Topic: The Amish Don't Get Autism ... - page 2. (Read 2455 times)

Let's not forget the group of 12+ doctors dying unusual deaths this summer/fall.

Did you by chance googled your phd in immunology, virology, biochemistry and oncology?

Obviously I have thought about this.  It is a very valid conundrum, and a sticking point in many 'consipricy theories.'

I myself have family who are in the industry.  They make good money and I have no indication that they have any awareness of the (proposed) nefarious nature that I am hypothesizing about.  They are aware of their million dollar student loans, and their lack of a 'formal dinning' room in their current house and the consequent need to upgrade for this reason.  They are also proud of their role in serving society though they have a variety of complaints about 'the system.'

I find it quite plausible that a very corrupt and surreptitious system could be operated successfully with perhaps 0.2% of the participants being fully aware of the overall details.  They would just need to be well placed, and the system itself would need to be sufficiently complex (involving, say, media, education, research, and most critically, finance.)  Note that the U.S. maintained an amazing amount of secrecy in the development of the atom bomb.  Were it not for Hiroshima, it probably could be secret until this day (although that total secrecy would defeat the point of it.)

It should be noted that a key element in maintaining a system such as I am describing is gatekeeping (which is why I mentioned it up-thread.)  In this way, even if some participants smell a rat and decide to 'go public', the damage will still be contained and the games can continue.  If one researches this stuff one finds a fair number of medical professional who in fact do bow out and blab.  As long as it is only 'crazy conspiracy theorists' who hear them, the damage is minimal.

Another element is to avoid hurting the 'wrong people'.  We would still be happily injecting babies with significant quantities of mercury were it not for a powerful senator's own grandchild being damaged.  Now we have to dose people at 1/10th the former rate except for the multi-dose flu shot which still delivers a healthy dose through the blood/brain barrier.  With better technology to allow more targeted individual tracking this problem can be minimized.

Dangerous for you. For the survival rate please re-read my reply and the linked article, and consider what you are thinking about hundreds of thousands of young researchers and oncologists all around the world.

Dangerous for who?  I find it a rational hypothesis at this point that the primary danger is to the cancer industry profits.  As Coleman points out, your are going to die anyway.  Might as well make your death as protracted, painful, and expensive as possible, right?

I suspect that shooting people full of SV40 cancer virus in the polio vaccine was an accident.  But when the event served as a sound foundation for the cancer industry to blossom, and the 'cooler heads' of the Technocracy adherents gained power and recognized the opportunity to save the earth from overpopulation as more and more people shifted into the 'useless eater' ranks, the utility of the medical/industrial complex crystallized in their minds.  By happy accident of fate, it was also a good way to make a ton of money.  This monetary aspect served as an enlistment mechanism to get the most critical parties on-board with the project.

There's just as much evidence suggesting it's the funny hats they wear that prevent autism, as there is that it's anything to do with not being vaccinated.

As someone suggested, it's far more likely that they aren't being diagnosed with autism. In the same vein, some people claim autism rates in general are increasing when in fact it's more to do with people learning more about the disease and diagnosing it earlier and more often.

Okay. I take it all back.   

Why you are calling them liars?   Did you even read?
And is not your table about adjuvant chemotherapy?

Still Liars.   

Seems like you didn't bother to read, so i'll take an extract from the liked article. Read it carefully and you could understand where your table comes from and why it is miscited:
" Usually, they boil down to two claims: (1) that " chemotherapy doesn’t work against cancer (or, as I’ve called it before, the “2% gambit“) and (2) that the only reason it’s given is because doctors are brainwashed in medical school or because of the profit motive or, of course, because of a combination of the two. Of course, the 2% gambit is based on a fallacious cherry picking of data and confusing primary versus adjuvant chemotherapy, and chemotherapy does actually work rather well for many malignancies, but none of this stops the flow of misinformation"

Choosing the wrong therapy for your cancer could be really dangerous. Critical thinking don't hurt, but stupidity has killed more than one

Liars.   

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/chemotherapy-doesnt-work-not-so-fast-a-lesson-from-history/

It serves a useful purpose of wealth distribution at the ends of the lives of many.  For those who don't have much to be separated from, or are cagey enough to protect what they had, other segments of society can pick up the tab in a 'collective' manner so the cancer industry doesn't have to take a hit on them.

Between the pharma industry's contribution in terms of 'cancer drugs' and the other medical aspects of oncology, the sum total is a decent fraction of our economy here in the U.S..  I heard someone toss out the back-of-the-envelope figure 'half of a trillion', but don't vouch for it.  Certainly it is enough that a fair amount of lobbying can be purchased, and adjustments to the monster that has developed really could have the potential for systemic economic shock.

"
Alert!  Alert!
 - A Critical Thinking event has occurred in this sector.
 - Gatekeeping personnel have been activated.
 - Please shutdown independent analytic processes and calmly move to another thread.
 - Your reading activities have been logged and are available for future analysis.
"

Do you know the long term (5-year or 10-year) survival rate of patients, who undergo chemotherapy and radiation treatment? I am not against the mainstream allopathic treatment. But I am definitely against treatment methods such as Radiation Therapy and Chemotherapy, which seems to do more harm to the patient than good.

Please, you are getting the joke too far, and this could be dangerous... you and OP evidently are sticking to some low-quality conspiracy bullshit, and have no idea about the tons of evidence about cancer (or autism) that indipendent researchers/universities collected over decades.

The allopathic cancer treatment is a big scam. It is true that sometimes the chemo and radiation therapy can add a few more days to the life of a cancer patient. But the side effects are horrific. If a person somehow survives (the chances are very low), then it will take many years to recover completely from the after effects of chemotherapy.

No, I didn't misunderstand. I'm saying it is reasonable that some Amish person have looked up information or talked to someone about it. I'm sure they would relate it to others.

There was also a case of a girl getting cancer, she went to the doctor. (It's not like they won't all the time). She got sick from the chemo, and her parents wanted to stop it. The courts said that she had to get the chemo (because it was neglect, the doctors said she would die without it). They fled the country. She's recovering now from natural / holistic medicine. They want to go back home (but we worried about facing consequences for fleeing), if they do, (or did, I'm not sure if it's happened yet) they would likely talk about the things they saw/learned. It's not hard to believe that they wouldn't pick things up over time.

I believe you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that the Amish are completely cut off and clueless about life outside of their group, what I was saying is that the Amish probably have little idea of the symptoms of diseases like Autism and such, due to said symptoms only recently being recognized properly in modern society.