From: Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby's Total Health Newsletter #27. Week ending Nov 22nd, 2009 http://www.letterfromserendipity.com/serendipity27.htm
"You may not know that in August in the USA (weeks before the swine flu outbreak) a microbiologist called Joseph Moshe went public and stated that the Baxter vaccine lab in the Ukraine was a cover for a bioweapons facility and that a deliberate virulent plague would be released (this is documented). If you doubt it, then why was Moshe gassed, tazered and dragged off the streets of Los Angeles, with absurd accusations that he threatened to blow up the White House?
You know that official media are lying, covering up and saying nothing factual about this terrifying story. It's almost impossible to know what is going on. I'm not a born-again conspiracist but there has been something that doesn't add up with the H1N1 (swine flu) story, right from day one. The viral strain was an anomoly. This new "mutation" could be just a natural event; but if it is, how come Joseph Moshe knew of it beforehand and was taken out by troops with armoured cars, EMF weapons, tazers etc.?
One thing is for sure: the USA is in the grip of marshal law under President Obama, whether it is admitted publicly or not. One wrong move that the adminstration sees as a threat to its propaganda lies and you disappear from the streets; shades of Argentina, Chile and the Third Reich!
In the last 4 years, no less than 81 scientists have met suspicious deaths. Moshe was fully aware of this and it appears that he was attempting to try to make his way to safety by escaping to the Israeli consulate when he was taken out.
Mainstream media has all but erased the incident, which in itself adds to the suspicion concerning the Moshe story, and the outbreak in the Ukraine.
Start your investigation with this series of videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXQoO3qoFME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A66kx0KYFCA "
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
10 Downing Street Vaccination Test Petition - Please Sign
At the website address given below a petition has been presented which it would be difficult to believe anyone in this country could disagree with i.e every vaccine should be properly tested for safety before anyone gets jabbed with it; not the rushed, pseudo tests done by the manufacturers themselves which are always suspect because of the billions of pounds riding on the results. So, hopefully, millions will sign this petition.
Subject: Vaccination petition
Hi, i would like to inform you of a petition underway at 10 Downing
Street (link below) to initiate an independent scientific study of the
immediate, short-term and long-term effects of these vaccine injections into
the human body. It is the duty and responsibility of every citizen in the
United Kingdom to see that this study is carried out, and should have been
before we began to administer these injections into the men, women and
children of this nation.
Yours Faithfully
Robert Mcandrew Binnie
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/VaccineEducation/
The Petition is accompanied by the following paragraph.
There is NO scientific proof anywhere in the world that mercury, aluminium, formaldehyde and other toxic substances used in vaccines prevent or combat the diseases they are administered for. On the contrary, there is a mass of scientific proof that these substances are extremely harmful to the human body and also some evidence to suggest that some of these vaccine ingredients, by being injected directly into the bloodstream, can change the DNA/RNA itself, which not only affects your health but would affect the health of your children and their children. It is the duty and responsibility of all United Kingdom Citizens and especially the doctors who administer these injections to be FULLY 100% satisfied that these vaccines are SAFE and do the job they were intended to do, and this can only be done with a scientific analysis independent from the billion dollar vaccine companies themselves.
Subject: Vaccination petition
Hi, i would like to inform you of a petition underway at 10 Downing
Street (link below) to initiate an independent scientific study of the
immediate, short-term and long-term effects of these vaccine injections into
the human body. It is the duty and responsibility of every citizen in the
United Kingdom to see that this study is carried out, and should have been
before we began to administer these injections into the men, women and
children of this nation.
Yours Faithfully
Robert Mcandrew Binnie
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/VaccineEducation/
The Petition is accompanied by the following paragraph.
There is NO scientific proof anywhere in the world that mercury, aluminium, formaldehyde and other toxic substances used in vaccines prevent or combat the diseases they are administered for. On the contrary, there is a mass of scientific proof that these substances are extremely harmful to the human body and also some evidence to suggest that some of these vaccine ingredients, by being injected directly into the bloodstream, can change the DNA/RNA itself, which not only affects your health but would affect the health of your children and their children. It is the duty and responsibility of all United Kingdom Citizens and especially the doctors who administer these injections to be FULLY 100% satisfied that these vaccines are SAFE and do the job they were intended to do, and this can only be done with a scientific analysis independent from the billion dollar vaccine companies themselves.
You Know Best
When you find yourself being told by Someone Very Knowledgeable that Something Is or Isn't True, or is Good For You or For The Country - that Someone possibly being a Member of the Government, a "Scientist", a Bureaucrat, or a Journalist writing for The Guardian - just recite to yourself first the lines of the wellknown poem before taking what they say as gospel. You are likely to find thereafter, with perhaps the smallest amount of reading, or research on the internet, that you're the one who knows best and they were talking twaddle!
BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ‘tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
Moral:
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
by John Godfrey Saxe
BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ‘tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
Moral:
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
by John Godfrey Saxe
Even Rats prefer Organic Food!
The next time you find yourself in a debate about which tastes better (organic or non organic foods - if it's still debatable), and which is better for you, you can mention that even rats prefer organic food. In a study involving organic wheat production, researchers gave lab rats the choice between organic and non organic wheat. The rats preferred the former. Because of similar chemical compositions between the wheat, the Swiss and Austrian scientists found it remarkable that the rats could tell the difference. Furthermore the rodents were much more apt at telling the difference than humans were.
For more info on this see
http://blogs.healthfreedomalliance.org/blog/2009/11/23/even-rats-prefer-organic-food/
For more info on this see
http://blogs.healthfreedomalliance.org/blog/2009/11/23/even-rats-prefer-organic-food/
Friday, 20 November 2009
Thumbs down in France for swine flu vaccine
France has apparently only been able to convince 0.1 percent of their population to get vaccinated. As of November 5, only 50,000 Frenchmen had lined up for the swine flu shot since the beginning of their campaign, out of a population of 65 million. And only 10 percent of health care workers have received the vaccine. How long will it take Brits to get the message?
See http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/17/Obama-Administration-Launches-Deceptive-Swine-Flu-Propaganda-Blitz.aspx
See http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/17/Obama-Administration-Launches-Deceptive-Swine-Flu-Propaganda-Blitz.aspx
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Wind Turbine power. What a nonsense!
I like to think I am openminded in terms of alternative energy sources such as wind and wave and solar power but when Mr Millionaire Dave Vince's company Ecotricity applied for planning permission to stonk wind turbines along the top of the hill opposite us the deluge of information which the locals dug up showing that wind turbines just aren't worth the taxpayers money convinced me to cross at least that energy source off my Vote For list. Ecotricity's application was eventually rejected, but they are now wasting all our time again by applying for another windfarm on a nearby site outside Gillingham in Dorset.
It is high time that SOMEONE IN GOVERNMENT WITH SOME COMMONSENSE (is there anyone?) called a moratorium on wind farm applications. Here are two articles from those who know their facts.
COMMENT ON RADIO "FARMING TODAY "
Emailed to BBC 12.11.09 by Alan Shaw DEng(Hon) BSc CEng MIET
Thank you for these interesting programmes. It is quite obvious that the wayleave rentals per wind turbine are an offer that few farmers can resist accepting. Also the developers, who retain the ownership of the wind turbine , obtain huge profits from the electricity they sell to the National Grid. Neither farmer nor developer can lose. Thus support for the government's windfarm promotion policy is assured.
Unfortunately wind turbine output is entirely dependent on wind speed , unpredictable, variable and strongest in the far north and west of Scotland while the UK main demand for electricity is below a line between the Humber and the Bristol Channel. Thus huge costs are incurred in building new overhead and underground transmission lines and in reinforcing relevant existing lines to convey outlying wind power to demand centres.
But UK total demand for electricity in the whole UK system must be balanced exactly by generation at every second of the day. A shortfall causes system frequency , normally maintained at 50 cycles per second , to fall, slowing down electric motors nationally. Excess generation causes frequency to rise causing motor overspeed.
Beyond a certain point either eventuality can destabilise the grid causing wind turbines and power stations to trip out, An extreme case can cause national black out. In a transient situation National Grid can presently prevent total blackout by use of low-frequency relays temporarily cutting out major consumer circuits such as water pumping stations, and, in last resort, national voltage reductions.
But we are heading into an unprecedented situation in which, due to lack of government generation planning, this could be a daily occurrence over many years. Because of total dependence on wind, every wind turbine must be "backed up" by construction of dedicated fully controllable fossil fuelled turbine of nearly equivalent capacity whose capital cost must be added to that of the wind turbine . As this will only be called upon subject to lack of wind, this expensive plant operates variably instead of at its designed economic full load steady state condition.
All the above makes windpower the most uneconomic form of energy generation. Its uncontrollability prevents it from generating contractually in either base load or load following roles.It is therefore connected to either the Supergrid or distribution networks as uncontrolled "negative demand".
National demand presenting for balancing by responsive thermal and hydro generation is net of this "negative demand". A windpower component more than about 8 per cent of national maximum demand is a potential system destabilizer as has been found on the European continent.
UK ministers and their civil service advisors do not appear to comprehend the nature of these basic technical problems and are continuing blindly to promote windpower on land and sea. Experienced chartered engineers are appalled at both the danger to electricity security and the enormous increases to the cost of electricity to consumers which are already appearing and will become astronomical. We face an unprecedented and protracted electrical crisis.
Dr Alan Shaw
--------------
Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark
With the British government planning to obtain up to 35% of UK generating capacity from wind turbines by 2020, it is instructive to consider the case of Denmark, one of the few countries that has got anywhere near that level.
Denmark generates the equivalent of around 19% of its electricity demand from wind, which on the face of it sounds like a great achievement. But because wind is intermittent and unpredictable, wind power sometimes meets as little as 5% of Denmark's demand, with an average over the last five years of only about 9.7% -- approximately half of the theoretical level.
Because electricity can't be stored in volume, wind can sometimes deliver too much energy that can't be used (for example if the wind blows strongly at night when demand is low). This creates entirely new challenges for transmission system operators. In the case of Denmark, about half of all the wind energy generated cannot be used, and has to be exported, below cost, to Sweden, Germany and Norway.
This brings considerable benefits to consumers in those countries, at the expense of Danish consumers and tax-payers. It is estimated that exported subsidies from Denmark amounted to €916 million between 2001 and 2008. Not surprisingly, Denmark's commitment to wind means that Danish consumers have the most expensive electricity in the EU. You may think that at least Danish wind-power is saving CO2 emissions in Sweden and Norway, but not so, because those countries rely heavily on hydro power, rather than fossil fuel generation.
Wind power has saved some CO2 emissions in Denmark, but at a very high cost of €87 per ton. For comparison, investment in building insulation can save CO2 emissions for between €10 and €20 per ton.
British estimates of the cost of wind power typically assume a 25 year working life for turbines. But the Danes are finding that ten to fifteen years is more realistic -- massively increasing the already high cost of wind generation. We are promised that green energy initiatives will increase employment. In Denmark this has proved to be the case, but the net new employment is small, and the cost-per-job in terms of subsidy is estimated at between 175% and 250% of the average worker's wage in Danish manufacturing industry. In terms both of power generation and job creation, wind power is fantastically costly and inefficient. Wind power investment and subsidy have had the effect of moving employment from more productive sectors in Denmark into the less productive wind industry, which has had a negative effect on Danish GDP.
There are lessons here for the UK. Our Labour government has naively assumed that if we build enough wind farms to deliver 35% of our electricity requirements, then that is what we shall get. The Danish experience suggests that we may be able to use only half of it; that it will fail to deliver the anticipated emissions savings or significant net new employment; and that it will damage prosperity and growth. We have been warned.
Source: The Danish Center for Politiske Studier (Centre for Policy Studies), Sept 2009; www.cepos.dk
-----------------------
Look Guys - I'm addressing here our hopelessly inept Government and the bureaucrats doing their bidding who don't have the courage to tell them they are bonkers - it only took one man, Samuel Pepys, to organise the rebuilding of our country's navy in the last half of the 17th century and do it on time and within budget. So, be good chaps, admit you made a right cock up of the energy from windfarms thing, go and apply for any job so long as it isn't remotely connected with energy, and let those of us who do have an ounce of commonsense take over.
It is high time that SOMEONE IN GOVERNMENT WITH SOME COMMONSENSE (is there anyone?) called a moratorium on wind farm applications. Here are two articles from those who know their facts.
COMMENT ON RADIO "FARMING TODAY "
Emailed to BBC 12.11.09 by Alan Shaw DEng(Hon) BSc CEng MIET
Thank you for these interesting programmes. It is quite obvious that the wayleave rentals per wind turbine are an offer that few farmers can resist accepting. Also the developers, who retain the ownership of the wind turbine , obtain huge profits from the electricity they sell to the National Grid. Neither farmer nor developer can lose. Thus support for the government's windfarm promotion policy is assured.
Unfortunately wind turbine output is entirely dependent on wind speed , unpredictable, variable and strongest in the far north and west of Scotland while the UK main demand for electricity is below a line between the Humber and the Bristol Channel. Thus huge costs are incurred in building new overhead and underground transmission lines and in reinforcing relevant existing lines to convey outlying wind power to demand centres.
But UK total demand for electricity in the whole UK system must be balanced exactly by generation at every second of the day. A shortfall causes system frequency , normally maintained at 50 cycles per second , to fall, slowing down electric motors nationally. Excess generation causes frequency to rise causing motor overspeed.
Beyond a certain point either eventuality can destabilise the grid causing wind turbines and power stations to trip out, An extreme case can cause national black out. In a transient situation National Grid can presently prevent total blackout by use of low-frequency relays temporarily cutting out major consumer circuits such as water pumping stations, and, in last resort, national voltage reductions.
But we are heading into an unprecedented situation in which, due to lack of government generation planning, this could be a daily occurrence over many years. Because of total dependence on wind, every wind turbine must be "backed up" by construction of dedicated fully controllable fossil fuelled turbine of nearly equivalent capacity whose capital cost must be added to that of the wind turbine . As this will only be called upon subject to lack of wind, this expensive plant operates variably instead of at its designed economic full load steady state condition.
All the above makes windpower the most uneconomic form of energy generation. Its uncontrollability prevents it from generating contractually in either base load or load following roles.It is therefore connected to either the Supergrid or distribution networks as uncontrolled "negative demand".
National demand presenting for balancing by responsive thermal and hydro generation is net of this "negative demand". A windpower component more than about 8 per cent of national maximum demand is a potential system destabilizer as has been found on the European continent.
UK ministers and their civil service advisors do not appear to comprehend the nature of these basic technical problems and are continuing blindly to promote windpower on land and sea. Experienced chartered engineers are appalled at both the danger to electricity security and the enormous increases to the cost of electricity to consumers which are already appearing and will become astronomical. We face an unprecedented and protracted electrical crisis.
Dr Alan Shaw
--------------
Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark
With the British government planning to obtain up to 35% of UK generating capacity from wind turbines by 2020, it is instructive to consider the case of Denmark, one of the few countries that has got anywhere near that level.
Denmark generates the equivalent of around 19% of its electricity demand from wind, which on the face of it sounds like a great achievement. But because wind is intermittent and unpredictable, wind power sometimes meets as little as 5% of Denmark's demand, with an average over the last five years of only about 9.7% -- approximately half of the theoretical level.
Because electricity can't be stored in volume, wind can sometimes deliver too much energy that can't be used (for example if the wind blows strongly at night when demand is low). This creates entirely new challenges for transmission system operators. In the case of Denmark, about half of all the wind energy generated cannot be used, and has to be exported, below cost, to Sweden, Germany and Norway.
This brings considerable benefits to consumers in those countries, at the expense of Danish consumers and tax-payers. It is estimated that exported subsidies from Denmark amounted to €916 million between 2001 and 2008. Not surprisingly, Denmark's commitment to wind means that Danish consumers have the most expensive electricity in the EU. You may think that at least Danish wind-power is saving CO2 emissions in Sweden and Norway, but not so, because those countries rely heavily on hydro power, rather than fossil fuel generation.
Wind power has saved some CO2 emissions in Denmark, but at a very high cost of €87 per ton. For comparison, investment in building insulation can save CO2 emissions for between €10 and €20 per ton.
British estimates of the cost of wind power typically assume a 25 year working life for turbines. But the Danes are finding that ten to fifteen years is more realistic -- massively increasing the already high cost of wind generation. We are promised that green energy initiatives will increase employment. In Denmark this has proved to be the case, but the net new employment is small, and the cost-per-job in terms of subsidy is estimated at between 175% and 250% of the average worker's wage in Danish manufacturing industry. In terms both of power generation and job creation, wind power is fantastically costly and inefficient. Wind power investment and subsidy have had the effect of moving employment from more productive sectors in Denmark into the less productive wind industry, which has had a negative effect on Danish GDP.
There are lessons here for the UK. Our Labour government has naively assumed that if we build enough wind farms to deliver 35% of our electricity requirements, then that is what we shall get. The Danish experience suggests that we may be able to use only half of it; that it will fail to deliver the anticipated emissions savings or significant net new employment; and that it will damage prosperity and growth. We have been warned.
Source: The Danish Center for Politiske Studier (Centre for Policy Studies), Sept 2009; www.cepos.dk
-----------------------
Look Guys - I'm addressing here our hopelessly inept Government and the bureaucrats doing their bidding who don't have the courage to tell them they are bonkers - it only took one man, Samuel Pepys, to organise the rebuilding of our country's navy in the last half of the 17th century and do it on time and within budget. So, be good chaps, admit you made a right cock up of the energy from windfarms thing, go and apply for any job so long as it isn't remotely connected with energy, and let those of us who do have an ounce of commonsense take over.
Monday, 16 November 2009
The Fake "Pandemic"
This Nun (!) who was also a doctor hits all the essential facts about the fake "pandemic" of swine flu - only a pandemic because the definition of the word has been changed by the World Health Organisation to be able to force nation states to mass vaccinate - and why you should refuse vaccination, or, if you feel you have to be vaccinated, demand first from the authorities a written guarantee of compensation against any side effects. Trouble is - they'll never give you one!
See it at http://vimeo.com/7298827.
See it at http://vimeo.com/7298827.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
