Top Ten Ways Humanity is Being Murdered in the Name of "Evidence-Based Science"

reply to post by Blue Shift


You must be joking right? The depopulation agenda is a long con. Look at how many fat, unhealthy people there are.

Pornography - gives men ED over time
Food - make the population fat and unhealthy (cancer, Crohn's etc. too)
- adults nurture their kids with a flawed nutrition system
Plastics, chemicals, endocrine disruptors

People can't sustain living like this. It is so common for someone to have an illness or ailment these days that you are a minority if you are living in perfect health.

Originally posted by ImNotACylon
just had to comment...

the title is not at all self explanatory.

That is all.

Thanks for the thought provocative post

Anything worth reading to shareÉ

reply to post by 0m3gakn1ght7


Some of these people never saw the Georgia Guide Stones.


They spell it out in various languages so everyone can understand.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Yes...and everyone knows those were placed there by the people in control of the world.

lol

reply to post by engineer418

I await any kind of specific data concerning any aspect of the current discussion.

I was somewhat dissapointed by the lack of information about who may or may not have lost their farm to Monsanto. I suspect you have noticed that.

However the regulations prohibiting producers of non-GMO products from stating such and the restrictions put on small producers in general imply alot of government interference in favor of large corporation quasi-monopoly economies-- in all Industries.

Have you seen any food labeled as "GMO and proud of it?"

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


I applaud your compiling and sourcing such a list. Particularly, I am in agreement with this on the broadest of scopes:

I also believe that there are sick people out there who are purposely exposing us to these poisons to forward their agenda of global depopulation. I won't go too far in my opinions on this agenda, but I have no doubt in my mind that this agenda exists (my opinion of course).

Unfortunately, many would brand us paranoid to an extreme just to recognize and spread this agenda. I feel there are many more, and very innocently appearing things out there, masked to do us the same harm, but difficult to get to the bottom of because they are always "sold" with the positive side of what they provide.
Ah, but perhaps that is another thread.
Star n flag for you. Thanks for the read.

Cosmetics are definitely hurting us, well us ladies at least I use to work in the cosmetics business for a few years from Estee Lauder to The Body Shop and I can say that all the synthetic chemicals they put in the products are very damaging to the skin, especially The Body Shop's foundations, which was literally melting through the plastic displays (gross!). Also, beware of lipsticks many if not all cosmetic companies use lead which is a cancer causing agent (like pretty much everything else we use). Ladies, and some gents, beware of products. Research before you buy!

I'm not against GMO on principle. It stands to reason that someday human beings will make better food than nature alone will supply us.

For instance all plants contain carcinogens. Poison is the plants only defence against being consumed by any given insect, disease, or animal.

Originally posted by bbracken677
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

Yes...and everyone knows those were placed there by the people in control of the world.

I know they were placed by people who had several millions of dollars to be wasted on ... a hoax? And ensuring the secrecy in the process.

So that people will be puzzled about a NWO, when in reality there are no secret powers?

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

 

I'm not against GMO on principle. It stands to reason that someday human beings will make better food than nature alone will supply us.

For instance all plants contain carcinogens. Poison is the plants only defence against being consumed by any given insect, disease, or animal.

Plants can defend themselves with mimmicry, thorns, itching, taste, and an immediate health effect. If the effect is significantlly delayed, say more than a day, the animal or even prehistoric humans would not be able to make a connection between what they ate and the effect. If a plant has any carcinogens, it is not an effective means to improve the chances of survival of its species.

I would agree with you that there is a good chance GMO's do not cause illness. However, neither one of us can know that with reasonable certainty. The fact that Monsanto does not allow independent research - and even prohibits GMO's being identified as such - makes me very suspicious. If they are convinced of their product would they not want to lay people's concerns to rest?

The way you phrased your statements, maybe not intentionally, sounds like: Since natural plants have carcinogens it's okay to have carcinogens in GMO's.

someday human beings will make better food than nature alone, in the meantime if YOU want to be the ginnea pig, that is okay, I don't like to. Because Monsanto primarily wants to make money, and keep us in the dark.

reply to post by SirMike


you left out fire

^^

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


cant really say much but i agree, the only thing is the radiation, im not giving that up hell no, all the toys i like give off radiation ^^


so if ima gonna die, im going down gaming !!!!!!


the funny thing i always think about with this or your gonna die threads is/news articles ... were all gonna die anyways,,,the second you take your first breath marks your death, its just a wating game from there on lol,

lets get a list of the things that kills us the fastest, then worry about those as to some extent everything can be bad if given to much,,,, even love... ^^

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


"They spell it out in various languages so everyone can understand. "

those types of people would still be blind even if they could read the language, dont bother ^^ we dont need to save those kinds for the new world ^9

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

Plants can defend themselves with mimmicry, thorns, itching, taste, and an immediate health effect. If the effect is significantlly delayed, say more than a day, the animal or even prehistoric humans would not be able to make a connection between what they ate and the effect. If a plant has any carcinogens, it is not an effective means to improve the chances of survival of its species.

The chemicals carcinogenic to humans are poisons to various insects. That's why any bug can't eat any plant. Bugs tend to eat a specific species of plant for chemical reasons. The plant's default defence against every herbivoric life form in the universe is some kind of poison. The carcinogenic quality is a side effect, or perhaps, an emergent property to shorten life span and speed up evolution.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

 

The chemicals carcinogenic to humans are poisons to various insects. That's why any bug can't eat any plant. Bugs tend to eat a specific species of plant for chemical reasons. The plant's default defence against every herbivoric life form in the universe is some kind of poison. The carcinogenic quality is a side effect, or perhaps, an emergent property...

Tell me how would the insect know to avoid that plant? Only if the effect is immediate will it work as a defence mechanism. Give me some example of a plant that is carcinogenic.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


Gardening books often list insects that will prey on certain plants. Why don't those insects threaten all of the plants in the garden? Something at the chemical level is different in each plant. Some of that difference has been attributed to natural insecticide; a class of chemical potentially carcinogenic to anything that eats it regularly.

Here's a book url. I haven't read it.Naturally Occuring Carcinogens

From the web page Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens

Plants have evolved chemicals that serve as defensive agents against predators. These chemicals may be present in the diet in amounts exceeding the residues of synthetic pesticides used to enhance agricultural productivity. Ames et al. contend that the percentage of naturally occurring chemicals testing positive for carcinogenicity in rodent bioassays does not differ significantly from the percentage of synthetic chemicals testing positive, and that these proportions are likely to hold for untested agents, leading to their conclusion that the cancer risk from natural chemicals in the diet might be greater than that from synthetics. There are, after all, many more naturally occurring chemicals than synthetic.

Overall, the basic mechanisms involved in the entire process of carcinogenesis-from exposure of the organism to expression of tumors-are qualitatively similar, if not identical, for synthetic and naturally occurring carcinogens. The committee concluded that there is no notable mechanistic difference(s) between synthetic and naturally occurring carcinogens. To assess relative potency, the committee compiled and analyzed data on over 200 carcinogens-65 of which were naturally occurring.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

 

Gardening books often list insects that will prey on certain plants. Why don't those insects threaten all of the plants in the garden? Something at the chemical level is different in each plant. Some of that difference has been attributed to natural insecticide; a class of chemical potentially carcinogenic to anything that eats it regularly.

I did not disagree with you that there are natural insecticides functioning at the chemical level. This is correct. There are also natural substances that are carcinogenic. Also agreed.

The point where I believe you are jumping to a wrong conclusion is by suggesting that the carcinogen is a defense and survival mechanism. Just because there is a carcinogen does not mean that it is used as a defence mechanism. Its purpose maybe entirely different.

The reason for me in saying this is the time delay. If an animal eats a plant and months or years later dies from cancer, it will have no knowledge, at any level, where the cancer had been contracted. Without that knowledge it cannot selectively avoid that carcinogenic plant in the future. Therefore, the plant is no better off in being avoided in the future.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

The reason for me in saying this is the time delay. If an animal eats a plant and months or years later dies from cancer, it will have no knowledge, at any level, where the cancer had been contracted. Without that knowledge it cannot selectively avoid that carcinogenic plant in the future. Therefore, the plant is no better off in being avoided in the future.

I wasn't saying that cancer was a deterent. I'm saying cancer happens because of the nasty chemicals that are in the plants for what ever reason. That is what I meant anyway.

One reason for any plant to have carcinogens might be to kill insects.

Plants have been evolving the entire time that animals have been eating them. In plants, the current manifestation of a vestigal organ might be some toxic organic chemical that is just there, for no useful reason. Or some disfunctional variation of an animal's metabolic enzyme. Or a bad version of a hormone.