Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:

Natural Healing Wisdom

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 8081 - 9091 - 100
101 - 110111 - 120121 - 130131 - 140141 - 150151 - 160161 - 170171 - 180181 - 190191 - 200
201 - 210211 - 220221 - 230231 - 240241 - 250251 - 260261 - 270271 - 280281 - 289
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 5/25/2014 3:21:56 PM

The cia have files on everybody that doesn't suprise me. But again, it was african people behind the trigger of peter tosh. Same way with bob. While its possible they got their orders from higher powers you have to remember the environment of jamaica at the time. ... politically and in the street. The list if murdered reggae artist from 1980s-2000s is probably in the hundreds, literally. Before the cia get blamed directly its that iah look on.

Still, I am sure the cia had involvement in Rastafari in the eighties. More than killing people I think them a responsible for the infiltration of rastafari: less militant, more passive and accepting, less revolutionary etc....... infact bob marley represents alot of these things. The M-O would have been to stop the militant dreads (over the one love lets all get together dreads) them had more of a reason to stop peter them than bob...and if they were involved with anyone I would say peter

Messenger: RAS-NATE-1995 Sent: 5/25/2014 3:23:08 PM

True Idren GA.Still,It's not that Bob was not militant.But he worked more on emancipation from mental slavery,Inity,peace and love.Wich is surely also a big threat to Babylon.

Found something Ras Nazir:

Ziggy Marley implies his father was killed

Messenger: Ras NazIr Sent: 5/25/2014 3:32:14 PM

Misgana Ras Nate

Iya GA, True is was an African that shot Peter, but whats the point?
Like the I just sighted the times in JA were harsh and poli-trick-ally motivated then. (Still true to some degree today) Who is to say that the cia didnt pay the guy that shot Peter? Or even threatened him or his family?

It is WELL KNOWN that the cia backed certain political parties in JA at that time.

Iman am just saying that soldiers of babylon and babylon themselves are so shifty and underhanded that I would not put ANYTHING past them.

Rasta no work for no cia

Bless UP
Selassie I

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 5/25/2014 3:49:15 PM

^^Yes..... if you a talk INDIRECTLY..... responsible for the polticical warfare and corruption state of poverty in JA, Guns in JA.... then I hold the CIA/IMF/American and European shitstem 100% responsible.....

Yes Ras NAzir...... I agree with the Idem.

Them still involved in the entrapment of Rasta..... Look at how they tricked good good Buju.

Kill the beast.

Messenger: RAS-NATE-1995 Sent: 5/25/2014 3:56:27 PM

^Yes I.

Triple crown and the scarlet down!

Messenger: VoodooRuutz Sent: 5/25/2014 4:08:54 PM

GA fatrue I, d whole militant vs passive CIA cointelpro infiltration, another thought to I was Peter and Bob complexion. Same way Paul's passive Christianity pushed over James' militant rebellious hebrew law keepin Nazorene Essenic tryna get a rid a Rome in dem times.

Messenger: Ras NazIr Sent: 5/25/2014 4:19:47 PM

Yes Iya VDR, in regards to Yeshua's teachings, InI sight that James was closer to the teachings of Yeshua then Paul. Especially seeing as James was Yeshua's BROTHER and Paul had absolutely NOTHING to do with Yeshua. Could be why "Paul" had this in his letter in 2 Corithians 12:

"Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!"

InI no want no "trickery" InI want TRUTH. HIM no "caught I by 'Trickery'" HIM got InI by His TRUTH and LOVE. Ras Tafari no deal with "trickery" Ras TafarI deal with TRUTH.

Selassie I

Messenger: Ark I Sent: 5/26/2014 1:23:36 AM

Ras Nate

Don't believe everything you read, people often misuse information by leaving out important details that would change the whole outlook on the information presented.

That quote about 75% of doctors would refuse chemo for cancer treatment is not true. I was reasoning before about being objective and reasonable, that quote does not sound true. Once I read it, I automatically thought that it sounded improbable. So I did some looking around and found a lot of websites using that quote, usually websites with their own agenda. Here is something I found that gives the full story. If you go to the link, there are reference links within the text.


While there is no truth in the claim that doctors refuse chemotherapy on themselves, on almost every website dedicated to the promotion of alternative cancer treatments it says that most – if not all – doctors on principle would refuse chemotherapy on themselves because of its high toxicity and ineffectiveness. Yet these same doctors are said to be perfectly happy to pour this poison into their patients – merely for profit, as is the standard insinuation.

The basis for these shocking and deceitful allegations is this excerpt from a book by Philip Day:

Several full-time scientsts at the McGill Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)

jli managed to find more information on the study mentioned by Philip Day, which includes information on a follow-up study dating from 1997, and he also found another study from 1991: “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies“.

The first thing that stands out is that the 1985 (!!) survey was not, as Philip Day claims, about all available therapies for lung cancer, but about cisplatin, a then new chemotherapy with considerable side effects. The question also pertained to the use of cisplatin as a palliative treatment for “symptomatic metastatic bone disease,” i.e. for incurable (non-small-cell) lung cancer. The 1985 survey found that about one-third of physicians and oncology nurses would have consented to chemotherapy in a situation like this.

A follow-up survey was conducted in March 1997 at a session on NCCN clinical practice guidelines, in which the participants were asked to respond to the same question regarding chemotherapy:

“You are a 60-year-old oncologist with non-small-cell lung cancer, one liver metastasis, and bone metastases.
Your performance status is 1. Would you take chemotherapy? Yes or no?”

Of approximately 300 people in attendance, 126 (42%) responded to the survey. The majority of respondents (51%) were oncologists and hematologists.

Among oncologists/hematologists, 64.5% said that they would take chemotherapy, as did 67% of nurses. The two nonmedical administrators both voted no. In the “other” category, which included a mix of radiation oncologists and other types of physicians, 33% said that they would take chemotherapy.

The overall results of the 1997 follow-up survey show that 64.5% would now take chemotherapy – which is almost a doubling from 34% to 64.5% of those willing to have chemotherapy and radiotherapy and a quadrupling from 17% to 64.5% of those who would take chemotherapy alone.

The study from 1991, “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies,” pertains not just to lung cancer, but to many kinds of cancer and cancer stages, from early stage to terminal, as well as to experimental therapies. It shows percentages as high as 98% of doctors willing to undergo chemotherapy, while the remaining 2 % were uncertain, and none answered “definitely no” or “probably no” to chemotherapy.

Should another survey be conducted today, there’s a good chance the results would be even higher in favour of chemotherapy, given that over the years chemotherapy has shown enhanced clinical benefit and medication to lessen side effects has improved greatly.

So, do doctors really refuse chemotherapy on themselves?

No, they definitely don’t.

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 5/26/2014 10:49:33 AM

Chemotherapy was once described as giving somebody enough POISON to kill the cancer and just enough not to kill the individual. No doubt chemotherapy is poison...... But.....If you have advanced or metastatic cancer there is no nice or easy way of treating it. The prognosis is bad no matter what you choose to do, even if nothing. Sometimes for 'inoperable' cancers.... chemo/radio combinations are the only way of attempting to 'shrink' the cancer in enough time, to a size which would be more fit for surgery.

Most people live none holistic none ital and none healthy lives. And develop cancer. And THEN want to seek out holistic and natural remedies? It doesn't work that way. Holistic and alternate medicine...... ITAL living..... deals with preventative measures. You may not have developed the cancer in the first place had you have lived in accordance with nature.... or Jah.

Harsh realities
Time to wake up and live up

Messenger: RAS-NATE-1995 Sent: 5/26/2014 12:59:23 PM

Give thanks for more clearance on this Ark I.
Still even if all the doctors would say they would do chemotherapy,their opinion don't change the fact that it's chemical poison.It's like asking people who work on tobacco factories if they smoke or butchers if they eat meat...It still doesn't prove it's safe seen...?

GARVEYS AFRICA,I agree with what the I said.JAH Ital and clean livity is the best prevention and cure no doubt about it.And most of the times it's true that people have to live natural/Ital to heal themselves naturally too.But there are also many cases where for Isample herb could cure them but they (have to) take western chemical medicine instead.


1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 8081 - 9091 - 100
101 - 110111 - 120121 - 130131 - 140141 - 150151 - 160161 - 170171 - 180181 - 190191 - 200
201 - 210211 - 220221 - 230231 - 240241 - 250251 - 260261 - 270271 - 280281 - 289

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I