The problem is not serious pandemics invented ( Anthrax, SARS, Avian, Swine, etc.. ) from 'medico-scientific establishment, but their "remedies" -drugs-vaccines poisons .
no coincidence that ours is an era marked by "disease mongering " (" commodification of the disease," " creation of disease"), ie the criminal ruthless marketing operation, aimed at creating true and their disease (see high cholesterol, osteoporosis, disease epidemics, pandemics, etc.). and the medicalization of normal aspects of life ( pregnancy, childbirth, menopause, old age, etc.. ) with the dual aim of passing off and sell drugs on the one hand and have control of other people.
no coincidence that ours is an era marked by "disease mongering " (" commodification of the disease," " creation of disease"), ie the criminal ruthless marketing operation, aimed at creating true and their disease (see high cholesterol, osteoporosis, disease epidemics, pandemics, etc.). and the medicalization of normal aspects of life ( pregnancy, childbirth, menopause, old age, etc.. ) with the dual aim of passing off and sell drugs on the one hand and have control of other people.
A sick person (even if objectively it is healthy) is not a free person. A person is not free and easily manipulated ...
How is this "medicalization of society ?
On 25 June 2005, the BJM" British Medical Journal "( the journal of the British caste of white coats ) warns of 'excessive medicalization and the continuing reduction in the normal range of blood pressure and cholesterol .
What does this alarm?
means that the lobbies of the drug with the combination of international health institutions continue to lower the values \u200b\u200bof "normal ( blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides, blood glucose, bone density, etc.. ) on the one hand, and increase the "mass screening " on the other, making it "sick " millions of people, objects, sound! These people " healthy", with the complacency / ignorance of doctors, will be " cured" with drugs and / or poisons, poisoned and making them sick for real.
technically takes place in three steps:
1) PLAN QUANTITY: lower the thresholds
Here are some examples:
Triglycerides :
- "normal" in June 2003: 200 mg / dL (2.3 mmol / L)
- New "normal" (July 2003): 150 mg / dL (1.7 mmol / L)
means that at the end of June 2003 who had triglycerides 150 mg / dL to 200 mg / dL were healthy and sick from July 1st!
- "normal" in June 2003: 200 mg / dL (2.3 mmol / L)
- New "normal" (July 2003): 150 mg / dL (1.7 mmol / L)
means that at the end of June 2003 who had triglycerides 150 mg / dL to 200 mg / dL were healthy and sick from July 1st!
Cholesterol :
- treatment if LDL> 115 mg / dL ( 3 mmol / L) in June 2003
- New parameter if LDL> 100 mg / dL ( 2.6 mmol / L) in July 2003
means that at the end of June 2003 who had LDL cholesterol of 100 mg / dL to 115 mg / dL were healthy, and from July 1 instead sick!
We're talking about tens of millions of people!
- treatment if LDL> 115 mg / dL ( 3 mmol / L) in June 2003
- New parameter if LDL> 100 mg / dL ( 2.6 mmol / L) in July 2003
means that at the end of June 2003 who had LDL cholesterol of 100 mg / dL to 115 mg / dL were healthy, and from July 1 instead sick!
We're talking about tens of millions of people!
Diabetes :
- "normal" if glucose \u0026lt;140 mg / dL (until 2000)
- New parameter if glucose \u0026lt;126 mg / dL (after 2000)
means that in 2000, those who had glucose levels of 126 mg / dL to 140 mg / dL were healthy, while on New Year's sick!
- "normal" if glucose \u0026lt;140 mg / dL (until 2000)
- New parameter if glucose \u0026lt;126 mg / dL (after 2000)
means that in 2000, those who had glucose levels of 126 mg / dL to 140 mg / dL were healthy, while on New Year's sick!
The same applies to the values \u200b\u200bof blood pressure that a normal \u0026lt; 160/90 mmHg is now been brought to \u0026lt;130/80 mmHg . Today we are virtually all "hypertensive .
2) "FLOOR TIME: EARLY DIAGNOSIS
With Mass Screening are encouraged by the fear and psychological terrorism, objectively healthy people to look for some disease that no one wants to have.
An example: mammography in unison that doctors often advise and recommend to women over a certain age, need or not?
An example: mammography in unison that doctors often advise and recommend to women over a certain age, need or not?
He says the conclusion of the study dell'ufficialissimo Cochrane Collaboration is published in the Cochrane Systematic Review "in 2006.
" For every 2000 women attending the screening, one will, after 10 years, life prolonged (1 death from breast cancer prevented over 2,000 women who did the mammogram). 10 will be treated for breast cancer in a non-necessary (overtreatment). So
: 0.5 deaths prevented per 1000 women who have mammograms for 10 years, compared to 1000 women who undergo screening mammography . That is to say, " not statistically significant and economically burdensome to no avail. "
: 0.5 deaths prevented per 1000 women who have mammograms for 10 years, compared to 1000 women who undergo screening mammography . That is to say, " not statistically significant and economically burdensome to no avail. "
Not to mention the devastating psychological effects of "false positives " for those who perform mammography: l ' examination reveals something (nodule, tumor, cancer, etc.). that there really is not. 242 women in 1000 will have just a very " suspected diagnosis of breast cancer not confirmed after further examinations. (Barrat et al, British Medical Journal 2005).
Then the false positive rate is around 24%. How many of these women will be made in vain? How many of these women, due to the stress of diagnosis, may trigger mechanisms psycho-physical ("nocebo effect") very dangerous, leading to an actual disease? ....
3) "qualitative" NEW DISEASES
In this case, the examples are so numerous that for problems space is not possible to list them: osteoporosis, premenstrual syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, etc..
Freely adapted from: www.disinformazione.it
0 comments:
Post a Comment