Burzynski

tallblue brought this doctor and his effective cancer treatment to my attention in a 7/29/11 post.
His name is Dr. Burzynski and it is the use of antineoplastons.
The movie is available on Netflix and you can watch it for free at You Tube here.

Do you and your loved ones a favor and record his name in the event of future cancer diagnosis.
Absolutely unbelievable results. Over 30 years of shenanigans by the government and National Cancer Institute.
This is a story – a sad pathetic angering story of MONEY and economical infrastructure of the cancer billion dollar industry.
The fact that our government allows cancer patients to endure life threatening highly ineffective treatment as the sole means of sanctioned actions to save the person’s life is unethical, immoral and a travesty.

Please share this information with your friends and family.

Record his name.
About the movie
Burzynski Research Institute

Two cents on the economy

What is happening in our national economy and also in Europe is the positioning of investors into a new paradigm based on the perception that consumers will not be making the purchases on credit like they did five to fifteen years ago. In addition the realization that the number of consumers has dropped because of real unemployment figures that hover at least at 25% and in Europe as high as 35%. Healthy corporations have been saving cash instead of investing profits and those missing dollars affect the investment portion of finance and economy. Banks will now begin charging these corporations more money to hold these huge sums of cash as a way to recoup fees lost when the corporations would invest. All of these arenas are shifting trying to first become stable and then to be strategic and identify new ways to generate income based on the new paradigm which is becoming the new economy and marketplace.

I think what has happened is that individuals have looked at the result of the whole raising the deficit spending cap and decided that a fundamental, systemic change is beginning to occur in our government. That change is that people are pushing for real changes in how the government does it business meaning that a real drive is happening for the government to have a budget and to stick to it. This means that spending is to become restrained which means some “projects” that result in goods and services will not be realized or if they are they will be a smaller percentage than before. This then would result in less labor required which translates into less FT jobs and benefits and that translates into X number of current consumers being either restricted in their consumption because of loss of job or at least a decrease of some percentage which snowballs into many people and that drives even less demand than currently for products/services which means mfg/etc need less employees working FT etc, etc. So the individuals who are the bankers/investors/money are realizing that the government is not going to be in the position to improve the economy (first paragraph) so they are reevaluating how they are going to use their money.

Some of the next variables are the US 2011 and 2012 elections, Israel and the Palestinian issue, China and Russia concentrated push for replacing the US dollar as the reserve currency, EU whether it develops into a black hole or not – and/or if the individual countries push for nationalism erodes the unity, power & value behind the euro. These don’t begin to address every real variable out there but they are ones that will definitely drive MSM and political spin.

What does all of this mean for people like you and I? We need to pay of our debts as quickly as possible because banks/ creditors will keep raising finance charges in an effort to recoup lost $ at the sales registers. Save cash.

Different subjects

On the way home from work I listened to NPR and it was a discussion about the alliance or whatever it is called that is running the no-fly zone and bombing things in Libya. The question was “what should be done about Qaddafi?” People were suggesting letting him go off into exile because it would stop the fighting and save lives. Accountability? Well sure but if one or the other – exile would be best after all think of the lives saved from a long military action.

I disagree.

I have two proposals:
1. Issue the following statement, “10 million dollars to whomever brings Qaddafi to point X alive or dead. Also 5 million per son – same provisions and the same for the one general who is running one of the 3 militias.”

2. Bomb his residence and anywhere else he is and his 3 militias. Bomb, strategic as best, but keep bombing till their is no more noise.

If you are going to go into fight – go into win as quick as reasonably possible anything is a disgrace to your military and country.

Different subject….
sort of….

I am not sure we should have got involved in Libya. I guess what I am chewing on is if we – our country and thereby our government – should make a practice of going in and interfering in other countries strife? Obviously it is not USA policy, see Sudan and most African countries for example. I am not an isolationist but where do we draw the line? We are not getting involved in Syria or Bahrain. We did nothing for those in Iran. Is the line based on the pleas on the number of people who approach us to act? Is that fair to the small countries/populations?

Words and for him that is all it takes

From the WSJ:

The United States has formulated a new strategy in response to the recent anti-government protests that have broken out through the Arab world since the start of 2011, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday. After weeks of internal discussions, the US decided to put its support behind longtime allies who may be willing to initiate political reform, even if that means citizens’ demand for full democracy are delayed.

Despite the fact that US officials are still calling for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s immediate removal from power, White House officials have formed the “Bahrain model.” The proposed system endorses the ruling power to stay in control but works with the local population to create democratic reforms that suit demands of the protesters.

2 cents: Talk, words and no action, the O model. He can now have speeches crafted to be eloquent and beam to him on his teleprompters but positive democratic action will not be taken. Words are his tool and weapon of choice because with words you turn a democratic republic to a socialist nation. You change the government by policies and legislation. You wear out the citizens with words.

See the evil beauty is that words do nothing now for the citizens in nations wanting to democracy BUT words do everything here to rid a nation of the same democracy.

his spots will not change

The consistency of O, the empty suit, is something that I do not understand why conservative talking heads have a problem understanding. You can not seriously or sanely expect a socialist to engage in behavior of an American. Expecting a socialist to behave as such is an example of the definition of insanity. Remember he is not a proud American. He bows to other leaders and has issued official apologies on behalf of you &I – America. So his policy of inaction in Iran, Egypt and now Libya when citizens of the countries were revolting and protesting against their national governments is exactly what one should expect. See at the center of this socialist is pride, arrogance and belligerence and that is at the heart of why he won’t change. We must change not him. He is absolutely right. The principles of the USA are not. We should not expect to see a blood pounding heart for the American values of freedom, liberty & capitalism. And we definitely won’t see them from him.

example #2 of how to not treat an allie

The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Full story here