Recent Posts and Categories

Should people stop trying to live past 75?

OWoN: Hah! Unless your a RottenChild or Bush. So now beware of what will follow. Flue injections for the Elderly, which will contain a cocktail of toxins to collapse immunity systems and trigger God knows what. So much for longevity, the immense knowledge of such people, good judgement, and culture. 

How about instead, the US just packs off Illegals like O to where he came from? And what of Bush Sr? Neo Nazi Reich Fuhrer, dragged kicking and screaming to his termination chamber? Only in America. This truly is an evil empire.

Obamacare Architect Says Society Would Be Better Off If People Only Lived To Age 75

End Of The American Dream
By Michael Snyder
22 September 2014

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, says that society would be far better off if people quit trying to live past age 75. His new article entitled “Why I Hope To Die At 75” has the following very creepy subtitle: “An argument that society and families—and you—will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly”. In the article, Emanuel forcefully argues that the quality of life for most people is significantly diminished past the age of 75 and that once we get to that age we should refuse any more medical care that will extend our lifespans. This is quite chilling to read, considering the fact that this is coming from one of the key architects of Obamacare. Of course he never uses the term “death panels” in his article, but that is obviously what Emanuel would want in a perfect world. To Emanuel, it is inefficient to waste medical resources on those that do not have a high “quality of life”. So he says that “75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop”.

Emanuel believes in this philosophy so much that he says that he would like to die at age 75. Of course he has no intention of committing suicide, but if he happened to drop dead once he hits his 75th birthday he would be very happy about that. The following is an excerpt from his new article

I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75. Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible. This has become so pervasive that it now defines a cultural type: what I call the American immortal.

I reject this aspiration. I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop.

And so Emanuel plans to start rejecting pretty much all medical tests and treatments that will prolong his life once he reaches that age

At 75 and beyond, I will need a good reason to even visit the doctor and take any medical test or treatment, no matter how routine and painless. And that good reason is not “It will prolong your life.” I will stop getting any regular preventive tests, screenings, or interventions. I will accept only palliative—not curative—treatments if I am suffering pain or other disability.

This means colonoscopies and other cancer-screening tests are out—and before 75. If I were diagnosed with cancer now, at 57, I would probably be treated, unless the prognosis was very poor. But 65 will be my last colonoscopy. No screening for prostate cancer at any age. (When a urologist gave me a PSA test even after I said I wasn’t interested and called me with the results, I hung up before he could tell me. He ordered the test for himself, I told him, not for me.) After 75, if I develop cancer, I will refuse treatment. Similarly, no cardiac stress test. No pacemaker and certainly no implantable defibrillator. No heart-valve replacement or bypass surgery. If I develop emphysema or some similar disease that involves frequent exacerbations that would, normally, land me in the hospital, I will accept treatment to ameliorate the discomfort caused by the feeling of suffocation, but will refuse to be hauled off.

A couple of decades ago, an article like this would have sparked mass public outrage.

But today, this article hardly even gets any attention.

That is because this kind of philosophy has spread everywhere. It is being taught at colleges and universities across the United States and it is even represented throughout the ranks of the Obama administration.

For example, Barack Obama’s top science adviser John P. Holdren believes that implanting sterilization capsules under the skin of women could be a way to reduce the size of the population and increase the quality of life for everyone…

A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

Yes, this guy is a total nutjob.

But he also has the ear of the man occupying the White House.

And we are not just talking about a few isolated crazies like Holdren. This agenda have been fully embraced by our politicians in Washington.

For instance, did you know that the federal government actually has an “Office of Population Affairs“?

On the website of the Office of Population Affairs, you can find information about abortion, female sterilization, male sterilization and a vast array of contraceptive choices.

U.S. taxpayers are paying for all of this, but most people don’t even know that it exists.

Of course this agenda has been moved forward by both Democrats and Republicans for decades.

And the woman that is very likely to be our next president is also a very strong proponent of this philosophy.

When Hillary Clinton accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award back in 2009, she spoke glowingly of Sanger…

In a speech to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Awards Gala, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that she admires “Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision.” Secretary Clinton said she is “really in awe of” Sanger for Sanger’s early work in Brooklyn, New York, “taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions.”

But the truth is that Sanger was deeply racist and was determined to do whatever she could to help control the population growth of the poor. The following is one of her most famous statements

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

Hillary Clinton is also a huge supporter of the United Nations Population Fund. If you are not familiar with the United Nations Population Fund, it is an organization that funds abortion, forced sterilization and brutal eugenics programs throughout the developing world.

Population control advocates such as Emanuel, Holdren and Clinton are fully convinced that they are doing the right thing.

They actually believe that the world will be a better place if less people are born and if the elderly do not live as long.



  1. And they are right - the world will be a better place with these initiatives moving forward. I have no problem with the initiatives mentioned in this article aimed at stopping needless medical treatment in older individuals - which much of medical care in the elderly is. And I am a medical doctor by the way. The vast majority of Medicare dollars are spent in the last 6 months of a person's life - with no change in the end result. This money is essentially wasted and we can't afford it. These people die inhumane deaths because doctors and family members and the patients themselves don't know when to throw in the towel. It is essentially another form of welfare payment which is bankrupting our society. Also no problem with population control initiatives. This poor planet of ours can not sustain unrestricted population growth as we have been seeing. Not sure what the exact solutions to these problems are and they now are around our neck in an ever tightening noose and need to be solved before they end us all. Now there may be suppressed technology out there that would make these initiatives unnecessary. So my comments are made in light of currently known technology.

  2. The real problem is the poisoning through the water, pharmaceuticals, vaccines, food, stress, and the lack of a standard of living.
    Without all of this poison in the air, water, in the earth, and in our foods; we could probably live longer healthier lives. Currently technology and healthcare measures are to depopulate the earth. So, the vaccines are making us sick and have nanobots in them with kill switches, the air is contaminated by poisons and nanobots from the chemtrails, aspartame, all kinds of cancer causing ingredients in our hair products and make up, also building materials in our homes are contaminated so much that the dry wall that is sold in UsA China refuses to buy. Genetically modified organisms and pesticides is found in our foods. The fast food restaurants are using meat not meant for human consumption (human flesh, horse meat, meat glue, pink slime, mad cow disease, etc).

    The world is not over populated, because we have a criminal element who wants to own everything; too many people are uncontrollable by their the slaves will take over the "massa house."

    If these greedy, gluton, inbreds didn't have to have 100's and thousands of acres to build homes; which they could never live in all the rooms, or walk on all the land in a life time, or have to have trillions of dollars, or want to rule the world.

    I believe that we should live as long as our Creator keeps us; and this life is not ours to determine who lives and who dies. If we treat our body right, I believe we don't have to age, and we can live for 100's of years. The Chinese do...

    1. Fedup agree most wholeheartedly. My great grandmother was still ranching at 95 when her family decided that the forest her husband had planted as part of homesteading requirements was more valuable than she was. She was active, sharp as a whistle and proud of it. Her home and land saw no signs up decay and her health was as good as people much younger than she was. Great grandmother knew of the Chinese and their methods.

      She didn't last a year in the elder care facility. They forced her to eat the foods they prepared, something she recognized as toxic to the body. She let go as she could not win, the law was against her, because of her age and the money involved.

      The Chinese value age and knowledge as something part of their culture. That encourages active longevity.

    2. P
      It's so sad that we allow our seniors to die needlessly, most of them die from heart break. My family are of Indian (native american) descent and they live very long youthful lives. My mom is still motoring around with no assistance, she's now 80 years and very youthful. Most people think that she is our sister.

      Living a long life involves no stress, happiness, a lot of pure water, and a healthy diet filled with nutrition. Many of these factors are hard to come by; but we must take care of our seniors, as well as our children.

  3. Half the elderly are prescribed drugs linked to increased death and mental decline

    Researchers in Britain have linked drugs commonly prescribed to half of those 65 and older to increased incidence of death and mental decline. The researchers’ findings, which are being published this month in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, suggest that the side-effects of the drugs have an impact on the brain, increasing the risk of decline and death.

    The new study examined 13,000 patients aged 65 or older and focused on drugs which have 'anticholinergic activity' - a known potential side effect of many prescription and over the counter drugs which affects the brain by blocking a key neurotransmitter called acetylcholine. Each drug taken by the participants was given a ranking based on the strength of its anticholinergic activity, or AntiCholinergic Burden (ACB) -- 0 for no effect, 1 for mild effect, 2 for moderate effect and 3 for severe effect. Thus, a patient taking one severe drug and two mild ones would have an overall score of five.

    Researchers found that the risk was cumulative, based on the number of drugs taken and the strength of each drug's effect. The results showed that one in five people taking drugs with a total score of four or more had died by the end of the two-year study, compared with only 7% per cent of those taking no anticholinergic drugs. The study also found that for every additional point scored, the odds of dying increased by 26%.

    The groups with the greatest anticholinergic impact included: anti-depressants such as Amitriptyline, Imipramine and Clomipramine; tranquilisers such as Chlorpromazine and Trifluoperazine; bladder medication such as Oxybutynin; and antihistamines such as Chlorphenamine. Other anticholinergic drugs included: Atenolol, Furosemide and Nifedipine for heart problems; painkillers such as Codeine and Dextropropoxyphene; the asthma treatment Beclometasone;the epilepsy treatment Carbamazepine; and Timolol eyedrops used for glaucoma.


If your comment violates OWON's Terms of Service or has in the past, then it will NOT be published.

Powered by Blogger.