How do things stand at the moment?

Is this the beginning oif the end of the banker's dictatorship?

How can we make best use of this opportunity?

In this video I review the last week and make a few suggestions.

top

The arguments around vaccination to date are certainly good and undoubtedly very clever but are based upon two of the prime fallacies of medical “religion”; a religion being defined as a group of people who agree to believe a particular doctrine, a doctrine which it is a criminal offence to question.

In 2009 I uploaded a 2 part video on this:

Part 1 here   9 Minutes 10 seconds

Part 2 here   5 Minutes 44 seconds

(Science, on the other hand, requires investigation, hard, repeatable evidence and predictable results none of which the vaccine proponents have, after more than 150 years, been able to offer.)

1) Invading microorganisms cause disease 

2) Viruses are real

When Pasteur and Koch used their political influence to impose the belief in infectious disease in order to gain great wealth and fame both knew, at the time, that it wasn’t true.

Pasteur’s professor, Luis Bechamp showed him that the postulate is nonsense and that something much more elegant was actually happening although it had to wait for Gaston Naessans to prove Bechamp’s hypothesis.

Koch's colleagues proved to him absolutely that it could not be true.

Dr. Stefan Lanka, one of Germany’s leading virologists was led by his work to question whether viruses actually exist. They are postulated to exist but, to date, no-one has been able to prove it. For some time, a large cash prize has been offered in Germany to anyone giving proof that viruses actually exist: So far, no takers.

As these two postulates form the very foundation of pharmaceutical medicine, any guess you might make as to how much money is being spent to suppress this knowledge is likely to be several millions short of the mark.

So, to say that this or that virus causes this or that problem is, in two ways, insupportable.

Firstly, the existence of a particular virus is postulated not seen!

Based upon this we must ask not “How do we get rid of this (postulated) virus?” but rather, “What is the true problem which this microorganism is trying to resolve?” Let me make a suggestion:

Autism - mercury

One of the other many fallacies of pharmaceutical medicine is the required belief that all humans must react in the same way to a given stimulus. Even the most superficial of observations shows this postulate to be nonsense but, nonetheless, when someone in the pharmaceutical hierarchy has declared this or that to be the case, exceptions to this are rigorously swept under the carpet.

Because each human being is totally unique, there can be no standard reaction to any given stimulus. So, to say that mercury cannot be the cause of autism because not everyone who receives the mercury becomes autistic is, scientifically speaking, arrant nonsense ignoring the truth of human existence.

Herewith, another nail in the coffin of pharmaceutical medicine R.I.P.