60% of the population has this genetics. Universal vaccines and medical treatments are making the population critically ill. Read more…
Why are our children and soldiers committing suicide and homicide? Read more…
Start with the basics:
What is the “spirit” of this statement? Can it be generalized to include the understanding that the Depts. of Health or any government agency has no right to “test”, question or judge an individual as to his religious beliefs whether to hold an office or as a condition to be educated?
Two fundamentalist Christian churches — Faith Tabernacle Congregation and First Century Gospel Church — were at the heart of the outbreak. Children had not been vaccinated, and when they became ill, their parents prayed instead of taking them to the hospital to receive the intravenous fluids or oxygen that could have saved the lives of those with the worst cases. “If I go to God and ask him to heal my body,” said a church member, Gordon Korn, “I can’t go to a doctor for medicine. You either trust God or you trust man.”
Public health officials turned to the courts to intervene.
What happened next should concern every American and, especially, every American parent:
[Public health officials] got a court order to examine the churches’ children in their homes, then to admit children to the hospital for medical care. Finally, they did something that had never been done before or since: They got a court order to vaccinate children against their parents’ will. Children were briefly made wards of the state, vaccinated and returned to their parents.
The complete data and study results
Comment: No study of health outcomes of vaccinated people versus unvaccinated has ever been conducted in the U.S. by CDC or any other agency in the 50 years or more of an accelerating schedule of vaccinations (now over 50 doses of 14 vaccines given before kindergarten, 26 doses in the first year) WHY NOT?
Increased Susceptibility to Thimerosal-Induced Mitochondrial Dysfunction in a Subset of Autism Lymphoblastoid Cell Lines
(Mitochondria Protected by Pre-treatment with the Glutathione Precursor, N-Acetyl Cysteine)
Journal of Toxicology
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 573701, 13 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/573701
TRANSHUMANISM RESEARCH: Scientists Urge Temporary Moratorium On Human Genome Edits A new technology called CRISPR could allow scientists to alter the human genetic code for generations. Update; NPR
The big worry is that CRISPR and other techniques will be used to perform germline genetic modification. Basically, that means making genetic changes in a human egg, sperm or embryo.
LAYMAN’S ARTICLE/SharonKGilbert The birth of Transhumans: Excerpt: Ultimately, it does not matter whether you, dear reader, understand the molecular technique–but you must know and digest this: Genome editing IS REAL. Homo sapiens may soon disappear as a species if God does not intervene. The Utopian dream could easily turn into a nightmare if proposed genetic therapy and molecular alterations yield not an improved human but a monster.
VLA COMMENT: Watch this 8 minute slide show: Vaccines: Gateway to Transhumanism
Humanity666 powerpoint presentation
MOLECULAR BABYLON
Honestly, the future is terrifying, because mankind really does have the potential to achieve almost anything. What is it that God said in Genesis?
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. (Gen. 11:6) [emphasis added]
Mankind’s foolishness mixed with a God-given uniqueness that makes us mini-creators is dangerous. God intervened at the tower of Babel, and I pray He intervenes before science achieves Molecular Babylon. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!
NEW START UP COMPANIES – design and create new creatures
In Austen Heinz’s vision of the future, customers tinker with the genetic codes of plants and animals and even design new creatures on a computer. Then his startup, Cambrian Genomics, prints that DNA quickly, accurately and cheaply. READ….
Although scientists and bioethicists claim that IGT is no different than existing gene therapies and is therefore not ethically problematic, they admit that the public may see things differently. The prospect of having one’s DNA modified to fight a disease may not be easily accepted.
As with all gene therapies, IGT also raises concerns about the ethical implications of gene therapies designed to “improve” or “enhance” human beings rather than simply treat medical conditions. Conferring disease immunity arguably straddles the line between these approaches. Injecting viruses that are designed to modify the human genome also carries the risk of potentially severe side effects. Read more…
There is a woman in Israel, Naomi Kizhner, and she has designed jewelry that actually is invasive. It has spikes on either end. These spikes are inserted through your skin into your veins, and then they draw on the flow of your blood to turn these little dials in them, which will eventually create enough kinetic energy to produce electricity. This is what I call ‘human energy harvesting.’ She asks, ‘Will we be willing to sacrifice our bodies in order to produce the energy to run our gadgets and devices?’ Human resources is getting a whole new meaning now.”
Go to all legal arguments and citations…
The 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) was well tolerated in infants regardless of gestational age, although preterm babies benefited more from administration on an accelerated schedule, according to a multicenter study. Read more…
VLA Comment: Despite results like the following, the conclusion is:
1) Adverse events were reported in 59% of preterm babies and 55% of term babies, during the infant series (P=0.70). The most common adverse event among both groups was respiratory infection.
2) Following the toddler dose, 31% of preterm babies and 27% of term babies experienced adverse events (P=0.53). A vaccine-related rash was reported in one preterm baby.
3) Compared to term babies, severe adverse events were more common in preterm babies after the infant series (5% versus 14%, P=0.051).
