Eugenics and Targeted Individuals

https://gangstalking.wordpress.com/2008/08/22/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-targeted-individual/

This is just a quick update of a much longer post what does it mean to be a Targeted Individual. The only thing of warning I wanted to update is that for the females out there, because of the nature of the targeting and what they are trying to achieve you might get more Electronic, microwave, or x-ray radiation slightly before and during your cycle culmination, (menstruation). So be on your guard and it might not be a bad idea to make sure that your shielding is enforced during these periods.

The goals might be multifaceted. Along with the eugenics aspect, the secondary goal might be to induce cancers or other kinds of conditions of ill health. Trying to find out more on the agenda of this.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html

The Tuskegee experiment was not just an experiment, it’s a prevailing attitude the government has about it’s right to experiment on the general population, but more importantly who it can get away with experimenting on.

Remember that program ran for 50 years and everyone had knowledge about it all the way up to the Surgeon General.

[quote]To ensure that the men would show up for a painful and potentially dangerous spinal tap, the PHS doctors misled them with a letter full of promotional hype: “Last Chance for Special Free Treatment.” The fact that autopsies would eventually be required was also concealed. As a doctor explained, “If the colored population becomes aware that accepting free hospital care means a post-mortem, every darky will leave Macon County…” Even the Surgeon General of the United States participated in enticing the men to remain in the experiment, sending them certificates of appreciation after 25 years in the study.[/quote]

What get’s me about this is people are always saying if conspiracies were happening, someone would talk about it, someone would say something, well for 50 years, no one did. It was not just a few people who knew about this experiment, but so self righteous were they in their objective, that they put aside the humanity of these people and went on with the experiment, trusting in the prevailing racial attitudes of the time that these men, their families and children would be of a lesser value, a lesser people. The people who took part in the behind the scenes experimentation were both black and white.

[quote] It takes little imagination to ascribe racist attitudes to the white government officials who ran the experiment, but what can one make of the numerous African Americans who collaborated with them? The experiment’s name comes from the Tuskegee Institute, the black university founded by Booker T. Washington. Its affiliated hospital lent the PHS its medical facilities for the study, and other predominantly black institutions as well as local black doctors also participated. A black nurse, Eunice Rivers, was a central figure in the experiment for most of its forty years. The promise of recognition by a prestigious government agency may have obscured the troubling aspects of the study for some. A Tuskegee doctor, for example, praised “the educational advantages offered our interns and nurses as well as the added standing it will give the hospital.” Nurse Rivers explained her role as one of passive obedience: “we were taught that we never diagnosed, we never prescribed; we followed the doctor’s instructions!” It is clear that the men in the experiment trusted her and that she sincerely cared about their well-being, but her unquestioning submission to authority eclipsed her moral judgment. Even after the experiment was exposed to public scrutiny, she genuinely felt nothing ethical had been amiss.

One of the most chilling aspects of the experiment was how zealously the PHS kept these men from receiving treatment. When several nationwide campaigns to eradicate venereal disease came to Macon County, the men were prevented from participating. Even when penicillin was discovered in the 1940s—the first real cure for syphilis—the Tuskegee men were deliberately denied the medication. During World War II, 250 of the men registered for the draft and were consequently ordered to get treatment for syphilis, only to have the PHS exempt them. Pleased at their success, the PHS representative announced: “So far, we are keeping the known positive patients from getting treatment.” The experiment continued in spite of the Henderson Act (1943), a public health law requiring testing and treatment for venereal disease, and in spite of the World Health Organization’s Declaration of Helsinki (1964), which specified that “informed consent” was needed for experiment involving human beings.[/quote]

So here we have doctors, nurses and a zillion others, who were all aware, all covering up, and all keeping it quite, all proud of what they were doing, no moral authority, no outrage, and even when the truth came out, they felt that they had done nothing wrong, or that they were just following orders.

What really stands out to me, that I discovered recently is that in 1976 Gay men in New York/San Francisco were offered free Hepatitis B vaccines. The thing that really struck me is that on those posters they used this slogan.

http://www.hcvets.com/data/transmission_methods/image/cc.jpg

[quote]Last Chance for gay men to join the Hepatitis B* Vaccine Program![/quote]

This happened in 1976? Just 4 years after they had to stop the Tuskegee experiment. Plus the usual investigations into their wrong doings, which never amounts to anything. What stands out are the similarities with the slogans and the “last chance for free vaccination” line, vs “Last Chance for Special Free Treatment.”

http://www.rense.com/general54/Cancer-causing_vaccinesR.htm

[quote]Unlike most Americans, Africans are aware of the man-made theory of AIDS, and the possibility that the WHO’s extensive vaccine programs in Africa in the 1970s are connected to the severe outbreak of AIDS in the early 1980s.

On May 11, 1987, The London Times, one of the world’s most respected newspapers, published an explosive article entitled, “Smallpox vaccine triggered AIDS virus.” The story suggested the smallpox eradication vaccine program sponsored by the WHO was responsible for unleashing AIDS in Africa. Almost 100 million Africans living in central Africa were inoculated by the WHO. The vaccine was held responsible for awakening a “dormant” AIDS virus infection on the continent.

[/quote]

Many people allude to the fact that AIDS started in the gay community, and many of the people who had undergone the special Hepatitis B Vaccination program were the first to come down with AIDS. Also the African AIDS is said to have started after the American outbreak, with people taking part in similar vaccination programs coming down with AIDS first.

If this is true, it would mean these types of experimentation’s that were prevalent and condoned by the U.S. government for over 50 years, might have just continued on in a different form with a different virus.

Again going after targeted communities where they felt that their actions would far outweigh the consequences based on who was being targeted. Those attitudes have not changed significantly, when it comes to experimentation’s as we saw with MK Ultra and other such programs.

There are a large number of females, ethnic minorities targets in the Targeted Individual community. As the post goes on to say the reason for the more women than men, might have a eugenic aspect to it. They might be simply trying to make sure that you can not give birth to the next generation of independent free thinkers, and thus free people. It’s no accident that there is a multi-generational aspect to the targeting.

I thought it was important enough and so I would update you on it.

http://www.thehiddenevil.com/targets.asp

Eugenics

[quote]”For some reason, there are considerably more women targeted than men. Why would women be targeted at a much higher percentage than men? This is another question we may never have the answer for, so this is partially speculation. But one possible answer is that the elite have sponsored eugenics projects worldwide for decades. Removing fertile females from a target population is apparently a standard eugenics procedure. Families such as DuPont, Harriman, & Rockefeller have funded projects for population control.

“It was John D. Rockefeller III who was appointed by Richard Nixon as chairman of the newly created Commission on Population Growth and the American Future,” stated Allen. He quotes Rockefeller as saying, “Rather than think of population control as a negative thing, we should see that it can be enriching.” Allen contends, “Curbing population growth is just part of the Rockefeller war on the American family.”[/quote]

If you are a chic and you are targeted, expect them to try to fry, microwave your reproductive organs, and if you are lucky enough to still be able to get pregnant after that, then expect them to try to go after your child in-utro. If you are pregnant, my suggestion, don’t mention it. If they have not already tried to destroy your reproductive organs, or unborn, then don’t give then reason to.

The thing about being female is you carry all the eggs you will ever have, and if they do fry and destroy what you have, that might be it, well expect for cloning ofcourse.

If you are a guy, expect them to go after the nether regions, luckily guys can reproduce from scratch and it won’t mess up your reproductive organs, unless they use the radioactive stuff like they did in East Germany.

Still you are better off being a guy than a female when it comes to this aspect of the targeting.

1 in 4 American teen has an STD? Really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7290088.stm

New study by the CDC saying 1 in 4 girls in America between the age of 14-19 has an STD.

I found another article that says that this means that just over 3 million girls have an STD. Meaning that this survey of 838 girls was suppose to represent 12 million girls. Before running off and giving your girls a shot of the Merrick vaccine, here are some things to consider.

The survey was conducted by the CDC. Centers for Disease Control.

First do the figures sound exaggerated?

Where did they find the girls? Where the girls compensated? If the girls were going for some kind of Birth Control or exam, then this means that they were already having sex, or thinking of it, and then are they an accurate sampling of teenage American girls?

[quote]
Researchers analysed data from a nationally representative sample of 838 US girls aged 14 to 19.
[/quote]

So 838 girls of unknown racial, religious, socio-economic, educational, backgrounds are suppose to represent 12 million American girls ages 14-19. Why am I not convinced?
[quote]It found that nearly half of the African-American girls surveyed had at least one STD, while the rate was 20% among white and Mexican-American teenagers. [/quote]

It says that half of the African-American girls surveyed had at least one STD. This tell me nothing. How many African American girls were surveyed? 10 800? If your sample is too high or too low a percentage of one group, you will get figures that are inaccurate either way. Eg. If they interviewed just 10 African American girls and 5 had an STD then the figures would be correct for the survey, but generally wrong for the larger American population.

Also in America if you are bi-racial and have 1 drop of black blood, in many cases you are still required to consider yourself as African-American. Don’t tell me that did not throw off the figures.

Great so a survey that is suppose to represent 12 million American girls only surveyed African-American girls, white girls, and not even Latina girls, but only Mexican-American girls.

So what happened to Asian girls, Latina girls that are not Mexican-American, South East Asian Indian, Native American, etc. We are suppose to use this sampling to represent all American girls, but not all American girls were sampled?
[quote]Human papillomavirus, or HPV, affected 18% of the girls surveyed, chlamydia 4%, trichomoniasis 2.5%, and herpes simplex virus 2%.
[/quote]

So if we took out HPV, which I do believe is what is at the heart of this survey and the Merrick agenda to have all girls vaccinated with their STD vaccine, then we have 8.5% with an STD.
[quote]he CDC is recommending annual chlamydia screening for all sexually active women under 25, and HPV vaccines for girls aged 11 to 12, followed by booster injections. [/quote]

I think this is what is at the heart of this survey, and I really think it’s a shame that it seems that the CDC is going to be used to push this Merrick agenda on young girls, but also on some populations more than others, as usual. The drug also may not be fully safe according to the aritcle below.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54713
If the CDC can provide the correct demographics that they used, socio-ecomocic status, religious, etc, that would be a good start. Was there compensation involved?
Without these facts and figures can we truly believe that this was an accurate sampling, and that these figures are truly representative of all American girls between the ages of 14-19?

I think not considering a large demographic of the population seems to have been excluded. Asian, East Asian, Native American, Latina of a none Mexican origin, Middle Eastern etc.

I would love to see this survey done again with a larger sampling, and a using demographics that match the demographics of the American population. Again if we are only using kids that are having sex, or thinking about having sex again what kind of accurate figures will this produce?

Meet your meat

Ok. I am not going to tell anyone to eat meat or not to eat meat. That’s a choice.

However I am going to ask you to please if you can watch this video. I just saw it and it left me really surpised. It’s been years since I have watched one of these videos about meat production and it’s gotten worst than I remember.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4

My concerns after the video are not just the animals, but what about the what’s in it for me factor. I mean we always worried about the condition of products from other countries, but do we ever stop to think about what’s happening in our own back yard?

What if one of these animals develops something that is not realised for days, weeks, and what if it get’s out into the population?

Just for the health and safety of soceity, I think it would be in our best interest to see that the conditions that these animals live in are improved.

Anyways, I am not going to go on and on. If you can stomach it, please watch the video. It’s called meet your meat.

Really eye opening stuff.

P.S. I would just ask you to think of two more things. We are what we eat. These animals, stressed, deformed, antibiotic filled, are what we are eating.

The extreame growth of this generation. Does it have anything to do with the fact that kids are consuming animals that are being growing at x number times their normal growth rates? Is that why kids at hitting puberty earlier and earlier?

Just some thoughts, anyways. Please watch the video.

HIV patients to be tracked. Daybreak cometh.

http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/health/322514,040107hiv.article
HIV patients to be tracked.

The following article talks about the fact that HIV patients are to be placed on lists. Their real names are to be placed in data bases and kept track of. This tracking system is going to start at the end of 2007.

Now some people think that this is a good idea, because AIDS is a deadly disease and keeping track of who has the disease might help stop the spread. However there is no real evidence to suggest that this is true. If anything it might prevent people from going out and getting tested for the disease knowing that their names will be placed in some data base for the next decade or two. Even worst they have no way of knowing how the list will really be used.

http://www.amazon.com/Daybreak-Moira-Kelly/dp/6302900727

http://www.answers.com/topic/daybreak-1

[quote]The names of people infected with HIV will be tracked in all 50 states by the end of 2007, marking a victory for federal health officials and a quiet defeat for AIDS advocates who wanted to keep patients’ names out of state databases.[quote]
They not only have the ability to track these people, but they have the ability to do so much more now. I have recently been on a forum, where some people thought this was a good idea, and others thought it was an invasion of privacy. It’s also a good way to discourage people from getting tested for the disease, just insuring that they continue to be a health concern for themselves and others.

Many are asking the obvious questions, such as what is the real purpose of this list? Will it stop at HIV patients? What is the potential for abuse or misuse of these lists?

[quote]This is the first year federal funding has been tied to names-based surveillance of HIV. [quote]

I think of people like Ryan White who fight so hard for his rights, and the time that has passed since then. Most people don’t remember this engaging teen and his struggle for small dignities.

[quote]Illinois started names-based HIV surveillance Jan. 1, 2006, because of federal pressure.[/quote]

Is this really about tracking a deadly disease and making the planet a safer place, or is this just the start of a long line of lists to come? With the growing police state coming, this is not even that surprising to hear about.

Not too much to say, first they create one list, and no one speaks, then they create another and another and another. If we sit back and let them do this to these individuals today, then tomorrow what will they do? I see this as the first step in a very long slippery slope, that is spreading very far and very wide.

The future cometh and boy is it going to be a duzey.

STD Shot, not safe or effective.

Is your daughter a test subject for this STD shot?

 This post is just a quick follow up to the Now your 11, 12 year old daughter can be STD free.

 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54713
[ex]Harper is a professor and director at the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at Dartmouth, and told the publication that there “is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue.”

Harper, who has spent much of the last 20 years studying dozens of strains of HPV, said all of her trials have been with subjects ages 15 to 25, and personally she believes the new vaccine could offer help to women ages 18 and up.
[/ex]
Not enough evidence to say that safety is not an issue.
[ex]This vaccine should not be mandated for 11-year-old girls,” Harper said. “It’s not been tested in little girls for efficacy. At 11, these girls don’t get cervical cancer – they won’t know for 25 years if they will get cervical cancer.”

She said the vaccine is not a cancer vaccine or cure – it just prevents development of a virus that could lead to cancer.

“For the U.S. what that means is the vaccine will prevent about half of high-grade precursors of cancer but half will still occur, so hundreds of thousands of women who are vaccinated with Gardasil and get yearly Pap testing will still get a high-grade dysplasia (cell abnormality),” she said.

Harper also reported that the drug company “bridged” the studies to apply to young girls. That means that Merck assumed that because it proved effective in the older girls, it also would be effective in the younger girls.

And she warned more than 40 cases of Guillian-Barre syndrome – an immune disorder that results in tingling, numbness and even paralysis of the muscles – have been reported in girls who got the HPV vaccine in combination with a meningitis vaccine.
[/ex]

So not necessarily proven effective in younger girls. Younger girls might I add who are being forced to get this shot.

Oh and also 40 cases of some syndrome which can lead to an immune disorder. Oh why are parents running out and putting their children at risk like this?

[ex]She said the vaccine’s purpose has been misinterpreted and mis-marketed so that too many may believe if they’ve had the vaccine they are immune to cancer – when they are not. [/ex]

Only for people and parents who did not do the research, which I guess is what they count on.

[ex]While calling the vaccine “good” Harper said it is important to realize that if women get the vaccine, but not an routine Pap smear, “what will happen in the U.S. is that we will have an increase in cervical cancer, because the Pap screening does a very good job.”

[/ex]

I think I remember saying something like that also. 20 years from now, we could have more cancer than we do now, if woman think they can stop pap tests because of this.
[ex]Texas Gov. Rick Perry in February issued an executive order requiring those vaccinations, but the state House of Representatives in Texas has approved by a 6-1 margin a plan to rescind that.

[/ex]

I really hope that they do rescind the mandatory requirements. Next time the drug pimps want to play with someone, maybe the parents of America will stand up and say, not with our children.

Cures all around, well sort of.

It’s been a long time since I blogged, so I don’t know if I should do five short posts or one really long post.

I guess to keep up my quota I am going to try for five really very short postings, inside of one really long post.
[b]STD Vaccine may not be safe.[/b]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20070202-100152-9747r.htm

The first it to say that I found out that families can opt out of the forced vaccinations. In Texas although it has not been

widely reported families can opt out on religious or moral grounds. This means that your daughter is not required to get the

STD shot if she does not want to. This is a good thing, because there are several side effects and some sound more harmful

than first anticipated.

[quote]The National Vaccine Information Center yesterday warned state officials to investigate the safety of a breakthrough

cancer vaccine as Texas became the first state to make the vaccine mandatory for school-age girls.
    Negative side effects of Gardasil, a new Merck vaccine to prevent the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical

cancer, are being reported in the District of Columbia and 20 states, including Virginia. The reactions range from loss of

consciousness to seizures.
    “Young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision and some girls have lost

consciousness during what appear to be seizures,” said Vicky Debold, health policy analyst for the National Vaccine

Information Center, a nonprofit watchdog organization that was created in the early 1980s to prevent vaccine injuries.

[/quote]

I don’t know about anyone else, but I would be really concerned about giving a 11, 12 year old a vaccine that will only

reduce the chances of cervical cancer by 40%. There are 10 strains of the Human Pap that can lead to possible cervical cancer

and this kills only 4. Girls and woman will still have to go for a yearly pap test, no matter what they choose to do. Also

the shot is given in 3 stages over 6 months, and so far it’s only proven to be effective for up to 5 years, at this stage

they don’t know if it will be effective past that stage.

The other thing is because it’s been on the market for some time, they really do not know if there will be any down the line

consequences.
[quote]  Merck is heavily promoting the vaccine through its salespeople imploring doctors to provide it and running TV ads

urging young women to get vaccinated so there will be “One Less” cancer patient.
    But physicians disagree with public health officials over whether Gardasil is the panacea for cancer. Clayton Young, an

obstetrician/gynecologist in Texas, objects to Merck’s claim that Gardasil will prevent cervical cancer.
    “There is no proof Gardasil will stop cervical cancer,” he said. “They haven’t been studying it long enough to make that

claim.” [/quote]

The vaccine may also not really prevent cervical cancer. This has to just be great for those Texas politicians signing the

praises of this. I really hope that parents will think twice before subjecting their young prepubescent daughters to these

shots.

[b]Reduce HIV transmission in heterosexual men by 50% get circumcised.[/b]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63
This is really good to know. You can reduce the risk of catching HIV by like 50% just by getting snipped. That is amazing

health new and the world should be hearing about this. Texas politicians should be shouting it from the roof tops, but they

are not, know why? There is no money to be made from men and boys getting circumcised the same way there is for pre-pubesent

girls, and their drug company friends.

They should now be encouraging parents to have their youngster snipped at birth to give them a 50% chance to reduce on of the

deadliest diseases in the world, but I have not heard too much information about this in any circles and I think it’s a

shame. Men should be getting this information for health reasons for themselves and their families.

[quote]Circumcision appears to reduce a man’s risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, United States

government health officials said yesterday, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they

would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries.

The announcement was made by officials of the National Institutes of Health as they halted two clinical trials, in Kenya and

Uganda, on the ground that not offering circumcision to all the men taking part would be unethical. The success of the trials

confirmed a study done last year in South Africa.

AIDS experts immediately hailed the finding. ”This is very exciting news,” said Daniel Halperin, an H.I.V. specialist at

the Harvard Center for Population and Development, who has argued that circumcision slows the spread of AIDS in the parts of

Africa where it is common.

[/quote]

Circumcision works the same all he world over, so whither it’s China, India, Africa, America, the world should be getting

this important health information and people should be using it to their advantages. Remember if we can slow down the spread

of HIV to men, that means less woman with HIV, less children, etc. It’s a cycle that can have good effects for lot’s of

people, but it’s something not being loudly and widely acclaimed, because there is no drug company that will make money from

these findings.

[quote]Uncircumcised men are thought to be more susceptible because the underside of the foreskin is rich in Langerhans

cells, sentinel cells of the immune system, which attach easily to the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS. The

foreskin also often suffers small tears during intercourse.

But experts also cautioned that circumcision is no cure-all. It only lessens the chances that a man will catch the virus; it

is expensive compared to condoms, abstinence or other methods; and the surgery has serious risks if performed by folk healers

using dirty blades, as often happens in rural Africa.

Circumcision is ”not a magic bullet, but a potentially important intervention,” said Dr. Kevin M. De Cock, director of

H.I.V./AIDS for the World Health Organization.
[/quote]

It’s not a cure all, and neither is the STD shot for girls, but this is giving men a 50% reduction in the chances of getting

HIV, the STD shot is giving woman and girls a 40% reduction if even that. Cervical cancer does kill about 3700 woman per

year, how many people per year die from AIDS? Everywhere I go I see ads for the STD shot or news stories about it, and yet I

have seen little information about the HIV reduction in men and again I think this is because there is no drug company that

will be making money from this easy and affordable intervention.
[b]Cure for Cancer on the horizon?[/b]

Could well be that a cure for cancer is on the horizon.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19325874.700-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

[quote]IT SOUNDS almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their

“immortality”. The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is

known to be relatively safe. It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly

developed drugs.[/quote]

Don’t get too hopeful yet, this has only been tested on rats, and humans are a different story. Other things that have worked

on rats have not worked on humans, and yet there should have been more in the news about this story. There should have been a

Texas politician screaming this out from the roof tops, oh wait there will be no money to be made from his friends in the

drug industry so you probably will not hear about this.

This could very well be an exciting future break through, but we really do have to wait and see. However this is a story to

keep your eyes on. If you follow the link, it give a link to the Calgary website, that is doing the research and they are

keeping everyone updated.