• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Anti-Euphoria Injections

But what about:

Salford LG, Brun AE, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L, Persson BR.[/URL]

Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones.
Environ Health Perspect. 2003 Jun;111(7):881-3

This is the group that did the original BBB breakdown by cell phones.

Even though I think its probably bullshit, and they will be fucking something up along the way, like not age matching the controls or something stupid. But still. Lets not be selective in our reporting.
 
True, but I'm merely trying to highlight the fact that this is by no means a resolved issue -- in fact it is a highly controversial one.

Perhaps I'm speculating, but I'd be more inclined to believe something published in Pathology than Environmental Health Perspective.

If such evidence about widespread breakdown of the blood-brain barrier was common then you'd think that the reviews that are carried out periodically would have picked it up and made more emphasis of it.
 
Imunising children against drugs makes me feel sick.

It's interesting how much time is spent debating genetic engineering / test-tube babies etc but when drugs are involved, its quite different.

I certainly won't be needing any anti-euphoria injections. If this is actually passed, i think i will become instantaneously depressed and disillusioned with the world of tomorrow.

What is to come if our leaders think that this sort of action is even nearly acceptable?
I am so dismayed.
 
Pippin said:
Imunising children against drugs makes me feel sick.
Click to expand...
Yeah being immunised would probably make quite a few sick, and my agitate or provoke some mental disorders...
 
Your right its probably very unlikely. but there is still a possibility.
Who's to say that the receptors these injections are blocking wouldn't affect something else. What about other injections like measles vaccine, that is controversial about leading to Autism.
I know its not likely (my statement above is wrong).
But toying with the brains natural structure, with neuropharmecuticals could do more then just its desired effect.
 
I've realised what it is that bothers me most. It's the destruction of free will.

Up until now in our society you have free will. That's not the same as being able to do anything -- you can choose to murder someone, but you'll face the consequences. At the end of the day though, you can go and do anything you like. Run people down, jump off bridges, set yourself on fire, talk to people, sit on the net... everything comes down to free will.

This will be the first example in the history of humanity where your will, in essence, has been altered. You can take drugs, but nothing will happen. This equates to not being able to take drugs at all, despite the physical availability of them. I know that sounds convoluted, but its what it amounts to.

I'm not saying you can exercise your free will to fly -- what you attempt must be possible in any event, but with this you're having a selection of your will shut off.

Is it the first step on a chain of neurological re-engineering, where bits and pieces of our humanity are slowly eroded for some perceived societal benefit?
 
^ Exactly, its extremely disturbing. It really does sound like something out of Brave New World. What is the societal benefit out of this? Next thing you know they'll be immunising children against violence, or lying. It sounds far-fetched, but this line should never be crossed in the first place.
 
i posted in the DITM thread about the topic:

although this sounds terrible, bear in mind:

1) these are developmental drugs; there are no full clinical trial yet.

2) this is far, far, far FAR from being law. we're talking about one of the lines of investigation being pursued by one of the DTI's committees - not an idea that will be made law by the prime minister next week.

3) the Department of Trade and Industry would, in all seriousness, not really have any responsibility for endorsing, directing or enacting mass immunisation against drugs. such a decision making process would ultimately involve more departments, more people, and more ministers.

4) even if they did get it to pass, it couldn't possibly be compulsory. and there are enough parents in britain who would flat out refuse... there's a strong british sense of personal & individual freedoms - regardless of any state structure that enshrines them a la the USA - that would, imo, balk at such vaccinations.
Click to expand...

i'm not sure this will see the light of day again... unless it gets puffed up by the middle-class fear-mongering media here.
 
Doooofus said:
^ Exactly, its extremely disturbing. It really does sound like something out of Brave New World. What is the societal benefit out of this? Next thing you know they'll be immunising children against violence, or lying. It sounds far-fetched, but this line should never be crossed in the first place.
Click to expand...

You raise an interesting point. The whole concept is tantamount to emotional anesthetisation. In denying the end result of an aspect of human desire you're denying the expression of a human emotion. Whilst violence is not a good thing, anger is certainly a valid and useful emotion. It can drive us to change aspects of our life, and moreover it provides a reference point on a continuous emotional scale. Without anger we would not experience contentment as we do.
 
i think that this whole idea was absolutely ridiculous....it made me wonder what if they find some cure for cancer or there is some new disease that is cured by the effects of an agent in one of these drugs? the people who have been immunised against it wont be able to have it...and also arent the drugs the give you when you go into labor a form of heroin? does this mean that the girls who have been immunised against it will have to go through a painful/drug free labor...
fucking government....
 
Velocidex - those reports about damage through BBB HAS been in many medical publications - that's why i suggested you to write those words in google; but you chose to look for the one that denied the claim - there are MANY MORE supporting it...Salford et al (they were first but as I said other countries has followed) maintained specificially that the leakage didn't occur at all frequencies so that's why they tried many - not just one - and also tried different distances.

I am not saying that it's ABSOLUTELY sure that cell phones and their masts are responsible for the last 10 years explosion of alzheimers, memory losses (try to teach a kid of today the whole of St Johns Gospel in a couple of days - that's what my grandmom and all her clasmates had to do...) depressions, and - above all - extreme sensitivity to psychological stress, but until they are totally cleared it's a f-g scandal that drugs are vilified when there are so many signs pointing to the cell phones.

There are billions of holy dollars behind the claim that cell phones must be harmless (as it is behind the "global warming do not exist because I don't want it to"-issue...) so it's not strange that I am much more doubtful against the "pro-cell" research...
 
To be honest, i dont care for google. I want references from reputable medical journals. I.e. references in pubmed. I want citations. Not bullshit scare-tactic websites made by fanatical people with little to no scientific knowledge
 
Its a bit of a blanket statement to say that mobile phones are the be all and end all of all the problems in society today.

How about take-away diets, lack of exercise, computers, so many technologies now that divert our attention, the fast-paced lifestyle we all lead, so many choices it can be overwhelming.. no wonder kids have no attention span, people are depressed and things like heart disease are becoming more prevalent. Hell, the amount of weed kids seem to smoke these days, I'm not suprised they have bad memory.

And old people starting to show many diseases I would more attribute to an increase in diagnosis technology, also the hazardous practices people would undertake daily... until they did some reasearch and found out that what they come in contact with daily is extremely dangerous. My Biotech teacher tells us of the kinda of things that people used to do 20yrs ago before they realised that half the chemicals you use in a lab are extremely carcinogenic. Its crazy.. but they didnt know it'd kill them in 20yrs.

Yes, an increase in technology has most probably led to a decrease in the overall health of the general population.. but you cant blame everything on one thing that you are biased against and choose not to look at any other options just coz they may lessen your argument.

stace.
 
This isn't an emotional anaethetic. You can have all the natural emotions you want. And all this free will shit, hey, heres some news, you're not free to take drugs as it is!
 
BilZ0r said:
This isn't an emotional anaethetic. You can have all the natural emotions you want. And all this free will shit, hey, heres some news, you're not free to take drugs as it is!
Click to expand...

The presence of a lesser evil doesn't justify a greater one.

I'm not free to take drugs as it is, and that sucks. It would suck even more if children were being immunised against them.
 
BilZ0r said:
This isn't an emotional anaethetic. You can have all the natural emotions you want. And all this free will shit, hey, heres some news, you're not free to take drugs as it is!
Click to expand...

I think you've misunderstood my argument. its a subtle one.

You ARE free to take drugs at the moment, but you could very well go go gaol, be fined etc. You face the consequences of your actions.

With this drugs don't have any effect and therefore you've been deprived of the right to take them knowing the state of the law.
 
PFFT.

And governments say they are winning the war against drugs..

getting a bit desparate i think :S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top