(Natural News) A once-secret document detailing links between cell phones and brain cancer has been released by order of a California court. Entitled, “Cell Phones and Health,” the document was demanded in a lawsuit filed by Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health.<<<Read More>>>
An epigenome consists of a record of the chemical changes to the DNA and histone proteins of an organism; these changes can be passed down to an organism’s offspring via transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Changes to the epigenome can result in changes to the structure of chromatin and changes to the function of the genome. (wikipedia)
In the “2015 Lubbock Conference Session 4: Rob Sibka – Nephilim Genetics and the Rise of the X-Men” video, changes in genes via the epigenome are explained in short detail neat the time-frame of 104 minutes.
We have lost the war on cancer. At the beginning of the last century, one person in twenty would get cancer. In the 1940s it was one out of every sixteen people. In the 1970s it was one person out of ten. Today one person out of three gets cancer in the course of their life.
The cancer industry is probably the most prosperous business in the United States. In 2014, there will be an estimated 1,665,540 new cancer cases diagnosed and 585,720 cancer deaths in the US. $6 billion of tax-payer funds are cycled through various federal agencies for cancer research, such as the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The NCI states that the medical costs of cancer care are $125 billion, with a projected 39 percent increase to $173 billion by 2020.
The simple fact is that the cancer industry employs too many people and produces too much income to allow a cure to be found. All of the current research on cancer drugs is based on the premise that the cancer market will grow, not shrink.
John Thomas explains to us why the current cancer industry prospers while treating cancer, but cannot afford to cure it.
Evolved from Science, combining the word “psychology” and the word “science”, gives us the new word Psyence.
This new word is drawn from the main stream thoughts of the old science and plays an important role in the new science, now called Psyence. Much like “new knowledge”, new Psyence plays a major role in today’s new knowledge.
New Knowledge and New Psyence are synonymous, both in meaning and the affect on the psyche. Both New Knowledge and New Psyence require elements of the psyche to accept “new knowledge” and “psyence” as a platform of understanding the (new) world we live in, with no verifiable proof of either “new knowledge” or new science (psyence).
Having accepted “new knowledge” as fact based, it is possible to suppose that an attempt at landing on the moon was actually accomplished or that the “missing link(s)” will eventually appear as final proof of such “knowledge” and “psyence”. Obviously, landing man on the moon is still a controversial subject and evolution requires as much faith if not more, than men in space – where is the proof – the Science? Certainly, it is not found in composite images from NASA. Their origins are NAZI Germany.
A number of years ago, researching the HIV/AIDS “disease” the “science”, upheld as proof, was determined by answering just a few questions put together by the World Health Organization. Performed in third world countries and poverty stricken areas, all one needed to do to contract the so called HIV/AIDS virus was to simply answer a few questions. “You have Aids”….
In other research, some Cancers were attributed to a “nine out of ten false positives” blood test to “acquire” cancer. Currently, this new science and new knowledge is promoting much simpler blood tests to be given during routine examinations. A yearly physical with routine blood tests would be all that it would take to qualify for drug therapy.
In today’s news, the fight against cancer is likened to be a greater task than landing on the moon. If men were not put on the moon, then the attempt at the hoax was at least a monumental undertaking. If men did land on the moon there is no verifiable proof other than some composite images. Perhaps it is Psyence that put man on the moon.
What is New Knowledge (a phrase vice president Joe Biden used), then? A hoax. There is no New Knowledge. It is merely a term used upon the psyche and no different than Evolution. Both are impossible. Knowledge can be increased in the individual but there is no new knowledge. Even though the individual’s knowledge has increased, he is still learning what he has not heard (or learned) yet. If there truly is new knowledge, God will send it through His spirit. Until that happens, guard against “New Knowledge” of men and Sci-Fi-ence.
If HIV/AIDS is a hoax, and if Cancer is a hoax, then, what is behind this medical “phenomena”? In 2011, about 250 billion tax payer dollars. $250.000.000.000.000.
Murdered Holistic Doctors Had Discovered Autism/Cancer-Causing Enzyme Intentionally Being Added to All Vaccines
So apparently the holistic doctors who were all being killed in Florida had found out via their research that the nagalase enzyme protein is INTENTIONALLY being added to the population via immunizations. Nagalase STOPS vitamin D from binding to the Gc protein. This completely strips a human being’s body of it’s natural ability to kill cancer cells. Nagalase is a protein that’s also created by all cancer cells. This protein is also found in very high concentrations in autistic children. And they’re PUTTING it in our vaccines!! This prevents the body from utilizing the Vitamin D necessary to fight cancer and prevent autism. Nagalese disables the immune system. It’s also known to cause Type 2 Diabetes. So basically…they weren’t killing these doctors because they had found the cure to cancer or were successfully treating autism… they’re killing them because these Dr’s had been researching and had the evidence that the vaccines they’re injecting our precious children with are CAUSING our current cancer and autism crisis!! And that it’s obviously being done knowingly and on purpose! The doctors they killed in Florida had been collaborating and were getting ready to go public with the information.
National Center Risk Analysis Director Jeff Stier and Food Writer Julie Kelly are arguing in an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal that there may be a climate change-related political activism agenda behind the recent “eating meat causes cancer” scare.
Stier and Kelly argue that the cancer-causing risk of red meat described in the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) report has been exaggerated in many news stories.
“First, the report largely addresses only one cancer–colorectal–while making passing mention to other cancers, like stomach and prostate,” say Stier and Kelly in the op-ed. “Yet the evidence linking red meat and colorectal cancer is unconvincing. The authors write that ‘positive associations were seen with high versus low consumption of red meat in half of those studies’–hardly enough conclusive evidence to justify a stern cancer warning. The working group even admits in the same paper that ‘there is limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat’ and ‘no clear association was seen in several of the high quality studies.’ Despite this, the agency placed red meat in its second-highest risk category, alongside DDT and the human papillomavirus, HPV.”
“The case against processed meat is dubious, too,” say the authors. “According to the IARC report, each 50-gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. That might sound scary, but the absolute risk is what really matters. As an example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 2% of 40-year-olds will develop colorectal cancer over the next 30 years of their lives. What the IARC study suggests is a slightly higher rate–say, 2.4% over 30 years–for those 40-year-olds who tear through a 16-ounce package of bacon every week without fail.”
Yet NBC News, the authors say, ran with headlines such as “Ham, Sausages Cause Cancer; Red Meat Probably Does, Too, WHO Group Says.” Cox Media Group wrote: “Bacon poses same cancer risk as cigarettes, world health group claims.”
What’s worse, all this exaggeration may be in service of a political agenda. The IARC’s parent group, the World Health Organization (WHO), also issued a report calling for national governments to impose policies to deter the purchase of “high-GHG foods” (foods whose production emits a relatively large amount of greenhouse gases, such as meat). WHO recommends that governments impose high taxes on high-GHG foods so people will be less likely to buy them.
Is it a coincidence that the same group calling for high taxes on meat to deter its purchase has now issued a report linking meat to cancer?
Kelly and Stier conclude: “Hang on to your T-bones and sausages, folks.” The climate busybodies are after them.