Re: This is what we are fighting ! And the reason we have to fight back - constantly

[Guest guest]

So the gatekeepers of science seem to be claiming that something which

is known to be toxic in a war situation (biowarfare- i.e. mycotoxin

uses in Iraq and as 'yellow rain') is not toxic in an economic

situation. (the marketing of unsafe housing)

What I'd like to know is how the powers that be pull this off, if

indeed the scientific community is falling for it.

I'm still a bit fuzzy on what is actually happening, perhaps because

I've been blessed to have spoken at length about this subject with, at

this point, many scientists.. who all use the same hushed, somewhat

quiet tone of voice to tell me that yes, indeed, mycotoxins in the

home or work environment can and do cause serious health effects.

But the leaders of these oft-quoted 'official' organizations have far

more to lose by NOT acknowledging this - actually, we all do.. not

just Americans, everybody in the world.. because it costs just as much

to feed an injured person as a whole one.. but that person delivers

far less for that 'cost'.

My guess is that the powers that be are so fixated on the (IMO,

nowhere near as important) costs of FIXING the problem, instead of the

OH SO VERY MUCH GREATER costs of NOT fixing the problem and allowing

millions of Americans to suffer for another five or ten years before

things start getting done on a massive scale about it. (thats how long

the situations with asbestos and lead in paints took)

The net effect of this situation is to keep more poor people poor, and

not so much to keep rich people rich.. because bluntly, you can't look

at this situation on a country-by-country basis anymore, its a global

imperative.

In other words, its not a zero sum game with each 'win' accompanied by

a 'lose'. We all win when public health is improved.. everybody wins

when another year goes by without a world war.. when another year

passes without a global epidemic.

That allows our society to move more towards being a meritocracy and

away from being an oligarchy.. more towards being (imagine that) a

place where initiative and intelligence is truly rewarded and less

towards being a place where luck and wealth determines who lives a

glorious and stimulating long life and who dies at age two, of a

disease that could have been cured for fifteen cents.

Or is that what 'they' are afraid of? Doesn't this situation beg that question?

[Guest guest]

---from dates on old studies, exc. I'd say this has been a heated

subject sence the late 80's, early 1990's, we are way past the 10

year mark, and there is something very wrong about this. used in

biochemicals for warfare and they want the world to believe its

harmless. whats wrong with this picture. and with reading older

studies its like it was right there at our fingertips, than someone

did some serious back stepping. throw in a biased rat study and add

10 more years of

suffering.

In

, LiveSimply <quackadillian@...> wrote:

>

> So the gatekeepers of science seem to be claiming that something

which

> is known to be toxic in a war situation (biowarfare- i.e. mycotoxin

> uses in Iraq and as 'yellow rain') is not toxic in an economic

> situation. (the marketing of unsafe housing)

>

> What I'd like to know is how the powers that be pull this off, if

> indeed the scientific community is falling for it.

>

> I'm still a bit fuzzy on what is actually happening, perhaps because

> I've been blessed to have spoken at length about this subject with,

at

> this point, many scientists.. who all use the same hushed, somewhat

> quiet tone of voice to tell me that yes, indeed, mycotoxins in the

> home or work environment can and do cause serious health effects.

>

> But the leaders of these oft-quoted 'official' organizations have

far

> more to lose by NOT acknowledging this - actually, we all do.. not

> just Americans, everybody in the world.. because it costs just as

much

> to feed an injured person as a whole one.. but that person delivers

> far less for that 'cost'.

>

> My guess is that the powers that be are so fixated on the (IMO,

> nowhere near as important) costs of FIXING the problem, instead of

the

> OH SO VERY MUCH GREATER costs of NOT fixing the problem and allowing

> millions of Americans to suffer for another five or ten years before

> things start getting done on a massive scale about it. (thats how

long

> the situations with asbestos and lead in paints took)

>

> The net effect of this situation is to keep more poor people poor,

and

> not so much to keep rich people rich.. because bluntly, you can't

look

> at this situation on a country-by-country basis anymore, its a

global

> imperative.

>

> In other words, its not a zero sum game with each 'win' accompanied

by

> a 'lose'. We all win when public health is improved.. everybody wins

> when another year goes by without a world war.. when another year

> passes without a global epidemic.

>

> That allows our society to move more towards being a meritocracy and

> away from being an oligarchy.. more towards being (imagine that) a

> place where initiative and intelligence is truly rewarded and less

> towards being a place where luck and wealth determines who lives a

> glorious and stimulating long life and who dies at age two, of a

> disease that could have been cured for fifteen cents.

>

> Or is that what 'they' are afraid of? Doesn't this situation beg

that question?

>