'Modern Medicine' is a hoax... And our ancient language tells us all we need to know.
1 2017-08-30 by factsnotfeelings
Introduction
Language is not just a form of communication, it is also a tool of mind control.
Modern Medicine
Of all topics for discussion, the medical industry is the most taboo. After all, nobody wants to hear the gruesome details of vaccination, chemotherapy or ultrasound.
So perhaps a new approach is needed, maybe we can understand the medical industry, without having to learn of the individual problems with each procedure.
The following are a series of words and phrases that are used by and for medical professionals: when analysed and decoded, they reveal the hidden reality of 'modern medicine'. Enjoy.
Doctor
Verb: To manipulate or forge.
If doctors are the 'good guys' then why do they call themselves by a verb associated with liars? The reason is simple, doctors are not honest.
Patient
Please be patient.
When you go for a meeting and the other person is running late, they might call you and say 'please be patient'.
This is because they are harming you (by not being on time) and want you to be compliant.
So if the medical professional is supposedly trying to help the person who is sick, why do we call them a 'patient'. You already know the answer.
If you would like to read more, please visit the full article on my blog. I break down the meaning behind phrases like 'Pharmaceutical industry', 'Operating Theatre' and 'Hippocratic Oath'.
Conclusion
Not only vaccination, but ALL non-emergency medical care is harmful...
There are other examples of terminology revealing the truth, can you find them?
56 comments
1 whatsinthesocks 2017-08-30
We call them doctors because they have a doctorate in medicine.
1 quetz4 2017-08-30
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=doctor
Doctor as a noun is much older than its verb form. I don't understand why people don't look up readily available etymology before claiming there's some super secret nefarious meaning to words.
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
How do you know?
If they wanted to avoid confusion between the two forms, why not create a whole new word altogether?
1 Thunyosi 2017-08-30
Who is "they"? Words aren't created, they enter usage naturally. Language is a natural phenomenon that evolves on uts own regardless of intentional interference. Also, you realize that these comparisons only work in English, right? All languages have homophones, pointing to a few english ones isn't evidence of a conspiracy.
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
English is the most widely used language in the world, I understand your point though.
Language is not a natural phenomenon. Do you really think that something as important as the way we communicate, would be left to chance?
1 Thunyosi 2017-08-30
You're a very good troll, but I'll bite. It's not a matter of whether or not it's "left to chance", the issue is that language is somethung that has developed along with our species over the past several hundred thousand years. There are designed languages, but natural languages do indeed evolve according to principles of natural selection and 'speciation', and we know this because we can observe it. We can see how it's happened in the past, and how it's continuing to happen now. Also, Mandarin is the most used language, not English. ;-)
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
Nothing 'evolves'. There is a reason why teachers are forced to promote this idea in school, they want to distract us from how the world really works.
All of our major institutions involve top-down control. Children obey their parents, patients obey doctors, and we obey the government.
Evolution is a religion, it's purpose is to promote the (false) idea that our world is random.
The same ruling elite who gave us TV and the internet, also invented the printing press. They have had control of our language since day one.
This is why english is filled with numerous inconsistencies (Google is pronounced as 'Goo-gel' instead of 'Goo-gle') it is designed to confuse us.
I don't believe that our history is thousands of years, it is probably only a few hundred years.
1 Thunyosi 2017-08-30
That argument doesn't make sense, as the inconsistencies in English spelling are specific to English. Most world languages with phonetic writing are spelled exactly how they're pronounced. Also, "google" is a bad example - most English words ending in a consonant plus "le" have no vowel on the end. This isn't confusing at all, and actually spelling it "el" would be no more accurate since there"s no vowel between the /g/ and the /l/. The word is pronounced /gugl/. As for your argument about nothing evolving, how can that be true when we can witness linguistic evolution occur right now. Take a look at the caught/cot merger, for instance.
1 MrTingling 2017-08-30
How could it not? Do you think there is some secret language group for all languages that decides on how people speak? New words enter and leave languages all the time.
1 YoureAllRobots 2017-08-30
That is taking it a bit too far. Antibiotics alone have been revolutionary for saving lives in real time. While even most doctors, at this point, will probably agree that the profit motive is a terrible method to develop and prescribe medicine; you would be foolish to assume modern medicine has had no net benefit.
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
Antibiotics have not saved lives. Bacteria simply recycles dead organs matter, there was never any proof that they are the cause of disease.
Antibiotics can be very harmful in actual fact.
Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Insert
'Some reactions were accompanied by cardiovascular collapse'
1 YoureAllRobots 2017-08-30
Wow, interesting. Looks like the entire medical industry needs a truthful once over.
1 Illinois_Jones 2017-08-30
So it's just a coincidence that Yaws and Malaria have been eliminated from many places after we introduced antibiotics? It's just a coincidence that my last strep infection went away after being on antibiotics for a few days? How about my last ear infection? You are a straight up lunatic
Hypersensitivity can happen with any drug by their very nature. It's a well-documented fact: http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/immunology-allergic-disorders/allergic,-autoimmune,-and-other-hypersensitivity-disorders/drug-hypersensitivity
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
Antibiotics prevent you from feeling symptoms, but they don't 'cure' anything.
The disease is caused by toxins in your environment, not bacteria.
1 Illinois_Jones 2017-08-30
And you have evidence to support this?
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
Well for a start, E-coli and MRSA are found in healthy people, which violates Koch's first postulate.
Oral bacteria varies amongst different species of animals, this is even true amongst humans.
If bacteria invaded the body from the air, we should find the same bacterial colonies in the saliva of all species of animals, and yet we don't.
1 Illinois_Jones 2017-08-30
This post shows a completely lack of any level of understanding of microbiology
1 goroboldo 2017-08-30
What are the gruesome details of ultrasound...?
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
It causes brain damage, something which even the MSM has warned about.
Telegraph
Independent
1 goroboldo 2017-08-30
Two MSM articles on it, I thought you said it was taboo and nobody wanted to hear these details?
1 usernamenn 2017-08-30
I don't think that's fair. If it was just some guys blog they linked, I get the feeling you would claim it wasn't trustworthy enough.
Discuss the content and not the source. If it's false information, it should be easy enough to refute no matter where it came from.
1 goroboldo 2017-08-30
I'm not refuting the information about ultrasound, I'm refuting your assertion that it's taboo to talk about.
1 usernamenn 2017-08-30
Eh, look again. I am not the OP.
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
Ultrasound side effects may be reported, but hardly any parent will bother to read up on these things before subjecting their children to it.
It's still taboo. Vaccine inserts list side effects, but hardly anyone reads those.
1 MisterBuilder 2017-08-30
That doesn't make the topic taboo, it simply indicates those people are ignorant on the subject.
1 Illinois_Jones 2017-08-30
The FDA talks about this one their site: https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emittingproducts/radiationemittingproductsandprocedures/medicalimaging/ucm115357.htm
Yeah, that's some conspiracy
1 BadDogInTheDoghouse 2017-08-30
Ok , next auto accident request the Shaman van, tell the 911 operator hes parked at the gas station next to the hospital.
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
I don't know of any problems with emergency care.
I know that patients are sometimes given vaccines before operations, but I am not aware of any problems with how broken bones are treated for example.
Emergency care is different because in those scenarios you have a person who is injured and needs urgent help.
If a healthy person comes to a doctor, either they are being subjected to a ritual (vaccination, c-section etc.) or they are going through a fake screening test of some sort.
1 anthroteuthis 2017-08-30
You ought to do a ride-along with a paramedic rig. Hell, I'd invite you along on mine if you promised to keep your mouth shut. Watch us use some of those "toxic demon drugs" to save some lives.
One of the most dramatic drugs you can watch work is Narcan, which blocks those fake opioid receptors that you don't believe in. Patient starts out, by any meaningful measure, dying from an opiate overdose: guy is nonresponsive, won't breathe on his own. Pop in .02 to .04 mg of Narcan, watch patient wake up, definitely breathing spontaneously because he's able to bitch at you for ruining his high. Magic. (Extra points if he starts projection vomiting because you effectively forced him into withdrawals.) Emergency care is most often for emergent medical problems; we don't see as much trauma/injury as TV wants you to think.
God forbid you ever need us, but if you do, I or someone like me may save your life. And we will do anything within our power, knowledge, and ability to do so. You wouldn't believe the lengths we'll go to, the horrible things risks we'll take to our own bodies and emotions, to make sure that you can get back on the Talking-Shit-About-Medicine Train. The least you can do is show the field a little respect, and realize that it's okay that you don't understand medicine, because we do.
/rant
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
One of the opioids that so many people are becoming addicted to is Fentanyl.
'Just by coincidence', fentanyl is also used in epidurals for women in labour.
You should be angry at your colleagues in the maternity wards. Their use of drugs during the birth process has increased your workload...
1 anthroteuthis 2017-08-30
Oh, okay, you're trolling. I get it. Wasted rant.
1 Aptote 2017-08-30
the symbol used by doctors (in the usa at least) is greek and also roman
the greek version a bit less ominous than the roman, both are not good though
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
It's called the caduceus, a satanic symbol. You can see it on the lap of 'Baphomet'
1 Aptote 2017-08-30
yes, i get it
1 goroboldo 2017-08-30
The cadeceus is is at least 2000 years older than the invention of Christianity, let alone Satanism.
1 Chemsmith 2017-08-30
You completely left out the definition of forge, which relates to the refinement of rough material into a well sculpted and delicate piece of artwork, you know that right? /r/blacksmith would not be happy bro or broette.
1 PM-ME-STEAM-GAMES 2017-08-30
Hello fellow T1 diabetic, nice to see one of us in the wild.
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
Diabetes require more investigation. How do I know that the pancreas is a real organ?
Fake diseases are a key part of the medical industry, so diabetes may also be fake.
1 HEHEHEno 2017-08-30
10/10
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
The mainstream theory of insulin relies on the idea of 'cell surface receptors', these have never been proven to exist.
What about glucose? It was supposedly isolated by Andreas Marrgraf in the 18th century, but I haven't been able to find more detail.
The pancreas may be real, but there are still questions that need exploring.
1 HEHEHEno 2017-08-30
The insulin transmembrane receptor:
Ward CW, Lawrence MC (April 2009). "Ligand-induced activation of the insulin receptor: a multi-step process involving structural changes in both the ligand and the receptor". BioEssays. 31 (4): 422–34
Have a read
1 KingNoah0405 2017-08-30
Cell surface receptors do exist. Do you want me to link you a YouTube video showing a model of how they work? I'm also happy to explain how we can figure out stuff like the structure or function of proteins like cell surface receptors, I have some research experience so I could actually tell you about scientific stuff.
I'm glad that you've developed the habit of questioning things (it indicates curiosity which is good) but I believe you have a huge gap in knowledge that is steering you in the wrong direction. If I linked you some articles or textbooks or something, would you try reading any of it?
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
Cell surface receptors are only a theory. Their existence is not proven. Once my phase contrast microscope arrives I will be able to see how much of 'cell biology' is actually true.
A model is not proof, it just means that someone has come up with a convenient explanation of how something works.
Rich people are more of an authority on health than any other group, since they have the longest life expectancy. My point is that if societies most successful are avoiding vaccines, then shouldn't other people pay attention.
The pancreas might exist, it might not, I won't know until I personally dissect a corpse. This is the reality of a world where we are routinely lied to by scientists, we have to verify things for ourselves.
1 KingNoah0405 2017-08-30
Why do you think scientists routinely lie? You know the whole point of scientific peer-review is to make sure scientists aren't lying about stuff, right?
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
Allegations of Scientific Misconduct by GACVS/WHO/CDC Representatives et al
This was an investigation into the fraudulent attempt by the WHO/CDC to claim that the DNA fragments in the HPV vaccine had been safety tested.
The following is the headline conclusion:
The article is an interesting read, it includes:
A scientist using a paper on protein fragments to mislead policy makers on the DNA content of vaccines (page 2)
Papers being written by unknown ghost writers (page 4)
The fact that the 'WHO experts' were essentially just online bloggers (page 6)
DNA has never been proven to exist by the way, but that is beside the point. This is an official case of acknowledge misconduct by researchers.
Other examples of deception are ideas like 'smoking is healthy', 'alcohol is good for you' etc.
1 KingNoah0405 2017-08-30
DNA has been proven to exist. All life as we know it relies on DNA in order to function and we have known this for quite some time. Why do you think DNA hasn't been proven to exist? Like, what do you mean "hasn't been proven"? Fuck, you can isolate DNA with a simple experiment at home if you want to prove it exists. Please elaborate on why you don't think DNA exists. One of my two majors in college was biology I should be able to explain this stuff to you.
ONE SINGLE CASE of misconduct doesn't mean all scientists are liars. You are trying to take away too much meaning from this - if they say "one researcher lied" it doesn't mean "all researchers are liars," it just means "ONE researcher lied".
Nobody says "smoking is healthy". Smoking is related to a ton of bad health issues like cancer and emphysema (my grandma died from that).
Nobody says "alcohol is good for you". Alcohol abuse affects tons of people worldwide, and even moderate consumption of alcohol will increase your risk of cancer and stuff. Why do you think people say smoking and drinking are good? Who says that?
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
1.) Those white strings are either clumped saliva or bacteria, not 'DNA'. I have no real proof that animal cells exist, so there is no reason to believe in DNA.
2.) This was from the WHO, the most well known health organisation in the world.
3/4.) Doctors recommend that adults should drink 15 units of alcohol a week. They used to promote smoking as healthy (before the 1950s).
1 KingNoah0405 2017-08-30
Wrong. What makes you assume bacteria? Or saliva? Have you ever looked under a microscope? It's super easy to view individual animal cells using light microscopes.
I know what the WHO is. There's a problem in that you are drawing false conclusions from the WHO's report. So, you believe scientists/researchers are liars and that the WHO backs up your claim. Let me ask - did they investigate every scientist and researcher on earth? The investigation only focuses on a few individuals who were caught lying, right? The only logical conclusion you can draw from it is "the individuals who were caught lying are definitely liars, other researchers might lie but there is no way to know without more information." There simply isn't justification for the way you're casually dismissing centuries of work from researchers around the world.
Doctors DO NOT recommend that about alcohol. You are getting your information from a bad source because that is totally untrue. Please link me anything about doctors recommending you drink alcohol. The cigarette thing is true but that's because modern medicine is hardly comparable to 1950s medicine, we didn't know shit back then compared to now.
1 quedfoot 2017-08-30
Go look at a pancreas? Not that hard to see.
1 callmesalticidae 2017-08-30
Hurts like hell the first time you see it, though.
1 Illinois_Jones 2017-08-30
That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever read in my entire life
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
You are aware that the rich people who everyone idolises, do not generally vaccinate their children?
When it comes to vaccines, rich parents get away with child neglect
1 Illinois_Jones 2017-08-30
Who idolizes rich people? I generally think exactly the opposite and find most of the ones I've met to be of poor character.
I have a friend who was born into an extremely wealthy family. His parents "home schooled" him, which basically meant they let him do whatever he wanted. He has a younger brother and sister who didn't learn to read until they were young adults.
1 vonarchimboldi 2017-08-30
yeah thats some solid logic right there.
1 Emily_Taylor_CD 2017-08-30
I think your real username is feelingsnotfacts, not the other way around. So many logical fallacies and assumptions here, I have a hard time believing this is not ironic
1 goroboldo 2017-08-30
I'm not refuting the information about ultrasound, I'm refuting your assertion that it's taboo to talk about.
1 factsnotfeelings 2017-08-30
English is the most widely used language in the world, I understand your point though.
Language is not a natural phenomenon. Do you really think that something as important as the way we communicate, would be left to chance?