5399Re: UFOnet: "early silicone implants leaked"
- Sep 2, 2000To Don
Okay I am seeing where you are coming from a bit better. But you still don't
have me completely right.
I don't "..... advocate banning everything I
argue against such as anything technological that ever harmed anyone or was
present, innocent bystander or not, when someone was harmed."
When you said "So what" it did sound like you were dismissive of human
suffering, so you don't mean that. Okay.
And what you really meant " .......... I really
want to know what are the harmful effects of silicone leakage: Is it
painful? Unsightly? Causative of disease? What disease? ...."
In a previous e-mail, I said I did not know enough about silicone implants.
Silicone implants was a diversion from what I was saying.
Products are being brought onto the market without any 'real' caring about
whether they cause health problems to the public. The example I am most
familiar with is mobile phones. I have talked to people who know a lot
about electronics, and they knew before the mobile phone network was set up
that using the frequencies they were allocated was dubious. Ionizing
radiation is known to cause cancer. Non ionizing radiation is supposed to
not cause cancer (I would disagree upon this accepted wisdom, but never
mind.) The frequencies used by mobile phones are too near ionizing
radiation. Too many frequencies have been used for other things, most of it
Black ops and military usage, and there was not much choice left as to what
frequencies to use for mobile phones.
It would seem logical to check that the frequencies were safe, before using
them. But that was not what happened, they were just assumed safe and sold
to the public. It is now that the experiment is being conducted on people.
Data is being gathered on cancer rates etc., and by statistics testing to
see if any link can be connected between the product causing health
problems. It will then be a case of 'wisdom after the event' instead of
'wisdom before the event.'
According to orthodox theory there will be no health problems caused by
mobile phones. It awaits an overwhelming amount of data proving the
opposite, before the science community will change its beliefs.
I find this waste of human life is deplorable, because physics is based on a
misunderstanding of Einstein, hence the theory of physics is wrong. The
theory of physics we have inherited comes from the events that led to WWII
by the Nazis. It is more based on the idea of 'wisdom after the event' than
'wisdom before the event', hence it becomes part of peoples reasoning that
science is based on needing to do human experiments etc.
You said : "I think the most horrible thing I ever saw on TV was an eminent
States Government public health expert, an M.D., I believe, saying that the
poor unschooled black STD victims who were given phony medicine so that
science could study the course of the disease through their horrible,
agonizing deaths, "should have been proud of their contribution to science."
She should have been hanged with the rest of the Nazi War criminals at
Nuremberg. At the same time, I feel that the attitude that says that every
product defect was deliberately installed in the product to inflict harm,
pain and death on customers in order to satisfy corporate greed is stupid.
The famous Ford Pinto "Let 'em burn." internal corporate memo is a case in
point. Ford measured human pain, suffering and death in terms of dollars
because that's what the courts do. Ford was wrong and the courts were
I agree, and the reason why there are scientists that have this attitude is
because the science we have is wrong. (Most scientists would be cleverer
and not speak the 'plain truth' as the person above. They would not speak
about having a belief that science has to operate on a human experimentation
method. They would perceive it as a case of 'you want the truth, the truth
is you can't take the truth' i.e the public is best not knowing what they
think science is really like. ) Orthodox science has suppressed the
existence of an alternative science.
One of the factors that has suppressed the alternative physics is the
Robertson Panel. The Robertson Panel set up to debunk high quality witnesses
of UFOs, and suppress evidence of UFOs etc. could only work if it did the
same in the public science sector. i.e. debunked scientists with unorthodox
views. (Else 'they' might deduce the mechanism upon which UFOs operate, and
'spill the beans.')
In general only scientists that follow the orthodoxy get paid, those with
other views are generally excommunicated from the science establishment,
lose reputations etc., and have to find other means of getting paid. It
leaves the scientists in the physics community with the impression that the
one framework theory that they work from is the truth, or very near the
truth. This is because it appears to have then proven itself against all
other contenders. But the fight between the two theories has been unfair,
there was not a proper fight. One theory has been nobbled, and never allowed
to get into the boxing ring. Politics has corrupted science, and it acts to
the benefit of sellers that want to make a fast buck.
The advertising campaign however has made it seem that there is only one
science framework theory. There is in general at least two ways to look at
a problem, the physics community has only be allowed one framework theory to
work from, because of the UFO conspiracy.
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Bennett <dpbennett@...>
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: UFOnet: "early silicone implants leaked"
> To Roger Anderton;
> OK, I finally get your drift. I think I've finally figured out the source
> of misunderstanding between us. I think you advocate banning everything
> argue against such as anything technological that ever harmed anyone or
> present, innocent bystander or not, when someone was harmed. You think
> trying to "justify" (whatever that means) the slaughter of 0.05% of the
> people who buy products that benefit humanity; benefit being defined
> by sales.
> When I say "So what?" I'm not being rhetorical or dismissive; I really
> want to know what are the harmful effects of silicone leakage: Is it
> painful? Unsightly? Causative of disease? What disease? Oprah on TV
> saying "Oh, how awful!" is not a disease!
> I think the most horrible thing I ever saw on TV was an eminent United
> States Government public health expert, an M.D., I believe, saying that
> poor unschooled black STD victims who were given phony medicine so that
> science could study the course of the disease through their horrible,
> agonizing deaths, "should have been proud of their contribution to
> She should have been hanged with the rest of the Nazi War criminals at
> Nuremberg. At the same time, I feel that the attitude that says that
> product defect was deliberately installed in the product to inflict harm,
> pain and death on customers in order to satisfy corporate greed is stupid.
> The famous Ford Pinto "Let 'em burn." internal corporate memo is a case in
> point. Ford measured human pain, suffering and death in terms of dollars
> because that's what the courts do. Ford was wrong and the courts were
> Don Bennett
- << Previous post in topic