According to the medical profession, there are only 3 legitimate treatments for cancer:
The problem here is the influence of big business in the running of the medical profession, which imposes restrictive practices that stifle innovation in the healthcare sector. This means that the losers are the patients who are denied viable treatments. Clearly, the public needs to be protected from people offering false hope but that is very different from refusing to test and authorise the use of substances where there is evidence that they work in curing cancer. The pharmaceutical industry cannot patent natural products and therefore has no interest in testing and approving them for use. However, without the stamp of approval from the medical profession, such treatments are just labelled ‘quackery’ and well-meaning people are put out of business and denied a licence to practise. This happens even when the medical profession has tried to treat people and failed. Despite not being able to help the patient, the medical profession seems to prefer that the patient should die, rather than be treated by a promising alternative therapy. The influence of big business on the medical profession is so strong that it skews the judgement of doctors and leads to unnecessary suffering. There is more money to be made in treating cancer than there is in actually curing it. So, it is better to maintain things as they are, rather than make genuine innovations that will help people to get better. Below is a documentary that looks at this subject in detail. It discusses alternatives that have been shown to cure cancer, which include vitamin B17, shark cartilage, mistletoe and bicarbonate of soda. I highly recommend it. Also, do not suppose that the suppression of cancer cures is just something that happened in the past. It is still happening today. Please look at the presentation below about a treatment called GcMAF. It should be noted that alternative therapies are not guaranteed to work any more than traditional treatments by conventional medicine. However, by ruling out complimentary approaches, people are being denied opportunities for healing that may be viable in their case. Alternative treatments also have less damaging side effects and people should have the right to choose which approach they would prefer to undertake. Below is another very good documentary that deals with both sides of the issue. It explains that when Ronald Reagan had cancer in the 1980s, he received a non-conventional treatment that proved to be effective for him. However, this documentary also provides examples where alternative therapies were not successful.
0 Comments
Until recently, I had never heard of a company called Idox and I suspect that few British people have heard of it either. Yet, it should be known by everyone. The reason that it is not well known is because much of our media is no longer independent and does not hold the government to account.
Idox is a private company whose primary aim is to serves its customers. So, why is it now involved in UK elections, when elections are about constituents and not customers? That is the question that the mainstream media should be asking but don’t hold your breath. In terms of UK elections, the Idox customer is the UK State and if that does not represent a massive conflict of interest, then I do not know what does? The earliest time that I know about, where Idox had an involvement in a UK election, was back in 2012, when it was used in Scotland to provide 'count software' and to 'manage postal votes'. One of Idox’s senior non-executive directors is former Tory MP Peter Lilley (please see the link below to an article from the ‘The Herald’). His connection to the company has generated concerns that have been raised with the Electoral Commission. However, Peter Lilley’s involvement misses the point, which is why Idox or any other private company is allowed to participate in any UK elections in the first place? http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14478267.Concerns_raised_over_senior_Tory_MP_link_to_election_count_firm/ When there were elections in the past, council workers would count the votes. Now, it seems that councils struggle with the availability of staff, which is why Idox says that its services are needed. But how did this happen? Why are council workers no longer available to provide manual counts? What has brought this series of events about and who thought that utilising private companies was a good solution? If you speak to a computer expert, they will tell you that if a computer is connected to the internet, it can never be secure. Forget passwords, firewalls, encryption and the like, if a computer is connected to the internet, it is vulnerable and therefore so is its data. However, Idox will try to convince you otherwise, even though it has already been found to have compromised data that should never have been released. Please see the article below (another from ‘The Herald’), which explains that a data leak took place because of a problem with an Idox platform that was used to host electoral roll data. It also points out that the largest shareholder in Idox is a company called Liontrust Asset Management, which is run by Sir John Beckwith, who also happens to be one of the largest donors to the Tory party. http://files.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/15299358.IT_firm_handling_Scottish_elections_leaked_data/ How can Idox be trusted with the UK’s electoral process when the problem highlighted above was not an isolated example? Please see the article below from the Daily Mail. It explains how in 2014, an Idox ‘software error’ led to the leak of millions of names and addresses on the electoral role. Furthermore, this ‘error’ affected 90 councils around England and Wales (approximately 25% of the total for both countries combined). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2623853/Electoral-roll-data-leaked-Millions-names-addresses-illegally-sold-junk-mail-firm.html Below is a link to a promotional video by Idox, where Glasgow City Council recommends its services. Why a city council is being used to endorse a private company in this way, I do not know. However, I have only been able to provide a link to the video because the video owner will not allow it to be embedded into websites that it does not control. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-7ybYfSjZw While I do not want to criticise the staff in the video, who probably believe what they are saying, I strongly disagree with the statements made. In particular, I do not see the need for electronically counting votes. The old system of using council workers to count votes worked perfectly well before and while it is not as fast as a computer, it is far less open to corruption than computer systems run by private interests. Finally, it is worth noting that Idox was used to count the EU referendum votes in Scotland. It must be a coincidence then that there were less votes for Leave north of the border than there were in the south.
If Theresa May and the Conservative government is really pursuing the Brexit that the British people voted for, then why does Theresa May keep talking of establishing deeper and closer ties between the UK and the EU? Why does she keep talking about a more intimate partnership, when the UK voted to end its toxic relationship with EU through a permanent divorce?
A consequence of Theresa May’s actions is to place Britain’s sovereignty in jeopardy. This is because Britain’s defence forces are being amalgamated with those of other European countries. Defence union is progressing at pace and if it is allowed to continue, then Britain will no longer be an independent nation and foreign forces will operate within the British isles. This needs to be stopped and people need to know what it happening so that it can be opposed. The following video explains much of what is happening. Please share it with UK forces veterans or any one who has the power to bring this to the attention of the British public. |
AuthorA citizen journalist. Archives
October 2018
Categories
All
|