[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: U.S. government: Ebola is safer than the flu; high-risk carriers free to mingle with the public U.S. government: Ebola is safer than the flu; high-risk carriers free to mingle with the public Saturday, November 01, 2014 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger (NaturalNews) When it comes to infectious disease, the medical contradictions practiced by the U.S. government are nothing short of staggering. Consider the striking contradiction between the government's policy on unvaccinated schoolchildren vs. its policy on allowing possible Ebola carriers to travel freely among the public as long as they are "asymptomatic" (i.e. showing no symptoms): Schoolchildren who are unvaccinated are routinely ordered sent home from public schools, even if they aren't infected with anything and show no symptoms whatsoever. Parents are told their children "might be a risk to other children," and the concept of isolation is strenuously invoked to isolate unvaccinated children -- who aren't even sick -- from vaccinated children. But when it comes to Ebola, all those explanations are thrown out the window. Ebola carriers, we're told, "aren't a threat to the public" as long as they are showing no symptoms. In Maine yesterday, a federal judge just slapped down any quarantine restrictions on the Ebola nurse Hickox. "The judge said there's no need to restrict her movements because she's not infectious because she's showing no symptoms," reported AP. [1] "Kaci Hickox is free to travel unrestricted..." says AP. So wait a minute. How can asymptomatic Nurse Hickox -- who was trained by the CDC as an "intelligence officer" by the way -- be totally safe to run around with the public even though she might have Ebola, but asymptomatic children who weren't vaccinated are deemed so dangerous to the public that they have to be isolated from other children even when they aren't sick? Either the vaccine zealots have been lying to us all along or the federal government is placing us all in danger of Ebola infections. Ebola has a fatality rate approaching 70%, but it's considered safer than the flu As you ponder all this, remember these indisputable facts: • Ebola has a 50% - 70% fatality rate. Diseases which are routinely targeted for vaccinations -- such as influenza -- have a fatality rate that's just a small fraction of one percent. • Ebola can incubate in a person for weeks without being detectable or causing any symptoms. A person can be asymptomatic for up to 42 days and then suddenly break out with full-blown Ebola even though they tested negative for Ebola up to that point. • Many outbreaks of communicable diseases among children (measles, mumps, etc.) continue to occur among vaccinated children. In one case, 97% of children affected by a mumps outbreak were already vaccinated for the mumps. In some cases, in fact, vaccinated children appear to be triggering the outbreaks according to recent studies. • Merck virologists who worked on vaccines there filed a False Claims Act report with the federal government, charging Merck with falsifying clinical evidence to fraudulently make it appear their vaccines worked, when in reality the human blood samples were being spiked with animal antibodies. "Merck also added animal antibodies to blood samples to achieve more favorable test results, though it knew that the human immune system would never produce such antibodies, and that the antibodies created a laboratory testing scenario that "did not in any way correspond to, correlate with, or represent real life ... virus neutralization in vaccinated people," according to the complaint. • A CDC scientist recently went public with an admission that the CDC has long known vaccines were linked to a huge increase in the risk of autism in African-American children. The entire mainstream media censored the story and refused to cover this explosive development for the simple reason that the media is largely controlled by the vaccine / pharma corporations. Therefore, you will never learn any truth about vaccines, immunity or pharmaceuticals from the mainstream media. Federal judge all but admits the vaccine zealotry of schoolchildren is "bad science" In rendering his decision to allow Nurse Hickox to freely travel among the U.S. public, Judge Charles C. LaVerdiere all but admitted the nation's vaccine policies among schoolchildren are also based on bad science. "The court is fully aware of the misconceptions, misinformation, bad science and bad information being spread from shore to shore in our country with respect to Ebola," he wrote, in a sentence that could just as easily replace the word "Ebola" with "measles, mumps or whooping cough." When that "bad science" supports the vaccine industry, however, it is fully enforced by the government and public schools. But when there is no vaccine available for a disease like Ebola, suddenly the idea that a possible Ebola carrier should be isolated from everyone else is called "bad science." And why? Because the nurse is "asymptomatic," of course. If you don't show symptoms, you can't spread it, we're told. But this same line of reasoning is never applied to schoolchildren. What makes Nurse Hickox so special? Does she have mutant X-Men powers of disease resistance that no children possess? Not likely. The more likely explanation is that we are being lied to. "Science" is made up along the way What you're really witnessing in all this is how government and industry conspire to make up whatever "science" they want to fit the commercial outcome they desire. (Vaccine sales and spreading pandemics to boost future vaccine sales.) When they want to set Nurse Hickox free to potentially spread Ebola to more people, they call the idea of isolation "bad science." But when they want to enforce a national mandatory vaccination scheme for children, they call the isolation of unvaccinated children "good science." Meanwhile, any parent who says their unvaccinated child is safe to mingle with other children as long as they aren't symptomatic will be viciously accused of following "bad science"... even though this is precisely the argument of the federal judge in Maine who implied his decision was all based on "good science." Confused? That's all by design. You're supposed to obediently believe whatever quackery the CDC and vaccine industry tells you. You are not supposed to actually think rationally and clearly about underlying principles of epidemiology, because that would shatter the lies of the infectious disease industry. The truth is science is immediately abandoned in any government decision involving infectious disease. There are no guiding principles. There is no underlying rigorous framework of scientific reality. There is only a government that makes up anything it wants along the way and then coerces everyone else into compliance with whatever senseless scheme it wants to propagandize at the moment. And if you want confirmation of all this, just watch and see what happens when an Ebola vaccine is commercially available. At that point, all the government and media information on all this will be deliberately reversed, and people who refuse to be vaccinated against Ebola will be called out as "a danger to the public" even if they show no symptoms. Anyone invoking the Nurse Hickox decision of October 31, 2014 to claim that asymptomatic people are no danger to the public will be deemed an "anti-government conspiracy theorist" and described as a "kook" in mainstream media publications that pander to vaccine interests. If schoolchildren possibly had Ebola, they would be considered safer by the courts than children with the flu The final realization in all this will really jolt you into an awakened state. Based on the court decision in Maine, the U.S. government now considers children who might have the flu to be far more dangerous than children who might have Ebola. A child who might have Ebola would be told to return to school and mingle with other students as long as they are asymptomatic. This is true even though Ebola can be transmitted via aerosolized particles as the CDC recently admitted. But a child with the flu, or measles, or mumps would be ordered to stay home even if they showed no symptoms. The conclusion from all this? According to the U.S. government, Ebola is safer than the flu. Yep, a level-4 biohazard hemorrhagic fever virus with a fatality rate approaching 70% is safer to have circulating around than someone who might have caught the flu. This is how insane the U.S. government has now become, and this is why the claims that Ebola decisions are based on "rigorous science" are little more than a pathetic joke. Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/04747...cience.html#ixzz3HwaRD0xM Poster Comment: They are nuts to think that Ebola is less communicable than mumps. Plus, it is more deadly. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
This is key, bump. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||