fatfreddie
-22
5
fatfreddie has not written any posts yet.
fatfreddie has not written any posts yet.
I see your point. Watching a video or picture, or whatever, for that reason, is no proof of anything. Those are easy to manipulate, I think we can agree on that. But what I want to hint to here, is the fact that we have vested interests on one side and virtually no profit on the other side. So which one do you belive? You post some link with 'exposing material', which is asserting in its third sentence, that the stuff is dangerous etc. and that that's an established fact... reading is believing, too. I've heard of some people (acquaintences) in africa witnessing the effects of mms, and that made me listen up. Look at this indepentend "help-your-self" community for example:
http://www.globalresourcealliance.org/
It's second hand info in the end again, but with our butts in front of a machine, its the best we can do...
You're right, a video showing the red cross administering a treatment to malaria to african children is very likely to be cut from pieces by 'a partisan' to... to what? We should really be relying on wikipedia and the FDA to even the odds between BigPharma and... and whom?
No, it isn't: Anyone familiar with the linguistic havoc sociological theory of systems deigns to inflict on its victims will assure you of that!
Are you aware of the FIELD STUDY the RED CROSS conducted in Uganda and was naive enough to let people record on video before they realized how powerful the cure actually was? They tried denying it afterwards... but that was three video tapes and hundreds of witnesses too late. Here's the video link, if somone here is actually interested in what's going on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jY2yab0uLc
To cut to the chase: from 154 malaria-infected people, 100% were cured after 48 hours. And that's verified by the red cross (unwittingly though)! Today, every 40 secs someone dies of malaria... i.e. the issue is of crucial importance and should lead people of "high epistemic standards" - as I understand... (read more)
<Video is not even systematic data. It's beyond easy to manipulate.> There's zero info in that comment as to the topic; it seems purely polemic to me, since I already agreed to the possibility of manipulating videos etc.
<Oddly enough, Nature doesn't care what vested interests think.> Of course it doesn't, and I never said it would. The whole issue is about which sources to trust, and coming up with some meta-analysis of BigPharma not repressing 100% of what ever doesn't win you a single inch of ground: if that study says BigPharma prefers something they produce to something else by 10%, then mms must be... a fraud? Do they even test mms? You're... (read more)