sorry BG123 but I find it hard to fault Russ' logic on the mercury issue ... this is taken from his post


Mercury In Modern Medicine

Now, let me talk about mercury and its use in medicine, because we all know that mercury has been used in vaccines and amalgam fillings for a long time now.

Mercury is a favorite weapon for use in population reduction because of it's accumulative action in the body along with its diverse collection of symptoms that vary based on genetics. The genetic factor would make it more easy to cause the public to accept the idea that diseases are associated with genetics, and then to hold the public focus on genetics instead of the actual cause.

Mercury has also been used for decades against the general population because it is hard to diagnose (unless you know what you are doing), and doctors are notoriously clueless in the area of mercury toxicity diagnosis. It has also been used because of the time delay between exposure and the occurrence of symptoms. This, of course, disassociates the cause with the symptoms. This delay also allows the pharmaceutical companies (and doctors-in-general) to collect fees over an extended period of time while treating (not curing) symptoms that are--in reality--associated with mercury toxicity; a cause that is notoriously absent from modern medical education.

I realize that what I am about to present may be hard for some to accept, but it is only hard because you have not been exposed to the true nature of some of the most powerful people in the world. You, having a normal, kind (hopefully), sympathetic nature, expect that others are like you, but this is where we make our greatest mistake.

History is saturated with stories about evil power seekers killing masses of people to gain power and wealth. The American forefathers warned about these people incessantly. They said that we should be constantly aware of those who would attempt to subvert freedom for their own gain.

Now think about this with an open mind for a moment.

We all know that a car can be lethal. If you drive a car at a high rate of speed at a person, and then collide with that person, they will likely die. You--the driver--will then be tried and convicted of homicide (of some type) and be punished or executed. You don't need to be an expert in cars to know and understand that cars can kill.

Another example.

We all know that arsenic is toxic. Furthermore, we are responsible to know that arsenic is toxic. If an 18 year old person put arsenic in his parent's tea, they would likely be tried and convicted of a serious crime because they are responsible to know that arsenic is toxic. There would be little chance of pleading ignorance about the fact that arsenic is toxic.

Enter mercury.

By the time we are in high school, we are expected to know that mercury is toxic. If we were to put mercury in our parent's tea, and they died, we would likely be tried and convicted of a serious crime because we are responsible to know that mercury is toxic. There would be little chance of pleading ignorance about the fact that mercury is toxic.

Now picture this.

A medical professional with medical and scientific training decides to put mercury in his parent's tea, and they died. In this case, there would be virtually no chance that this medical professional would be able to plead ignorance about the fact that mercury is toxic for two reasons: (1) because they are an adult, and (2) because they are a trained medical professional.

Now let's go one step further.

You are a medical expert and policy maker. You invent medical "methods"--"cures"--"solutions" for people's ailments. You--as a medical policy maker--decide that it is good medical practice to put mercury in people's mouths. You also decide that it is good medical practice to inject mercury directly into the bloodstream of children. You declare this practice a standard and acceptable medical "procedure", and you also know that as a result of your declaration, that the country you "serve" will implement the injection of mercury as an accepted medical procedure, and as a result, medical professionals will be trailed to perform this injection of mercury into human bodies on a daily basis country-wide.

Now consider the following facts.

Mercury toxicity is one of the best known and best studied toxins in the world. The medical literature has a long history of in-depth knowledge about the horrible effects of mercury on the human body. This medical research about mercury toxicity dates back into the 1800's (actually much earlier), and by the mid 1900's, encompassed a volume of information large enough to fill several large books. In fact, not only do doctors know that mercury is toxic, but nurses know it is toxic, and even common everyday people know it is extremely toxic (in fact they are legally responsible to know that it is toxic).

Considering the preceding facts, is it possible to believe that a medically-trained policy maker would choose to use mercury for injection directly into the human body without having another purpose or goal in mind?

It has long been spoken--albeit not openly--by rich industry leaders that the best way to make money is to create a problem and then to secure exclusive rights to (patent) the solution. Think tanks have also realized that there are limits to the amount of money people are willing to spend to solve a problem.

If the problem is with a person's car, they will be willing to spend a certain amount of money.

If the problem is with a person's house, they will spend quite a bit more money.

However, there is one item--one particular machine--for which there is virtually no limit to the amount of money a person will spend to correct a serious problem: their body.

So, as an example, if you could create a certain type of virus that causes a cancer that threatens the life of the person who has it, then you could patent the vaccine, then you could sell the vaccine for enormous amounts of money and the victims would gratefully pay whatever you charge. Yes, this scenario could undoubtedly create one of the largest and most powerful industries in the world (injecting foreign substances into the body: "phamracology") and could potentially hold the entire population of the world in hostage to your technology.

The only catch is that you--as the creator of this problem--would have to conceal the fact that you created the problem, and you would be willing to do anything to conceal this fact because you know that if you were found out, you would most certainly be executed.

You would be willing to falsify scientific research and then gain control of (or ally yourself with) media outlets (by running billion-dollar advertising campaigns) to distribute (mis)information. You would even be willing to assassinate people who were a threat to you, because after all, if you had so little conscience that you had no trouble engineering such a plan to begin with, then you certainly have so little conscience that you would have no trouble killing those who may provide evidence or information that could have you executed for your crimes. In fact, to provide another layer of protection, you would most certainly want to coerce (make campaign contributions) "lawmakers" to make laws that exempt you from prosecution regardless of the damage you have caused.