RE: 20 Ways Human Beings Are Being ATTACKED on a Daily Basis
Sorry it took me so long to reply, I'm in the middle of finals for this semester.
I'm going to respond to some text you added in first before responding to your articles.
The first several search results usually came up with disproofs of all the things I mentioned. That in itself is another weapon used to control the minds of the portion of our population whom is currently idle-minded. Through further inspection, I was able to discover scientific articles for every single one of my points. This may come as a surprise to you, I hope you are willing to open your mind and observe this info.
I have to read a lot of scientific papers for my undergraduate degree and for my independent research. This involves using sites such as scholar.google.com and countless hours in the library. For you to say that these disproofs are being used as a way to control the population requires statistical data and sources in and of itself. There is no surprise in you finding articles that talk about stuff you mentioned, the validity of said articles is up for debate as well.
You may also notice that some of the articles end with the statement "Further study is warranted". Yet there have been no further studies.
Saying further studies need to be conducted is commonplace with scientific papers. If no further studies have been conducted like you say, it's likely due to the data being so absurd that it does not warrant further investigation as there is clear data manipulation being involved.
This ties into the countless scientists, doctors, etc who have challenged this hidden agenda and were wiped off the face of the Earth making it impossible for them to continue their studies.
Source for this? Not sure I've read about any scientist being killed due to going against the majority except for early scientists challenging religion hundreds of years ago.
This is one of those websites I mentioned in my original comment. I did read through some of the articles on the site, however...
99% of these articles are saying correlation implies causation. That is not true. This article essentially explains why correlation does not imply causation and uses graphs to prove it.
We've developed better methods to detect autism and other defects. AutismSpeaks has a very good article on how detection occurs. The second link on the site does not even back the site's purpose if you read the whole thing.
This one was quite interesting. Shouldn't we see an increase in OCD from bodybuilders and others who regularly take glutamine since glutamine breaks down into glutamate? Glutamate being one of the most abundant amino acids in the brain... (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12481981). Also, as the paper suggests one case is not sufficient data. It could actually be a statistical outlier if anything.
@riskdebonair offered a very good point in regards to this claim to which you suggested it should be a more important topic because ~3.1% of the US population could benefit from said reduction of glutamate.
An excepert from the article:
It is believed that consumption of these genetically engineered foods can cause the development of diseases which are immune to antibiotics.
They offer no statistical data or sources or anything upon saying this. They just say it is believed. This article is essentially speculation. I'm not sure if the translation of this into English is the cause or not. Also, yes further research should be done... on literally everything.
Full of speculation and no real conclusive result.
There is only one peer review in existence at this time. Thats seems a bit odd to me, you can make your own judgement on the matter.
I'm going to say chemtrails don't exist. Also, feel free to read this article. It's quite worth the read and you might see how easy it is for people to fall for chemtrails.
https://www.ejmanager.com/mnstemps/65/65-1394615302.pdf?t=1398177912
I want to start this off by saying if I produced a paper like this for any of my classes, I'd be failed. It's a compilation of data that they are, again, speculating could have some issues. Also, there is little to no evidence at all in favor of suggesting electrohypersensitivity is even real.
http://infinitypress.info/index.php/cas/article/download/872/494
This paper came to the conclusion that radiation is bad for people. Yes, we know that already. The amount of radiation that they study found would not be enough to harm them and as they said, it is nonionizing so they should have no health risks from this.
As @justryme90 said
You pulled citations and misused them to draw conclusions that they were not testing not are evidence of. That's called lying and misrepresenting information.