PDA

View Full Version : Orchestrated Flu Pandemics


Leonardo
10-13-2009, 07:47 PM
Read Dr. Horowitz entire article on the truth about Bird/Swine Flu.. (http://www.oxysilver.com/index.asp?AffID=2338)



http://web.mac.com/len15/HealthyWorldSolutions/The_Creators_Message_for_Destroyers_and_Plan_for_S urvivors_files/shapeimage_8.png (http://www.oxysilver.com/index.asp?AffID=2338)

Leonard G. Horowitz, DMD, MA, MPH and Mayer Eisenstein, MD, LLD

“But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood.” -- Ezekial 33:6

INTRODUCTION TO ORCHESTRATED FLU PANDEMICS (http://www.oxysilver.com/index.asp?AffID=2338)

Imagine an apocalyptic thriller wherein researchers discover
evidence that an alien race, determined to depopulate earth, has infiltrated and corrupted the world’s wealthiest banking families to manipulate governments, esteemed institutions, and leading scientists. The ruling elite, through their “experts,” convince civilization that a vaccine containing laboratory weakened influenza viruses could prevent a predicted plague from killing 3.5 billion people.


Reasonably sure their new “primer” vaccine is safe, but knowing intelligent people would not take a vaccine against a flu that hasn’t happened yet, they agree to engineer a small outbreak in Mexico City reasoning that killing a few hundred people to save millions is worth the loss of lives.


So their outbreak is triggered. The media alarms the public and convinces governments that stockpiling their company’s new vaccine for “flu season” against the coming “Big One” is well advised.


Suddenly you learn the adversaries had loosed more than the scientists knew. Undercover agents had laced outbreak viruses into the doctors’ “vaccines.” These rapidly mutating viral packages contain genes that easily recombine with strains of the avian, swine
and Spanish flu—the world’s most lethal bioweapons.

GBeKB7aKzOs


“Accidental” releases of these terrible viruses are now orchestrated. The controlled media simply neglects investigations into two separate “accidents.” In one, a contaminated experimental vaccine containing avian, Spanish, and swine flu was tested on humans across continental Europe. The other release involved vials of viruses broken and transmitted to Europeans during a train “accident.”


Their plan works perfectly as the Mexican flu makes its way to Europe where the “primer” viruses recombine with the most deadly influenza strains ever known. The “Big One” is triggered within six months of the initial Mexican outbreak. Half the world’s population, along with the doctors and scientists who triggered the pandemic, die.


In the last act, as the pandemic and successful depopulation draws to a close, nature exercises its discretion. Superseding anything mortal or extraterrestrial, a population restoration plan is administered through a cosmic alignment that increases ultraviolet irradiation from the sun. The higher levels of UV exposure kills all of the air and water borne viruses loosed from labs. Additional cosmic radiation terminates all life forms made genetically and immunologically weakened by chemical pollution and genetic manipulations. The more susceptible life life forms perish. Increased ocean evaporation from solar radiation causes more precipitation worldwide and puts the planet into a virtual nuclear winter as rain clouds block the sun for years.


The fittest species, including super-humans, not only survive, but thrive having made the leap into a higher “energetic resonance” capable of sustaining themselves on pure water, oxygen, minimal sunlight, and algae.

A REALITY CHECK (http://www.oxysilver.com/index.asp?AffID=2338)

Now consider “reality.” Within a week of heralding the 2009 Mexican outbreak, officially named the H1N1 2009 swine flu, the Washington Post reported that the Obama administration is advancing “an unprecedented fall vaccination campaign” that would give every American “three flu shots, ” one to combat the seasonal flu, and the other two “targeted at the new swine flu virus spreading across the globe.”(1)


In Dr. Leonard Horowitz’s previous Special Report widely viewed on YouTube, the suspicious timing of the “Mexican Flu” outbreak, emerging perfectly synchronous with mass media promotions of experiments by Novavax and Baxter corporations testing similar strain influenza vaccines, was referenced.(2) Documents implicated leading Anglo-American flu vaccine virus engineers, especially Dr. James S. Robertson and colleagues collaborating with Dr. Robert O. Donis at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta—leading H1N1 and H5N1 virus distributors--supplying Dr. Rick Bright, formerly working with Donis at the CDC, currently Novavax’s Vice President of Global Influenza Programs.(2)


Continue..... (http://www.oxysilver.com/index.asp?AffID=2338)

EireEngineer
10-15-2009, 08:35 AM
Interesting theory.

albie
10-16-2009, 03:57 AM
Why use something like a disease to kill us when they could zap us with radiation? I suppose they want the plant and animals to survive?

EireEngineer
10-16-2009, 12:44 PM
Except that they are doing a terrible job at killing off the population, lol. :rolleyes: It was good enough for Tom Clancy to use this idea for a plot in one of his books, but even then they had to use a much more virulent and contageous agent then the flu.

albie
10-17-2009, 05:00 AM
I've yet to hear a good reason to kill us off. Unless the Illuminati really are scared of climate change.:)

revolution60
10-18-2009, 11:37 AM
I've yet to hear a good reason to kill us off. Unless the Illuminati really are scared of climate change.:)

because they would profit from all of it

this has been going on for centuries and centuries, they build the pyramid scheme, when the building is done and the money has dried up, they create scenarios, cause chaos, kill off people, and they profit from all of it.

if they didn't do it, they could not sustain their pyramid

the reason every one is scared of a very massive pandemic is because their are so many people inhabiting the earth now and this has become very overwhelming for the elite,

in other words our needs are actually starting to cut into their profits and wealth because there are so many now, and we all know what happens to pyramid schemes once the money dries up and the con artist would lose out on continuing it....

the reality is you are living in just one big pyramid scheme, almost everything around you is a part of it, dont you see that? money is not real AT ALL. it should not even exist.

we can power the entire earth FREE AND CLEAN, Free plentiful housing for everyone, Clean water for everyone. The technology that could have existed if not for money would astonish anyone.

money is a farse, it always has been, there is absolutely no need for money in a real society.

what you call civilization right now is not a civilization, IT'S DISGUSTING VOMIT

EireEngineer
10-18-2009, 10:17 PM
because they would profit from all of it

this has been going on for centuries and centuries, they build the pyramid scheme, when the building is done and the money has dried up, they create scenarios, cause chaos, kill off people, and they profit from all of it.

if they didn't do it, they could not sustain their pyramid

the reason every one is scared of a very massive pandemic is because their are so many people inhabiting the earth now and this has become very overwhelming for the elite,

in other words our needs are actually starting to cut into their profits and wealth because there are so many now, and we all know what happens to pyramid schemes once the money dries up and the con artist would lose out on continuing it....

the reality is you are living in just one big pyramid scheme, almost everything around you is a part of it, dont you see that? money is not real AT ALL. it should not even exist.

we can power the entire earth FREE AND CLEAN, Free plentiful housing for everyone, Clean water for everyone. The technology that could have existed if not for money would astonish anyone.

money is a farse, it always has been, there is absolutely no need for money in a real society.

what you call civilization right now is not a civilization, IT'S DISGUSTING VOMIT
LOL, what is this wonderful free energy machine you think exists? Something to ponder: Money is simply the measure of time, labor, material, and expertise. You must be one of those that thinks that somehow mankind can be magically "perfected", and that a person then would work just as hard for a stranger as for himself. THe real world does not work that way.

BlueAngel
10-19-2009, 01:45 AM
LOL, what is this wonderful free energy machine you think exists? Something to ponder: Money is simply the measure of time, labor, material, and expertise. You must be one of those that thinks that somehow mankind can be magically "perfected", and that a person then would work just as hard for a stranger as for himself. THe real world does not work that way.

Money is not simply the measure of time, labor, material and expertise.

It is the measure of status and power.

albie
10-19-2009, 05:34 AM
>>because they would profit from all of it

Most of the elite take their money incrementally from large sources of people. a penny on each pound. It stand to reason then that the more people the more pennies they get for each transaction. They become more richer the more there are of us. Not poorer.

How are we cutting into their profits?

albie
10-19-2009, 05:36 AM
>>LOL, what is this wonderful free energy machine you think exists?

It's the kind of deperate thinking you get when you take a conspiracy theorist beyond his initial post into the realms of "NOW WHAT DO I DO? I DON'T USUALY HAVE TO GO THIS FAR INTO A SUBJECT BEFORE BEING BLINDLY BELIEVED!"

revolution60
10-19-2009, 09:34 AM
windmill power, ocean wave power, solar power , your surrounded by it every day you walk outside!

the technology exists to power the entire planet for free and pollution free, yet here we are still struggling day by day, and destroying the planet at the same time.

it's sad to see even some conspiracy theorists would argue about money not even existing.

what is it you do not understand?

money constricts everything in society. nothing gets done without money in this system, that means if you need house, medical needs, food, water, everything about survival costs money, which you have to slave away for the elite to attain, and THEN even still be struggling with what they pay you LOL

If money did not exist, and everyone "chipped in" even in the smallest way, the entire world is changed. in fact, sick, elderly, they are taken care of as well, even if they can not participate.

total scientific exploration of the planet, all secrets unlocked, all intelligent uses of this knowledge to continually better society.

Money was the absolute WORST invention to society on a UNIVERSAL scale

it is just a slave tool. it's fake, and almost everything it buys is fake!

What you experience as reality right now, is not how it was supposed to be! You were born "into" this, that's why it seems like reality to you, you simply know nothing else.

that is why you question conspiracy logic at all!

we can create and run cars for free and clean! power the entire earth free and clean! housing for everyone, food for everyone, clean water, and much more, the possibilties are endless! the technology, creativity, and experimenting have been constricted throughout all of time!

Money is the single and only reason they continue to stay in control, if you care to argue with this, then i suggest you rethink your logic, and actually kick back and think about a society without money, just think about it for a while and go through the scenarios of "how could it work"

trust me, you will soon realize.

Out of the Box
11-03-2009, 02:56 AM
This Mexican flu "pandemic" is no worse than a normal flu epidemic. I'm not sure why the media and politicians are hyping this, but it could be just a ruse to make more profit from vaccinations.

Out of the Box
11-03-2009, 02:59 AM
Money was the absolute WORST invention to society on a UNIVERSAL scale

it is just a slave tool. it's fake, and almost everything it buys is fake!

What you experience as reality right now, is not how it was supposed to be! You were born "into" this, that's why it seems like reality to you, you simply know nothing else.

Money isn't the problem. The problem is the way money is used in our economy (eg. using money to create more money rather than working for it). If money is just a way to regulate the exchange of goods, it's a very useful tool.

EireEngineer
11-03-2009, 12:04 PM
Money isn't the problem. The problem is the way money is used in our economy (eg. using money to create more money rather than working for it). If money is just a way to regulate the exchange of goods, it's a very useful tool.
Please explain your line about "using money to create more money" please. What do you mean by that?

Out of the Box
11-03-2009, 03:59 PM
Please explain your line about "using money to create more money" please. What do you mean by that?

I'm referring mostly to usury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury) and speculation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculation). Both were considered immoral for most of man's history.

BlueAngel
11-03-2009, 10:31 PM
I'm referring mostly to usury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury) and speculation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculation). Both were considered immoral for most of man's history.

Quoting the definitions of usury and speculation by Wikipedia doesn't explain your comment that they use money to create money.

USING your own words to explain your comment that they use money to create money is requested.

Thanks,
BA

Out of the Box
11-04-2009, 03:41 AM
Quoting the definitions of usury and speculation by Wikipedia doesn't explain your comment that they use money to create money.

USING your own words to explain your comment that they use money to create money is requested.

What's not to understand? With usury, you loan your money to others and receive profit from it without doing any work yourself (you just provide the money and that's it). With speculation, you do pretty much the same except that the risks for losing the investment of parts thereof is greater. However, in both cases it is money that creates money whereas in a healthy economy only labor should create money.

EireEngineer
11-04-2009, 10:10 AM
What's not to understand? With usury, you loan your money to others and receive profit from it without doing any work yourself (you just provide the money and that's it). With speculation, you do pretty much the same except that the risks for losing the investment of parts thereof is greater. However, in both cases it is money that creates money whereas in a healthy economy only labor should create money.
Without loans, capital creation is nearly impossible, and the loan has to earn interest for the lender in order to service the debt. You are taking a pretty primitive view of economics. We dont live in the bronze age anymore.

Out of the Box
11-04-2009, 10:28 AM
Without loans, capital creation is nearly impossible, and the loan has to earn interest for the lender in order to service the debt.

I guess you never heard of Islamic banking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking). Just like it used to be in Western Christian countries (Jews became so succesful in banking precisely because it was considered immoral by gentiles), loaning money in exchange for interest is illegal in Islam. Nevertheless, Muslems found a way to keep their economy going without interest.

Still, a better way to manage an economy is to abolish loans for profit altogether and have the population buy something only when they actually have the money for it (like most people outside of the US still do --> I never loaned any money and don't even own a credit card). Exceptions can be made for large expenses like starting up your own business or buying your own house and here the government could serve as an agency that provides loans without interest according to pre-determined rules and principles.

You are taking a pretty primitive view of economics.

No I don't. You do, because you only seem to understand how the capitalist economy works and you seem to lack any understanding of economic principles beyond capitalism.

EireEngineer
11-04-2009, 02:23 PM
I guess you never heard of Islamic banking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking). Just like it used to be in Western Christian countries (Jews became so succesful in banking precisely because it was considered immoral by gentiles), loaning money in exchange for interest is illegal in Islam. Nevertheless, Muslems found a way to keep their economy going without interest.

Still, a better way to manage an economy is to abolish loans for profit altogether and have the population buy something only when they actually have the money for it (like most people outside of the US still do --> I never loaned any money and don't even own a credit card). Exceptions can be made for large expenses like starting up your own business or buying your own house and here the government could serve as an agency that provides loans without interest according to pre-determined rules and principles.



No I don't. You do, because you only seem to understand how the capitalist economy works and you seem to lack any understanding of economic principles beyond capitalism.
LOL, right, you know exactly my economic education. Listen, I have read Smith and Keynes, Friedman and Marx, and I do have a broad understanding of economic theories, though admittedly limited in scope since I am an engineer, not an economist. However, I am not convinced by your assertion that eliminating usury will have a beneficial effect on the economy. What is even more ludicrous is to hold up the Muslims (note the correct spelling) as the paragon of economic thought. Just how wealthy are Muslim economies when you factor out their luck for sitting on a big pool of oil? Not very. So I wouldn't exactly hold them up as the final arbiters of economic wisdom.

Look at the effect that abolishing loans for profit, as you say, would have on capital creation. Most modern manufacturing requires significant purchases of equipment. Without loans to purchase this material, companies could never get off the ground. This also mean that they cant hire more employees or expand when they see an opportunity to capitalize on a trend in the market. All of this would have a drastic negative impact on innovation and production, and hurt the economy as a whole.

Out of the Box
11-04-2009, 03:20 PM
Listen, I have read Smith and Keynes, Friedman and Marx, and I do have a broad understanding of economic theories

Let's see... Two "free market" capitalists, one proponent of capitalism with state intervention and one communist. I see you stayed nicely within the black-and-white capitalism-vs-communism paradigm rather than moving beyond. You should try reading some literature from Russian anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, German philosophers like Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt, Martin Heidegger and Ernst Jünger or contemporary theorists like Troy Southgate, Alain de Benoist and Tomislav Sunić. These are the sort of thinkers that have most influence on me.

I am not convinced by your assertion that eliminating usury will have a beneficial effect on the economy. What is even more ludicrous is to hold up the Muslims (note the correct spelling) as the paragon of economic thought. Just how wealthy are Muslim economies when you factor out their luck for sitting on a big pool of oil?

The success of a civilisation is not determined by the its GNP but by its ability to remain stable and take care of its citizens. In fact, raping the planet the capitalist way is the worst a society can develop in the long run since it might destroy our species in the long run.

Look at the effect that abolishing loans for profit, as you say, would have on capital creation. Most modern manufacturing requires significant purchases of equipment. Without loans to purchase this material, companies could never get off the ground.

That's what I suggested the possibility of governments issuing conditional loans without interest.

This also mean that they cant hire more employees or expand when they see an opportunity to capitalize on a trend in the market.

If the company is profitable, it can expand using these profits as capital rather than using it to pay ridiculously high wages to executives.

All of this would have a drastic negative impact on innovation and production, and hurt the economy as a whole.

There are different ways to finance big projects. For example, government grants could be given or loaned (without interests) to companies with promising ideas.

EireEngineer
11-04-2009, 03:40 PM
Let's see... Two "free market" capitalists, one proponent of capitalism with state intervention and one communist. I see you stayed nicely within the black-and-white capitalism-vs-communism paradigm rather than moving beyond. You should try reading some literature from Russian anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, German philosophers like Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt, Martin Heidegger and Ernst Jünger or contemporary theorists like Troy Southgate, Alain de Benoist and Tomislav Sunić. These are the sort of thinkers that have most influence on me.
I think that I will stick with my Richard Cantillon,Turgot, and Boehm-Bawerk, but thanks anyway.


The success of a civilisation is not determined by the its GNP but by its ability to remain stable and take care of its citizens. In fact, raping the planet the capitalist way is the worst a society can develop in the long run since it might destroy our species in the long run.
Right, because there are NOOOO environmental problems in Russia or China. Its civilization btw


That's what I suggested the possibility of governments issuing conditional loans without interest.
Ah yes, creating yet another bureaucracy which then has to be funded by either higher taxes or increases in the debt, rather than just letting market forces work. Not to menion being FAAARRRRR less efficient.


If the company is profitable, it can expand using these profits as capital rather than using it to pay ridiculously high wages to executives.
Ah yes, the tired old idiom of the left: Its all those rich CEO's fault!
In fact, the costs of upgrading even one manufacturing facility in most cases would outstrip all of the executive compensations put together.


There are different ways to finance big projects. For example, government grants could be given or loaned (without interests) to companies with promising ideas.
Ah yes, the promise of having a wise panel of philosopher kings, who will, by the way, have a monopoly on all lending. Talk about dampening innovation.

Out of the Box
11-04-2009, 04:00 PM
I think that I will stick with my Richard Cantillon,Turgot, and Boehm-Bawerk, but thanks anyway.

Why do you refuse to look outside of the box? Are you afraid of what you'll see?

Right, because there are NOOOO environmental problems in Russia or China. Its civilization btw

Again, you fail to look beyond the capitalist-vs-communist paradigm.

Ah yes, creating yet another bureaucracy which then has to be funded by either higher taxes or increases in the debt, rather than just letting market forces work. Not to menion being FAAARRRRR less efficient.

Actually, the only reason why governments have debt is because rather than issuing their own money (there is no reason a government can be its own interest-free bank) governments loan it (at interest) from private corporations who themselves create money out of nothing (via fractional reserve banking). If you keep the amount of money in your country stable (to avoid inflation), there is no reason whatsoever for any country to actually loan money rather than issue it themselves.

Ah yes, the tired old idiom of the left: Its all those rich CEO's fault!

Would you say it's fair when a CEO earn 2 million dollars a month for making high level decisions (that are often superfluous, stupid or simply ignorant) and major shareholders get their millions for just providing a small part of their capital while those doing the actual hard work (whether intellectual or physical) are only paid a tiny fraction of the profits?

In fact, the costs of upgrading even one manufacturing facility in most cases would outstrip all of the executive compensations put together.

I'm very much aware of corporate budgets, thank you. I work in Business Intelligence, remember?!

Ah yes, the promise of having a wise panel of philosopher kings, who will, by the way, have a monopoly on all lending. Talk about dampening innovation.

Well.... Hitler Germany was one of the most innovative societies in 20th century history. It was a mixture of dictatorship and meritocracy and was very critical of capitalist society, yet it achieved so much in 6 years it's hard to fanthom partly by means of government sponsored projects. The made one of the most popular cars ever, they built the best roads in Europe, they built the first modern assault rifle (StG44), etc.

Inca civilisation was a largely collectivist society ruled by an arristocracy. It managed to develop succesful agricultural products in a climate with very little fertility.

These are but two examples of civilisations that were not capitalist or "democratic" yet very succesful from an economic point of view.

EireEngineer
11-04-2009, 05:56 PM
Why do you refuse to look outside of the box? Are you afraid of what you'll see?

Hardly. In fact i am a big fan of eristics, and do look at specific subjects from a variety of views. I was merely stating those whom I find most convincing, as I suspect you were.

Again, you fail to look beyond the capitalist-vs-communist paradigm.
Simply pointing out where a radical diversion from our current system has failed dramatically.


Actually, the only reason why governments have debt is because rather than issuing their own money (there is no reason a government can be its own interest-free bank) governments loan it (at interest) from private corporations who themselves create money out of nothing (via fractional reserve banking). If you keep the amount of money in your country stable (to avoid inflation), there is no reason whatsoever for any country to actually loan money rather than issue it themselves.



Would you say it's fair when a CEO earn 2 million dollars a month for making high level decisions (that are often superfluous, stupid or simply ignorant) and major shareholders get their millions for just providing a small part of their capital while those doing the actual hard work (whether intellectual or physical) are only paid a tiny fraction of the profits?
You certainly have a dim view of CEO s with your wide generalization there. All talent, including that of CEO s, has a market clearing price. Neither you nor I has the particular skill set necessary to run a large corporation. True, some do make bad decisions, and the remedy is for the board to fire them. Those people at the bottom, doing the hard work as you say, have skill sets that are far more common, which is why they command a far lesser salary.


I'm very much aware of corporate budgets, thank you. I work in Business Intelligence, remember?!
Oooooooh. Im sooooo Impressed


Well.... Hitler Germany was one of the most innovative societies in 20th century history. It was a mixture of dictatorship and meritocracy and was very critical of capitalist society, yet it achieved so much in 6 years it's hard to fanthom partly by means of government sponsored projects. The made one of the most popular cars ever, they built the best roads in Europe, they built the first modern assault rifle (StG44), etc.

Inca civilisation was a largely collectivist society ruled by an arristocracy. It managed to develop succesful agricultural products in a climate with very little fertility.
And lived with a far lower standard of living then its counterparts in the European world. Oh yeah, and it was conquered by a small handful of Spaniards

These are but two examples of civilisations that were not capitalist or "democratic" yet very succesful from an economic point of view.
So basically you are saying we should become a dictatorship and all will be fine?Pretty laughable.