Pakistan Cyber Force: killing mankind

Top stories

Pakistan Cyber Force [Official]

Showing posts with label killing mankind. Show all posts
Showing posts with label killing mankind. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Kenya BANS All GMO Monsanto Foods!

Print Friendly and PDF


The Kenyan government has banned imports of genetically modified organisms over health fears. On Wednesday, Health Minister Beth Mugo announced a ban on foods containing GM ingredients, effective immediately, pending tests on the health effects of the foods. Ms Mugo said health officials would ensure GM foods are removed from sale while tests are ongoing. She said, “My ministry wishes to clarify the decision was based on genuine concerns that adequate research had not been done on GMOs and scientific evidence provided to prove the safety of these foods.”

The health minister added, “Where there is apprehension and uncertainty regarding the safety of food products, precaution to protect the health of the people must be undertaken.”

A French study released in September linked consumption of GM maize to development of cancer in rats. However, since the study’s release, its reliability has been the subject of much debate. Although many scientists have criticised the study, released by researchers at the University of Caen, the Soil Association’s head of policy Peter Melchett said the team used the same methods regulators require in their licensing processes. Research organisations in the EU have called for more transparent testing of GM crops, in order to establish once and for all whether adverse environmental and health effects can arise from using the crops.



Pakistan Cyber Force

Monday, October 8, 2012

De-Population Agenda: American Fertility rate drops drastically

Print Friendly and PDF


According to a recent report released by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2011 had the lowest birth rates on record. Across the board, infiltrating all races in the US, less children are being born. Since 2007, 4.3 million Americans have had fewer babies; either due to the economy or social credo. Mainstream media blames the financial crisis of 2008 as being the causation due to “economic stress”.

Social conditioning provides in parenting magazines that the over-all cost of raising a child has risen to the point of “just being too expensive to consider.” The immediate needs of children are not the concern of would-be parents. It is the pressure of saving for future events such as college tuition, extra-curricular activities, insurance, etc . . . The social constraints that have nothing to do with the actual child are intimidating people out of having children.


As a popular trend, couples are “opting out” and being supported by society who buys into the overpopulation myth.

Distorting genetic genome research, father’s are being blamed for passing down genetic mutations in their DNA to their children and a number of eugenicists are calling for a pre – screen test to be administered to determine whether or not a child would be born who would be a medical or financial burden to their parents and/or society.

Professors of molecular biology , molecular and human genetics, and pharmacology at Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) have deciphered a birth-control pill for men by manipulating sperm with the use of a drug called JQ1. This drug blocks the proteins essential for sperm production and drastically lowering sperm counts, JQ1 is now being slated for human trials.

Prior to this breakthrough, researchers at the MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, discovered the gene Katnal 1 which is a protein necessary for producing sperm in males. Katnal1 contains blueprints for proteins, which are integral for cell production and facilitate sperm production. Essentially, without protein, sperm are dysfunctional and most likely disposed of naturally. These scientists set out to alter the genetic code of mice to render them infertile and were successful.

At the most recent UN Earth Summit (Rio+20) the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) published a paper that called for a global implementation of depopulation policies. According to the paper: “The population issue should be urgently addressed by education and empowerment of women, including in the work-force and in rights, ownership and inheritance; health care of children and the elderly; and making modern contraception accessible to all.”

They want “funding (for worldwide fertility control) decreased by 30% between 1995 and 2008, not least as a result of legislative pressure from the religious right in the USA and elsewhere”, the authors call for “education and planning needed to foster and achieve a sustainable human population and lifestyles.”

At the London Family Planning Summit (LFPS) in July of this year, Melinda Gates said she has made family planning her “top priority”. Not only does Gates want to force contraceptives onto developing nations, she wants to prevent an estimated 40% of pregnancies to stop women around the world from giving birth.

Gates has an arsenal of Depo-Preovera, implantable fertility controls provided from Shanghai Dahua Pharmaceuticals, and donations from Merck to further their advancement of the UN’s Millenium Development Goals which states that there be a 75% reduction in births under the guise of maintaining maternal mortality.

In order to control the growing population, doctors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics: “[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child.

Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”

Stasi networks have cropped up where neighbors call in bogus accusations to the police and Child Protective Services of other mothers on the block and cause parents to be punished for allowing their children to play outside; sometimes in their own backyards.

Population stabilization, the true meaning behind family planning is evident in the World Bank and UN Population Fund’s push against sovereign nations to reduce their populations by rule of the “global consensus” which dictates human rights policy by deeming some fit to live and others not.

Based on the Rockefeller Commission report, population stabilization is an endeavor worth pursuing, although its success would take decades because of the high incidents of reproduction by marriage. However, with the destruction of the family, this problem could be solved. Furthermore, the stabilization of the global population would reallocate resources to be better spent in terms of quality versus quantity.

Concluding that the best way to achieve population stabilization is to coerce the nation’s citizens that they freely choose abortion and not having a child at all as part of an acceptable societal norm. By way of implementation of social barrier and cultural pressures, the average citizen would rather go with the flow and chose not to procreate for the sake of being part of the herd.

Simultaneously, by reforming the acceptable amount of children born into a married household, the impact of population growth would seem to be natural. And trends would take care of social conformity. Those who had more children would be shunned.

Increasing access to abortion clinics with the inception and popularity of Planned Parenthood would give unacceptable pregnancies a viable solution. This would distract and control another Baby Boom from occurring.

Using images on television, film and print media control the ideals of the modern family to fit the model of a population stabilized by no longer being plagued with “run-a-way” births; but focusing on the example of small-families as the best way to go.

Occupy Corporatism



Pakistan Cyber Force

Saturday, July 21, 2012

How Antibiotics Destroy Your Immune System

Print Friendly and PDF

Your immune system is constantly on a seek-and-destroy mission status - on the lookout for foreign invaders, naturally occurring cell defects and mutant cells. The immune system has a vast capacity to remember bad guys and deploy tactics that worked in the past to annihilate the enemy. Some of the fastest growing cells in the human body are immune cells.
Over 80 percent of the body's immunity is built in the intestinal tract by the friendly bacteria balance that resides there. The intestinal flora starts building in an infant while in the womb but doesn't really take off until after eight days of age. Starting with the colostrum milk, the gut begins to populate with more bacteria while the infant's immune system starts an inventory of good and bad cells in the body. This inventory is a life-long process and the immune system never forgets an invader.
Where the problem begins
The absolute worst thing to do to any infant is to give them an antibiotic. Antibiotics indiscriminately kill bacteria, both good and bad. One round of antibiotics will permanently change the baby's immune system, and because a majority of neuro-chemicals are also made in the gut, the baby's neurology is also altered. The antibiotics that have been touted as the savior of mankind from disease are costing us in cancer and degenerative, chronic diseases.
Once the very first antibiotic is administered to the infant or child, the bacteria in the gut is wiped out and the immune system is permanently altered in its ability to manufacture appropriate immune cells. Fungus in the gut is now unopposed and begins to proliferate unchecked by the friendly bacteria. After fungus sets up strongholds then parasites move in to share the bounty of food and minerals meant to feed the body. This is the first step for chronic disease and cancer.
The same process happens when an adult takes even one round of antibiotics. Everything changes permanently and takes years of targeted nutrition and probiotic therapies to recover a semblance of normalcy in the body systems.
The role of heavy metals
Over 80 percent of heavy metals are removed from the body via the friendly bacteria in the gut. Certain bad bacteria and fungus actually prefer to retain and move heavy metals into the body and transport these metals to different tissues and organs to weaken them for future invasion. Fungus is a clean-up organism that feeds on compromised tissues. Eventually a bad fungus will invade healthy tissues as it gains strength and your body weakens.
The cancer double-whammy
Once the bad bacteria balance occurs and the fungus sets up shop, the intestinal wall becomes leaky, allowing partially digested foods, bacterium and allergens to cross into the blood. Now the already weakened immune system has double-duty to perform trying to clean up the gut while tracking down these new threats to the body. To think this all started with a well-meaning but seriously wrong paediatrician and misinformed parents.
Cancer is a disease of inflammation. The gut compromises and leakage of particles into the blood causes inflammation throughout the body. Chronically inflamed organs become targets of heavy metals, viruses, bacterium and fungus. But the damage doesn't stop there as the highly processed foods we eat cross the now compromised gut barrier; causing pancreas stress and trouble. Chronic stress weakens organs to make them more susceptible to disease and cancer.
Where it ends
It ends with you making informed decisions before submitting to any medical treatment, including taking antibiotics. You are the one who gleans the benefits or suffers the consequences - not the doctor who collects your co-pay up front and makes you sign "informed consent" papers before treatment.
(Natural news)

Friday, June 1, 2012

Hazardous Fluoride killing mankind at an alarming rate

Print Friendly and PDF


Water fluoridation is a highly horrendous topic, with the world's majority voicing massive concern over the practice. In contrast, some stick to the concept that there isn’t any association between fluoride and any real negative effects. Fluoride, however, is indeed a toxic substance, and has been tied with numerous health complications in well-established research. Fluoride can be found in many water supplies, toothpastes, and even food at alarming levels. While it may sound shocking to many, some research is even drawing a close connection between fluoride and an increased cancer risk.
In 1997, it was shown that fluoridation caused about 10,000 cancer deaths in epidemiological studies by Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the Cytochemistry Section at the National Cancer Institute and Yiamouyiannis. Despite the findings occurring in 1997, they were not reluctantly released until 1989. After analyzing the study results in rats, it was found that animals who drank fluoridated water:


Showed an increase in tumors and cancers in oral squamous cells. Developed a rare form of bone cancer called osteosarcoma. Showed an increased in thyroid follicular cell tumors. Developed a rare form of liver cancer known as hepatocholangiocarcinoma. Other research resurfaced by Dr. Dean Burk, former chief of cytochemistry at the National Cancer Institute for 30 years, also shows that fluoride increases the cancer death rate.

Dr Burk refers to a study conducted which compares the 10 largest USZ cities with fluoridation and the 10 largest without. What researchers found was that following fluoridation, deaths from cancer went up immediately- in as little as a year.


To reduce fluoride levels to a the greatest degree, activists must demand that the government stop fluoridating the water supplies. Water fluoridation has not only been linked to an increased cancer risk, but a decreased IQ in children. In fact, the findings forced the government to call for lower fluoridation levels nationwide. Until water fluoridation comes to a halt, the easiest way to reduce fluoride exposure is to invest in a reverse osmosis water filtration system. Drinking distilled water for 3-6 months may also reduce the soft tissue fluoride levels, but not bone levels. Soft tissue fluoride levels cause the greatest health problems.

Pakistan Cyber Force

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...