You mean like the one above where you went "in a survey I recently read does it show that the US has highest infant mortality rate along with the highest immunization rate" and when I asked "Where did you read this?" you went "I don’t recall." :roll:
You repeatedly fail to back up your claims or points and when I ask you to, you just tap dance and produce nothing.
Really I see you missed my post #34.
Pharmacies can't just make up some substance and start selling it FYI. It must go through rigorous testing, they must provide considerable evidence of what it has and has not been proven to do, and so on.
Of course and we saw that with the flu vaccine they did at least two maybe four weeks of through rigorous testing.
Extremely few people in this world have some nazi-like desire to eradicate people (and if they do there's a specific agenda, eg muslim extremists); to assume otherwise frankly sounds pretty melodramatic.
.
[FONT="]Few yes, but many more then you would like to imagine. You want documentation OK here are a few quotes about what some of these elite(?) individuals [/FONT]think [FONT="]about the general public.[/FONT]
The reform is not new. It started in the early 1900s when John D. Rockefeller, Jr.’s Director of Charity for the Rockefeller Foundation, Frederick T. Gates, set up the Southern Education Board. In 1913 the organization was incorporated into the General Education Board. These boards set in motion “the deliberate dumbing down of America”. In Frederick T. Gates’ “The Country School of Tomorrow” Occasional Papers No. 1 (General Education Board, New York, 1913) was a section entitled “A Vision of the Remedy” in which he wrote:
“Is there aught a remedy for this neglect of rural life? Let us, at least, yield ourselves to the gratifications of a beautiful dream that there is. In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people(slaves) yield themselves with perfect docility to
our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and
unhampered by tradition, we work
our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk.
We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science.
We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters.
We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply.” (emphases mine)
[FONT="]Or how about these words of David Rockefeller: [/FONT]
[FONT="]
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” [/FONT]
And what about these gems from the esteemed Henry Kissinger?
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
NAFTA represents the single most creative step towards a New World Order.
Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an
outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be
willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by
their world government.
[FONT="]Why are groups like the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers etc. groups whose members are obviously powerful with connections to wealth and political influence – never seem to be the subject of the in depth scrutiny by the evening news? Naturally the fact that their members are in control of these “independent” news sources would not have any effect. Would it? They wouldn’t be telling only their version of the truth to the general public would they? Why that wouldn’t be ethical. And as these few quotes show they have only the highly ethical standards. [/FONT]