The NWO Thread!! !

Post Reply New Topic

... since centuries. Or how else you would call the politics of Tudor-monarchs or of Louis XIV to crush local lords? But: Even Europe with his integration via the EU does not have reached the centralisation of power seen within Roman Empire.



The "conspiracy" does not even go currently so far that banks are giving other bank credit.



Clever people.



Those managers how created the current crash are kicked out off their position in the meanwhile - mostly with much too generous payments, but this is an other issue.



"Conspiracy"? The records of the FDA (for the USA) or the European Medicines Agency are published, so no secretiveness and so no conspiration.



It is more a protection for customers not to spend their money on useless or dangerous pseudo-medicine, like magnesium tablets, salicyacid containing barks, silver-solutions, "pink salt", etc.

That may have been the intention in the beginning (codex dates back to the 60s IIRC) But theres much to be concerned about the way its being expanded; off the top of my head the 2009 changes include; compulsory irradiation of foods, reintroduction of pesticides that have already been banned by 60+ developed countries.
In 2005 the maximum dosage (ie. effectiveness) of nutritional supplements was reduced.

If anyone fancies researching it, stay well clear of Rima Laibow (NSF,'nutricide') who appears to be a disinfo agent. much better 30min vid here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5502728465

The FDA, protect consumers.? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Protect the profits of the pharma giants more like. Oh no save us from the herbs, LOL.

Please. Watchdogs are just as corrupt as the organisations they investigate, this is one of the biggest industries on Earth, they always get what they want at the end of the day. The only thing that gets in their way is the public and professionals seeing the truth and rising up against them.

NATURAL products do not harm you, CHEMICAL products do. Wake up, the industry that claims to be saving people are killing them, first through the contamination of food (with preservatives, acids and compounds that are also used in stuff like incecticides and industrial cleaning products) then through the so called medicines they give you to cure you. The real medicines are in the rainforests that are being destroyed as we type.

Billions of people are about to be starved and/or poisoned to death on the whim of the global elite. The Nazis were puppy dogs compared to these folks.

As for the banks, please read or watch a detailed history about the creation of the Federal Reserve (and it's global guises the IMF and World Bank) and how the small group behind have used it to screw the people by manipulating the market.

This is one of the great misconception: Nice classic example: Salicylic acid is the active ingredients in natural pain killers (eg. from white willows). This salicylic acid has so many side effects that it can't be used in amounts which really can provide significant relieve. The synthetic acetylsalicylic acid, better known as Aspirin, has less side effects and does even more efficient relieve pain and lowers high temperature.

BTW: Arsenic and hydrogen cyanide are natural substances - and deadly!

Well obviously natural poisons do . but there a cures in nature for everything. The medical industry does not want competition from natural products though, that is why it has to make out we have to be 'protected' from natural remedies and only use their lab produced rubbish. Why are we getting so ill with heart disease, cancers, depression, ADD etc in the first place, because the same companies making the cures for them are filling our food with chemicals that are toxic to our bodies and brains. The next market is GM, so they want in on one of the last things in our diet that is still natural, produce, fruit and veg. They are going to own the patents to this, so it basically can't be grown without money going to them.

We live longer - therefore we get statically more ill. Look into the history book more care full: Even the well feed better classes rarely survived the 45 birth day.With modern medicine a pneumonia is in the most cases a simple course of antibiotics, prior antibiotics it was fight on life-or-dead.

Of the more than a dozen children of Queen Anne no one survived. Only the physical fittest children reached the age of adolescent; the other died on diarrhoea or other infections.

Missing out the modern medicine would bring us back into times, when a 60 year old had survived 70 to 80 % of his age.

---

There is not "natural" remedy for syphilis, for TB, for cancer, for ... If you have a minor cold, than a sage tea may help, but if something more serious raises, than you should be glad about the existence of "lab produced rubbish".

This is true. Most people don't realize it, but the idea of people frequently living into their 80's 90's and even 100's is something completely unique to the 20th and 21st centuries. It wasn't completely unheard of for someone to live into their 80's or 90's before the 20th century, but it would be the equivalent of someone living to 120 today.

It happened, but it was the big exception. You just need to look into the history book when the nobility died. We can exclude in this circles famine, but even they did mostly not reach the age of 55.

BTW: I just looked up. Queen Anne had 16 children, the most died within hours after birth, only one survive its 10th birthday; and Queen Anne was at the top of the social pyramid - how this may looked at bottom ...

Last edited by Dussel on 05 Feb 2009, 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If you want to contrast lifespans, a better sample would be aboriginal peoples living in natural habitats, rather than europeans from recent millenia.

People in other areas of the world who still practice bushcraft, have lived in relative harmony with nature until recent times - they have, in recent history had extensive knowledge of plant medicines passed down through generations and their diet has probably remained much the same for millenia. Europeans on the other hand started to lose these things millenia ago. The staple foods from the hunter-gatherer era have been almost completely left behind, and their 'shamens' killed centuries ago (christianisation/witch-hunts etc) along with much traditional medical knowledge.

I do not know what a "natural habit" for a human being is, but given the fact that independently humans started to build civilisations when they got the chance to do, it seems that the city is our "natural habitat". But beside this:



Do have numbers how old they get? Look critically at documentations about such people: You are not missing something: The old, the old man with stick, how can't walk any longer? Look at our nearest relatives: Chimpanzees get older in zoos: Why? Because in wildness they will be kicked out quite quickly if they are not fit. The civilisation, even the primitive medieval civilisation, at least provided the old some food and shelter in the most cases.

Look at the archaeological evidence: How old became the Saxons before they were forced to become Christians by Charlemagne? Not very old, we do not have a lot of graves of old people. The graves are full of young men and women, mostly not older than 35. The "shamans" seem to be much better than the, also bad, medicine of the mediaeval and early modern period.

---

BTW: It seems to be a strange pattern in western civilisation always to seek the "noble primitive". There is a red line from Tacitus' "de origine et situ germanorum" to Rousseau's "Natural State" to romantic ideas about indians; alway seeking something better and realizing that it took the collective work of generations of millennia to leave this misery of being object of natural forces and create an environment suited for humans.

Last edited by Dussel on 05 Feb 2009, 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

vitamin B17 (apricot kernals etc)
sutherlandia fructescens
cannabis oil

I dont know whether any of these products are guaranteed to kill cancers 10/10, but then neither do any of the lab produced 'solutions' a few of which are toxic enough to kill you before the cancer does!

Then look at the multitude of lab produced products we come into contact with everyday that promote cancer. We eat, breathe, absorb through our skin a wide range of carcinogens - most of them completely frivolous.

if i get diagnosed with cancer i think ill be staying away from hospitals! well tbf ill probably listen to what they have to offer but i doubt the neo-medical establishment will be my first line of defense.

I havent actually researched it, but i consider it to be a more relevant comparison as far as comparing natural medicine with artificials.



Are you familiar with bonobo monkeys? they are as close, if not closer to us genetically than the more widely studied chimpanzees. Their social habits are a world away from the brutality seen in chimpanzee populations. orphanage has been observed for example.



The trouble with europeans is to find a historical point where they could be considered at the same point as indiginous hunter-gatherer tribes, you have to go back virtually to pre-history. I am not sure that we have much archaelogical evidence, but that long ago the limits to lifespan would have included extra factors - direct physical threats such as cold, large mammal predators etc, we can only guess at their lifespans in the absense of these factors, but i would suggest that their diets were healthier than ours, and exposure to envrinomental toxins less & these are IMO major factor in determining vulnerability to disease. As you say the issue of differing lifespan throughout the eras makes it difficult to isolate particular factors.

Last edited by psych on 05 Feb 2009, 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And this will stop amok-running cells from multiplying like mad? Any studies? Any theories how this influences those cells? No? So how do you support this claim?



If they are correctly dosed not.



We do so since we started cooking, or even earlier. What do think what happens if you expose sugars and proteins to high heat? You find carcinogens in the crust of bread, in fried eggs etc. You find such substances in almost any food, but today less. In traditional food production no one had a clue what was going on. It was not prior the 19th century that yeast was discovered. Do have a clue what chemical reactions are going in a traditional sour dough? Do have a clue what the water of natural springs and wells contained on heavy metal and upright poison like arsenic?

It was the modern medicine which banned mercury out of the pharmacy. "Traditional" medicine used mercury, arsenic and almost any kind of poison for treatment. The first Chinese Emperor has been treated, via the "mild natural" medicine with his daily ration of mercury - no wonder that he turned later mad. Traditional European medicine used e.g. Bella Donna. Hyoscyamus niger was used for beer making, etc.

You have with modern medicine a much better surviving rate.



... and if you would be wealthy and I would be in your will, I would open than a bottle of a 1945 Bernkastler Doktor, Rieling. Spaetlese, trocken.

Make your research first.



They do, because a child is new capital for the group; the old one not. This is also been observed with chimpanzee. Surviving in a "natural" habitat is a hard job and does not allow sentimentalities.



There are no large mammal predators in Europe, even the European bear is smaller than the American on. The larges of the wild cats is the lynx and there no evidences on a un-natural dead. If people did died not by illnesses, they were kill by other people, but those are easily to spot by fractures of their bones.



Let look into historical records - If you call a famine "healthy", their food was healthier. Meat in any form was reserved for special day. Fruits were only a available in spring, summer and autumn. The conservation of food is a creation of later centuries. So the most died not have a reasonable intake of vitamins during the time when the immune system was the weakest.

Ah yes.

Expected lifespan of a medieval European: 25.

Expected lifespan of a hunter gatherer (as generally recorded across the last like 30,000 years or so since maybe the upper paleolithic began) : 33.

Now, notably enough, medieval Europeans had a somewhat greater life expectancy than older post neolithic revolution populations, bronze agers having a lifespan less than 20 as I recall. The dramatic decrease in life expectancy had less to do diet and more to do with the diseases associated with animals and poor sanitation coupled with larger settlements.

Also war was an important factor. It was not prior the Peace of Westphalia 1648 that warfare has been "civilised" in a manner that not the whole population was frequently killed. One extreme example is the Sack of Magdeburg 1631, when of 35'000 people only approx 450 survived. Even the World War II, with all its terror was not in percentage of the population so deadly like the warfare prior 1648.