Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Vaccinations / Big Pharma / Bio-Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 22-05-2018, 09:10 PM   #21
better21
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 67
Likes: 15 (14 Posts)
Default

I'll share this information with my friends
Thank you
Likes: (1)
better21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 11:33 AM   #22
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 24,120
Likes: 12,576 (7,192 Posts)
Default

I believe in peoples right to do what they want with their own bodies and that includes taking drugs if they wish

the idea that we can't use plants that occur in nature seems to me to be crazy. However i do winder about why the progressives are so keep to push cannabis legalisation. I suspect another agenda at work here because those same progressives will likely say in the same breath that the state should be authorised to force you to vaccinate yourself and your children so i don't believe they are motivated by ideas of bodily sovereignty

So would the cannabis be clean or would there be GMO tampering going on?

Also i believe that cannabis can open up neural pathways and help people see things from new angles but if a person can't understand the wider picture of whats going on then their breakdown of their previously held perceptions can then be hijaked by people who would fill that void with other false perceptions

So that kind of process has to be done cautiously and it seems like the elites want to do it on a widescale now at this time for some reason making me wonder about what kind of social engineering they would push in the wake of cannabis legalisation

Legalising cannabis ‘could earn Treasury £3.5bn’
Report suggests change to law would generate revenue and cut costs across justice system
Jamie Doward
Sat 2 Jun 2018 21.30 BST
Last modified on Sun 3 Jun 2018 08.40 BST

Introducing a legal cannabis market to the UK could earn the Treasury between £1bn and £3.5bn a year in tax revenues, a report has suggested.

Health Poverty Action, an international development organisation, claims that regulating and legalising cannabis in the UK is an “idea whose time has come” and that the windfall could be used to plug the gap in the NHS budget.

“Prohibition has failed,” said the group’s advocacy officer, Natasha Horsfield. “From our perspective, it’s about regulating the market to improve public health outcomes and create a safer environment. But we can see the potential benefits from a taxation perspective if we were to regulate it.”

Support for such a move is growing. Both the Lib Dems and the Greens favour a regulated cannabis market, but the two main parties remain unenthusiastic.

In 2013, Uruguay became the first country to legalise cannabis. Last year New Zealand pledged to hold a cannabis referendum within three years.

But it is moves in North America that could really presage a change in UK policy. A bill that would make Canada the first G7 country to legalise marijuana is making its way through parliament in Ottawa. In the US, nine states, including Colorado and Washington, have legalised cannabis for non-medical use.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...sury-3bn-drugs
__________________
I want a country i can be proud of
Likes: (1)
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2018, 05:10 PM   #23
iamawaveofthesea
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 24,120
Likes: 12,576 (7,192 Posts)
Default

Gene therapy and the trans-human agenda
7 hours ago
By Jon Rappoport

“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
https://www.davidicke.com/article/47...s-human-agenda
__________________
I want a country i can be proud of
iamawaveofthesea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 08:09 AM   #24
JustMe418
Senior Member
 
JustMe418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,210
Likes: 599 (422 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea View Post
I believe in peoples right to do what they want with their own bodies and that includes taking drugs if they wish

the idea that we can't use plants that occur in nature seems to me to be crazy. However i do winder about why the progressives are so keep to push cannabis legalisation. I suspect another agenda at work here because those same progressives will likely say in the same breath that the state should be authorised to force you to vaccinate yourself and your children so i don't believe they are motivated by ideas of bodily sovereignty

So would the cannabis be clean or would there be GMO tampering going on?

Also i believe that cannabis can open up neural pathways and help people see things from new angles but if a person can't understand the wider picture of whats going on then their breakdown of their previously held perceptions can then be hijaked by people who would fill that void with other false perceptions

So that kind of process has to be done cautiously and it seems like the elites want to do it on a widescale now at this time for some reason making me wonder about what kind of social engineering they would push in the wake of cannabis legalisation

What if people doing as they wish with their bodies is having a bad impact on others? do you agree that this is ok or that they need to be stopped? look at smackheads who are happy to kill and injure to get their next fix. They are just doing what they want with their bodies, as destructive as it is for themselves and others, but clearly this is a problem do be dealt with.

I know people who used a lot of cannabis and walk around like space heads now, very vacant looking and mentally slow.
__________________
I shoot up vertically like an arrow, and become that Above. But it is death, and the flame of the pyre. Ascend in the flame of the pyre, O my soul! Thy God is like the cold emptiness of the utmost heaven, into which thou radiatest thy little light.
JustMe418 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 11:19 AM   #25
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,580
Likes: 4,048 (2,240 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMe418 View Post
What if people doing as they wish with their bodies is having a bad impact on others? do you agree that this is ok or that they need to be stopped? look at smackheads who are happy to kill and injure to get their next fix. They are just doing what they want with their bodies, as destructive as it is for themselves and others, but clearly this is a problem do be dealt with.

I know people who used a lot of cannabis and walk around like space heads now, very vacant looking and mentally slow.
why not just give them a rap of smack every day then?
Take the crime out of it?
Is it because it costs so much money to protect the industry against the Taliban in Afghanistan that it retails at over £60/gram?

Blame the smackheads, not society right?
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2018, 12:24 PM   #26
JustMe418
Senior Member
 
JustMe418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,210
Likes: 599 (422 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
why not just give them a rap of smack every day then?
Take the crime out of it?
Is it because it costs so much money to protect the industry against the Taliban in Afghanistan that it retails at over £60/gram?

Blame the smackheads, not society right?
They choose to take the stuff. It doesnt get forced into their system.

You are all about blaming the system and denying that people have a choice in their shit behaviours.
__________________
I shoot up vertically like an arrow, and become that Above. But it is death, and the flame of the pyre. Ascend in the flame of the pyre, O my soul! Thy God is like the cold emptiness of the utmost heaven, into which thou radiatest thy little light.
JustMe418 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:44 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.