The American Ruling Class

[Jeff Pearson]

But the herb could replace their toxic medicine and it grows like a weed. They will have none of that

[dutchdivco]

5150

Yeah, and another one that gets me, in ALL the commercials for Rx. drugs, they say "Be sure to advise your Dr. of ALL medications you are taking."

Now, on the one hand, I got no problem with the idea that we should all be a 'double check' on the Dr., but my main thought is "HEY! If he doesn't already KNOW all medications I am taking, what the HELL is he doing, 'treating' me at all?"

And yes, I have and use both MMS and Iodine. Another good one is Garlic oil, oregano oil as well; both have been shown to be MORE effective at killing a wide variety of 'common' viruses, such as Staph and Strep, than Rx. anti-B's.

I also have Food Grade Hydrogen peroxide, which I 'water down', and use in all sorts of ways.

Any meat I cook, I first put in a tupperware container, add enough water to cover, and then put 20-30 drops of HO. In a spray bottle, it can be used on fruits and veggies. Avoids e-coli, salmonella, and all sorts of other sh*t which can be on our food.Jim

[Jeff Pearson]

Garlic, vitamin C, and colloidal silver works for me. Haven't taken their garbage in years. you feel like your poisoning yourself when you take commercial medicine!

[truesearch]

Jeff:

I appreciate your take on "commercial medicine" ~ sad, but true.

However I'm pretty much forced to continually. Type-1 diabetic (no insulin produced in my body) since age 7.

truesearch

[aljhoa]

Jeff:

I appreciate your take on "commercial medicine" ~ sad, but true.

However I'm pretty much forced to continually. Type-1 diabetic (no insulin produced in my body) since age 7.

truesearch

Joan B., age 29, in 1985, had Type 1, Juvenile *Diabetes, for 17 years. She took insulin daily. She was always thin, no matter how she ate, had increased urination, blurred vision, vaginal itching, nocturnal enuresis, was very thirsty and weak. After she was under our care, she never took insulin again, her vision became normal, never had vaginal itching, never had increased urination nor nocturnal enuresis again, exercised daily with intensity, gained muscular bodyweight and looked beautiful. We have successfully helped heal many cases of Diabetes 1, i.e., Insulin Dependent Diabetes. To our knowledge, we are the only health practitioners in the world, to have helped heal Diabetes 1.
DIABETES-HOW TO HELP HEAL IT WITHOUT DRUGS OR SURGERY | Real Raw Food

Al

[truesearch]

@aljhoa:

Thanks for that info and link! I took a look at it. It appears like the website with the "real" info is down ( http://www.healself.org/ ).

later,
truesearch

[rickoff]

Ever see a TV commercial for Chantix? (Its a medication to help people stop smoking) the entire TV commercial is a disclaimer and its freaking sad. If you watch the commercial it's a wonder anyone in their right mind would ever take the pills. pleasing images and music while the narration is saying, if you experience homicidal or suicidal thoughts or bleeding ulcers or paralysis you might want to discontinue taking Chantix, if you are vomiting blood or passing blood in your urine or stools and feel faint or having hallucinations ou might want to consult your doctor to see if your medication levels are properly administered.

The list of the possible side effects and incredible.

Yes, and the same is true of every other drug advertised on TV. The side effects are always worse than the condition being "treated." Knowing this, any doctor who would write a prescription for such a drug is knowingly placing their patient at risk of suffering dire consequences, and that kind of malpractice is obviously at odds with the Hippocratic Oath, which states, "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and judgment and never do harm to anyone." So what excuse can a doctor have for prescribing such medicines? Could the doctor claim that he or she lacked the ability to understand the dangers posed by the drug, or that their judgment was impaired at the time the prescription was written? That would obviously be a poor excuse. Truth is, doctors get lucrative offers from drug company salesmen for promoting their "remedies" to patients, and this has a lot more to do with a doctor writing a particular prescription than his concern for the patient's well-being.

It is incredible that anyone, after having watched one of the drug ads on TV and understanding the dangers, would ask their physician to prescribe such a drug, but the fact is that most people don't ask - they simply wait for the doctor to assess their condition and prescribe their medication without asking questions or expressing concerns over the prescription.

It wasn't long after TV made its debut that ads began appearing on TV for all sorts of "cures." Those old enough to remember the 1950's will remember the "Carter's Little Liver Pills" ads, which claimed to promote healthy liver function. It was later found that these pills had nothing at all to do with liver function, and the company was forced to remove "Liver" from the name, shortening it to "Carter's Little Pills." It wasn't until more recent years, however, that drug manufacturers were required to state known adverse drug interactions and side effects during their TV ads. Like you say, though, they minimize the effect of these announcements by enhancing the audio and visual content of their ads so that viewers tend to concentrate on those aspects rather than what they should really be paying attention to. Viewers want to feel happy and carefree, just like the person shown in the ad, who in all probability doesn't even have the condition and thus has never taken the medication. Still, the imagery is powerfully suggestive, especially to the captive TV zombie audience that is likely to be watching any aired drug ad.

I'm 68 and am taking no prescribed or non-prescribed drugs, but I know many people considerably younger than myself who are taking multiple drugs each and every day, and who really believe they need these medicines. All I can do is shake my head in disbelief.

[dutchdivco]

Rick

Overall, I agree with what your saying.
Particularly, "they simply wait for the doctor to assess their condition and prescribe their medication without asking questions or expressing concerns over the prescription."

Its EASY to 'knock' Lamestream medicine, (I do it all the time!) But, 'we' (collectively) share some of the responsibility for the medical system, as well.

Too many patients DO go to the Dr. with the 'passive patient' syndrome, and blindly take what ever medication the Dr. Rx's, and undergo whatever test or procedure the Dr. 'orders', without question.

Who's hand puts the pill in your mouth? Unless you are in Prison or a mental hospital, its YOUR hand; so ultimately YOU, and not anyone else, are responsible for the results.You can go to any pharmacy, and ask the pharmacist for the 'product insert' on any Rx. medication, and take it home and READ it, BEFORE having the Rx. filled or taking the medication.
And of coarse the same info is available on line, or at the library in the PDR (Physicians desk reference). Very few do this, or ask their Dr.'s about alternative treatments, side effects, etc. Same with tests and procedures, Dr.'s are 'obligated' to answer such questions, but (unfortunately) only if we ask.

So, whether a medication is Rx., or 'over-the-counter, or a vitamin, herb or supplement, (especially if you take it every day) YOU, ultimately have the responsibility for doing your homework, because YOU, ultimately are the one that is going to experience the consequences of taking it.

And, I would add, just because something is a 'natural' substance does NOT mean that taking it, in a concentrated form, every day, is without negative consequences. Again, you need to do your homework, cause YOU are the one who will experience the consequences, not the Dr., or anyone else.Jim

[rickoff]

Yesterday, while having a cup of coffee, I took a look at CSPAN to see what kind of drivel was coming out of Congress. I only watched for a few minutes, and what I saw didn't surprise me at all, but it did go to show that House Demoncrats are still pushing hard for gun control legislation. A banner at the bottom of the screen read, "6 month anniversary of Newtown shootings." A woman House rep from Connecticut was chiding the House for not having passed legislation, and said that this was inexcusable since 90% of the public wants stronger gun control measures. Another Connecticut rep followed her, saying that since the Newtown incident there have been 5,000 more people killed by guns, and that the blood of these victims is on the hands of every representative who fought against passing gun control legislation. These figures (90% in favor, and 5,000 killed) seem rather questionable, and the reps never mentioned any reference to the hat they pulled these from, but I'd say that both are intended to mislead the public. First of all, I can't believe that 9 out of ten people in this country are in favor of diminishing, or doing away with, 2nd Amendment rights, or any other Constitutional rights for that matter. Besides, if proposed legislation runs contrary to the Constitution then it doesn't matter if 99% of the public favors that legislation.

Now about the '5,000' number, it appears the rep might have seen that at this website. Perhaps the number is not all that far-fetched, but exactly what does it represent? Does it include suicides? Does it include persons shot by police? And how many of these killings were done by owners of legally purchased and owned firearms? A number by itself is meaningless unless one understands what it actually represents. It would also help to put things in perspective if it was revealed how many deaths occurred during the same 6 month time period due to stabbings, beatings, strangulation, drunken driving incidents, etc.

There's an interesting map at the above referenced website, which shows where the gun killings were concentrated. Not surprisingly, it ends up being in large metropolitan centers, most of which already have strong gun control laws in place. In Maine, the state where I live, there were only 2 gun related deaths during the past 6 months.

By the way, while Congress puts on their daily show aimed at convincing Americans that Congress has our best interests in mind, a new Gallup poll shows that the level of public confidence in Congress stands at a meager 10%, and ranks Congress last on a list of 16 societal institutions for the fourth straight year. Makes you wonder how so many Congress persons were able to get reelected in 2012, doesn't it? Maybe it's time to recount the votes, or change the way votes are counted.

[dutchdivco]

Rick

Would that it were that simple, just getting a recount. The real tragedy is the votes were probably counted 'accurately', as far as it goes, anyway.
The votes ARE 'rigged', but in more subtle ways. $=votes.$ in the form of 'pork', brought back home to congrssional districts, and $ solicited as 'campaign cotributions', and then used to pay for ads, etc. which then 'help' the politician to get elected, and re-elected. And, the 'rules' are written, and arbitrated BY the Politicians, so only the most aggregious violaters are ever caught and punished.

But the thing is, in MOST cases, these Congressman/women were elected by their constituencies; WE, (collectively) elected these idiots.

They 'game' the system in a miriad of ways, but WE let them. We saw some of this during the last presidential campaign; both in how Ron Paul was marginalised, and how the weakest opponent to B.O.was pushed to the fore.

The game IS rigged, but 'we' co-operate in the rigging. Its like the victim of a con, who's own greed made the con possible; as in "You can't con an honest person".

But yeah, Congess is corrupt AND inept, and one of the things politicians learn early on is if you say something, with absolute conviction, few will question it, and even if 'fact-checkers' later 'prove' you wrong, only a portion of the people will hear the disproof, and so for many the lie will stand.

The # of LIES told by the 'gun-control' advocates are mountanous, can't even begin to list them all!
"We don't allow 'ordinary citisens' to own fully automatic weapons"
and on and on,...

And yes, #'s ARE meaningless, without context. There are 'Lies, DAMN Lies, and Statistics". And stating a lie, over and over, doesn't make it a fact.Jim

[aljhoa]

Syrian rebels say they need heavy weaponry, not small arms, from U.S.

BEIRUT — Syrian rebels on Friday described the U.S. decision to provide them with arms as a “late step” and called for shipments to include heavy weaponry capable of tipping the balance of power on the battlefield.

In comments carried by the state news agency, the Syrian government said the White House’s statement on the use of chemical weapons was based on fabricated information and “full of lies.”

It accused the U.S. of a “flagrant double standard policy” by providing arms, money and political cover to “terrorist groups,” while claiming it wants to combat terrorism. The Syrian government generally refers to rebel forces as “terrorists.”
Syrian rebels say they need heavy weaponry, not small arms, from U.S. - The Washington Post

Al

[Mad Scientist]

There are 'Lies, DAMN Lies, and Statistics". And stating a lie, over and over, doesn't make it a fact.Jim

No but they keep right on trying.

Would someone care to try and explain this? On one hand we have the government telling us we are fighting this so called “war on terrorism” as a result we need to give up our rights and freedoms so government can protect us. We are told we must put up with all sorts of unconstitutional measures, phone and internet eavesdropping, roadside security checks, airport groping, etc. All this and much more because there might be some Al Queda terrorist hiding in the shadows. But not to worry our government is out there busily trying to find all these nasty Al Queda terrorists before they can harm anyone.

However on the other hand we now learn that our government is going to start supplying weapons to those same Al Queda terrorists in Syria. Just as we did in Libya which it is now ruled by these terrorists. Apparently this is OK and justified simply because we changing their name from Al Quida and now are calling them “Rebel’s” or even freedom fighters!

[rickoff]

Would someone care to try and explain this? On one hand we have the government telling us we are fighting this so called “war on terrorism” as a result we need to give up our rights and freedoms so government can protect us.

However on the other hand we now learn that our government is going to start supplying weapons to those same Al Queda terrorists in Syria. Just as we did in Libya which it is now ruled by these terrorists.

I'm sure you already know the answer, MS. The "War on Terror" was designed, by the powers that be, to be a never-ending war, as this allowed continuous implementation of "The Patriot Act," the NSA's spying on Americans through their "Prism" operation, and a host of other unconstitutional freedom-bashing measures which only become stronger and more repugnant year after year. To justify continuance of these unconscionable acts to the American people, the people must perceive that a true threat exists which outweighs the freedoms they are told they must relinquish in order to gain safety from those threats. And what better way to keep that "threat" level at its highest than by supplying weapons to the very "terrorists" the government is claiming that we need "protection" from. By the way, the plan for arming these "freedom fighting" terrorists includes anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles which will undoubtedly be used against our country and/or our allies at some future time. It's all about keeping things in a never ending turmoil.

It's no secret that Assad's regime did use chemical weapons, but that has been known for a year now. The actual number of persons killed was actually around 120, though, not the 20,000 figure that the government claims. Nothing was done about this a year ago when it happened, and the only reason Barry's administration is suddenly doing something now is just a "wag the dog" plan to avert attention away from the several crises that are plaguing the administration. Not that we've seen much MSM attention given to those crises other than to play them down, but their attention will now shift to whatever is going on in Syria, and the sheeple will quickly forget about all the administration scandals.

[dutchdivco]

It started in Afganistan

When we (similarly) armed the 'freedom fighters' against the soviets. They were the 'mujahadeedn', and the al quida 'cut there teeth', there, fighting off the Soviet occupation.

And hey, 'we' had to come up with SOMETHING, after the 'cold war' ended.That was the first ongoing war effort. As you say, there has to be some threat, that the Gov't is 'protecting' us from. It not only 'justifies' taking away our rights, in the name of 'security', it also justifies a bloated budget for military contracts, etc.

Actually, Rick, I didn't see quite the dismissive attitude, on the part of the press, that you did. Its the old 'who's ox is gored?' routine. The press was geniunly upset at the way Fox News and AP were 'treated', by Holders Justice Dept., on these leak investigations. They are REALLY upset about that! And, the IRS situation is one they realise has 'traction', as well. Amasing to me that NO ONE has yet come up with an explanation of exactly WHAT they thought they were doing, there!

I think the administration may be at a disadvantage of their own making, here; for so long, they got away with not really explaning things like 'fast and furious', and just stonewalling, denying, lieing to Congress, etc. and having 'it' eventually die down. So, they keep doing that with these scandals, but NOW they have some where thats NOT going to work; you and I are focused on things like Fast and furious, Benghazi, etc. but the sheeple, and the press, just lost interest. But these 'leak' investigations, where Holder signed an affidavit to get a warrant for the Fox reporter, alledging that he was engaging in criminal behavior, FOR DOING HIS JOB, and THAT was the legal basis FOR the warrant, and the IRS 'scandal', are sticking, and I don't think they will be able to deal with as easily.

NOT seeing an impeachment or anything, but the teflon is, I think, starting to get some scratches in it.

Its an old, second term story; they develop HUBRIS. Kind of "we've been getting away with doing so much for so long, that we can now get away with doing anything we want. Seen it before.

Hey, how about the SCOTUS unanimous ruling that human genes can't be patented??? My question is, if its SO obvious that it was unanimous, WHY did the company GET the patent, in the first place?? The company had an enormous advantage, for many years, with this patent. In fact, it expires in about 2 years, anyway. But, they were able to develop a proprietary database, which is used to evaluate the test results, and they still have that. Why isn't anyone investigating WHO in the HELL gave them the patent in the first place, and how much $ did they pay someone to grant that patent, which obviously NEVER should have been granted in the first place??

MORE corruption,.....Jim

[rickoff]

The following is a "joke" that is fast making its way around the Internet. It is similar in composition to the old "Who's on First" comedy routine that was done by Abbot and Costello. That was pretty funny, but this new "joke" is not funny in the least bit, because it is all factual references to government crime and corruption, other than the "punch line," which is a reference to sheeple idiocy. Here it is:

Bob: "Did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?"
Jim: "You mean the Mexican gun running?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean SEAL Team 6 Extortion 17?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the State Dept. lying about Benghazi?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the voter fraud?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the president demoralizing and breaking down the military?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the Boston Bombing?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the president wanting to kill Americans with drones in our own country without the benefit of the law?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the president arming the Muslim Brotherhood?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The IRS targeting conservatives?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The DOJ spying on the press?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, e-mails and everything else?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The president's ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons and falsely blaming the sequester?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The president's threat to impose gun control by Executive Order in order to bypass Congress?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The president's repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The president's unconstitutional recess appointments in an attempt to circumvent the Senate's advise-and-consent role?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "HHS employees being given insider information on Medicare Advantage?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Clinton, the IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "I give up! ... Oh wait, I think I got it! You mean that 65 million low-information voters stuck us again with the most corrupt administration in American history?"
Bob: "THAT'S THE ONE!"