases the “incidence of asthma and allergies… we know an allergic reaction can be conditioned.”
I couldn’t help laughing at the last quote, because for a very long time, I have believed that vaccines in babies result in a fundamental changing of the immune system, resulting, amongst other things, in an increase in allergy and asthma:
1. Vaccines and neonatal immune development 23-May-2011
2. How a baby fights infection and develops the immune system 24-May-2011
3. Can vaccines become cranial and immunological cluster bombs? 25-May-2011
Please note in the three blogs above, that EVERYTHING I say comes from medical articles for which links are provided. Ask yourself this. Did all the immunologists who wrote the things I discussed suffer from a nocebo delusion that what they saw was real? Yes, an allergic reaction can be conditioned: … by deviant immune responses to allergens and vaccines, but that isn’t what this article is meaning. It's all in your imaginations, mammas!!!
And here’s the interesting thing. Just about every second child you meet these days, appears to have some dairy sensitivity or a gluten intolerance – the list is legion.
The article infers that these allergies and asthma are a new form of nocebo, and that, the children are the victims of a psychologically deranged parental child abuse.
Why parents would want to make their lives into that sort of hell beats me, but it seems that this is where the medical profession is heading with this argument. Everything will soon be your fault!
I wonder what would happen in the unfortunate scenario that I landed up in hospital from a car crash? Here's the imaginary discussion:
Dr: "I see your medic alert says you're allergic to all antibiotics. Can you describe the symptoms please?"
Me: Well, my neck and face swell up like a balloon, and I start choking and can't breathe. And usually don't remember much after that."
Dr: "Well, never mind. We know that's all caused by nocebo effects, and was all in your mind. That won't happen again now that you know your hypochondria caused it, so we'll just go ahead and use what we like...."
You know why that wouldn't happen. Because the medical system would be sued to Mars and back again.
Don't you think it's bizarre, that you can legitimately be allergic to drugs, anaesthetics and a whole raft of things, but suddenly they are framing allergies and asthma as being a psychosocially induced disease?
And you can see WHY this shift in language...., because the sheer numbers of drugs and vaccine reactions being brought up by parents and people to their doctors is staggering. Reactions of any sort financially threaten an industry which wants to look benevolent and convince us all that they are not capable of doing any harm at all.
THEREFORE the focus must come away from drugs and onto people….. No doubt, the end aim of that, will be the new vaccine, Pluracydafex which will abolish patient nocebo forever!!! (see Pages 82, 118, 132-133, and 147 in our 2008 book, "From One Prick to Another". PDF can be got here.)
They want to research nocebo to nail the issues down and come up with their version of scientific data....., but they have a huge problem. Paul Enck a psychologist at the University of Tubingen Germany, puts it in a nutshell when he says that "he can’t study nocebo ‘ “..unless I tell the subjects that I’m deceiving them” a requirement that obviously defeats the purpose of the deception."
But wait. They have come up with a nifty solution……
To be continued. Continue Reading
Part One: Words from Memory Lane.
Part Two: Who controls the rhetoric?
Part Three: The name of the game.
Part Four: The get out of jail card.
Part Five: Blaming Muggins.
Part Six: Reforming Nocebo.
The solution for the medical system? It’s pretty simple really. If you aren't allowed to "deceive" people, to research what happens when they are deceived, only one possible action remains. Only ever tell patients the GOOD THINGS a drug or vaccine can do. Say, "Just trust us. WE know what we are doing...."