miercuri, 16 aprilie 2014

Always Spend More Money on This...

Do People That Eat Margarine Really Know How It's Manufactured?

Polyunsaturated margarine became a major part of the Western diet and had overtaken butter in popularity in the mid-20th century. Despite their best efforts, the margarine lobby has failed to convince most people that their synthetic concoctions are healthy. So what is not obvious to most of the people who consume it? The manufacturing process of course, which is very similar to the way plastic is produced.

Did you know that numerous types of margarine carry the approved recommendations and seal of agencies that also promote cardiovascular health, such as heart and stroke foundations? 

These days there are other con artists such as Earth's Balance deceiving consumers and convincing perhaps millions of unsuspecting vegetarians and vegans into thinking they have the next best spread to replace butter when all they contain is genetically modified ingredients and more toxic oils like Canola.

Many consumers are also now choosing a particular imitation buttery spread because its label says it contains omega-3, not realizing the fatty acid is inferior compared with omega-3 from fish oil. For instance, Unilever Canada has been actively promoting the health aspects of margarine, particularly with its Becel line of products. Nearly all Becel products contains omega-3 derived from plant oils and usually through toxic extraction.

The problem is most consumers don't have the nutrition savvy to know or understand how omega-3s are extracted and that they are not all the same.

Many of these spreads are only accentuating the all too pervasive imbalance that vegetable oils are causing with our omega-6 to omega-3 ratios. That imbalance has been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and may contribute to cancer, asthma, osteoporosis, inflammation, depression and other ailments. A growing body of evidence suggests the overconsumption of omega-6 needs attention. 

Toxic GMO Soybean oil alone is now so ubiquitous in fast foods and processed foods that an astounding 20 percent of the calories in the American diet are estimated to come from this single source. 

The ideal ratio between these two fatty acids is 1:1 and the nutritional habits of most people in developed nations has this ratio soaring more than 15:1 (omega 6: omega 3). So unless you are consuming reasonable amounts of omega 3 in your diet, you should stay away from any type of spread or oil saturated with omega 6. Omega-3 and omega-6 compete for the same metabolic enzymes. The dietary imbalance that exists in rice bran oil can create all sorts of problems to body processes, including a tendency towards inflammation. 


Manufacturing Process

The basic method of making margarine today consists of emulsifying a blend of vegetable oils and fats, which can be modified using fractionation, interesterification, and/or hydrogenation of plant fats, chilling the mixture to solidify it and working it to improve the texture. Those fats that are liquid at room temperature are oils. 

The oils are hydrogenated by passing hydrogen through the oil in the presence of a nickel catalyst. The addition of hydrogen effectively increases the melting point of the oil and thus "hardening" it. Margarines made in this way contain hydrogenated fat. If some of the chemical bonds aren't hydrogenated during the process, they will still be present in the final margarine in molecules of trans fats the consumption of which has been shown to be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. 

To boost its health profile, modern margarines are making their products from wide variety of animal or vegetable fats, mixed with skim milk, and emulsifiers, such as soy lecithin to help disperse the water phase evenly throughout the oil, and preservatives are also commonly added.

The margarine industry has also taken to promoting the fact it's low in saturated fat, a thinly veiled jab at butter. But growing evidence is now firmly establishing that saturated fat may not be a problem at all. A false interpretation of scientific studies has led to millions being "over-medicated" with statin drugs due to the proliferation of myths in the medical community regarding the role of saturated fat in heart disease.

Certainly if saturated fat was a problem, then coconut oil would be the unhealthiest oil on Earth, yet it's the healthiest

Actually butter contains many nutrients that protect us from heart disease. First among these is vitamin A which is needed for the health of the thyroid and adrenal glands, both of which play a role in maintaining the proper functioning of the heart and cardiovascular system. Abnormalities of the heart and larger blood vessels occur in babies born to vitamin A deficient mothers. Butter was and is still is recognized by many as the most easily absorbed source of vitamin A.

Butter contains lecithin, a substance that assists in the proper assimilation and metabolism of cholesterol and other fat constituents.
Butter also contains a number of anti-oxidants that protect against the kind of free radical damage that weakens the arteries. Vitamin A and vitamin E found in butter both play a strong anti-oxidant role. Butter is a very rich source of selenium, a vital anti-oxidant--containing more per gram than herring or wheat germ.
Why You Should Avoid Margarine, Shortening and Spreads
There are a myriad of unhealthy components to margarine and other butter imposters, including:
  • Trans fats: These unnatural fats in margarine, shortenings and spreads are formed during the process of hydrogenation, which turns liquid vegetable oils into a solid fat

    Trans fats contribute to heart disease, cancer, bone problems, hormonal imbalance and skin disease; infertility, difficulties in pregnancy and problems with lactation; and low birth weight, growth problems and learning disabilities in children.
    A U.S. government panel of scientists determined that man-made trans fats are unsafe at any level. (Small amounts of natural trans fats occur in butter and other animal fats, but these are not harmful.)
  • Free radicals: Free radicals and other toxic breakdown products are the result of high temperature industrial processing of vegetable oils. They contribute to numerous health problems, including cancer and heart disease.
  • Synthetic vitamins: Synthetic vitamin A and other vitamins are added to margarine and spreads. These often have an opposite (and detrimental) effect compared to the natural vitamins in butter.
  • Emulsifiers and preservatives: Numerous additives of questionable safety are added to margarines and spreads. Most vegetable shortening is stabilized with preservatives like BHT.
  • Hexane and other solvents: Used in the extraction process, these industrial chemicals can have toxic effects.
  • Bleach: The natural color of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil is grey so manufacturers bleach it to make it white. Yellow coloring is then added to margarine and spreads.
  • Artificial flavors: These help mask the terrible taste and odor of partially hydrogenated oils, and provide a fake butter taste.
  • Mono- and di-glycerides: These contain trans fats that manufacturers do not have to list on the label. They are used in high amounts in so-called "low-trans" spreads.
  • Soy protein isolate: This highly processed powder is added to "low-trans" spreads to give them body. It can contribute to thyroid dysfunction, digestive disorders and many other health problems.
  • Sterols: Often added to spreads to give them cholesterol-lowering qualities, these estrogen compounds can cause endocrine problems; in animals these sterols contribute to sexual inversion.

I don't eat much butter myself but I would select it as an option on any opportunity over these chemical and so-called healthier spreads. If you really want to use a healthy spread, try coconut butter or one of many healthy nut or hemp butters available. The further you stay away from chemical and genetically modified spreads made with GMO oils, the healthier your diet will be.

Natasha Longo has a master's degree in nutrition and is a certified fitness and nutritional counselor. She has consulted on public health policy and procurement in Canada, Australia, Spain, Ireland, England and Germany.
http://preventdisease.com/
Vaccinurile=Boala!!!!Iata un articol preluat de pe site-ul http://preventdisease.com/

The Link Between Vaccines And Type-1 Diabetes

Every hour, three children in the United States are diagnosed with type-1 diabetes (1). Type-1 diabetes’ incidence was very low in the first half of the twentieth century. However, became more prevalent, especially in young children, during the second half of the twentieth century and really began to surge during the past twenty years (1). Researchers also see a trend in the increased prevalence of other autoimmune disorders. Not only are certain autoimmune disorders increasingly common, but the autoimmune diseases, as a class, seem to be on the rise (2).

Since mass-vaccinating began, we’ve seen much higher numbers of autoimmune diseases in younger children, because--as the research shows--the adjuvants found in vaccines can overcome genetic resistance and cause the immune system to turn against itself. Let us take a closer look how vaccines can cause type-1 diabetes in your child.
From a Healthy Immune System to Vaccines to Type-1 Diabetes
Every single decision concerning our daughter was discussed, researched, and reconsidered. She was breastfed and bathed every day. We separated vaccines to ensure that her little immune system wouldn’t be challenged too much (back then I didn’t understand the effects of adjuvants in vaccines). She was fed healthily, and intellectually stimulated. By the time she was three, we marveled at her. We had done everything by the book, so what could go wrong?
Well, something went unnoticed. Silently, her own immune system began to attack her pancreas, and more specifically, the insulin-producing cells in her pancreas. As her pancreas began to produce less and less insulin, her blood sugars rose and caused her to be emotionally irritable and lose weight. We took her to the doctor and then to the emergency room at Children’s Hospital. There she was diagnosed with type-1 diabetes.What? We wondered. Diabetes? How is this possible? She isn’t fat. She has always been fed healthily. She has always been an active and healthy child. How can our child have diabetes?
Our daughter received her MMR vaccine on April 22, 2011, her second hepatitis B shot on June 15, 2011, her third hepatitis B shot on August 10, 2011 and her PCV13 vaccine in August 22, 2011. Ten days after her MMR vaccine she developed a severe rash all over her body. A few weeks after her second hepatitis B shot she started to become more emotionally irritable. A few days after her PCV13 shot she developed red hives covering almost every body part. She was diagnosed with type-1 diabetes at Children’s Hospital on September 27, 2011.
Soon we learned the difference between type-1 and type-2 diabetes. We were told that type-1 diabetes can strike any child, anyone, at any time, and has nothing to do with diet or nutrition. Type-1 diabetes is an autoimmune disorder, just like asthma. Within Johanna’s immune system one or possibly both of the following scenarios happened:
  1. Her B-cells produced antibodies to “flag” her insulin-producing beta cells. The “killer” T-cells, which usually only kill foreign invaders, began to destroy her insulin-producing cells.
  2. Her “regulatory” T-cells did not distinguish between her own healthy cells and foreign invaders, therefore “allowing” the attack to happen.
Taking a closer look how vaccines can lead to type-1 diabetes I created a simplified visual followed by a description and more supporting research.
Regulatory T-Cells play a critical role in protecting the body’s own cells, such as the insulin-producing cells, from being attacked by the body’s own immune system. When we look at how vaccines work, it is fairly obvious that there has to be a connection between immunization and the development of type-1 diabetes. The antibodies secreted by B-cells circulate throughout the human body and attack the microbes that have not yet infected any cells but are lurking in the blood or the spaces between cells. When antibodies gather on the surface of a microbe, it becomes unable to function. Antibodies signal macrophages and other defensive cells to come eat the microbe. Antibodies also work with other defensive molecules that circulate in the blood, called complement proteins, to destroy microbes. The work of B-cells is called the humoral immune response, or simply the antibody response. The goal of most vaccines is to stimulate this response. In reality, many infectious microbes can be defeated by antibodies alone, without any help from killer T-cells (3). Vaccines, however, are designed to stimulate B-cells or B-cell functioning. B-cells produce the antibodies needed to attack insulin-producing cells.
“In 1991, the Italian government implemented a mandatory hepatitis B immunization program, requiring all children to receive the vaccine when they either reached three months or twelve years of age. No vaccinations were given at any other age to people in the study, and no catch-up vaccination program was implemented for children between those ages. In their study, the scientists measured the incidence of type-I diabetes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children from central Italy. They also measured the differences related to their ages at the times they were vaccinated. The overall relative risk of type I diabetes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children was 1.34. This means that any children who received the hepatitis B vaccine would be 34% more likely to develop diabetes than unvaccinated children. While this overall risk of diabetes may not seem that great, the statistics took a dramatic increase in children who were vaccinated at age twelve. In that group, the relative risk was measured at 2.58. In other words, children who received the hepatitis B vaccine at age twelve were more than 2.5 times as likely to be diagnosed with type I diabetes as their unvaccinated peers. Based on their findings, the scientists concluded that children inoculated with the hepatitis B vaccine are at an increased risk of type I diabetes. They also suggested that “hepatitis B vaccine per se, or the timing of administration, must be reconsidered to reduce the risk associated with it” (4).
Several large studies conducted in the 1990s have provided convincing evidence that vaccines may be associated with the development of type-1 diabetes. In New Zealand in 1996, researchers saw a 60% increase in childhood diabetes cases after the country had a mass hepatitis B vaccination campaign from 1988 to 1991 for infants six weeks and older. Finland has had a vaccination programs for decades, and J. Barthelow Claasen, M.D., a former researcher at the National Institute of Health, has been documenting a vaccine-diabetes connection. In Infectious Disease in Clinical Practice, he reported that the incidence of diabetes in Finland was stable in children younger than four years of age until the government modified its immunization schedule. In 1974 a total of 130,000 children aged three months to four years received HIB or meningitis vaccine. In 1976, the government added a second pertussis strain to its pertussis vaccine. Between 1977 and 1979, the incidence of type-1 diabetes increased by 64% compared to 1970 to 1976. Overall, childhood diabetes increased by 147% in children younger than three years after all the vaccine changes were made (5).
Conclusion
What do I wish the most? That I had known about type-1 diabetes and vaccines before our child was vaccinated. I wish that as a parent, I would have known that this illness could strike my child, no matter how well I took care of her. I wish I had known that vaccines (or adjuvants in vaccines) have been implicated to cause autoimmune disorders.
Why wasn’t I told by our children’s pediatrician? Had I known about it, I would have done some things differently. I would have been more responsible and skeptical, not letting the government and health officials scare me into vaccinating my children. Hindsight is 20/20 vision, and the research journey I embarked on painted a clearer picture as to all that I could have done--or not done. I would not have vaccinated my child.
Sources: 
(1) woodmed.com
(2) alternet.org
(3) niaid.nih.gov
(4) Pozzilli P, et al. Hepatitis B vaccine associated with an 
increased type I diabetes in Italy. Presented at the annual meeting 
of the American Diabetes Association, San Antonio, TX, June 13, 2000. 
(5) books.google.com

Markus Heinze is the founder of Family Health Freedom Network. FHFN is a website dedicated to informing the general public about vaccine dangers as well as alternative and preventative health solutions. Visit his website at www.fhfn.org.

luni, 10 februarie 2014

Va rog cititi cu atentie

Am gasit un blog deosebite de util si de documentat:

Minciunile profitabile ale stiintei (Partea a II-a): Otravirea celulara prin vaccinare; polio si oxidul nitric

Autor: Dr. rer. nat. Stefan Lanka
-publicat in 2001, in cartea "Vaccinarea, genocid in mileniul trei"-

Toti biologii si evident si autoritatile medicale precum si "specialistii" in vaccinare stiu ca viata nu se bazeaza pe principiul luptei, ci pe cooperare, pe simbioza. Toate celulele noastre, dar in egala masura si cele ale animalelor si plantelor si ciupercilor sunt rezultatul unei simbioze perfecte intre cele mai diferite tipuri de bacterii, care au produs un nou tip de celule tot mai adaptate si performante. Conlucrarea biologica a diverselor bacterii din celulele corpului nostru -sute si chiar mii aflate mai ales in celulele care necesita multa energie, adica neuronii si celulele hepatice- determina capacitatea celulelor de a se specializa. Tipurile de bacterii individuale nu ar putea niciodata reusi asemenea performante. La fel, viata pluricelulara nu este posibila decat atunci cand exista multa energie, obtinuta rapid. Acest lucru este realizat in celulele organismului de catre "agregatele" noastre energetice, bacteriile. Aceste bacterii din interiorul celulelor noastre poarta numele de mitocondrii. Mitocondriile, "uzinele energetice" ale celulelor noastre, prelucreaza oxigenul pe care-l respiram si astfel produc energia de care are nevoie un organism pluricelular ca sa existe.

Aceste mitocondrii, precum si alte structuri bacteriene ale celulelor, poarta numele de endosimbionti. Mitocondriile insa nu mai pot parasi celula, deoarece ele au transferat asupra celulei marea majoritate a functiilor lor. Astfel, cea mai mare parte a acidului nucleic mitocondrial, despre care se pretinde in prezent ca ar fi "substanta genetica", este depozitata in nucleul celulei, unde poate fi protejata de factorii de stres exteriori si poate fi de asemenea reparata, lucru care in mitocondria insasi, ca si in alte bacterii, nu este posibil. Celula este plina de multe alte bacterii, la care deja nu mai poate fi observat direct ca au fost vreodata bacterii complete. Aceste bacterii si-au predat practic intregul acid nucleic (ADN) celulei si s-au specializat pe anumite functii cum ar fi sinteza materialului de constructie, transportul intra- si intercelular, mobilitatea si diviziunea celulara etc. [Foarte interesant aici de aprofundat cum, iata, in 2013 a fost acordat premiul Nobel pentru descoperiri in domeniul transportului celular - n.m.]

Structurile stabile, pe care le creeaza celula si care pot parasi acea celula, sunt denumite in mod gresit virusuri. Cuvantul virus inseamna in latina otrava. Toti expertii si toate autoritatile medicinei scolastice din secolele XVIII si XIX stiau ca foarte multe boli, mai ales cele care apareau adesea concomitent la grupe de oameni, erau cauzate in principal din cauza otravurilor adunate in apa murdara, dar si din cauza mancarurilor alterate. Stiinta instrumentalizata politic din sec. XIX a pretins apoi ad hoc ca ar exista niste "patogeni" si mai mici decat bacteriile, deci patogeni invizibili, care ar explica aparitia acelor boli la care nu se putea detecta prezenta niciunor bacterii. Cand a fost inventat microscopul electronic in 1931, ipoteza acestor patogeni a fost infirmata, deoarece de atunci si pana acum acestia nu au fost identificati nici inainte, nici in timpul vreunei boli si nici dupa vreo boala. Niciodata. Structurile celulare minuscule care pot parasi celula si care au fost observate adesea la bacterii, la plante mai rar iar la oameni si alte mamifere exclusiv in celule conservate artificial in afara organismului viu, au primit numele negativ de virusuri. Experimentele facute cu bacterii au inceput sa fie interpretate in asa fel incat se dadea vina pe virusuri atunci cand celulele erau distruse in mod artificial si apareau structurile virale care dealtfel sunt create tot de celulele organismului, pentru a ajuta alte celule. Biologia care s-a desprins din paradigma razboiului defineste virusul ca "simbiont redus", deoarece aceste foste bacterii nu mai pot fi identificate ca bacterii decat cel mult prin acidul nucleic bacterian si prin proteinele specifice. Acidul nucleic bacterian si proteinele, mai ales prin modul cum sunt produse, se deosebesc fundamental de cele ale celulelor complexe, pe care le produce organismul omului, al animalelor, al plantelor sau al ciupercilor.

Astfel, un virus nu poseda metabolism propriu, ci doar o bucata sau doua de acid nucleic, infasurate intr-un invelis proteic si acoperite cu invelisul celulei. Un virus nu este vreo vietate individuala, ci doar un "endosimbiont redus" produs de celule, printre altele in scopul de a pune si la dispozitia altor celule acidul nucleic, proteinele si componentele invelisului celular, atunci cand acestea au nevoie. Sa ne gandim de exemplu doar la puseurile de crestere la copii sau la situatiile in care anumite celule trebuie sa se inmulteasca rapid, pentru a sustine sau restabili starea de sanatate a organismului. Nu exista nicio observatie biologica ce ar justifica supozitia ca aceste virusuri ar face ceva negativ sau rau. Dimpotriva, singurele sisteme virus-gazda care exista pana in ziua de azi au aratat in mod clar ca virusurile formate de organism joaca un rol foarte important in stabilizarea vitala a organismului. In apa marii exista de exemplu foarte multe virusuri si niciodata nu s-a constatat ca baile in mare ar imbolnavi pe cineva. Au fost facute nenumarate experimente cu virusurile existente -si acelea sunt f. putine- si s-a demonstrat ca ele nu provoaca absolut nicio boala.

Evident ca autoritatile medicale si "specialistii" in vaccinare stiu toate astea demult, de aceea nici nu sunt capabili sa raspunda la intrebarea: unde a fost dovedita si documentata existenta virusurilor impotriva carora se vaccineaza. Virusurile sunt foarte stabile si de aceea pot fi deosebite usor de celelalte componente celulare, ale sangelui sau ale altor lichide umorale. Asta se cheama izolare. O tehnica standard pe care o poate invata orice elev de liceu. Cu tehnicile din prezent se pot reprezenta si elementele organice de baza ale vietii (building blocks of life), iar daca acestea ar arata cat o minge de fotbal, in comparatie cu ele virusurile ar arata ca Everestul. Virusurile sunt insa pe de alta parte atat de minuscule incat nu pot fi vazute in microscopul optic, de care stiinta a beneficiat de prin 1673 (Antoine van Leeuwenhoek) si care entuziasmase intreaga societate, inclusiv pe Goethe in sex. XVIII. Totul s-a schimbat insa in sec. XIX, cand dintr-odata (dupa cum am explicat in capitolul "Teoria infectiei si Pasteur, pe urmele cercetarilor prof. Geison") datorita unor decizii politice s-a intors foaia si autoritatile au inceput sa pretinda -in ciuda tuturor observatiilor si experimentelor- ca bacteriile si microbii, a caror multitudine, frumusete si eficienta provocasera atata entuziasm, ar fi fost dintr-o data cauza tuturor relelor. Intreaga realitate biologica a fost rasturnata cu fundul in sus. Ca sa ma exprim mai drastic: din acel moment si pana in prezent se pretinde ca pompierii ar fi cauza focului pe care ei vin sa-l stinga.

Acestea se intampla in ciuda faptului ca toate experimentele cu bacterii si ciuperci demonstrasera inca de pe atunci ca bolile pe care ei incercau acum sa le explice astfel nu s-au lasat niciodata "transmise" prin experimente de "infectare" si deci a fost demonstrat cu varf si indesat ca acele boli nu sunt transmisibile si microbii nu joaca niciun rol in imbolnavire. S-a demonstrat acest lucru in toate domeniile medicale. 

Stomatologul Willoughby Dayton Miller (1853-1907), care a lucrat in laboratorul lui Robert Koch si a incercat sa afle daca o bacterie anume este responsabila pentru imbolnavirea parodontiului, descrie rezultatele cercetarilor lui din anii 1888-1889 intr-o publicatie din 1890 dupa cum urmeaza:
"Phyorrhea alveolaris nu este cauzata de o bacterie anume, care apare in fiecare caz de imbolnavire, dar mai multe bacterii pot contribui la aparitia simptomelor, la fel cum intr-un proces supurativ nu gasim doar o singura bacterie, ci mai multe specii de bacterii. De asemenea, din cate se stie, nu exista nicio bacterie care -injectata in gingia cuiva- sa declanseze boala la persoane sanatoase."

Celebrele postulate ale lui Koch au fost (re)formulate dupa cele ale lui Henle, tocmai pentru a masca frauda despre contagiozitatea bolilor. El le-a descris astfel:
  1. Organismul patogen se afla in mod regulat in leziunile cauzate de boala.
  2. Organismul patogen trebuie sa poata fi izolat in cultura pura pe mediu artificial.
  3. O inoculare cu acea cultura la cobai duce la aparitia unei imbolnaviri asemanatoare.
  4. Organismul poate fi gasit de asemenea in leziunile acestor cobai.

Decisiv este aici punctul 3: la cobai trebuie dovedita doar o imbolnavire "asemanatoare"! Pentru ca apoi sa se sustina ca exista patogeni care -prin infectare- cauzeaza la oameni aceeasi boala! Numai ca exact aceeasi boala nu a putut fi niciodata creata sau provocata prin asemenea experimente! [Va amintiti de prof. Max von Pettenkofer care a baut in fata clasei de studenti un pahar cu bacili de holera si apoi i-a trimis lui Robert Koch o scrisoare cu salutari! - n.m.] Aici nu mai vorbim de stiinta sau de cercetare, aici este vorba de frauda, care are ca si consecinta crime si genocid!

De atunci se cresc in mod incestuos milioane si milioane de cobai, pentru a fi macelariti in laboratoare. Se injecteaza mililitri de "extracte" in soricei, ca acestia sa dezvolte "boli asemanatoare". Aceeasi cantitate convertita pt. greutatea unui om ar rezulta in litri!! Pai e clar ca intr-un organism abuzat intr-un asemenea hal va putea fi dovedita prezenta a ceea ce i-a fost injectat! Cantitati demente de "extracte" sunt injectate in creierul cobailor pentru a demonstra ca exista "tumori" si "cancerul" este contagios, ca exista "SIDA" si ca este "contagioasa", iar vatamarile nutritive, intoxicarea si inmultirea incestuoasa sunt declarate ca "BSE", inclusiv "contagiozitatea". Toate dovezile relevante sunt ignorate si discreditate.

Inca din 1910 s-a inceput publicarea nenumaratelor experimente pe animale facute de Peyton Rous, pe care se bazeaza intreaga "virologie", din care a rezultat "retrovirologia" (a lui Peter Duesberg, printre altele, unul din cei mai cunoscuti critici ai SIDA). Toti acesti actori reprezinta SS-ul medicinei. In Germania, ei sunt reprezentati de fostul elev al lui Duesberg si Gallo, prof. Reinhard Kurth, fost director al Sectiei Stiintifice a Institutului Robert Koch si ani de zile concomitent (sic!) directorul Centrului Federal de Admitere pe Piata a Medicamentelor din cadrul Institutului Paul Ehrlich!

Asa se cresc prin incest milioane de animale, de preferat embrioni de pui si soricei, fiindca sunt mici si cresc repede, mai sunt si iradiati radioactiv in functie de "necesitati", astfel incat sa dezvolte anumite simptome, despre care apoi se pretinde ca sunt contagioase. Daca apoi mai sunt si "umflati" (tot in mod "stiintific", se intelege), ei dezvolta si mai rapid "imbolnavirile asemanatoare". Si iata cum "stiinta" demonstreaza ca bolile sunt "contagioase". Iar daca unii cobai pur si simplu nu vor sa dezvolte acele simptome la diferite experimente, atunci la aceste experimente se sustine ca acele boli ar fi "genetice". La fel cum se poate specula de catre "experti" ca vatamarile postvaccinale nu au legatura cu vaccinurile, ci cu ceva "defecte genetice".



Sa nu ne mai miram atunci ca in fiecare an cele mai bine dotate premii guvernamentale sunt inmanate prin fundatii asa-zis independente numai celor care reprezinta crème de la crème a escrocilor si infractorilor din medicina actuala. 1998, de exemplu, premiul Robert Koch a fost inmanat unui cuplu de cercetatori, prof. Patrick S. Moore si prof. Yuan Chang, care au pretins ca descoperisera (prin metode genetice indirecte, ca de, nevoia te face creativ!) "virusul de herpes uman nr. 8". Prof. Georg Klein de la Institutul Karolinka din Stockholm (atentie: premii Nobel!), care a fost de asemenea distins cu medalia Robert Koch, nu s-a jenat sa rosteasca in discursul sau ceea ce stiu toti cei implicati: "Cel mai prost virus este mai destept decat cel mai inteligent virolog". Nu e nicio gluma, totul poate fi citit in Revista Medicala din 28 octombrie 1998 (Ärzte-Zeitung).

Si acum sa vorbim si despre poliomielita. Dupa 1931, toti "virologii" care in secolul XIX sustineau teoria virusurilor periculoase au tacut malc. In 1931, fizicianul Ernst Ruska inventase chiar in Berlin (centrul mafiotilor epidemiilor de la Institutul Robert Koch) microscopul electronic. Acum virusurile puteau fi facute vizibile! Datorita analizelor fizice anterioare, printre altele cu raze Röntgen, devenise clar ca acele componente celulare denumite "virus" erau prea mici pentru a putea fi vazute in microscopul optic. Dar se vedeau cu microscopul electronic! Brusc, pseudovirologii au tacut malc si au cam disparut de pe scena medicala publica, iar tumultul celui de-al doilea razboi mondial a distras atentia de la experimentele facute de ei in lagarele de concentrare. Cei mai fiorosi dintre acest pseudovirologi au fost primiti cu bratele deschise in SUA, pentru a defini poliomielita (atentie: inflamarea substantei cenusii din maduva spinarii, nu a creierului!!) ca fiind cauzata de un virus si pentru a crea un vaccin. Evident.

Inflamarile substantei cenusii din maduva spinarii, care in realitate erau de cele mai multe ori rezultatul vaccinarilor, au fost ad hoc redenumite in poliomielita virala. S-a pretins ca virusul poliomielitei era atat de mic incat nu s-ar fi lasat fotografiat cu microscopul electronic. Dar cum e cu microscopul electronic perfectionat in anii '70-'80?? Pana in ziua de azi nu exista nicio fotografie!

Tragedia vaccinala, mascata astfel si "justificata" pseudostiintific prin definitia de "polio", a dus la reducerea cantitatilor de adjuvanti si substante conservante din vaccinuri. Evident, mai putin in vaccinurile pentru lumea a treia, acolo ele au fost chiar folosite mai mult, astfel s-a reusit cu un numar mai mic de vaccinuri crearea strategica a multor focare si "epidemii" de "polio" (care, evident, trebuiau "combatute" ca si in ziua de azi cu tot mai multe vaccinuri, mereu mai multe vaccinuri - n.m.).

Apoi a aparut in aprilie 1955 celebrul Jonas E. Salk cu vaccinul lui cu "virus inactivat de polio", vaccin impus pe piata printr-un sir de fraude incredibile cu colaborarea constienta a guvernului american si a "specialistilor" in vaccinare, vaccin care a fost administrat peste noapte la milioane si milioane de copii americani, ceea ce a dus la o catastrofa perfecta, care a cauzat aparitia a tot mai multe si tot mai grave cazuri de "polio". Din nou pentru a masca si musamaliza tragedia, s-a manipulat masiv definitia poliomielitei si s-a pretins inventia unui vaccin "mai bun".

Astfel, de prin 1960, vaccinul Salk nu a mai fost folosit in SUA si nici in Germania, aliatul de baza. Din 1960 a fost introdus un vaccin "mai putin periculos", vaccinul oral, despre care s-a pretins ca ar fi fost inventat de Albert B. Sabin. Acest vaccin ar fi continut virusuri "vii" dar "atenuate", impreuna cu doze reduse de conservanti si adjuvanti. Mda, cam cel mai inofensiv vaccin al tuturor timpurilor. Otravirea e dulce.

In timpurile moderne in care se vorbeste despre reticenta crescanda la vaccinare, nici nu e de mirare ca din 1998 "infectologii" recomanda iar vechiul vaccin al lui Salk, cu "virusuri moarte" (sic!). Pai daca nu apar mancarimi si roseata la locul injectiei, daca nu apar cazuri de deces dupa vaccinare, inseamna ca vaccinul nu e bun de nimic. In emisiunea din 7 noiembrie 2000 de pe ARD, dr. Nassauer de la Institutul Robert Koch s-a pronuntat despre copiii paralizati, handicapati sau morti in urma vaccinarii cum ca ei ar fi "sacrificiile parintilor ca un serviciu in slujba societatii". Aceste lucruri sunt posibile pentru ca oamenii le permit. Evident ca dr. Nassauer, la fel ca toti cei implicati, stie exact ce s-a intamplat in istoria poliomielitei. La fel si prof. Alexander Langmuir, responsabil pentru vaccinarea antipolio si "eradicarea" poliomielitei. Cu alte cuvinte pentru a "eradica" prin vaccinare o catastrofa medicala cauzata in cea mai mare parte de vaccinare.



Toate acestea le puteti citi in publicatiile originale ale oricarei biblioteci universitare medicale sau de asemenea in cartea scrisa de Simone Delarue - Vaccinare/protectie: mit sau realitate? (1992). La pagina 147 putem citi traducerea din cartea lui Louis Pollen "De ce nu vor fi vaccinati?":
"O analiza stiintifica a datelor, explica prof.  Greenberg (Univ. Carolina de Nord), precum si modul cum acestea au fost manipulate, duc la concluzia ca eficienta vaccinului Salk a fost extrem de supraestimata."
"In 1954 si 1955, la introducerea vaccinului, imediat dupa publicarea studiului-pilot [cand, absolut intamplator bineinteles, producatorul deja avea vaccinul gata!! - nota Stefan Lanka], s-au schimbat brusc si radical bazele de diagnosticare a poliomielitei. Inainte de introducerea vaccinului nu era nevoie de teste de laborator si nici de o perioada indelungata de paralizie pentru a pune diagnosticul polio. Un pacient era declarat bolnav de polio cand era examinat o singura data si cand avea aceleasi simptome si dupa 24 de ore."
"De la introducerea vaccinului, doar persoanele care ramaneau paralizate 60 de zile mai primeau diagnosticul de polio. Toti cei la care paralizia disparea mai devreme nu au mai fost luati in calcul in statisticile de dupa introducerea vaccinului. Acest truc a creat iluzia ca prin vaccinare cazurile de polio se redusesera enorm, ba chiar in ziua de azi trebuie sa ne miram ca cifrele nu au fost si mai mari! Prof. Greenberg descrie de asemenea cum -in cazul cand un copil vaccinat se imbolnavea de polio- i se mai faceau o intreaga serie de analize pentru a elimina orice dubiu, in timp ce la un copil nevaccinat se facea intotdeauna o examinare f. sumara."
Acestea fiind spuse despre frauda cu "virusul" poliomielitei, ajungem la lectia de biologie pe care studentii la medicina nu o invata niciodata. Veti incepe sa intelegeti ce ar putea sistemul medical sa stie daca ar vrea si de ce autoritatile fie nu va raspund, fie va raspund agresiv in momentul in care cereti dovezile stiintifice in baza carora se vaccineaza.

In ultimele decenii, biochimia s-a dezvoltat fulgerator. Sa ne gandim de exemplu la Johanna Budwig. Celebra biochimista germana a revolutionat intreaga stiinta cu privire la grasimi si uleiuri. Descoperirile ei sunt decisive pentru intelegerea tuturor functiilor corpului, mai ales a functiilor neuronilor si producerii de energie in corp prin mitocondrii, a transportului de energie si substante din sange, prin matricea celulara, pana la celule. Aceasta matrice celulara, asa-zisul organ superior care integreaza si controleaza toate functiile hormonale, neuronale, electrice si imunitare ale corpului, a fost analizata sistematic de medicul austriac Pischinger. Prof. Hartmut Heine a dus mai departe studiile lui Pischinger si a publicat rezultatele muncii sale de cercetare in cartea sa "Manual de medicina biologica. Sistematizare si matrice extracelulara - Principii fundamentale si sistematica". Aceste lucrari sunt premise de baza esentiale pentru analiza stiintifica a functiilor vitale, pentru a le intelege mai bine. De asemenea, pentru a intelege si repara vatamarile cauzate de vaccinare.

Premisa decisiva pentru a intelege toate aceste informatii este asadar "biochimia" ultimei jumatati a secolului trecut. Concret, este vorba in mod special de un gaz diatomic care are un rol crucial in toate functiile vitale organice: oxidul nitric. In 1998 a fost acordat, in mod exceptional, premiul Nobel pentru o descoperire corecta: oxidul nitric; insa din motive gresite: Viagra.

Acest gaz, care are simbolul NO, este implicat in toate functiile celulare esentiale, inclusiv la organismele care nu dispun de functii imunitare, nervoase sau hormonale. Ca atare -si asta nu mira pe nimeni- oxidul nitric joaca un rol imens in tensiunea arteriala. Viagra are ca efect indirect inhibitia descompunerii de NO, prin aceasta relaxarea musculaturii netede a vaselor si deci influxul sangelui in penis - plus in general o scadere a tensiunii arteriale.

In 1997 a aparut la Cambridge University Press un manual despre descoperirile uluitoare referitoare la oxidul nitric din a doua jumatate a secolului trecut: "Nitric oxide in health and disease", de J. Lincoln, C.H.V. Hoyle si G. Burnstock. In acest manual se arata cum oxidul nitric in cantitati prea mari influenteaza si vatameaza pe termen lung toate functiile organismului uman, dar in special productia de energie din mitocondrii. Aceste vatamari se transmit de la mame la copii, stiut fiind ca "mitocondriile se formează prin diviziune. Genele din ADN-ul lor se transmit ereditar, pe linie materna (aceasta ereditate se numeste materna sau matroclina)". Astfel, toate substantele chimice injectate in organismul uman au un efect devastator: datorita lor corpul incepe sa genereze el insusi constant cantitati tot mai sporite de oxid nitric si de asemenea functiile ficatului sunt atacate si vatamate, nemaiputand sa anihileze cantitatile tot mai mari de oxid nitric produse de organism.

In clipa cand corpul este tot mai lipsit de energie, energie care este masurabila in electroni si tensiune, ca de ex. in situatii extreme de stres (accidente, operatii etc.) sau in puseurile de crestere la copii, se naste usor un cerc vicios: prin vatamarea produsa se elibereaza tot mai mult oxid nitric. Corpul incearca evident sa-si obtina energia pe alte cai - asa apare de pilda amiotrofia, dar la fel de bine si paraliziile partiale sau totale. In creier de exemplu, in conditii normale cresterea cantitatii de oxid nitric in timpul noptii determina deconectarea axonilor responsabili cu memoria de scurta durata, care astfel a doua zi sunt pregatiti sa inmagazineze din nou informatii; prin aceasta, omul si in mod special copilul este capabil sa invete. In cazul unor concentratii constant mari de oxid nitric, creierul nu mai este capabil sa invete si sa asimileze normal, ceea ce poate rezulta intr-o paralizie a sistemului nervos central. Acelasi lucru este valabil si pentru maduva spinarii, iar frauda consta tocmai in faptul ca inflamarea substantei cenusii din maduva -in ciuda cunostintelor avansate de biologie si biochimie- este diagnosticata ca "poliomielita virala".

Dogma teoriei infectiei a deturnat puternic orice fel de descoperire in domeniul "imunologiei". Descoperirile din acest domeniu anuleaza insa total "paradigma razboiului" si "gandirea medicala in termeni de razboi" pe care o propaga lingaii vaccinarii. In prezent, oricine poate intelege ca lipsa de energie intr-un organism inseamna lipsa de electroni, lucru prin care organismul (sau anumite tesuturi) se afla in stare de stres oxidativ. Oxidativ inseamna "acid" atunci cand ne referim la valorile pH si la echilibrul acido-bazic. Astfel se explica in mare parte si asa-zisele alergii si reactii autoimune. Asa cade si ipoteza "raspunsului imun specific" si de asemenea si minciunile despre "anticorpii specifici". Asa cade intreaga constructie frauduloasa a vaccinarii.

* * * * *

In speranta ca articolul biologului Stefan Lanka v-a mai deschis putin ochii la pericolele vaccinarii si va va determina sa faceti si voi cercetari aprofundate pe baza materialelor furnizate in articol, va doresc ca intotdeauna multa sanatate si intelepciune!
Postarea este preluata de pe :http://piersicuta.blogspot.ro/2014/01/minciunile-profitabile-ale-stiintei_12.html

Donare de organe

blogu lu didi: blogu lu didi: Jurnal si introspectii de mamica: Minciunile profitabile ale stiintei (Partea a III-a): Moartea cerebrala si frauda donarii de organe

despre cancer

blogu lu didi

blogu lu didi

blogu lu didi