Download Category: Health

THE WOMEN OF THE WEST have been in the grip of the Jewish fashion industry for many, many, many centuries. After all, clothes are one of the Seven Essentials of Life. After air, water, and food, we all need clothes more than anything else to protect us from the natural environment and for our personal modesty.

So, of course, where there is a need, there are crafty merchants always ready to fill that need. And when there is big money to be made by sewing on an extra ribbon or some lace and calling it “the latest fashion” that every girl must wear, then the stage is set for profiteering on a huge scale. And clothes become not only a necessity but they become an extravagance. And anything that is an extravagance is also expensive. And what produces expense and profits, also produces Jews in the garment business.

ON 1st September 1978 a Statutory Instrument that had been issued by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food came into operation : (Warble Fly (England and Wales) Order 1978.- S.I. 1978 No. -1197).

For the stated purpose of eliminating Warble Fly, this required all cattle to have their backs and heads treated with a powerful organophosphate nerve poison.

Other countries in Europe used the same organophosphate nerve poison to eliminate the warble fly, but under different conditions. For every poison there is a threshold level below which symptoms do not develop, and with the exception of Switzerland and Britain the doses were kept below the threshold level. Switzerland and Britain used oil to increase absorption of the poison, and in Switzerland a dozen or so animals developed the symptoms of BSE. The oil had raised the absorption dose to just above the threshold. But in Britain a dose four times the recommended dose had been used, with the result that large numbers of cattle developed BSE.

“After a careful consideration of the history of vaccination gleaned from an impartial and comprehensive study of vital statistics, and pertinent data from every reliable source, and after an experience derived from having vaccinated 31,000 subjects, I am firmly convinced that vaccination cannot be shown to have any logical relation to the diminution of cases of smallpox. Vaccination does not protect, it actually renders its subjects more susceptible by depressing the vital power and diminishing the natural resistance, and millions of people have died of smallpox which they contracted after being vaccinated”

A long line of tense and fearful people had formed outside a local “health clinic”.  The line slowly inched forward, into a small room where white-coated “technicians” injected each person’s arm with a virulent chemical poison.  As the chemical hit their bloodstream, some of the victims slumped over and died immediately.  They were quickly dragged into another room, while the “technicians” assured the nervous crowd, “There’s nothing to worry about.  They’ve only passed out.”

This shocking scene is familiar enough.  We have watched endless movies of these atrocities, produced by victorious Jews who claim that these acts were really carried out by Nazis in Germany.

FROM about 1930 it became apparent that there was an increase in the incidence of lung cancer that was out of proportion to the increase in cancer as a whole, and that the causative agent must be something comparatively new, probably something that had made its appearance during the 1930’s. What was it?

To elucidate such problems there are well-established methods of scientific investigation: evidence is collected, hypotheses suggested, further facts sought, hypotheses modified or if they are not in accord with the evidence abandoned, perhaps new hypotheses put forward, and so on – and always, when a fact and a hypothesis contradict one another, it is the fact that must be retained.

There are plenty of facts available about the increase in lung cancer, and by about 1940 three main hypotheses were being considered: the action of urban smoke, cigarette and tobacco smoke, and diesel smoke. We need to consider which, if any, of these is in accord with the available facts.

Formerly we had our milk from a local dairy, coming from the farm unpasteurised. As I noticed a difference In the quality of the milk during the last few weeks, I found out that lately we are being supplied with pooled and pasteurised milk. The dairy is quite willing to supply us again with milk corning from a local farm and has done so at my request for a week. The milk is much creamier and gets sour naturally again (we use sour milk as a dressing with the salads). The pasteurised milk we found could not be soured; it just went bad under the same conditions. Accordingly I am very pleased with this change. On the other hand one hears so much about increasing tuberculosis among the cows in the country that I wonder whether we should risk it (giving the children unpasteurised milk). The herd from which the milk comes Is not regularly examined; . . . Would you kindly state your opinion” on this matter, i.e., whether you think that bovine tuberculosis is infectious to human beings, or any other reasons why we should not risk using the unpasteurised milk. Our children get about I pints of milk per day at present—nearly all of it raw and the children are happy and full of life and activity.