toxic chemicals contributing to mass disorder and cancer???

Could stuff like this be destroying our quality of life? Right from the the time we're born?

www.ghasp.org...

www.palmbeachpost.com... r/2005/07/14/m1a_peststudy_0714.html

www.chemicalindustryarchives.org...

www.westonaprice.org...

Makes me wonder if my A.D.D. could have been milder-if not prevented-despite genetics.

It's been known for a long time that chemicals can directly contribute to disease - including some cancers.

We've known for many years that asbestos is a direct cause of mesothelioma (a rare type of lung cancer); we know that DES (diethystilbestrol, a synthetic hormone given to many pregnant women in the 60s and 70s) exposure greatly increases the risk of a rare cancer of the vagina or cervix called clear cell adenocarcinoma. Benzene exposure increases your risk of AML (a type of leukaemia); formaldehyde is linked to brain and nasopharyngeal cancers; and there are links between certain pesticides and the incidence of lymphoma.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get across here?

That companies are deliberately trying to cause cancer?

Ever hear of Vacinations aka Mecury shots, Floride, or Aspartame. From what I hear those are Real Healthy for ya.

[edit on 8/6/2005 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 8/6/2005 by ThichHeaded]

Ever used the search function to find other links on the topic, Thich?

There's already one or two relating to vaccinations and other medical conspiracies; was there one in particular you wanted to discuss here?

What I'm trying to get across is that the corporations know full well what's going on, but they work to benefit themselves financially, not for our health. And the government just let's them do it because they know the mind-numbing type of effects it probably has. Sorry I wasn't too clear.

[edit on 6-8-2005 by the_individualist]

This might be more clear:

www.newstarget.com...

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Ever used the search function to find other links on the topic, Thich?

There's already one or two relating to vaccinations and other medical conspiracies; was there one in particular you wanted to discuss here?

What do you mean by that...

He said COULD, not is, or, am, or are.. he said COULD

And yes if you really want me to, I can probably shoot up 10 sites/posts relating to each of those glorious products I stated about.. and the good part they are all healthy for you..

You can get such cool things from it such as Autism, Cancer and so on.. a good life to live... and lets not go on about how the tipical person has something 80,000 diffrent types of toxic chemicals in them.. No wonder why it takes so damn long to decompse when your buried.

[edit on 8/6/2005 by ThichHeaded]

Just think what a malicious entity might be putting in the public water supply. Forget about chem-trails and the air we breathe. The water supply would be the simplest to poison or modify somehow. I often wonder whether the powers that be are manipulating the water supply to some harmful effect.

Why would they do such a thing? I don't know. But I wouldn't put it past the government. We've seen that they'll stop at nothing to achieve total domination over all of us underlings.

Next time you turn that tap for some cool refreshig water, you might stop and wonder just what's in it.

Originally posted by the_individualist
What I'm trying to get across is that the corporations know full well what's going on, but they work to benefit themselves financially, not for our health. And the government just let's them do it because they know the mind-numbing type of effects it probably has. Sorry I wasn't too clear.

This is for Floride
www.holisticmed.com...
www.just-think-it.com...
www.fluoridealert.org...

Time for Aspartame
www.lovethetruth.com...
www.newstarget.com...
www.sweetpoison.com...

I will get to the Mecury part later.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
It's been known for a long time that chemicals can directly contribute to disease - including some cancers.

We've known for many years that asbestos is a direct cause of mesothelioma (a rare type of lung cancer); we know that DES (diethystilbestrol, a synthetic hormone given to many pregnant women in the 60s and 70s) exposure greatly increases the risk of a rare cancer of the vagina or cervix called clear cell adenocarcinoma. Benzene exposure increases your risk of AML (a type of leukaemia); formaldehyde is linked to brain and nasopharyngeal cancers; and there are links between certain pesticides and the incidence of lymphoma.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get across here?

That companies are deliberately trying to cause cancer?

Cancer is big business for certain portions of the medical industry. Many a doctor or medical worker makes a living off treating and attempting to cure all the various forms of cancer that afflict human populations.

If some person found a cure for cancer, would you think that this industry which thrives from cancer simply cluse up shop and retire? Not without a fight, they wouldn't.

Would the tens of thousands of doctors and professionals who deal with millions of cases of cancer each year really WANT that business to dry up overnight if the cure were found? Or, do they have a vested interest in making cancer as widespread and common as possible? Call me crazy, but if I were a high paid medical worker who makes his or her living off cancer-ridden masses, I'd say the gig is good and, therefore, so is cancer.

One mans cancer is another mans treasure.

What do you think?

ThichHeaded,
I too have been looking into fluoride and Aspartame myself, and it does seem like something is going on here: whether something as simple as big corporations making the big $$$ for sacrificing public health, or some grand conspiracy to dumb down the masses (which I wouldn't doubt).



[edit on 7-8-2005 by the_individualist]

Originally posted by AlienAntFarm

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
It's been known for a long time that chemicals can directly contribute to disease - including some cancers.

We've known for many years that asbestos is a direct cause of mesothelioma (a rare type of lung cancer); we know that DES (diethystilbestrol, a synthetic hormone given to many pregnant women in the 60s and 70s) exposure greatly increases the risk of a rare cancer of the vagina or cervix called clear cell adenocarcinoma. Benzene exposure increases your risk of AML (a type of leukaemia); formaldehyde is linked to brain and nasopharyngeal cancers; and there are links between certain pesticides and the incidence of lymphoma.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get across here?

That companies are deliberately trying to cause cancer?

Cancer is big business for certain portions of the medical industry. Many a doctor or medical worker makes a living off treating and attempting to cure all the various forms of cancer that afflict human populations.

If some person found a cure for cancer, would you think that this industry which thrives from cancer simply cluse up shop and retire? Not without a fight, they wouldn't.

Would the tens of thousands of doctors and professionals who deal with millions of cases of cancer each year really WANT that business to dry up overnight if the cure were found? Or, do they have a vested interest in making cancer as widespread and common as possible? Call me crazy, but if I were a high paid medical worker who makes his or her living off cancer-ridden masses, I'd say the gig is good and, therefore, so is cancer.

One mans cancer is another mans treasure.

What do you think?

If there is some conspiracy after our health, then it would make perfect sense to introduce chems into our systems to cause cancer in the first place.

Might sound something like this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 7-8-2005 by the_individualist]

Originally posted by AlienAntFarm
Call me crazy, but if I were a high paid medical worker who makes his or her living off cancer-ridden masses, I'd say the gig is good and, therefore, so is cancer.

One mans cancer is another mans treasure.

What do you think?

Cancer means death to many patients.

Death = patient who no longer needs treatment = one less person who needs to pay for drugs and healthcare = one less person who can contribute to a company's profit margin.

Add to this the huge number of cancer patients who cannot/do not pay for treatment....

But cancer has been with us for millenia - it is not a new disease. We see more cases today for several reasons, three of which are simply

More people = more cancer patients by default

Increased longevity = more cancer patients by default

Better reporting methods = more cancer patients are noted

And furthermore...what of the millions of cancer patients who don't live in the US? Who don't pay for treatment at all (in the case of socialized healthcare) or who pay vastly reduced costs, yet still receive the same drugs and/or treatment options?

If cancer was a conspiracy, would we not see correlating lower rates from countries where the medical community makes far less of a profit (it would follow that a company wouldn't want their goods given out for free, and there's no correlation between reduced drug company profits and higher rates of cancer)?

In addition to this; at this point in time, there is no one cure for cancer; if only because there's no single cause (trigger), and what prevents one type (in the case of cervical cancer, a vaccine preventing HPV would be very effective) will not prevent another (benzene-related nasopharyngeal cancer, for example).

If you'd mention anything other than cancer, I'd probably have a much easier time agreeing with the possibility of a conspiracy.

I'm not thinking so much about cancer as disorders like A.D.H.D., tourrete's syndrome, Asperger's, etc.