uh yeah cancer can def be caused by stress and whatnot, but it sure as shit isn't only fungus causing cancer. Sure a fungal infection can trigger it, but that's now what icke is advocating. He's advocating the sole cause of cancer to be of fungal origon.


he is extremely misguided from the look of things.


What does allopathic medicine have to do with anything? He's talking about the causes of cancer. Identifying the causes of cancer are based on methodological principles or science. Treating it is an entirely different beast. He's wrong flat out and going agaisnt pretty much the entire world.

You can induce cancer in cell lines without a fungal infection being present I am sure of this. He says this is wrong. He is a loon.

I don't know if this was directed at me, but I was just referring to what they say on the movie. I personally don't believe either way, especially now that I looked into it more. And I agree they could easily just release the plans to the internet, but I guess the point they were trying to make was that it's the actual building and testing of the devices that's being suppressed.

Then again, anything is possible, so it's hard to take sides in anything. I just like to surf on the imagination waves of all sides.

It amuses me a bit...I remembered from the movie that I found ther torus thing interesting. Also that the free energy bit seemed a bit exaggerated/unrealistic/too "true believer-ish" for my taste. As I said, I saw this movie moths ago...what I forgot was that the torus bit was just a part of the free energy bit.


I admit that I too got annoyed by the wild claims. But then again I do NOT have all the answers. Humble be. It's healthier for the colon. The reactionary response, not good.


JP morgan did not have to cover up the free energy thing. It's rediculous for reasons already stated. Then again, he would have tried. That's the state of humanity.


My theory: The fact that Morgan-esque greed is the norm, the fact that Icke-esque paranoia is all too common--these are symptoms of the real reason why free energy does not work. We need to grow up first. The whole universe is designed to make us happy, allow us to be healthy and have fun.

Just a theory.

Then again....we do not *need* electricity. We are simply addicted to fossil fuels, ectricy and other nonsense that we do not need and that does not really contribute much to our happiness. As the oil supply gets low, here we are, hallucinating "free energy".

Lets suppose someone out there now actually does know how to make one of these machines that transforms the energy in matter to a more useable form, like fusion. Why would energy companies suppress this, instead of using these machines. These machines would be VERY powerful, and the argument could be made that they would also be very dangerous. The government could use that excuse to regulate their use, and require a very complex and very expensive licensing procedure for anyone who wanted to use one(A procedure that assured no one but the 'ruling elite' got them). Huge energy companies would have no problem paying these fees and getting licensed, and then could use them in power plants. Then since these machines are 'free energy' they could charge people less than what they charge now and still make more because they would have no expenses.

Oh, the whole peak oil thing is a big scam in my opinion. I am a proponent of the Abiotic Oil theory...which in short is the theory that oil is a renewable resource constantly being created within the earth and not due to decaying dinosaurs and the like. Worth a gander if you're not familiar with it.

Allopathic medicine has everything to do with it because it is the only 'accepted' medical base for identifying or treating anything. Anything outside this narrow minded, well funded and backed methodology is ridiculed and squashed.

I agree with you, claiming that cancer is caused by just one thing is absurd. There are plenty of things that they have identified as causing cancer, and even more cases of cancer where there is no apparent cause. Fungal infections, stress, malnutrition, too much sun, too little sun, whether your grandparents suffered malnutrition, etc. All of which are potentially preventable without the need for a pill, or chemo, or radiation.

Very little money is spent researching the causes of cancer (which is guesswork at its best) and instead the money goes towards treating cancer, which has not progressed much at all since chemo/radiation was introduced. Of course there are alternative options out there, but they are quickly squashed by the pharmaceutical industry to keep their profit base going. Gerson therapy, Burzinski, et al.

Remember, the medical establishment is NOT INTERESTED in curing disease. It is simply bad for business. They are all about repressing symptoms.

I agree with you for the most part... David Icke is still a loon though!

Well I would say that they would want to suppress them due to the amount of energy put off by such a machine. The oil companies and overall any energy related company relies on the amount of energy they sell for a profit. Sure these machines might go for a lot, but they will also cost a lot. These machines will lessen the amount of energy sold by each company. Of course if only the elite got them then the profit might rise, but due to the fact that they produce enough energy only a few are needed for necessarily protocol. It would complicate a lot of things if such a machine was released, they would have to change the whole energy system, and I believe the oil industry is not willing to take such leap. It is too iffy of a project, to expensive and too many variables.

What I am trying to get at is even though they could highly "regulate" the whole system regarding the use and production of such machines, I do not think there is a very high chance that companies who invest in the production of the machine will make a major profit. Thus the government is going to want to suppress the idea to ensure the safety of the major industries.

This theory has been debunked for quite some time. Oil is an organic hydrocarbon. Even if these hydrocarbons were being generated abiotically, that doesn't mean that it's a renewable source. First Law of Thermodynamics applies here. Second law as well. This is shown in the carbon sequestration of the atmosphere and oceans - this carbon doesn't magically go back into the ground and then combine with other carbon molecules to re-form hydrocarbons. Energy and work, coming from the sun, is needed to build these higher energy molecules.

I'm not denying that oil is a renewable resource. It is, but not at this rate. The rate of accumulation of new hydrocarbons (doesn't matter abiotic or biotic) is much lower than the rate of consumption. But depletion of this resource is not the immediate issue, climate change is. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be about double it's ever been soon, causing massive changes in environments all over the planet. Not only this, but ocean acidification from dissolved CO2 i already a problem and will only get worse because ocean sequestration is a delayed effect. Mother nature has regulated fluctuating CO2 levels throughout the past billion years or longer, but she has never had to deal with massive amounts of combustion and subsequent CO2 release.

Interesting, I have read good arguments on both sides of the issue, and was in no way convinced that either theory had been debunked. Sure it is out of favor among the scientific community, but it has not been proven false by any means.

Energy and work you say? Like pressure and temperature created from the molten core of the earth? And under Abiotic theory, microbes feed on the petroleum as it moves up through the crust seeping into the process and giving the bio markers of a "organic" hydrocarbon.

There is evidence of hydrocarbon formation without biology, so it does not need to be of an organic nature.

Double its been since we've been able to keep records. In the distant past there have been times when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were much higher than they are today, or the forseeable future.

I agree that the climate is changing, but so is the climate on every other planet in the solar system. Solar forcing direct and indirect is higher than in any time we know of, cosmic rays reaching the surface of the planet have been steadily increasing for at least the last 10 years...so if all the planets in the system are experiecing change, does that not lead to a possible conclusion that there are forces either from the sun, or outside our solar system that are the culprit?

Should we be better stewards of the environment? Of course we should, it is a crime what we are doing to this planet. But anthropocentric climate change is just a minor factor in what is going on...

In all likelihood, the overwhelming majority of the information in this film is complete and total nonsense. However, that doesn't mean that it's totally without merit. Personally, I think anything that causes the average Joe to stop for a second and consider whether they are being manipulated by a global system of mind-slavery is a good thing.

These loonies may not be able to generate electricity out of nothing, but if they can get one more person to shed the shackles of a materialism-oriented existence and ponder a more humane solution for the world then it was worth making

Nice picture man

True the CO2 levels apparently (not based on samples) were much higher hundreds of million years ago, but within the last 20,000,000 years, the CO2 levels have not really gone above 300ppm. The oldest ice sample they've taken showed that CO2 levels varied between 180 and 300 ppm 800,000 years ago and have been varying at consistent pattern since. The 400ppm that we're at now is a drastically different scenario for the flora and fauna that live her now to have to deal with. Comparing levels now to levels 200,000,000 years ago and saying that it's not a big deal (I know you aren't saying that) would be rather silly.

"I agree that the climate is changing, but so is the climate on every other planet in the solar system." - Those planets don't support life, and they don't have the biotic processes that have regulated the carbon/climate cycle the way that organisms on Earth have. You're comparing apples and lifeless oranges. Also, what evidence do you have that solar or cosmic rays are causing a significant change in climate? From what I understand these have fluctuated a lot throughout history and have not played a significant role in changing climate.

I know Methane (CH4) can be formed spontaneously in the absence of organisms. That is why there is methane present on a lot of other planets. But petroleum is not methane and from what I understand, this process has not been observed for other organic molecules. Interesting side note: My Plant and Soil Science: Microbiology of Soil professor made the argument that methane should not be considered organic at all and he said a lot of microbiologists held the same opinion. He had a number of arguments for this, most of which I forgot, but the one I remember is that microbes that can oxidize methane can almost always oxidize no other molecules, while microbes that can oxidize ethane can usually oxidize many other organic carbon molecules. He has a bunch of other reasons that I can't remember, maybe I'll email him next week and see what the other ones are. Anyways he's not a quack, really smart and interesting guy in fact. Did his post-doc work at Harvard. I'll follow up on this point soon.

I am not comparing apples and lifeless oranges. I am describing a process that appears to be happening on every planet in the solar system. If every planet is warming/experiencing climate change, then that leads to the idea that there is a process outside of anthropogenic variables that is the cause of this change.

If there is no life, and no human influenced greenhouse gasses being put into the atmosphere, then how and why are these other bodies experiencing the same thing we are on this planet? The logical conclusion is that it likely has something to do with the sun, or with the local interstellar medium (a magnetic cloud of plasma called the Local Fluff) which we are moving into which is causing this change to all bodies in the solar system. It could be a combination of both, as one of the effects noticed from our entry into this cloud is compression of the heliosphere and the increased rate of interstellar cosmic rays entering into the solar system and making its way to the planets.

What evidence? What originates ALL weather on this planet? Solar forcing both direct (from the sun) and indirect (from cosmic rays) plays a significant role on climate on this planet...since all weather experienced on the planet originates from the amount of heat and particles we receive from the sun and elsewhere.

But if you need the evidence, here is some:
http://science.nasa.gov/...t-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

man....i love you saidin...you're rad.

L&G!!