Fings Ain't Always Wot They Seem Ta Be

News item of a couple of days ago:

The (Glasgow) Herald, 28/8/10 -'Swine flu drug is linked with sleep disorder'

"A flu vaccine widely distributed in Scotland is under review over a possible link to narcolepsy, it has been announced.

"The European Medicines Agency is investigating the swine flu drug Pandemrix after a number of those who received the vaccination in Sweden and Finland reported symptoms of the sleeping disorder.

"On Tuesday, Finland's National Institute for Health and Welfare recommended that vaccination with Pandemrix be stopped until the suspected link with narcolepsy had been thoroughly evaluated.

"As there have been no such cases reported in the UK so far, use of the drug will not be suspended in Scotland..."

Ah, yes. The old no-cases-have-been-reported-in-the-UK-so-far, so-use-of-the-drug-will-not-be-suspended-in-Scotland routine... That is to say: if it hasn't been reported...

That is to say: We only know what we've been told. Or actually, we only really know what we've experienced personally. All else has to come to us through various filters. And even our senses are filters...

Where am I going with this. Let me go there through telling a little story.

'So, Mr. Stardust, you've called a press conference here at the National Press Club, on 'Changes in the Status Quo', and a couple of us at least have turned up; what is it you would like to say to us?'

'Well, first of all, I'd like to appreciate you, and your organizations, for your turning up. I note that the turnout is a couple of reporters less than those who turned up for Larry Sinclair's press conference in this same venue; but I realise that there are many pressing issues of the day, and we all have to set our priorities. So let's begin.

'The purpose of this press conference is, firstly, to announce that the medical-pharmaceutical-government complex has two weeks to engage in some Confession-stroke-Reconciliation activity, particularly, but not exclusively, with respect to the damage done by vaccines, and then we will go from there.

'This has been occasioned by - '

'Hold it, hold it. What do you mean, "And then we'll go from there"?'

'I mean that I want to emphasize the Reconciliation process, not an assigning of blame. I want all those individuals who have had concerns about these matters - this particular matter, and others to be addressed - to have an announced window of opportunity to share their concerns. To set the historical record straight. Before our societal next steps.'

'I...see. I think. Are you meaning to do this sort of thing in a lot of other areas, too? This - Confession-time stuff?''

'Yes.'

'I...see. And, why would anybody...take you up on it?'

'Because it's time.'

'...It's time for......?'

'For moving on.'

'...For moving on, from...what; precisely?'

'From a way of being that is not serving humanity any longer, and needs to give way, to a larger, more honest, more holistic way of being.'

'...Because... - '

'It's time.'

' - it's time; right....Can you back this up a bit, and give me - us here - a little more background, as to what you're on about?'

'Okay. Let's take fluoridation.'

'...Fluoridation. As in...'

'As in propaganda. The big sell. Back in the '40s it was proving to be rather a major problem, both as a toxic waste by-product of industry - particularly the aluminum and artificial fertilizer industries - but in particular to the secret atom bomb-developing project, known as the Manhattan Project. It was causing cattle to be ill and dying downwind from the atomic manufacturing plants, and farmers were starting to sue for their losses of income. The government authorities hushed the matter up as long as they could; but it all triggered some brain-storming as to what to do about the problem. A scientist hired by the aluminum industry hit on the idea of metering it into the water supply - because fluoride, albeit in a different form in nature, was at least there - and so its toxic form could be smuggled into the environment that way, rather than being emitted in the direct way, which was going to cost these various corporate sources a lot of money to clean it up before it polluted the environment. And 'the industry' even slipped one of their lawyers in to the federal government to head the US Public Health Service, to steer government policy in the 'right' direction. Which is how things are run down to our day as well.

'So the Big Sell started; as part, incidentally, of the new Public Relations 'science' that had started to be developed, looking into ways to sell people on things; products and ideas. The Nazis took it on. And so did shadowy corporate forces in America. And one of their great successes - right along with TV ads of doctors smoking Chesterfields - was the TV ad campaign for fluoridation of the public water supplies. People saw a respectable man in a white coat - obviously a scientist - explaining to an interviewer about this new substance being added to the water supplies, to cut the number of cavities in the American children's teeth. Never mind that what the fluoride was really doing, as an enzyme disrupter, was delaying the eruption of the children's teeth, so that it was a statistical chimera that made it look as though there were fewer cavities at a given age in children in the treated city, as opposed to those in the control city.'

'You're saying...'

'Fewer teeth, fewer cavities.'

'Yes, I thought that was what you were getting at.'

'What I was really getting at, with this example, of how we get our information in life, was how little we really know about life, from personal experience. And, how easily we can be persuaded to believe things that aren't actually so.

'Take the Kennedy assassination. - '

'Hold it! - Where are we going now?'

'To Dallas. On that fateful day. A good example of what I'm getting at is from a book on that event, entitled Best Evidence, wherein the author soon realized that he needed to apply the philosophy of 'checking one's premises'. He - we all - had a premise that the body as seen in the Emergency operating room at Parkland Hospital in Dallas was the same, that is, in the same condition, as that seen later the same day (evening by then) in the autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital outside Washington, D.C. Well of course it was, you might say.'

'Yes...And you don't?'

'I'm saying: Not necessarily. We jump to conclusions too soon in life, often. Especially when there are factors involved, that should cause us to be a little more cautious. As in the fact that there was a lot of corporate interest in selling the American public on the wondrous virtues of fluoride. When people have an agenda - or even just a possible agenda - the public should take care, that they are possibly being sold something. The way they were sold a pig in a poke for their president in the last election.

'But I'm getting a bit ahead of myself. - '

'Ah - yes. Yes, that would...You were talking about Kennedy's body...'

'Yes. The lesson here - the point I'm making, is: don't always believe what you 'saw with your own eyes', quote.

'The public saw, on their TV screens - this flat version of history, with its projected images - a casket being taken out of Parkland Hospital in Dallas, and then being loaded onto Air Force One at Love Field; and then sometime later - in the night - that casket - or at least a similar-looking one - being unloaded at Andrews Air Force Base, into an ambulance; and then, sometime later - it was about forty-five minutes later, as I recall the chronological report - an ambulance unloading a casket at the dock at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Now, did you notice my change of words?'

'...Tell.'

' We saw 'an' ambulance, and 'a' casket at Bethesda. But the premise was that it was 'the' ambulance, and 'the' casket. That's all it was. A premise.'

'...You're saying...'

'I'm saying that there is good reason to believe that it was not necessarily the same ambulance, and - shockingly - not the same casket. That something happened between the time the public saw a casket coming off the plane at Andrews, and then saw, some forty-five minutes later, a casket coming off an ambulance at Bethesda, and sitting on the dock briefly.

'I won't go into all that in detail here. But the author of the book does an excellent job of walking this matter through its possible permutations. Including how the switch could have happened, that allowed the perpetrators - and you can spell that with a t-r-a-i-t-o-r-s at the end if you want - time to smuggle the body itself, in a body bag, out of the far-side front door of the plane, while all the cameras and lighting were trained on the near back door, where the casket had been loaded onto the plane and then came out from. It is even part of the historical record that there was a bogey ambulance that night, ostensibly to keep the reporter pack from being too intrusive in this sensitive matter, which led them on a wild goose chase, while the 'real' one delivered the body to Bethesda. But the 'best evidence' is that it was delivered elsewhere first, in a body bag, for a quick operation to try to 'fix' the facts to fit the policy - do you recall where you have heard that sort of expression, in our day and age?'

' - What? Wait - I was trying to follow you. You said...'

'That there is evidence that the body was taken first to another hospital, the caper under the control of the (very politically powerful) perps,* and operated on - to make it look as though there were only rear-entry wounds, in order to assign the assassination to Oswald and only Oswald - then zipped back up in its body bag, loaded into a casket, and sent on its not-so merry way. Just a couple of problems here, for the perps.'

'Being...'

'Being that the body was not in a body bag when it left Parkland Hospital in Dallas. And that the casket on the loading dock at Bethesda was not the clearly-identifiable bronze casket that left Parkland, and came off of Air Force One at Andrews.'

'Can this all be? Both factors? Body bag, and casket?'

'Read the literature. Not that of the scoffers. They play a game with their readers. It's an old lawyer's trick: If you can't argue the facts - the true facts, as opposed to the facts that you distort for your adversarial argument - engage in bluster. Don't buy into it. Painstakingly follow the evidence; including the evidence that the wounds seen at Bethesda didn't match those reported by the surgeons at Parkland.

'And don't ever take anything in life for granted. Especially not the evidence simply of your senses. Or the information that is fed to you in your mainstream media. You may not be getting a true picture of things. And especially not, when there are forces at wok, to get you to believe certain things, because they have an agenda.'

'Which is...'

'To enslave you. Into believing what they want you to believe About a lot of things.'

'...So...What does one do.'

'There's only one thing you can do, to be certain.'

'And that is...'

'Go inside.

'And even that is not certain.'

'...So...'

'So: Do your best. Check your premises. Doubt anything given to you to believe. Listen deeply. And you'll get there. Sooner or later.'

'...And in the meantime...'

'Know that it's time, for a major shaking of the status quo, for a brighter tomorrow to come out of the whole process. With just one basic motivation, and intention.'

'..Which is...'

'To give of your best, to each other, out of gratitude to your Creator for life with meaning.

'And if you do, all else will be added unto you. Including knowledge, finally, of the truth. The whole truth. And nothing but the truth.

'Now, about the rest of the changes in the status quo that are about to take place...'

'Hold it! I'm still just trying to digest the fact that such key details about the Kennedy assassination could have been overlooked at the time and in all these years. It's..outrageous.'

'If you think that's outrageous, let's look at what we were led to believe about 9/11. A cover-up right before our very eyes. Well, that is, images on our TV sets; and commentary to suit an agenda. Including from supposedly random eyewitnesses.'

'Are you linking the two events?'

'Not necessarily. Except through the common denominator of events that were not what they appeared to be. Or were sold to us to be.

'Think for yourself, friend. Collect all the information you can about a subject, before making up your mind. And even then, keep an open mind. New information may come along. And actually, it usually does.

'But back to what we've been sold about vaccines...'

(N.B. A little on that subject, to close this blog with. These comments of mine, on a Comments thread to an online article in the UK Guardian headed 'MMR -The vaccine damage myth that will not die':

kibitzer
1 September 2010 11:26PM

matstuff:

"There are two approaches: vaccinate, or don't vaccinate."

Rather oversimplified, wouldn't you really say? Do you really not understand that another "approach" is to acknowledge the adverse effects of various vaccines - the true total, as near as can honestly be determined - and respond by making them safer? And another being to acknowledge said adverse effects, and do the research to understand why some children are genetically predisposed to be damaged by vaccines - and so should be excused from having to take that risk?

Some such research has already been done - triggered by parents determined to try to get the bottom of the damage done to their children by various vaccines; no thanks to the health authorities, who have tried to stonewall this eminently sensible approach to this matter from the beginning - and it has been found eg that some children have a genetic polymorphism to be low in glutathione. Thus they can't clear heavy metals/toxins as readily as other children; thus they should be spared being injected with these substances. And so forth.

'And so forth' also means the disturbing information that the UK government gave the MMR provider immunity from liability; so the parents of those cases trying for justice for their children in the courts didn't realise that they were trying to sue the wrong party. And what does such an arrangement say about the responsible government bodies being impartial in this matter?

In sum - and to paraphrase Dr. Peter Fletcher, former CSO [Chief Science Officer]: 'This is a scandal of major proportions.' It needs to be aired, and as quickly as possible. Justice deferred is injustice.


kibitzer
2 September 2010 7:58PM

tilliesmom:

Good points, but in relation to peanut allergies et al, it is not a matter of our immune systems "attacking harmless food proteins". It is attacking them because either they themselves are in various vaccines - and so the body is just doing its job BY attacking them, along with the vaccine's other immune-system-triggering substances, all recognized as 'foreign' - or there are similar-weighted proteins in them, that the body attacks because of a recognizing process called molecular mimicry.

What in heaven's name are they doing in vaccines? Good point. The same question, and comment, as using squalene in vaccines; which is a substance found in the body. So the body is going to attack itself with its presence in a vaccine. The same as myelin basic protein (MBP) found as a contaminant in the MMR, via the chick embryo cells that the measles component is cultured on. And on. And on. And on.

Vaccines are hardly the product they have been touted as. They are extremely dangerous. This is what I meant, in my comment above, about a 'scandal of major proportions'.

But we're getting there. Thanks to so many parents, who are not going to give up the battle for justice to be served for the damage done to their children - autoimmunological and neurological - without a fight.

---

* See the testimony of LBJ's mistress on YouTube video.