Has the FDA been complicit in intentionally mutating us??
POSTED BY: WISHIMAY
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 06:11
VIEWED: 8829
PAGE 2 of 4
Quote:Toxic Air.
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6363789/Does-toxic-air-caus
e-autism-Living-polluted-areas-boosts-risk-disorder-children.html
Well, sure. Anything burned creates sulfur gas, just another way to overdose every day...
No, no. The words don't mean what the words mean. Just think of it as aroma.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I mean not to be rude but so what? It sounds like you're assuming mutation is bad. It's neutral. Mutation is a natural process of organisms to adapt to changes in environment. Yes, some will not fit well with the environment and should die out. Some will be a good fit for the environment and should procreate rapidly and become the new normal.
If anything we should be concerned that modern medicine doesn't allow evolution to take its natural course. As a species it's unwise to intentionally hinder our own evolution.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
I mean not to be rude but so what? It sounds like you're assuming mutation is bad. It's neutral.
Wow, you don't understand the subject matter AT ALL. Did you even LOOK at the other thread??
Did you see the article where 89% of people on the spectrum have problems processing sulfur and it causes health and neuro issues when you CAN'T?? How is that NEUTRAL?? WE created the problem, not nature, anyway. It doesn't play by the same rules...
And if you think THAT is a neutral process it's because you think YOU aren't affected, then I assure you you are related to someone that is having problems or you yourself are and don't know it... It would be statistically improbable for you not to be.
If you think we should just let people die than give anti-biotics or surgery...WHY DON'T YOU GO FIRST??? Oh, and no vaccines for you or your people, while we're at it... What, you WANT to live?? Sorry, you don't get to make that decision, the ruling class has decided you aren't worth it...
That's like ...supremacist thinking there. If someone gets sick they were meant to DIE and we should let them for the good of the species, huh?? What does their personal feelings, plans, will to live, or mental health matter??
Geez, Zeek.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/12500/11-historical-geniuses-and-their-
possible-mental-disorders
Imagine what the world would be today without some of these people.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
I mean not to be rude but so what? It sounds like you're assuming mutation is bad. It's neutral.
Wow, you don't understand the subject matter AT ALL. Did you even LOOK at the other thread??
Did you see the article where 89% of people on the spectrum have problems processing sulfur and it causes health and neuro issues when you CAN'T?? How is that NEUTRAL?? WE created the problem, not nature, anyway. It doesn't play by the same rules...
And if you think THAT is a neutral process it's because you think YOU aren't affected, then I assure you you are related to someone that is having problems or you yourself are and don't know it... It would be statistically improbable for you not to be.
If you think we should just let people die than give anti-biotics or surgery...WHY DON'T YOU GO FIRST??? Oh, and no vaccines for you or your people, while we're at it... What, you WANT to live?? Sorry, you don't get to make that decision, the ruling class has decided you aren't worth it...
That's like ...supremacist thinking there. If someone gets sick they were meant to DIE and we should let them for the good of the species, huh?? What does their personal feelings, plans, will to live, or mental health matter??
Geez, Zeek.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/12500/11-historical-geniuses-and-their-
possible-mental-disorders
Imagine what the world would be today without some of these people.
You're trying to mix emotion and science. That doesn't work. If you want to talk about science you have to leave emotion at the door. People can't process sulfur and we have it in our current food supply? Well sounds like they're not ideal for the current environment and natural selection should remove them from the gene pool. That doesn't mean they should be killed but they shouldn't procreate. And no antibiotics and vaccines have nothing to do with it. Infection and disease are not genetic disorders.
The term genius is way overblown. All it really means is that they were sufficiently intelligent and in the right place at the right time. There's very little special about them or their discoveries. If they didn't make those discoveries than someone else would have in a reasonably similar time frame.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wrote an essay on how you are wrong and it got eaten.
Fine, I sum up.
First, HOLY COW are you shallow. Perfection doesn't exist, in DNA or anywhere else for that matter. If you only let "A-grade" people breed, the human species would die out from the common cold, and you would still have mutations due to the nature of our environment....that's not even getting into forced sterilizations there, mini Hitler. The purpose of ALL LIFE is continuance, in all its forms...Sometimes people who you would deem "f-grade" are the ones that survive plagues or disasters the BEST. People on "the spectrum" avoid contact with others and therefore would be at less risk of contagion while it could wipe out the "A-graders" entirely.
Second, the chems they are adding are NOT NATURAL. They ARE at harmful levels (because we had no idea what the consequences were when they added them) and I think you should be grateful for the diversity that allows others with more sensitive systems to sound an alarm before it wipes EVERYONE out. Despite pearl analogies, constant irritants are rarely ever beneficial to a species and they usually die out. And though we will never know, maybe if certain people or certain events had not unfolded the way they did, its possible we would have all died in a nuclear winter by now.
And before you ask, optimism IS just a happy state of delusion. All things in nature eventually succumb, even planets and universes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're right perfection doesn't exist in DNA. That's why I never said that.
Humans will adapt to the food supply but that means there will be people who aren't well suited for it. That's the way it works.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
You're right perfection doesn't exist in DNA. That's why I never said that.
Humans will adapt to the food supply but that means there will be people who aren't well suited for it. That's the way it works.
You didn't have to, you said we shouldn't let certain people breed. Maybe if you had said "Ok, let's not let people breed who have no intentions to be a good parent" I would have agreed, but to dis-allow people breeding rights based on perceived DNA faults will NEVER end well, and for many reasons.
Again, the bisulfites are basically allowing an excess of mutations, it's artificially DE-EVOLVING the DNA that has taken eons to put together. It is the addition of an UNNATURAL process and we have no idea what that outcome will be, other than creating very ill people in the meantime, who had no idea what was being done to them. If you aren't opposed to that you may be insane. Just a little bit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6428651/How-kids-autism-US-
government-measures-3-ways.html
Yeah, they have a pretty accurate test now...wonder when our pathetic medical system will bother to trot that out to get an accurate answer??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here's yet another horrifying stat about our lovely country and how it's trying to kill us off...
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/12/02/a-strong-association-h
as-been-found-between-the-hpv-vaccine-infertility/
“I just wanted to see if there was an issue,” says DeLong. “I certainly didn’t expect to find such a strong association.” Approximately 60% of women who did not receive the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once compared to just 35% of women who had had an HPV shot had ever conceived. For married women, the gap was also about 25%: 75% who did not receive the shot were found to have conceived, while only 50% who received the vaccine had ever been pregnant. “Results suggest that females who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant than women in the same age group who did not receive the shot,” the study says. It concludes, as all studies like this do, that the data points to an association, not causation, between the new vaccine and reduced fertility but that further study is warranted.
25% is HUGE, for a vaccine the difference should be negligible, even accounting for variances in behavior (people who are "responsible and go to a doctor" generally WOULD have less children, but not 25% LESS) 10% would be reasonable, maybe...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
25% is HUGE, for a vaccine the difference should be negligible, even accounting for variances in behavior (people who are "responsible and go to a doctor" generally WOULD have less children, but not 25% LESS) 10% would be reasonable, maybe...
Yeah... That doesn't sound good.
Sometimes I'm really glad I don't have kids. It's hard enough to say that you honestly don't know something, let alone be forced to make a decision on something like this when it comes to your own children.
I'm speaking of vaccines in general. Who are we supposed to believe? Both sides of the story sound equally plausible, and the potential negatives of either side could be equally catastrophic.
There is no "do over" button.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME