You appear to have set up another of my occasional off-topic rants George...
I stand by my preferred conspiracy theory that they will come up with a cure before they come up with a test to tell ya ya got it. (grins) Thus curing you before you can apply for benefits. (big grins)
Absolutely right George, I get that sense pretty strongly too. And taking it a step further...if they could fix the issue by sticking something in the water before anyone figured out what was actually going on, that would be even better...
Two examples over the years that have made me really wonder about how all this sort of thing is
really managed.
PBDEs. I tested massively sensitive to them, several years ago. In those days I couldn't go out at all because every chair I ever sat on made me itch like crazy, all over my body. The UK had the most extreme fire-protection legislation in the world at that time; it was mandatory for all furniture to be drenched in a minimum level of PBDEs and, without a label to confirm fire-protection, you can't even sell it second hand. I managed to get hold of an old sofa through a friend that
wasn't flame-retardant certified, and that was a godsend: something I could actually sit on!!
Anyway, the point here is: once PBDEs started showing up in polar bears in the arctic, and once it emerged that persistent organic pollutants like these never go away, and just build up and build up, through the food chain, and the effects are therefore cumulative, and the body can't detox them naturally...and of course it was always well known that the effects on mice of these chemicals are neurotoxic when in sufficiently high quantities, and the regulation had been based on the "safe dose", which went out the window as they gradually accumulated....once all that info started to come into the open a bit more, what did they do?...
The EU quietly banned them completely, they were all phased out and replaced with an alternative, and over a few years the "fashion" for furniture changed and all the furniture in public buildings was replaced - nowadays it's hard wooden and metal chairs, and occasionally plastic seats, all round, when I go out. And I can go out again: suddenly the poisonous chairs have all gone and I can sit down in public once again. What a neat solution! Be one step ahead with the private science, work out what your toxins are doing before it's public knowledge, and phase out the dodgiest chemicals - but do it nice and quietly, out of the public gaze.
Because just think about the costs of compensation if anything like this were ever solidly proven and widely known. Imagine the compensation costs for all of us. At a conservative 1m damages per person who has been sick for decades and had their life destroyed (loss of earnings, suffering, permanent disability) - multiplied by several million of us - and we are talking about a potential bill for trillions of dollars. Big enough incentive there to keep things nice and quiet, I'd say...worth spending quite some money to manage that risk...
Second example of something that seemed very suspicious to me fairly recently. In the UK, fairly big news story for a few days, then forgotten about: they decided to make it mandatory to put folic acid in our bread (I believe it went through in the end, quietly, but after a fair amount of coverage and generally negative response to the plan, I heard nothing more after it was eventually said it was going to happen...). The supposed reason for this was to reduce the incidence of spina bifida: pregnant women are supposed to supplement folic acid to reduce the risk of spina bifida but many fail to do so. But the incidence of spina bifida is very low anyway, and when I looked into it, my estimate of the number of cases likely to be prevented by this measure was maybe 10, 20 a year, if that...the numbers were remarkably low for something you're mandatorily dosing the whole population with. Not only that, but there was also some evidence that this dosing might
increase the risk of colorectal cancer! So the benefits really seemed marginal, and it wasn't even clear that they outweighed the risks. Nevertheless, it went through.
Why? Well: at the time, one little detail leaped off the page for me. I read that one downside of the measure was that this dosing would now make it impossible to detect certain patterns of B6 and B12 deficiency, which was a useful existing marker for early detection of certain conditions. The supplementation would mask this deficiency somehow (I don't recall the details), so that it would no longer be viable to detect these problems. That seemed remarkably convenient to me...having just discovered my own B6 and B12 deficiency, through private testing, a deficiency which had not shown up on standard NHS screening because it wasn't detailed enough to test for it...and having confirmed in the medical literature that such deficiencies were consistent with the pattern of my symptoms...and then having been put onto B12 supplementation through Dr Myhill...and having improved immeasurably while on that supplementation regime...to then learn that the state is now putting a mandatory supplement in our bread that will make it impossible to detect my pattern of deficiency in the future because it will be masked by the supplementation...well, it still feels all a little bit too convenient to me...
I'm still ploughing through Martin J. Walker's books online. Great stuff, highly recommended: it really puts our situation in its proper wider context, I think. You can see the radical, extremist, grotesque philosophy of our tormentors directly and explicitly stated in their own words, and you can see the widespread anti-democratic attitude of many extremist scientists explicitly on sites like Bad Science. There is a line drawn, between the (supposedly) highly intelligent, educated, scientific, rationalist, atheist elite, who manage the population...and the (supposedly) superstitious, irrational, uneducated, irrational population for whom "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing". It might turn people off to say it straight, but nevertheless this attitude
has to somehow be named for what it is: this attitude, explicitly expressed by those who now hold sway over medical science in the UK, is in a technical sense elitist, anti-democratic, totalitarian, and fascist. It divides the world into the "knows" and the "don't-need-to-knows" - and the latter group's opinions are to be manipulated through media management by entities and individuals that blur the lines between state and industry; dissenting voices must not be reported in the mainstream media, nor may they be expressed by maverick doctors like Dr Myhill, lest these people confuse and upset the general population. That's a modern form of fascism. Look up 'fascism' if you think I'm just ranting.
These people don't believe in democracy, they don't think the rest of us are intelligent or rational enough to be trusted with it. Information must be managed in sophisticated ways to guard against the perceived dangers of democracy. The immense financial benefits to the people in charge that come with being the ones who dictate these matters - the secret industry backhanders, the Richard Dolls of this world who get paid off to represent the interests of industry as if they were indisputable scientific fact...well, all that money's just a fringe benefit of course, that comes with being the super-smart people who make the tough decisions. It's up to them to decide, up to them to make those hard decisions, up to them to manage us all, and what we don't know can't hurt us.
Except, of course, that it can hurt us, and it does, as all of us here know only too well.
