New Zealand Government Preparing To Drown Whole Country In Fluorides + New Zealand Grants Human Rights To River
March 18 2017 | From: JonRappoport / Infowars / Various

The issue here is, who is going to decide whether the people of New Zealand are fluoridated? Who will be in charge? Communities, or the federal government?

“MPs are expecting furious opposition to proposals on fluoridated drinking water as public hearings kick off this week.” “The first select committee hearings will be held tomorrow on the Government’s plan to transfer the responsibility for fluoridating water from councils to district health boards (DHBs).”

[TRANSFER THE DECISION FROM LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO LARGER FEDERAL ENTITIES - A TAKEOVER.]

“In a rare move, Parliament’s Health Committee has agreed to hear from every individual or organisation that asked to make an oral submission.” “In total, 60 organisations and 140 individuals are expected to give presentations, and the committee will be broken up into sub-committees in order to hear them all.” [IN OTHER WORDS, THE FULL COMMITTEE WON’T HEAR ANY INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION - A CLUE THAT THE “TOLERANCE” FOR EVERY POINT OF VIEW IS JUST A SHOW.] “’The committee felt that hearing from everyone on this was important’, committee chairman and National MP Simon O’Connor said.” “’It’s a passionate topic. People feel very strongly about it and we thought … the best way to manage that was to allow them to be heard’.” [YES, HEARD, BEFORE BEING IGNORED. THE COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY MADE UP ITS MIND.] “Most of the submissions to the committee were against the law change, O’Connor said.” “At present, territorial authorities decide whether to fluoridate the local water supply.” [JUST AS IT SHOULD BE.]

My further comments: right now, only 27 territories (out of a total of 67) in New Zealand have decided to fluoridate their water supplies.

The majority of territories understand the toxicity of fluorides.

The federal government wants to take over and fluoridate everybody. The feds consider anti-fluoride activists the enemy and bunch of crazies.




Ripping Apart Peter Dunne's LIES About Fluoride - Vinny Eastwood







Related: Why Does NZ Still Fluoridate? TV Commercial FFNZ

I also suspect that money is an issue. Somebody close to the federal government is poised to make large profits from selling the chemicals, when the government decides the whole population should be toxified.

"Fluoride makes your body absorb extra aluminium, and where does the aluminium go? Your brain! And what metal shows up alarmingly in the brains of Alzheimer victims? You guessed it." - Dr William Douglass

For the edification of New Zealand’s feds, who believe “the science is settled” and opposing activists are anti-science, here is a famous bombshell letter, written by the head of the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) union of in-house scientists, William Hirzy.

Quoting from a May 1, 1999, statement -

“Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation” - written by William Hirzy, PhD, [Union of Scientists] Senior Vice-President, Chapter 280: “…our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.” “In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.” “Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956…” “EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue. The judge who heard the lawsuit he [Marcus] brought against EPA over the firing made that finding - that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA.” “…data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey, Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his [Dr. Marcus’] analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.” “Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries [cavities] incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities. The latest publication on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.” “John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation - until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, ‘Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.’ In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.” “…mutation studies…show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study…further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.” “So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled - and apparently uncontrollable - exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products… For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.” “We have also taken a direct step to protect the [EPA] employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water… the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.” “The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.”

That last sentence lets you know where the fluorides are coming from.

So... an employees’ union of scientists within the EPA has made its position clear. Quite clear.



Related: Fluorides, the atomic bomb, and fake news

The mainstream press has refused to cover this story in any significant way for 17 years. The federal government of New Zealand doesn’t care about any of this.

They just want to give the gift of poison to whole population of the country, and call it science.


Related Articles:

Fluoride & The Brain

The Spice That Prevents Fluoride From Destroying Your Brain

Former EPA Senior Scientist Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ

Undeniable Evidence From Numerous Studies Proves That Fluoride Causes Cancer

Boycott Tourism In NZ: More Fluorides?

New Zealand Government Plans To Drown Its Citizens In Toxic Fluorides

Auckland: No Consultation Needed For Stopping Or Starting Fluoridation + Fluoridation Decision Is An Attack On
Democracy

Fluoride: Poison On Tap Official Trailer

The Fluoride Deception

New Zealand Fluoridation Review Unscientific And Intellectually Dishonest Say International Reviewers

Fluoride Free New Zealand: Dirty Science

Secret Fluoridation Review Totally One-Sided Admits Chair

The New Zealand parliament passed a bill recognizing the Whanganui River as a “living entity” with the same human rights enjoyed by citizens.

“I know the initial inclination of some people will say it’s pretty strange to give a natural resource a legal personality,” said Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson. “But it’s no stranger than family trusts, or companies or incorporated societies.”

Imagine the implications of this if global bodies start granting “human rights” to landmarks and other geographic features in an effort to expand their “global warming” agenda.

This would fall right in line with the “Problem – Reaction – Solution” playbook used by the UN and the EU: declare “global warming” as a threat to the “human rights” of, say, a beach, then declare it an “international humanitarian crisis” that can only be fixed with “solutions” which of course trample national sovereignty.

And if you honestly think politicians care about the “existential threat” of “man-made global warming,” then ask yourself, why do they keep attributing to the problem by flying private jets around the world to give speeches on climate change?

It’s pure hypocrisy – and textbook Machiavelli deception.

But it still works because a large portion of the population are still duped into thinking that government is always benevolent and exists to take care of you, which of course is another deception pushed by politicians who gain power only at the expense of individual rights, and I don’t mean the rights of a river, but of human beings.

“It seems that those who believe in global warming are more likely to trust government,” Zero Hedge once lamented. “What happens when they wake up and discover nothing is as they thought it would be?” “Meanwhile, the energy output of the sun is dropping faster than anyone expected. Snow has actually begun falling in Tokyo and other parts of eastern Japan. [In 2016] Tokyo recorded its first November snowfall since 1875 when the government started collecting records. But hey. Now they want to call this climate change and somehow still attribute this to mankind.”

The global warming establishment and the media are crowing about 2014 being the hottest year on record.

Marc Morano, founder of ClimateDepot.com, explains how bought-and-paid-for scientists are using skewed data to help further the UN agenda of one-world government.

Thousands Of Medical Studies Found To Be Useless + Medical-Drug Destruction Of Life, By The Numbers & Herd Immunity Used For Fear And Guilt
March 14 2017 | From: JonRappoport

Memo to “medical bloggers” living in mommy’s basement.

I’m talking about little defenders of consensus science, bloggers who love and adore every official pronouncement that comes down the pipeline from medical journals and illustrious doctors.

And therein lies the gigantic problem.

Statnews.com has the bombshell story (“Thousands of studies used the wrong cells, and journals are doing nothing,” July 21, 2016):

“Recent estimates suggest that between 20 percent and 36 percent of cell lines scientists use are contaminated or misidentified - passing off as human tissue cells that in fact come from pigs, rats, or mice, or in which the desired human cell is tainted with unknown others. But despite knowing about the issue for at least 35 years, the vast majority of journals have yet to put any kind of disclaimer on the thousands of studies affected.” “One cell line involved are the so-called HeLa cells. These cancerous cervical cells - named for Henrietta Lacks, from whom they were first cultured in the early 1950s - are ubiquitous in labs, proliferate wildly - and, it turns out, contaminate all manner of cells with which they come into contact. Two other lines in particular, HEp-2 and INT 407, are now known to have been contaminated with HeLa cells, meaning scientists who thought they were working on HEp-2 and INT 407 were in fact likely experimenting on HeLa cells.” “Christopher Korch, a geneticist at the University of Colorado, has studied the issue. According to Korch, nearly 5,800 articles in 1,182 journals may have confused HeLa for HEp-2; another 1,336 articles in 271 journals may have mixed up HeLa with INT 407. Together, the 7,000-plus papers have been cited roughly 214,000 times, Science reported last year.” “And that’s just two cell lines. All told, more than 400 cell lines either lack evidence of origin or have become cross-contaminated with human or other animal cells at some point in their laboratory lineage. Cell lines are often chosen for their ability to reproduce and be bred for long periods of time, so they’re hardy buggers that can move around a lab if they end up on a researcher’s gloves, for example. ‘It’s astonishingly easy for cell lines to become contaminated,’ wrote Amanda Capes-Davis, chair of the International Cell Line Authentication Committee, in a guest post for Retraction Watch. ‘When cells are first placed into culture, they usually pass through a period of time when there is little or no growth, before a cell line emerges. A single cell introduced from elsewhere during that time can outgrow the original culture without anyone being aware of the change in identity’.”

Getting the picture?

HUGE numbers of published studies are based on knowing which cells are being used and tested. And much of the time, the researchers don’t know. They pretend they do, but they don’t.

Their work is completely unreliable. Everyone involved (for decades) looks the other way. It’s the secret no one wants to talk about.

“Why do they call it 'alternative medicine' when it is the original medicine that huans have been using for thousands of years? Chemical medications were discovered about a hundred years ago!"

Thousands and thousands and thousands of medical studies are useless, and their conclusions are unfounded, and turn out to be random.

This is like saying;

“Well, we built all those buildings in the city, but the concrete we used was probably cardboard. Let’s not talk about it. Let’s just wait and see what happens.”

Millions of patients who are taking drugs are guinea pigs. Researchers originally tested the toxicity of drugs on cells they assumed were relevant, but they were wrong. They said the drugs were safe, but they were working with cells that had no bearing on safety.

This is one reason why, on July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a highly respected public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, could conclude, in the Journal of the American Association, that FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans every year - which becomes a MILLION deaths per decade.

The original researchers on those drugs pretended they knew what they were doing.

Pretended. Everything I’m describing and citing in this article?

The FDA knows about it. The CDC knows about it. The World Health Organization knows. National health departments all over the world know. Medical schools know.

Many doctors know. Many, many researchers know. Many hospital executives know. All pharmaceutical executives know.

Many mainstream medical reporters know. All medical journals know. But they continue to promote life-destroying fake news.

Blog that.

Medical-Drug Destruction Of Life, By The Numbers

I continue to expose the medical holocaust. I continue to present the conclusions of mainstream researchers and analysts, to prove the point.



It’s more effective to show that these researchers are not in the so-called fringe.

Related: Bill Paxton dies from surgery as failed medical system takes another beloved life

The statistics I’m quoting today reveal a problem on the level of a tsunami sweeping across the whole of America and Europe - while somehow, people carry on with their lives as if nothing is happening.

But the truth is, huge numbers of people do know what is happening, and they have their own personal horror stories - but those stories are not seeing the light of day.

Owing to the captive status of the mainstream press (beholden to the pharmaceutical juggernaut for advertising dollars), the tsunami is not receiving extensive coverage.

To make things worse, the political Left views modern medicine as unassailable science - they love all official science, no matter how deep the fraud goes. And they adore the “humanitarian ideal” of helping others.

What could support that ideal more beautifully than the vague sentiment, “medical care for all”? No need to dig below the surface. No need to examine details. No need to look at facts. Just stay with the syrupy “share and care.”

The political Right views the medical cartel as “successful business,” and no one has a right to tamper with economic success. If a business is winning, it’s good and right and true.

All right. Let’s go to the numbers. I’ll give you the horrific quotes now and discuss the source afterwards:

“…Appropriately prescribed prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death… About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs in the US and Europe.” “They [the drugs] cause an epidemic of about [6.6 million per year] hospitalizations, as well as falls, road accidents, and about 80 million [per year] medically minor problems such as pains, discomforts, and dysfunctions that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others.”

In other words, the 330,000 deaths per year, the 6.6 million hospitalizations per year, and the 80 million “medically minor” problems per year… all of this stems from CORRECTLY PRESCRIBED medicines.

The quotes come from the ASA [American Sociological Association] publication called Footnotes, in its November 2014 issue. The article is “The Epidemic of Sickness and Death from Prescription Drugs.” The author of the article is Donald W Light.

Donald W Light is a professor of medical and economic sociology. He is a founding fellow of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2013, he was a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard. He is a Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University.

Again, it’s been my policy to quote medical analysts who have mainstream credentials, when it comes to adding up the results of medical destruction.

I do this to show that, in refusing to fix the holocaust, the federal government, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, medical journals, hospitals, and doctors can’t claim a) their critics and detractors are “fringe researchers” or b) there really isn’t a problem.

Believe me, the officials who should have been fixing the enormous tragedy for at least the past 15 years are intent on hiding it. When you stop and think about the meaning of these numbers, one of the things you realize is: this massive destruction of life envelops whole countries.

It not only maims and kills, it brings emotional turmoil and loss to the families, friends, co-workers, and colleagues of those who are killed and maimed: the 330,000 who are killed and the 6.6 million who are hospitalized and the 80 million whose productivity is hobbled or whose ability to care for others is significantly diminished.

If you consciously set out to bring a nation to its knees, to kill it, to disable it, to make it unable to function at any reasonable level, you would be hard pressed to find a more effective long-term method than exposing the population to the US/European medical-drug cartel.

Donald Light is the editor of a book that ought to be studied at every college and medical school in the world: The Risks of Prescription Drugs (Columbia University Press). The basic research that led to his conclusions, cited above, come from that book. His website is PharmaMyths.net.

If you approached mainstream news outlets, mainstream and independent blogs and websites, and told them, “I have the cause of 330,000 deaths, 6.6 million hospitalizations, and 80 million minor but troubling and disruptive problems per year, in the US and Europe, they might, if they believed you, become interested - but how many of these news operations would publish the numbers, once they realized you were talking about correctly prescribed medical drugs as the sole cause?

How many of these news operations would back away, turn a blind eye, change the subject, and move on to other stories?

“Your unvaccinated child is a danger to my vaccinated child!”

Little Jimmy, whose parents have decided not to vaccinate him, will pass diseases on to kids who are already vaccinated? What?

Oh, you mean those immunized kids aren’t really safe? Then why did you vaccinate them in the first place?

What actually protects people against disease, or enables them to recover from disease with no lasting ill-effects, is the strength of their immune systems.

If a person has a chronically weak immune system, he will get sick again and again, and it doesn’t matter how many people around him are vaccinated against how many diseases.

The health of populations has everything to do with good nutrition, adequate sanitation, and an absence of toxic elements in the environment.

There are many doctors who know this, but they refuse to speak out, because they know they’ll suffer consequences.

Vaccination, as a propaganda strategy, is used to medicalize the population - to assert that good health is fundamentally a medical matter.

It isn’t. If tomorrow, two things happened, they would change the face of health in any industrialized country:

One, millions more people buying healthy food and/or growing their own food, in yards; and in inner cities, growing food in community gardens;

And two, the courts delivering justice in the form of billion-dollar fines and long, long prison sentences to corporate employees (including CEOs) for severe and real pollution.

Note: That justice would eliminate GMO crops which rely on toxic pesticide use.

I’m not spinning rainbows. I’m just pointing out that, with these two changes alone, hospitals and clinics and doctors’ offices would empty out, and the medical cartel would finally experience vast comeuppance.

Health and life are not medical functions.

Any science that claims they are medical functions is false science, and the people who make those claims are liars or morons or criminals, or some combination of all three.

“The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” - Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977

Host resistance = strong immune system.

Go to any poverty-stricken Third World country, and you will find: contaminated water supplies, starvation, lack of basic sanitation, over- crowded living conditions, stolen farm land—and large vaccine programs. The outcome? Chronic illness.

It doesn’t matter which disease labels are placed on this illness; it persists. And it will persist until these factors are remedied.

Take a wealthy community like Beverly Hills. How many doctors would dare tell a parent;

“Look, your child needs fresh air, sunlight, exercise, and he needs to stop eating junk food and playing video games ten hours a day. Until that happens, there’s nothing anyone can do for him.”

A doctor insisting on non-medical solutions? Forget it.

The basic elements that promote a healthy and strong immune system undercut vaccination and other medical interventions. People can rail against that fact; they can attack it; but they can’t change it.

Naturally strong immune system = you don’t get sick, or if you do, you recover without lasting ill-effects.

Weak immune system = you get sick from many possible causes.

So, soccer moms, try applying a little common sense and intelligence to the situation. What should you be doing to strengthen your child’s immune system, and why are you so worried that unvaccinated kids are a danger to your vaccinated child, if he is protected?

Face it, you’re acting as a dupe for the gigantic socialization strategy called vaccination.

Better tasting hot dogs with harmful fats removed! Healthier snacks with accurate expiration dates! Or, we can continue on our present path, and Americans will keep eating the same foods we always have, including foods that make us sick and obese.

"Fiber is a terrible name - by definition its name says that we don’t know what it is. That’s crazy!”

She’s not the only one - American food science itself is struggling, and for more reasons than funding alone. We have food science programs, but some of the food scientists that I spoke with find it difficult to attract the funding needed to innovate and come up with novel solutions to food science and nutrition issues through basic research.

Others left publicly-funded food science for greener pastures in private industry.

Not all American food science is suffering, E. Allen Foegeding, professor at the North Carolina State Department of Food, Bioprocessing and Nutrition Sciences, told Gizmodo - he noted that the fields of sustainability, microbiology and food safety have seen lots of attention.



Related: Should Some Foods Be Treated As A Drug?

Instead, what’s lagging is what some of the folks I spoke with called food innovation, or interdisciplinary research combining the fields of physics, chemistry and engineering to understand food down to its molecules to create solutions for the future.

For example: cows emit greenhouse gases, so let’s lab-grow a replacement beef. Consumers don’t want to eat trans fat, so let’s engineer a healthier alternative that has the same physical properties.

Right now, the alphabet soup of federal agencies (NIH, NSF, and USDA through NIFA) and private funding sources supporting food science research in the United States don’t have a shared stated goal or direction. And while many startups are trying to be innovative, private innovation prevents the spread of knowledge for other scientists to build on.

"The situation in the US is sad,”said Alejandro Marangoni, professor in food science at the University of Guelph in Canada.

Marangoni should know - his Canadian lab innovates with the structure of fats and oils, replacing unhealthy fats with oil and cellulose-based gels in products like hot dogs, or imaging milk fat using high-powered microscopes.

Sure, the United States has scientists doing work like Marangoni’s, but it doesn’t seem to him and scientists like him that American food research has a central, forward-looking goal.

"We need more of that type of conversation at the country level and decide where we need to be putting our money to help society move forward,” said Foegeding.

Today, food science funding is patched together. Federal funding - your taxpayer mon - goes mainly to nutritional, agricultural and food safety research, leaving a void for those interested in innovation.



Related: How Clothes Are Polluting the Food Supply

Scientists start looking for funding through the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture, said John Coupland, professor at Penn State and president of the Institute of Food Technologists, but “the hit rates for these grants are not good,” he added.

NIFA grants typically go for several hundred thousand dollars a piece, enough to take on a few Ph.D students and pay for travel, but mostly relate to agriculture in some way, as opposed to, say, discovering all of the biological components of milk. Nutrition studies, meanwhile, might receive National Institute of Health grants, also for a few hundred thousand dollars.

"The NIH doesn’t consider pure food research in their domain unless you’re doing something clinical,” that is, the research must act as a cure to some disease, said Marangoni. “The NSF doesn’t want to see food research because that’s USDA stuff.”

I contacted NIFA asking where someone interested in researching food after it’s already been picked from the soil, for reasons other than nutrition, might apply for public funding. The agency has not yet responded to the inquiry.

If you check out nutrition papers, you’ll typically find large-scale studies where scientists ask a lot of people to check what they remember eating off of a list.

Few, though an increasing number of studies, break food down to its individual chemicals and observe how those molecules interact with our guts, or with with the bacteria living inside them.

Right now, what we know about food chemistry, individual molecules and how to harness them is limited and lagging.

“What does an apple truly look like as it moves through you?” asked professor David Mills from the University of California, Davis’ Food Science and Technology department. “All the complex sugar structures aren’t known. Fiber is a terrible name,” since there are far more diverse molecules than the name alone implies. “By definition its name says that we don’t know what it is. That’s crazy!” “You can procure funding, but need to sneak it through. You’ll hide what you’re actually researching inside a proposal for research you’re not really going after.”

The researchers I spoke to have considered or used money from companies like General Mills or Nabisco to buy new lab equipment like centrifuges and high-performance liquid chromatography systems for their university research.

“That leaves you in a position where you can procure that funding but need to sneak it through,” said Irwin Adam Eydelnant, a biomedical engineer who has since started his own privately-funded company, the Future Food Studio. “You’ll hide what you’re actually researching inside a proposal for research you’re not really going after.”

Even those industry contacts don’t always make ends meet. Schaich’s food science lab at Rutgers University in New Jersey has long relied on industry arrangements to study the way that fats and oils change over time.

Today, her lab is aging, and not like a high-end sharp cheddar. Yellowing letters taped to the wall show dates from thirty years ago. The machinery looks straight out of a 1980s video arcade. Even a bag of potato chips labeled for research purposes only displays an outdated Lays’ logo.

As food scientists express their frustration procuring funds for basic research, this broken system is having a tangible impact on America’s international standing - we don’t seem to be keeping up.



Related: What Really Goes into a Jar of Nutella Will Shock You

Related: Why You Should Avoid Nutella

In 2016, American institutions published 85 articles out of 177 submitted to the fairly well-cited journal Food Chemistry, compared to China’s 430 published, 1754 submitted, Spain’s 148 published, 338 submitted, and Italy’s 125 published, 254 submitted, according to documents obtained by Gizmodo.

A similar pattern pops up in a moderate-impact journal Food Research International: the United States published 26 out of 77 submitted articles, compared to China’s 33 out of 662, Brazil’s 73 out of 378, and Spain’s 43 out of 235. Statistical analyses weren’t provided.

Of course, food scientists don’t just publish in food science journals,” said Coupland. “Many food scientists work on food as their primary job but are plugged into other fields… where they’re using the same techniques and the same language,” like genetics or alternative fuel sources. Still, the American scientists interviewed for this article almost all spoke jealously of Marangoni’s large lipid lab, or of Wageningen University, the Netherlands’ food science Mecca.

How did things get to be this way? When Schaich began as a food scientist over 40 years ago, the industry-university relationship felt like a partnership.

She suspects a combination of many of the pitfalls of capitalism brought a sea change - for instance, large tobacco companies like Philip Morris and R. J. Reynolds buying or merging with food companies in the 1980s, or Reagan-era trickle down economics.



Related: Monsanto Is Scrambling To Bury This Breaking Story – Don’t Let This Go Unshared!

She noticed the General Foods research center close in the 1990s, and thought the takeovers and changing economic policies encouraged these companies to focus on profit over innovation.

“I have former students working at Mondelez,” once owned by Phillip Morris, “and what was basic research that brought development of a lot of the low fat cookies, Cool Whip and a lot of things we take for granted are not being done at all,” she said. “They’re just monitoring existing product.” Now, lots of food companies rely on small entrepreneurs to innovate, and then buy up the new products, she said.

Eydelnant and others thought that the startup model could actually put America at the forefront of food innovation. Memphis Meats, for example, is a Bay Area startup trying to grow meat in a lab to prevent animal slaughter.

Private funding allows a product to hit the shelves faster and allows the company to stay nimble said Uma Valeti, Memphis Meat’s CEO and cofounder. Taxpayer-funded research lays the groundwork, while private industry can provide new ideas. He thinks things are working better that way, too.

“Currently, we feel that private funding is the best option for producing high-quality research that leads to better food for everyone,” he said to Gizmodo in an email.

But as previously noted,startups need to make money. Privately-funded research won’t necessarily better society or expand the general knowledge base, as companies patent their products or maintain industry recipe and formulation secrets like Coca Cola’s flavor or KFC’s spice combination.



Related: DNA Tests Say Subway’s Oven-Roasted Chicken is Actually 50% Soy Product

Some researchers think America needs something akin to a food moonsh - a major reprioritization of our country’s food science money to focus on actually understanding all of the chemicals in food, how we taste them, and how they interact with our bodies.

This could lead to food innovations that actually prevent disease.

“When you consider the negative impact food can have on our health, how can this not be an national priority?” asked Mills.

Why, he asked, do doctors prescribe Lipitor to lower bad cholesterol, when there’s the potential to simply personalize and alter our diets so cholesterol isn’t high in the first place?

And, imagine if private companies shared their food science secrets with the world? We might have a true understanding about how our own bodies work and how to eat delicious, affordable, optimized food.



Related: Poison Fruit: Dow Chemical Wants Farmers to Keep Using a Pesticide Linked to Autism and ADHD

Many companies are trying to do that, but that doesn’t seem to be stopping us from trashing our bodies or being spoon-fed politically and industry-motivated nutritional recommendations, taking on shady fad diets or stuffing ourselves with vitamins that don’t work.

Related: Is Your Multivitamin Toxic? + Is Your Multivitamin Supplement A Multi-Waste Of Your Money?

Ultimately, we probably all need to change our mindset about food science.

“There’s a sense that food should be natural and anything that makes food not natural, and physics and chemistry don’t sound natural, that’s a bad thing to do,” speculated Coupland. “Food technology” as I discuss here “won’t attract attention from big-name journals like Science, Nature or even The Journal of Food Science.”

Coupland would at least like to find ways to get universities to value this type of forward-looking research more.

“And more money would be nice.”

If you're like most people, you either aren't sure how to answer, or you're very sure - but very wrong. And it's not your fault. It's the fault, experts say, of decades of flawed or misleading nutrition advice - advice that was never based on solid science.

The US Department of Agriculture, along with the agency that is now called Health and Human Services, first released a set of national dietary guidelines back in 1980. That 20-page booklet trained its focus primarily on three health villains: fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol.

Recently, research has come out strongly in support of dietary fat and cholesterol as benign, rather than harmful, additions to person's diet. Saturated fat seems poised for a similar pardon.

"The science that these guidelines were based on was wrong," Robert Lustig, a neuro-endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told Tonic. In particular, the idea that cutting fat from a person's diet would offer some health benefit was never backed by hard evidence, Lustig said.

Just this week, some of Lustig's colleagues at UCSF released an incendiary report revealing that in the 1960s, sugar industry lobbyists funded research that linked heart disease to fat and cholesterol while downplaying evidence that sugar was the real killer.

Nina Teicholz, a science journalist and author of the The Big Fat Surprise, said a lot of the early anti-fat push came from the American Heart Association (AHA), which based its anti-fat stance on the fact that fat is roughly twice as calorie-dense as protein and carbohydrates.

"This advice to avoid fat allowed the food industry to go hog-wild promoting low-fat, carb-heavy foods as 'light' or 'healthy,' and that's been a disaster for public health," Lustig said. "They had no clinical data to show that a low-fat diet alone would help with obesity or heart disease," Teicholz told Tonic.

But because fat was high in calories, they adopted this anti-fat position, and the government followed their lead. Surely the 1960s research rigged by the Sugar Association, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, added to our collective fat fears.

By the 1990s, when Teicholz says the epidemiological data started piling up to show that a low-fat, high-carb diet did not help with weight loss or heart disease - calories be damned - much of the damage was already done.

The US public was deep in what nutrition experts sometimes call the "Snackwell phenomenon" - a devotion to low-fat and low-calorie processed snack foods, which people pounded by the bagful because they believed them to be healthy.

The stats back him up. Since the US government first published a set of national nutrition guidelines in 1980, rates of obesity and related diseases like diabetes have more than doubled.

"Childhood diabetes was basically unheard of, and now it's an epidemic," Lustig said.

Overseas, national health authorities followed America's lead on fat. The results have been similarly grim. Earlier this year, a UK nonprofit called the National ObesityForum (NOF) published a blistering condemnation of its government's diet and nutrition policies.

In its report, the NOF argues that advice to cut back on fat and cholesterol is "the root cause" of Britain's skyrocketing rates of obesity and diabetes. Speaking shortly after the report's publication, Aseem Malhotra, a British cardiologist who consulted on the NOF report, said;

"The change in dietary advice to promote low-fat foods is perhaps the biggest mistake in modern medical history. Along with ripping its government's "failed policies," the NOF report called for a"complete overhaul of dietary advice and public health messaging."

In a recent editorial appearing in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, researcher Zoe Harcombe from the University of the West of Scotland explains that obesity rates among British men and women rose from 2.7 percent in 1972 to 23 percent and 26 percent, respectively, by 1999.

"There are only three macronutrients," Harcombe told Tonic, "protein, fat, and carbohydrates."

Nearly everything you eat or drink contains one or more of these. And if you followed the government's advice to eat less fat, it's inevitable that your carb consumption would shoot up, she said. That's just what happened at a population level during the 1980s and 90s.

A whole generation of health professionals accepted - and passed on to their patients - the government's guidance to avoid fat and cholesterol. Many still do.



Related: Low-Carbohydrate, High Fat Diet Advice Questioned

To give credit where credit is due: The latest iteration of the US government's dietary guidelines no longer makes a point of capping total fat and cholesterol intakes. But this omission is more a furtive walking back of bad advice than a public acknowledgment of error, Teicholz said. Worse:

"When you look at the actual nutritional modeling that the government uses to inform its feeding programs, such as the National School Lunch program, they are all still low in fat," she said.

Another example of the government's persistent crusade against fat: The 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans still push low-fat dairy over full fat - a recommendation the latest research doesn't support.

"Studies have not shown benefits of low-fat dairy over full-fat for weight loss, especially if the fat calories are replaced with sugar," Walter Willett, chair of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, told Tonic. "If anything, the evidence goes the other way."

Willett is quick to point out that he doesn't consider whole milk and full-fat cheese "health foods."

Nuts, for example, are a healthier source of fat, he said. But if you're going to sip some milk or eat some yogurt, the evidence suggests your waistline may be better off with the full-fat stuff - probably because it's more filling and so curbs excessive eating.



Related: 9 Lies About Fat That Destroyed The World's Health

Teicholz said it's hard to overstate the effect of national health authorities' pro-carb, anti-fat stance. A whole generation of health professionals accepted - and passed on to their patients - the government's guidance to avoid fat and cholesterol. Many still do.

"Both professional and institutional credibility are at stake," she said when asked why more doctors and policymakers aren't making noise about the harms caused by the government's dietary guidance. She also mentioned food industry interests, the potential for "massive class-action lawsuits," and the shame of copping to nearly a half-century of bad diet advice as deterrents for USDA and other health authorities when it comes to admitting they were wrong.

In the United Kingdom, the disconnect between nutrition science and government dietary policy has opened rifts within the public health community. Since its report's publication, the National Obesity Forum has lost four of its senior members, and the fallout has sparked a national debate among doctors, nutrition scientists, and policy makers over what sorts of food truly belong in a healthy diet.

"Our previous reports had garnered little interest, so we had no way of knowing this one would go interplanetary," David Haslam, chair of the National Obesity Forum and a professor of obesity sciences at Robert Gordon University, told Tonic.

Repeating the advice put forward in his organization's report, Haslam said he firmly believes public health would be greatly improved if we all just ate fewer refined carbohydra - stuff like baked goods, chips, breakfast cereals, and other packaged goods - and instead ate more "natural foods" regardless of their macronutrient content.

This last point - that we should all pay less attention to a food's nutrient makeup - is an important one. Harvard's Willett said focusing only on a food's specific macro and micronutrient content is confusing, and not a good way to evaluate an item's health impacts.

So what's a confused dieter to do?



Related: Your Body Is Electrical And Runs On Electrons – NOT Sugar, Protein Or Fat!

Jenny Knight, 30, is a speech therapist and mother of two in Norman, Oklahoma. "I've struggled with my weight since I was eight years old," Knight told VICE. At 5-foot-9 and close to 250 pounds, she's obese by any definition.

Like many heavy Americans, Knight has experimented with a hundred different diets that, when you boil them down, all advocate for cutting fat or calories in order to lose weight. Sooner or later, all of them failed her.

"Even when they were working, it was all about willpower," she said. "I'd be so hungry I'd be shaking, and eventually I wouldn't be able to keep that up anymore, and I'd gain all the weight back."

But since February, Knight has been on a fat-centric diet championed by David Ludwig, a professor of nutrition at Harvard.

Speaking to Tonic, Ludwig said that cutting fat from your diet in favor of processed carbs can trigger a cascade of unhealthy metabolic shifts that fuel diseases like diabetes and cause your body's fat cells to lock in - rather than dump - their energy.

All this results in "out-of-control" hunger, he said. Cutting more calories from your diet just adds fuel to that fire.

His plan, which he lays out in his book Always Hungry?, champions a shift away from carb-heavy processed food in favor of a diet heavy in fats from nuts, full-fat dairy, natural oils, and other whole foods.

So far, Knight has lost 32 pounds on Ludwig's plan. But it's not just the lost weight that has her feeling optimistic.

"This is the only diet I've ever tried that feels effortless - just no willpower required," she said. "It honestly feels decadent to eat things like dark chocolate or peanut butter or coconut milk, and I'm not hungry like I used to be."

Ludwig's diet may or may not be the answer to all our weight-loss prayers.

But one thing is clear: Dietary fat was never the boogeyman health authorities made it out to be.

"I think most of us would be 90 percent of the way to a really healthy diet if we just cut out processed foods," UCSF's Lustig said. "We wouldn't need diet guidelines if we ate real food."

Last night I watched The Big Short - maybe the most important Hollywood film in years. This true story is a powerful and eloquent invitation to wake up to the sheer depravity at the core of the system of commerce.

Costing ratepayers billions, smart meters are actually designed to unlawfully harvest detailed data of the in-home activities of occupants without their knowledge or consent.

As reported by the National Post:

"“Astonishing,” was the reaction from Lanark-area MPP Randy Hillier, who has been deluged with complaints about Hydro One billing and smart-meter suspicions. I’ve been banging my head against the wall for the last five years, saying we’ve got problems with smart meters in rural Ontario.” Since first being elected in 2007, no single issue has attracted as much attention in his riding, he said.

For the purpose of clarification: at this time Hydro One is not planning to uninstall smart meters and replace with analogs - but rather to manually read rural customers’ meters quarterly, and estimate the months in between, because the wireless reporting is simply not working.

More than 10,000 billing complaints have been filed with the Ontario Ombudsman, and the Auditor General of Ontario released a scathing report, calling out the smart metering program as a total flop.

Hydro One was the first major utility in Canada to deploy so-called ‘smart’ meters upon an unsuspecting customer base. The price tag for rollout, paid for by the people of Ontario, was $2 billion - which was $900M over budget.


Go Green, or Go Greed?

For those new to this topic, here’s the skinny. Smart utility meters are being deployed worldwide under the banner of climate action.

But they typically increase energy usage, and a high-level industry executive has admitted that the data collected by the surreptitious devices will be worth “a lot more” than the electricity itself.



Related: Static Energy Meter Errors Caused by Conducted Electromagnetic Interference

Portland State University recently published a brilliant report on the morally-bankrupt surveillance agenda behind smart meters. The industry-gutting report is titled “The Neoliberal Politics of ‘Smart’: Electricity Consumption, Household Monitoring, and the Enterprise Form,” and excerpts can be read at Smart Grid Awareness here.

Customers are not being informed how their constitutional rights are being violated for the purposes of a for-profit home surveillance network. Nor how this technology has caused thousands of fires which have resulted in several deaths. Nor how our bodies are being affected by pulsed microwave radiation exponentially stronger than cell phones, as shown in Take Back Your Power.



Related: Electronic Energy Meters’ False Readings Almost Six Times Higher than Actual Energy Consumption

If there wasn’t an avalanche of facts to back all of this up, it might sound too unbelievable to be true. But we live in strange times.


We Can Handle The Truth

Just like the banking system, the energy system has likewise become rotten to the core. To change both will require a complete overhaul and the embrace of a challenge to our comfort zone.

It is both harrowing and exciting for one to discover that there are major societal programs which are simply manufactured lies fueled by the idea of lack. That there’s not enough energy, food, resources, money. In reality, there is enough for all life to survive - and to thrive. It is provable fact that these truths have been suppressed.

Case in point: a 1971 de-classified US Army briefing actually calls for the secretization of solar technology which has greater than 20% efficiency (see page 14). This was back in 1971! And, of course, it’s in the name of national security and property interests.

Meanwhile, the energy mafia in Nevada just decreed a 40% fee hike for solar-producing customers, while reducing the amount paid for excess power sold to the grid, effectively killing the solar industry there.

There is a war on energy. When we understand the level of corruption involved, the implications are enormous. And we must act to solve this problem.

I believe that the suppression of solutions is a dam ready to burst. And I’m optimistic of our passing through this dark night successfully, as we are learning to connect and serve the higher good. There is really no other choice.




This Former Techie Owes His Fortune To Electronic Devices - Now He Thinks They're Dangerous

Silicon Valley isn't the best place to be hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields.



Peter Sullivan and I are driving around Palo Alto, California, in his black Tesla Roadster when the clicking begins. The $2,500 German-made instrument resting in my lap is picking up electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from a nearby cell tower.

Related: Microwave EMF Science: Deliberate Claptrap Misinformation? + ElectroSensitivity - A Case Study

As we follow a procession of BMWs and Priuses into the parking lot of Henry M. Gunn High School, the clicking crescendos into a roar of static. "I can feel it right here," Sullivan says, wincing as he massages his forehead. The last time he visited the tower, he tells me, it took him three days to recover.

Sullivan is among the estimated 3 percent of people in California who claim they are highly sensitive to EMFs, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by wireless routers, cellphones, and countless other modern accouterments.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome - famously suffered by the brother of Jimmie McGill, the lead character on AMC's Better Call Saul - is not a formally recognized medical condition in most countries and it has little basis in mainstream science. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies have essentially concluded that the problem is in peoples' heads.



That's what Sullivan used to think, too. A Stanford computer science major who has worked as a software designer for Excite, Silicon Graphics, and Netflix, he paid little mind to EMFs, which he once viewed as harmless and inevitable. His wife joined Google early on and now serves as its chief culture officer - founder Sergey Brin sometimes drops by the couple's home sporting Google Glass.

"I thought that anybody that talked about the health effects of EMFs was a complete idiot. I thought that they just were not science-y," Sullivan recalls. But then he got sick.

Around 2005, Sullivan started having trouble sleeping. He lost weight precipitously and struggled to maintain focus. After his top-flight Stanford doctors failed to figure out what was wrong with him, he tried every alternative remedy on the books, from cutting out gluten to taking chelating agents to purge his body of heavy metals.

Nothing really worked. He noticed, however, that he felt weird after talking on a cellphone or plugging into a laptop charger. So like any good health hacker, he kept debugging.

A feng shui consultant in Silicon Valley knew a guy in Los Angeles who called himself a "building biologist" and had reputedly worked wonders for Richard Gere.



Related: Conspiracy Theory Confirmed: Secret Docs Show Gov’t Covered Up Cell Phone Cancer Risks for Years

Sullivan flew the guy up to his $6 million home in a leafy Los Altos neighborhood and watched with interest as the man probed the baseboards of Sullivan's newly renovated bedrooms, bulky instruments flashing and buzzing.

The consultant's verdict: Sullivan's house was an EMF disaster zone. The wifi and cordless phones would have to go. He'd need to rip out the walls and change everything.

This was a bit like asking a winemaker to quit drinking or advising an auto exec to commute on a fixie. Sullivan took things slow at first, installing some metal shielding around the electrical conduits in his downtown Los Altos office to block a portion of the radiation.

He subsequently found that a 30-minute catnap in his office left him more replenished than a whole night's sleep at home, so he began napping there regularly. One day when he felt like the EMFs in his home were really messing with him, he drove up to a hiking trail in the Los Altos hills and slept in the parking lot.



Related: State Kept Secret Guidelines on Safe Cell Phone Use

By the time I met Sullivan in person, one bright day this past spring, he had regained the lost weight and was feeling good. A former Navy pilot who used to land fighter jets on aircraft carriers, Sullivan still has a military crispness in his posture and elocution.

Having recently retired from tech at age 40, he now devotes most of his time to exposing the hazards of EMFs. He has even brought up the matter with a few high-ranking friends at Google.

"This is the new smoking," he recalls telling them. "It's just like the beginning days, when the evidence is there and people aren't catching on."

Many controlled studies do, in fact, show that people who claim to suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity experience symptoms when exposed to electromagnetic fields.

But if those same people are unaware that the EMFs are present, the correlation between the symptoms and the exposure evaporates.

The leading explanation is what's known as the "nocebo" effect - people feel sick when exposed to something they believe is bad for them.

Case in point: In 2010, residents of the town of Fourways, South Africa, successfully petitioned for a cellphone tower to be removed due to a rash of illness in the area. It was later revealed that the tower wasn't operational during the period of the complaints.



Related: The Gloves Come Off On EMF / Mobile / WiFi Radiation + Understanding The Dangers Of The “5G” Rollout

A $25 million study released in May by the National Toxicology Program found that male rats exposed to radio-frequency radiation, the kind emitted by cellphones, were more likely to develop two forms of cancer - although the findings were controversial.

Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California-Berkeley and a believer in electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome, argues that the wireless industry has used its financial clout to suppress essential health research.

"This is very much like tobacco back in the 1950s," he concurs. "The industry has co-opted many researchers and has stopped funding many people who were finding evidence of harm."

Sullivan, who majored in psychology as an undergraduate, refuses to believe that he's just being neurotic. Through his foundation, Clear Light Ventures, he has given about $1 million to anti-EMF advocacy groups and researchers that the wireless industry won't touch.

They include retired Washington State University biochemistry professor Martin Pall, who has proposed a biological mechanism for EHS, and Harvard neurology professor Martha Herbert, who has suggested there could be links between EMFs and autism.

Laura Torres, who worked with Sullivan in the early 1990s as a product manager at Silicon Graphics, remembers him as a guy who "totally thinks outside the box."

He created software to log customer service calls, then a novel invention and a big-time saver for the company's tech support team. "He really takes a creative approach to solving problems, which I think is what he is doing with this EMF thing," she says.

Sullivan says his anti-EMF advocacy should not be viewed as an affront to his fellow techies:

"We are hoping that the industry, instead of being like tobacco and going through denial, will be more like the automotive industry and say, 'Okay, we are just going to keep improving safety. We will sell you more stuff that is safer and lower power.' And it will be a win for everybody."

During my visit, Sullivan walks me through his home's $100,000 worth of EMF-proofing. In his wood-paneled home office he points out a $1,000 Alan Maher technical ground, a device that helps channel electrical noise away from power outlets, and a plug-in Stetzer filter, which makes "a nice clean sine wave in your electricity," as my host puts it.

He flips a desktop switch to cut off power to his MacBook - he rarely works on it while it's charging. He made an exception last night after the battery died and says he ended up feeling wired and jittery as a result.



Related: Cell Phone Safety Guidance from the California Public Health Department

We step outside and through a gate, crunching over groundcover to the shingled exterior of his first-floor bedroom. Sheets of black mesh hang from a nearby fence to block a neighbor's wifi signal. A nearby power line is wrapped in a material that dissipates certain electrical frequencies as friction, like a string dampener on a tennis racquet.

Sullivan has installed a switch by his bed that lets him shut off his home's electricity while he sleeps.

"Our bedroom is like camping!" he says proudly. "We have all the luxury of being inside, but none of the EMFs." Indoors on a kitchen stool his wife, Stacy, is hunched over a laptop plugged into an ethernet cable. "She's in wireless jail," Sullivan jokes. "I used to be able to just do this wherever I wanted to work," she responds wistfully. "But it's okay."

In terms of protection, this residence doesn't even compare with another one Sullivan owns in the Los Altos hills. We hop in his Tesla (modified to shield him from its EMFs) and drive there. Originally built in the early 1900s as a hunting lodge, it had been renovated into a shrine to modernism by an HP executive.

Sullivan bought it a few years ago and converted it into what he calls a "model healthy home." He's hoping its shielded environment will help me to understand what sudden exposure to EMFs feels like.

In an empty upstairs bedroom that Sullivan sometimes uses as an office, a graphite paint called WiShield coats the walls. Clear, EMF-blocking films cover the windows. Conductive tape on the floor carries any electrical current to a high-frequency ground in the closet. Sullivan switches on his EMF meter: zero. "I thrive on it!" he says. "I get my best work done here."

He hands me a bottle of oxygenated water and instructs me to down it. This will supposedly unclump my blood, heightening my EMF sensitivity. Rummaging through the closet, he emerges with an air pump from his son's aquarium. He has discovered that this pump maxes out his instruments, producing "a fucking nightmare magnetic field."



Related: Cell Phones and Health

He holds it a couple of feet away from me and switches it on. I feel a small cramp in my stomach.

Maybe Sullivan was onto something. After all, birds and sea turtles use Earth's magnetic fields to navigate, and foxes seem able to rely on them to detect prey.

Then again, maybe all I'd felt was the nocebo effect. Sullivan suggested that I get to the bottom of it by spending a night at the shielded house. I didn't feel the need, I told him, but I understood why he might.

"When I wake up, it just feels like you can do anything," he'd assured me. "You just feel completely different, like your world has changed."

Neil Z Miller is a medical research journalist, who’s been researching vaccines and vaccinology science for 25 years. 

Neil points out in the retrospective study paper (p. 115):

“In the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, published in the Federal Register, aluminum toxicity levels are revealed: WARNING: This product contains aluminum that may be toxic... Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive [injections] of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 mcg per kilogram of body weight per day, accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity.  Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates. This means that for a 6-pound baby with impaired kidney function, 11-14 mcg of injected aluminum would be toxic. The hepatitis B vaccine given at birth contains 250 mcg of aluminum - 20 times higher than safety levels indicated for premies.  Babies weigh around 12 pounds at two months of age when they are injected with 1,225 mcg of aluminum from their CDC-recommended vaccines - 50 times higher than safety levels for premies."

Two serious health suggestions jump out of the above paragraphs:

1. Premature birth babies (Premies) should not be vaccinated!

2. Aluminum toxicity is a foregone conclusion due to the amounts of aluminum infants and toddlers receive as per the CDC’s unwise vaccine schedule!


I’d like to add a third: Pretest all prospective vaccinees, regardless of age, for mitochondrial DNA proclivities/changes and kidney function in order to avoid vaccine reactions.  That’s the least the medical profession can do if it’s going to keep pushing vaccines. 

According to Figure 2 on page 110, the “Age-Specific and Cumulative Aluminum Exposure by 18 Months of Age” in micrograms is as follows:

At Birth 250 mcg

2 Months 1225 mcg

4 Months 975 mcg

6 Months 1000 mcg

12 Months 600 mcg

15 Months 625 mcg

18 Months 250 mcg

Grand Total of 4,925 mcg of aluminum by 18 months of age.

Unbelievable!

“Those amounts were taken from vaccine manufacturer’s product inserts and the CDC’s 2016 childhood vaccine schedule, per Neil Miller."

The above does not include the CDC’s recommended vaccines for pregnant women (Tdap vaccine), which also contains aluminum!

“Studies show that aluminum crosses the placenta and accumulates in fetal tissue.  Thus, millions of babies in utero, infants, and young children were injected with, and continue to receive, unnaturally high doses of neurotoxic substances - mercury and aluminum - long after unsuspecting parents were led to believe that vaccines were purified and made safe." Pg. 109

Probably the vaccine(s) with the most egregious amounts of aluminum are the HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccines given to pre-pubescent boys and girls. “Each dose in the three-dose series contains 500 mcg of aluminum,” [Pg. 110] making a total of 1500 mcg of aluminum for the three-shot series over six months!



Related: Aluminum adjuvant, cytokines, brain inflammation, autism: Did China discover the missing piece of the autism puzzle?

One of the ‘scientific sleight-of-hand tricks’ HPV vaccine makers pulled off in safety trails was “(Vaccine safety trials for the HPV vaccine did not provide the control group with an inert substance or true placebo; the ‘control’ group was injected with aluminum.)”  [Pg. 112]

Isn’t that FRAUDULENT scientific activity? Shouldn’t that be reason enough to remove that HPV vaccine from the market?

Regarding autism, Miller states;

Miller drives home an obvious scientific given regarding aluminum or any heavy/toxic metal, regarding absorption.

“Moreover, vaccines with aluminum adjuvants are injected into the body, bypassing protective barriers of the gastrointestinal tract and skin.  Absorption of aluminum by this mode is more efficient than through ingestion, increasing the likelihood of a toxic outcome.  The authors summarized their findings: ‘Evidence has now emerged showing that autism may in part result from early-life immune insults induced by environmental xenobiotics.  One of the most common xenobiotic with immune-stimulating as well as neurotoxic properties to which infants under two years of age are routinely exposed worldwide is the aluminum vaccine adjuvant’. Pg. 112

Further illustrating the above, Miller cites what Dr Martin Myers, director of the National Vaccine Program Office and host of the HHS-sponsored Workshop on Aluminum admitted:

If that be the case, then why do CDC and FDA monkey around with allowing ethylmercury and aluminum in any of four solutions into vaccines given to newborns, infants and toddlers, plus pregnant females?  In essence, they admit they don’t know what they are doing!



Related: CDC document bombshell reveals list of all vaccine excipients, including “African Green Monkey Kidney Cells” and fibroblast cells from aborted human fetuses: see the complete list

But here’s the irony of ironies, in my opinion: Dr John Clements of the World Health Organization’s Expanded Programme on Immunization, had the chutzpah to proclaim;

“There are not easy and obvious substitutes to aluminum adjuvants….  The existing vaccines, if they change the adjuvant  for any reason, would need to be resubmitted for clinical trials for safety and efficacy and it would take a great deal of time to do that.”  “Aluminum is not perceived, I believe, by the public as a dangerous metal. Therefore, we are in a much more comfortable wicket in terms of defending its presence in vaccines." p 64

Doesn’t that sound like arrogance probably combined with ignorance? 

In the meantime, innocent children and families are made to pay the price of suffering vaccine adverse reactions!

Shouldn’t such a callous remark legally validate any parent’s refusal to have their darling babies harmed by vaccines? 

Basically, what the World Health Organization representative, at least, seems to care about is clinical trials and time - not health safety issues!




If the Auto Industry Operated Like the Vaccine Industry...

This animation reveals the absurdity of the vaccine industry's legacy of harmful products and absolute legal immunity from liability.

The above underscored information published in the 2006 Federal Register should be enough evidence, one would think, for Congress to act with regard to rescinding the 1986 “get out of jail free” card for vaccine makers and also for the U.S. Attorney General to prosecute those in the CDC and FDA at all levels of management for scientific fraud relative to vaccines and for establishing what amounts to mandatory chemical child abuse – the incomprehensible number of health-damaging neurotoxic vaccines and mandated vaccinations!

Mercury In Vaccines May Be Up To 50 Times More Toxic To The Brain Than Mercury In Fish

The vaccine debate has been raging for decades now, with strongly held viewpoints on both sides of the spectrum. President Trump’s establishment of a commission to evaluate the science on vaccines, in conjunction with the gauntlet thrown down by Robert De Niro and Robert Kennedy Jr., who have offered $100,000 to anyone able to conclusively prove the safety of mercury (as thimerosal) in vaccines, has brought the issue into the spotlight once more.



The fact that mercury is a potent neurodevelopmental poison is not under dispute; scientists can all agree on that. In fact, though mercury had been used in vaccines for decades, in the mid-1990s, it was removed from most vaccines, after scientists recognized that even low exposure to organic mercury could result in severe harm to fetuses and young infants.

It was also around this time that the voices of parents’ whose children had been harmed by these vaccines really began to be heard. (Learn more about what concerned these parents at Vaccines.news)

Related: Trace Amounts: Ethyl Mercury | Educational Documentary

Nonetheless, the vaccine industry and its mouthpiece, the CDC, continue to assert that it has been scientifically proven that “trace amounts” of mercury in vaccines in the form of thimerosal cannot cause harm.

Their argument is that while the mercury you would find in fish (methylmercury) is very dangerous, the mercury in thimerosal (ethylmercury) is entirely different, and can safely be jabbed into your kids multiple times.



Related: Hear this from a Real Scientist!

A 2013 study by scientists from the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Brazil, published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology, investigated the toxicity of of ethylmercury vs. methylmercury. Though they stated that more research was needed into the subject, their findings were still interesting. (Keep up-to-date with the latest on mercury in vaccines at Thimerosal.news)

They noted that although methylmercury is considered dangerous in even tiny amounts, the World Health Organization (WHO) approves small doses of thimerosal in multiple vaccines taken repetitively during pregnancy and childhood.

With this in mind, they compared the toxicity and potential harm of both etHg (ethylmercury) and meHg (methylmercury).

Their study abstract states:

So, not only are both types of mercury equally bad, but exposure to both would compound their toxic effects. That means, for example, that exposure to ethylmercury in a vaccine, combined with exposure to methylmercury in a tuna fish sandwich, would result in even greater harm.

Lisa Sykes, writing for Trace Amounts, raises some additional concerns about the mercury in vaccines. She notes that as bad as consuming mercury in fish is, that mercury is passing through the body’s digestive system, meaning that you end up absorbing far less of it.

On the other hand, the mercury in vaccines is injected directly into the body, entering the bloodstream, and from there quickly passing directly into the tissue. The body is left defenseless against this direct attack.

Babies in their mothers’ wombs are even more vulnerable, since mercury passes the placental barrier straight to the fetus. The baby is therefore exposed to huge amounts of mercury at a time of critical neurological development.




Vaxxed Producer - We Are Killing Our Children

Sykes also points out that unused vaccines that contain thimerosal are considered hazardous waste, and must by law be disposed of in steel drums.

No such stipulation applies to fish, even fish with high mercury content. That alone indicates clearly that the mercury in vaccines is by no means harmless.

And just how much mercury is there in vaccines? The vaccine industry always references “trace” amounts, downplaying the issue to make any concerns seem trivial.

The reality, however, as reported by TruthWiki, is that while fish like whitefish or tuna only contains about 250 to 500 parts per billion (ppb) of mercury, just one flu shot contains 51,000 ppb.



Related: How CDC Uses False Fears to Promote Vaccine Uptake

The simple fact that the CDC and the vaccine industry insist on saying that these vaccines pose “no harm” in spite of the clear scientific evidence to the contrary is a clear indication that both are involved in a massive cover-up.

The fact is that vaccines are a $30 billion dollar a year industry, and those who benefit from it are going to do whatever they can to protect their own interests.

People who refuse chemotherapy treatment live on average 12 and a half years longer than people who undergo chemotherapy, says Dr. Jones.

He has personally studied the life expectancy of patients for more than 25 years and has come to the conclusion that chemotherapy does more harm than good. The bone-chilling realization prompted Dr. Jones to speak out against the billion-dollar cancer industry.



Related: Statin Drugs Linked to Thyroid Cancer in Women

“People who refused chemotherapy treatment live on average 12 and a half years longer than people who are undergoing chemotherapy,” said Dr. Jones of his study, which was published in the New York Academy of Science.

According to the physician, the only reason doctors prescribe chemotherapy is because they make money from it. Such an accusation doesn’t seem unreasonable, as cancer treatment runs, on average, between $300,000 – $1,000,000 per treatment.

Despite the fact that the United States spends more on healthcare than any other high-income nation in the world, diseases of affluence continue to increase in prevalence, resulting in a shorter life expectancy.

Perhaps this is because mainstream media and the allopathic healthcare system don’t teach about the importance of preventative medicine. Eating a healthy diet, engaging in exercise, thinking positive thoughts, reducing stress, and enjoying the company of others – or habits that bring joy – are all proven to improve longevity and happiness.

Related: Nebulizing Sodium Bicarbonate

In addition, potent all natural medicines, such as cannabis oil, are also strictly regulated and illegal in many areas – despite the fact that CBD-rich oil from the marijuana plant is listed as a remedy on the U.S.’ National Cancer Institute’s website.

As it is, there is no money in a healthy population, which is why fast food joints and pharmaceutical industries thrive in America. Hopefully, Dr. Jones’ efforts will inspire people to seek out alternative options if they or someone they know develops the debilitating disease.

:

RESULTS: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

CONCLUSION: As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.

You’d be hard pressed to find anything still being touted as your best shot at a cure with an average success rate of just over 2 percent, which chemotherapy has, if it wasn’t for the fact that big profits were driving the recommendation. For stage 4 cancers the rate is less than half of one percent.



Related: The Truth About Cholesterol Levels & Cancer Most MDs Don’t Know

Fundamentally, chemotherapy rarely works. Worse, some drug treatments also promote the spread of cancer. But somehow the rationale to avoid these agents because they might promote cancer does not apply when it comes to drugs. –

A Cancer Journal for the Clinician article concludes by stating:

Vitamin D May Slash Breast Cancer Risk by 90 Percent

California Government Buried the Truth About Cell Phone Radiation Causing Brain Cancer: Once-Secret Document Reveals How EMFs Penetrate “Deeper Into a Child’s Brain”




Cancer Researchers Discover How High-Dose Vitamin Kills Cancer Cells

Vitamin C has a patchy history as a cancer therapy, but researchers at the University of Iowa believe that is because it has often been used in a way that guarantees failure.



Most vitamin C therapies involve taking the substance orally. However, the UI scientists have shown that giving vitamin C intravenously - and bypassing normal gut metabolism and excretion pathways - creates blood levels that are 100 - 500 times higher than levels seen with oral ingestion.

Related: FDA Quietly Bans Powerful Life-Saving Intravenous Vitamin C

It is this super-high concentration in the blood that is crucial to vitamin C's ability to attack cancer cells.

Earlier work by UI redox biology expert Garry Buettner found that at these extremely high levels (in the millimolar range), vitamin C selectively kills cancer cells but not normal cells in the test tube and in mice.

Physicians at UI Hospitals and Clinics are now testing the approach in clinical trials for pancreatic cancer and lung cancer that combine high-dose, intravenous vitamin C with standard chemotherapy or radiation.



Not quite how it's done

Related: Vitamin C Campaigner Begins Month-Long Walk

Earlier phase 1 trials indicated this treatment is safe and well-tolerated and hinted that the therapy improves patient outcomes. The current, larger trials aim to determine if the treatment improves survival.

In a new study, published recently in the December issue of the journal Redox Biology, Buettner and his colleagues have homed in on the biological details of how high-dose vitamin C (also known as ascorbate) kills cancer cells.

The study shows that vitamin C breaks down easily, generating hydrogen peroxide, a so-called reactive oxygen species that can damage tissue and DNA. The study also shows that tumor cells are much less capable of removing the damaging hydrogen peroxide than normal cells.

A future goal of the research is to develop methods to measure catalase levels in tumors.

Journal Reference: Claire M. Doskey, Visarut Buranasudja, Brett A. Wagner, Justin G. Wilkes, Juan Du, Joseph J. Cullen, Garry R. Buettner. Tumor cells have decreased ability to metabolize H2O2: Implications for pharmacological ascorbate in cancer therapy. Redox Biology, 2016; 10: 274

Injections of high dose vitamin C shown to annihilate cancer

IV vitamin C proven effective in stopping some aggressive forms of cancer

High dose IV vitamin C kills cancer cells

Bill Gates, Chelsea Clinton predict global bio-terrorist pandemic.

Remember, as outlined in Bill Clinton’s book, his foundation and others like it are the ones calling for better obedience from organizations like WHO. If the chips fall, it’s the foundations and trust funds that want to be the ones sitting on top.



Related: Indian Doctors Sue Bill Gates For Harming Children With Deadly 'Humanitarian' Vaccines + Dr. Robert Rowen Reveals The Raw Truth About Vaccines At The Vaccine World Summit

In fact, an out-of-control pandemic might be the crisis of choice for the global elite.

Beyond a large death count, an out-of-control virus spreading worldwide could trigger the U.N. to impose their International Health Regulations, or IHR, which intends to manage the world’s response to a global outbreak of a deadly pathogen.

In early 2017, the Oxford Press released, “Governing Global Health: Who Runs The World and Why” by – who would have guessed it – Chelsea Clinton and co-authored by Devi Sridhar.

The book discusses the current global model of principal/agent theory, or Public Private Partnerships funding and managing a coordinated response of a worldwide pandemic and what is needed to improve this model.

The “Governing Global Health” description reads:

Basically, the moneymen (the banks and trust funds) that fund international health bureaucracies like the U.N., the WHO and The World Bank, are not doing a good enough job managing their money, or not following through with some actions these money-groups hoped would happen.

The case made in this book suggests ways the requests of the those financing these plans are heard loud and clear and acted upon appropriately.

In the case of a world pandemic, make no bones about it, it’s the mega-banks and trusts who will remain the ones “Who Run The World.” Co-author Devi Sridhar is not only an academic research professor; she is also the director of the World Health Governance Program.

Of course, Chelsea Clinton is also a member.

This group, which is funded by the World Bank, is attempting to steer the management and distribution of health funds contributors like the Gates Foundation or The Global Fund to fight AIDS using U.N. rules like the IHR.

An article from the U.N. Chronicle titled, “National Security and Pandemics,” says of the IHR;

In other words, if a global pandemic happens, bodies like the WHO will be there alongside national and local governments all they way down the line to insure that their “IHRs” are carried out exactly as designed.

Naturally, groups like the WHO, the World Bank, the U.N. and others consider themselves “International Governing Bodies,” so they assume their rule not only within nations and states, but as the grand rulers of the planet as well.

The New York Times reported that they obtained a draft of an upcoming Trump administration executive order to reduce the United States’ contribution to the U.N. by at least 40%.

The first of the two draft orders titled, “Auditing and Reducing U.S. Funding of International Organizations,” names criteria within certain U.N. agencies and other international bodies that will forfeit American support.

The New York Times reports:

What was not mentioned in this report is if, or how this order will deal with WHO and other international health agencies that the U.N. will rely on if a deadly global outbreak occurs.

When finalizing this order we urge Mr. Trump to consider the ramifications of such an event and how U.S. funding to the WHO will bolster their legitimacy.

Beyond the disastrous death count that this event will cause, the push by an international body to put the United States government second place to a global management system is also at risk. In the case of such an event, the United States must remain in ultimate control of all of its resources.

This new executive order, if the New York Times is reporting accurately, would make a great opportunity to disable this threat before it takes flight.


Bill Gates Wants Medical World Government To Save Humanity

Because today’s geoengineering operations seem to involve electromagnetic energy produced from ground-based antennas called “ionospheric heaters” or “Hertzian Antennas” or various types of radar, we should know more about this ubiquitous and (to most) mysterious energy.

Most of the time, you can’t feel it, hear it, smell it, or taste it, but electromagnetic energy is present in many different forms around us for our entire lives.

Whether you’re camped out under the stars, in the middle of the desert, or home in bed, the light of a starry night, the passing electrical fields in weather systems, or the electrical fields from the wires in the walls of your house are constantly present.



Since you rely on electrical signals in your nervous system to react, think, and experience emotions, the electrical fields in your environment can influence you in a powerful way.

Most people don’t realize that their cellphones are miniature microwave heaters. Whether carried in the pocket, in the bra, or in your hand near your face and head, you are irradiating yourself with signals that penetrate your body and brain, and the frequency is in the same microwave range as the kitchen appliance that heats your soup.

Most cellphones today have GPS units built-in, and the very fact that a phone (whether it’s turned on or not) knows where you are on the surface of the earth is an indication that it’s communicating with a satellite about 22,000 miles above your head.

The GPS signal grid is an electromagnetic net-sending energy not only to your phone, but into and through your body.

Other signals, like those from cellphone/surveillance towers, traffic light sensors, police radar, “naked” body scanners at the airport, and WiFi internet equipment are sending invisible beams through the air and through you.



Looks heaps safe...

One cycle of the wave energy varies from zero to maximum, back to zero, to minimum, and back to zero again. All that back-and-forth takes up a certain amount of distance (wave length), and just like the difference between a wave on the ocean and a ripple on a pond, these waves have relative size and strength…called “amplitude”, or volume.

The number of fluctuations or “cycles” is what we call the “frequency” of these waves; which means how many of them occur during one second. “Frequency” describes the waves, so use the term as an adjective rather than a noun. Nothing shows off ignorance like the misuse of a Physics term!

Weather Modification: SatelliteImagery Reveals Unmistakable Aerosol Operation Over South Florida

Geoengineering is a very real - and very scary - phenomenon happening across the world. Evidence of weather control in the United States can be found as early as 1966 in a now highly cited document on National Weather Modification Programs.

The shocking truths surrounding geoengineering is hard for many to accept and has created many skeptics who are quick to vocalize their disbelief in the programs.

Recently, evidence of large scale weather modification through aerosol spraying was recorded in Florida. Aerosol spraying is said to be a technique primarily used to provide larger volume plumes than chemtrails.

Spraying isn’t just happening, but now it appears that methods are being used to increase their effectiveness. (Read more about Chemtrails at ChemtrailsNews.com)

As reported by ChemtrailsPlanet,

Satellite Captures Florida Climate Engineering 1-28-2017

Have you noticed that waves breaking near the shore have a different shape than waves further out? The increasing shallowness makes the wave crest and then break as the impulse no longer has enough water to travel. In music, we can tell the difference between a trumpet and a flute, even though they’re playing the exact same frequency.

The harmonics produced by different instruments cause a different shape in the wave energy, and our minds use this cue to distinguish between them.

Wave shape is important when it comes to any type of energy, and even the purest waveform produced in a laboratory gets distorted when it enters the physical environment. Things like reflection, absorption, resonance, and interference all affect transmission, as you’ve probably noticed when your cell phone signal fades in one of those notorious “dead zones.”

Have you noticed that X-ray technicians rarely stay in the room when you’re getting irradiated?

This is because very high frequency electromagnetic energy is actually powerful enough to damage cells in your body.

The technicians are around this energy all the time, so either they wear a lead shield, or they get far enough away to avoid exposure.




Above the ultraviolet range, the higher energy and frequency of X-rays and Gamma rays not only penetrate human tissue, they can damage cells by knocking electrons away from their proper atoms (ionization).

When this happens, the cells begin to leak and die, or they mutate and cause cancer.

The natural rays coming from the sun can damage our eyes and skin, but for the most part, our bodies have not only evolved natural protection against too much exposure, we actually need a certain amount of direct sunlight to supply the vitamin D that keeps us well.

Physicist Tom Valone says:

The natural signals we receive are from a blend of sources like the earth’s Schumann Resonance (about 8 cycles a second), momentary charges from distant lightning, and even electrical fields generated by seismic stresses on tectonic plates.

The power of the natural signal can vary, especially if a lightning storm is right over you.

Related: Humans Are Waking Up: For First Time In Recorded History, Schumann Resonance Jumping To 36+

But an analysis of this healthy exposure shows we need a wide variety of different frequencies and wave shapes. The problem arises with sustained, artificial exposure to concentrated, uniform energy fields.

The human body responds to this exposure with a variety of disease states from: arthritis, depression, fibromyalgia, leukemia, and birth defects, to cancer.



The red pigment in your blood is based on iron, which is a conductive and magnetic metal. What could all the powerful, artificial signals in our environment be doing to the “circuit” of your blood and the electrical signals in your nervous system? As of yet, we largely don’t know.

By 1974, “voice to skull” communication (carried by microwaves) was available as an electronic harassment or communication method for United States Special Forces. This technology is based on modulating a microwave carrier signal with electronically superimposed, subliminal words.

It seems apparent there is a potential for advertising devices to plant suggestions in your mind. After passing one of those annoying advertising monitors at the store, you may suddenly have a compulsion to buy new tires for the car-even though you hadn’t thought of it or planned to do so.



This phenomenon is more than subliminal advertising, it’s called “entrainment.” It’s fairly common for entertainment media to contain subliminal entrainment signals that induce an almost hypnotic, zombie state by synchronizing with and slowly altering your brain waves.

Your brain waves have a natural shape and rate, depending on what you’re doing.

Related: How To Become Immune To Mind Control | How TV Affects Your Brain Chemistry For The Worse

The lower frequency, slower waves are associated with sleep and meditation, while faster rhythms are associated with analytical thinking or intellectual effort. If you just got a new video game and find yourself calling in sick to work, failing to change clothes or bathe, and eating food delivered to your door for a couple of weeks, you are entrained, my friend.


Electromagnetic Energy, Weather Modification, and Other Elite Agendas

Though it’s hard to know the true agenda of the pervasive weather modification efforts going on over our heads, it’s becoming increasingly clear that weather fronts and cloud patterns are showing the effects of extremely powerful electromagnetic energy applied from unknown sources.



Related: HAARP - Chemtrails - How They are Change You - Bioengineering

Most geoengineering involves depositing nano-sized particles in the Troposphere, but some military and scientific applications require chemicals like Barium and Strontium compounds deposited at much higher altitudes.

This is from a PhD thesis dedicated to sending extremely low frequency (ELF) signals around the planet from the HAARP facility in Alaska.

The initial heating energy sent up first to create a superheated dome of plasma for an antenna, uses a powerful square wave with the sharp transition from zero to full power timed precisely to drive the atmosphere into an electrical frenzy and thereby heat up to around 5700o F.

The Ionosphere (80-300 miles up) is composed of several layers of incomplete, electrically unbalanced molecules (ions) that have been torn apart by the sun’s radiation in a process called ionization.

HAM radio operators have long known that the ionosphere can act like a mirror for radio signals, especially at night when the atmosphere is calmer.



Scientists and military groups have been using various layers of the ionosphere to create the aforementioned large bubbles or domes of superheated plasma to reflect signal transmissions all the way around the earth in two or three “hops.”

They’ve also found that the plasma dome collapses when the heating signal is turned off; which effectively creates a downward-pressing “gravity wave” as cold air rushes into the void left behind.

Gravity waves can be used to steer the jet stream or crush the excess moisture out of developing hurricanes or storms with tornado potential.



Those of us who watch the weather patterns in the Pacific, west of California, have detected a number of weird incidents where drought-busting storms suddenly dissipated under very suspicious circumstances.

Ionospheric heaters are big, expensive antenna arrays that have traditionally been located near the earth’s poles, with later installations (and new strategies) located near the equator.

They are increasingly being replaced by instruments mounted on ships or in smaller ground-based regional stations around the globe.



Many ionospheric heater experiments have emphasized both the ELF and VLF (very low frequency) frequency ranges; which just happen to resonate with human brain waves or the Earth’s natural Schumann Resonance frequency.

Though geoengineering chemtrails are the most obvious sign of large-scale tampering with the environment, what happens in the sky to both normal clouds and the artificial aerosols is an indication that we are increasingly bathed in very strong artificial EM (electromagnetic) signals.



According to Physicist Bernard Eastlund;

The US Navy uses the same frequency range for communicating with undersea submarines, and the oil and gas industry has developed very accurate methods for locating deposits underground with ELF electromagnetic energy beamed right into the earth.

Many people have blamed the increase of US Midwest earthquake swarms on this exploration before fracking came in. There is some indication that powerful electromagnetic signals can cause liquefaction along fault lines due to the heating of iron particles in the soil.

Related: New Zealand's 'Unusual' Earthquake Raises Complex Questions + USGS: “Early 20th Century Earthquakes May Have Been Man Made

Filmed during one afternoon in Nijmegen, Netherlands. What started out as a beautiful blue sky day was reduced to a grey haze.

Please visit www.geoengineeringwatch.org to learn more about what is going on in the skies above you.

So we’re looking at increased levels of EM excitation of the air, the earth, AND the oceans. Increasing numbers of whales and dolphins are beaching themselves, even in areas where the Navy claims it is NOT using sonar. Animals that depend on magnetism for navigation during migration are often disoriented, moving in the wrong direction at the wrong time.

Could this be caused by artificial electrical and magnetic energy flooding the environment from new sources that have no requirement to admit the tremendous harm to wildlife and humans?



A veterinarian in Beebe, AR, after he performed internal examinations, said that the blackbirds dropping by the thousands from the sky looked like they had been microwaved.

The USGS maintains a database of bird and fish die-offs. Though biological disease factors and chemical toxicity are recorded, by far, the fastest growing category for “Cause of Death” is “Undetermined” or “Trauma, Open”.

Around storm fronts, in years past, we sometimes saw ridging in the clouds that were called “sheep” clouds. Now it’s possible to see that ridging just about any time you see clouds.

Obviously, energy that can do this to water vapor isn’t necessarily confined at the level of the clouds. Though you may not see it in the air around you, there is nothing to stop that same energy from coming down to the ground.

If the energy is being radiated from ground installations, it’s obviously at an angle very close to the surface in order for it to spread over the entire area of southern New Mexico.

If the energy is coming from satellites, it’s obviously hitting the ground after it passes through the clouds. It begs the question:

Is the energy always there but only detectable when there are clouds present?

Many observers who have noticed weather “steering,” storm augmentation, and/or cancelling have been blaming the coordinated network of powerful NEXRAD stations throughout the country.



Related: Highly Relevant HAARP Update: New Zealand - Antarctica Connection

Those clouds are certainly not being ridged by a NEXRAD station, and you have to wonder whether such powerful energy beamed right at an earthquake fault zone might have played a role in the severity of the quake.

It is sometimes possible to “zero in” on the energy sources when the ridging seems to be radiating out in concentric circles in the clouds.

One place in the US that seems active during weather front passage is in north central Nevada.



Upon zooming in using Google Earth, a very strange looking center pivot irrigation field turns out to be right in the center of the disturbances.

As this modulation in the clouds is seen more and more, it’s becoming obvious that more of the atmosphere (and the earth) is being irradiated by powerful, artificial electromagnetic energy in ways never before seen on this planet.



This new energy “pollution” is happening at the same time that huge amounts of geoengineering chemicals are being dumped into the air.

The environment right now is completely different than the conditions that were present when we were born (regardless of when you were born).



Related: Proof Of Geoengineering Discovered In New York Via New Images

More and more people are discovering they are sensitive to “electro-smog”, and doctors are not presently trained to help patients deal with the debilitating symptoms caused by exposure to EM fields.

Is it any wonder we are seeing incredible rates of tree death in the forests, flocks of birds dropping from the sky, and the inevitable loss of food production caused by the disappearance of bees and other pollinators?

In Why in the World Are They Spraying, a film by Michael Murphy, there is an interview with a trader who works in commodity trading. He says he can make millions by over-insuring crops, and then “ordering up” a weather disaster.



By causing the crop to fail, the insurance claim results in a reimbursement larger than the profit to be gained by selling the crop. If this trend continues, greed for financial gain will eventually wipe out the ability to produce food.

The farmers don’t benefit from these disasters.

Only the commodity traders and their beneficiaries gain anything from destroying an entire season’s crop. Eventually, the farmers will be wiped out, and food will be produced by huge agricultural conglomerates that really don’t care about the quality or safety of the product.

Beyond weather “modification” is the aspect of weather control.

Weather watchers have been horrified to watch jet stream channeling, chemical aerosol dumping in the feed streams of building hurricanes, and apparent increases in wind speeds or pressure differences needed to time the collision of fronts that result in storms like Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, the Polar Vortex heading south, or the California drought disaster.

What started out in Bernard Eastlund’s mind as a beneficial method to prevent weather disasters has now morphed into a set of the most powerful weather weapons in history.



Related: 'Conspiracy Theorists' Vindicated: HAARP Confirmed Weather-Manipulation Tool

As mentioned in articles by Peter A. Kirby, the Navy’s Admiral Raborn expressed a desire to develop and use weather weapons in tactical and strategic situations, and there have been a number of developments in the ability to launch and fly an aircraft with wireless microwave energy beamed up to supply rechargeable battery power.

The big question now, is why so much electronic and chemical weather control is happening over civilian populations around the world.

Does anyone remember the scandal when the global warming data collected by the University of East Anglia, UK and used by Al Gore in the “Inconvenient Lie” was proven to be false and the covered up?

There has to be another reason for the huge expense related to over 180 geoengineering patents, literally billions of tons of toxic chemicals dispersed into the sky, and the cost of the fleet of delivery aircraft, whether or not they’re human-piloted or drones.



Related: “Conspiracy Theorists” Are Vindicated: U.S. Senate Reports Chemtrails Are Real And Are Killing Us!

In an era when elite leaders are openly saying the earth has too many people, why would they possibly care about preventing weather disasters of any sort? It seems obvious when you consider this equation:

Whether we can see it or not, the electromagnetic energy filling our skies is either part of this weather control, or worse, part of human population control.

According to Barrie Trower, who has several powerful interviews on YouTube, constant exposure to EM energy can cause: domestic violence, miscarriages, leukemia, cancer, psychosis, and zombie-like apathy.

When cloud ridging is so evident in cloud patterns all over the globe, it would be interesting to gather health and social data like crime and violence rates.



Related: The Gloves Come Off On EMF / Mobile / WiFi Radiation + Understanding The Dangers Of The “5G” Rollout

But that data is localized and very difficult to compare because no one is looking at the big picture and nobody seems to have any information on when, what, or why the energy is being applied.

To paraphrase George H.W. Bush, the stealthy aspects of population reduction and mind control on a large scale are now “coming into view”…all you have to do is look up.

Related: What Is This GWEN Tower Really For? + ELF, GWEN Towers, And HAARP Connection




CIA Whistleblower Speaks Out About Climate Engineering, Vaccination Dangers, 911, And The Government’s Persecution Of Truth-Tellers

Kevin Shipp was a decorated CIA officer who refused to look the other way in regard to government criminality and cover-up.



At a recent critical public awareness event in Northern California organized by GeoengineeringWatch.org, Mr. Shipp gave an extremely informative and compelling presentation on numerous horrific ongoing government crimes.

The subjects Kevin Shipp addressed included climate engineering, the 911 false flag inside job, vaccination dangers/cover-up, and the governments total persecution of anyone who dares to tell the truth about rampant government tyranny. Mr. Shipp's powerful presentation is below.





The paradigm we have all known has been built on deception and the dark agendas of the global power structure. The courage Kevin Shipp has shown by doing his best to expose government criminality and tyranny (detailed in Kevin's book "In The company Of Shadows) serves as a stellar example to all of us.

We desperately need other individuals in government agencies and the US military to follow Kevin's lead . If we have any chance of stopping the completely out of control criminal cabal that currently runs our country and much of the world, we must all make our voices heard, we must all join the battle for the greater good.

Having gained leaps and bounds in the race to eliminate any vestige of free speech with its recent hate crime laws, Canada is once again trying to take the lead in the elimination of free thought, free speech, free expression and well. . . pretty much anything free.

Two days later, Sullivan found himself in the Principal’s office and was told he was being written up for harassment.

Apparently, asking nurses if the material being injected into your body is safe or asking them if they have informed someone else of that possible side effects qualifies as harassing them.

Perhaps Canadian nurses are going to the same medical schools Western doctors have been attending for years, where the quality of education inexplicably causes a case of malignant narcissism.



Related: France: Soon 11 Compulsory Vaccinations!

The Ontario College of Teachers doesn’t necessarily dispute the details as recounted by Sullivan although it clearly tries to dramatize the incident. Even with the hyperbole, the OCT accusations read more like a religious tribunal for someone daring to question the dogma of the Church as it does for anything else.

As Simco Reformer reports;

According to the Simco Reformer;

Obviously, the biggest crime of all is the fact that Sullivan spread his “free thought” disease to his impressionable students by reading the side effects aloud to them, causing them to realize that blindly trusting authority is perhaps not always the best course. One heretic can often be overlooked but a heretic who insists on spreading doubt in authority or in authorized dogma is a danger to society.



Related: 'Vaccine Safety Commission': 50 studies the AAP failed to send President Trump

It’s good to know that the OCT and the School Board is making sure that “critical thought” isn’t going to metastasize in their young people and cause an entire region’s youth to grow up believing they can think for themselves or have minds of their own.

It’s best to instill a sense of unquestioning fealty in them while they are young so that, when they grow older, Canada will have a perfectly domesticated population who will finally achieve a peaceful society, even if it is as a result of their lack of ability to pose any problems for the establishment.

Oh Canada . . . .

However, the study results are not being lionized by the medical establishment. Interesting? Of course, because the researchers found implicating facts medicine and vaccinology do not want to own up to.



In the Background section of the article, the authors are very careful to state a certain falsehood, I contend, in view of the CDC epidemiologist William Thompson, PhD, whistleblowing as to how he and other CDC researchers literally threw away incriminating evidence of the MMR vaccine being implicated in autism in young black boys under three years of age and did not include it in an official 2004 CDC report on vaccines and autism. 

Just because CDC/FDA and others agree to conspire about fraudulent consensus vaccine science, does not mean the real science is not there, factually correct, but deliberately subverted for obvious and fraudulent reasons, which should be prosecuted by the Attorney General of the United States and by the U.S. Congress, who in some ways acts as an accomplice to these heinous child abuse crimes of injecting day-old infants and 2-4-6 month olds with neurotoxic vaccines!

AS03 is “Adjuvant System 03,” the trade name for a squalene-based immunologic adjuvant used in various vaccine products by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).”  

What is “squalene”? It is shark liver oil - 10.69 mg squalene in one dose of AS03!  It seems pharmacology, and vaccinology in particular, can’t, or don’t want to, understand the differences between ingesting and injecting certain oils into the bloodstream, which happens when vaccines are given. 

Those oils bypass the digestive processes and cause damage; one can be anaphylaxis.



Peanut oil was used as an adjuvant at one time – Adjuvant 65 patented by Merck & Company.  See the article I wrote about peanut oil in July of 2010.  Is that why so many children have peanut allergies?

The opening comment under “Clinical Significance” states:

I think current demographics regarding vaccine-related adverse health issues are so voluminous - especially neurological issues - that no one can ignore them any longer, not even medical schools like Penn State and Yale.  

However, there is one strange oddity: they only ‘tap dance’ around certain facts making enough noise about only what they want divulged, but not the real true scientific facts the CDC fraudulently – and deliberately – is withholding from the world.

It makes intuitive sense that drinking chlorinated water can create imbalances in your intestinal flora. We know that chlorine will kill many of the good bacteria and microbes that live symbiotically with us in our gut.

“Chlorine from drinking water can enter your body in several ways, including ingestion. You also inhale chloroform, a byproduct of chlorine, when you take a hot shower or bath. According to an article from Science News, researchers found increases in chloroform in study participants’ lungs of about 2.7ppb after a 10-minute shower. Warm water also further opens pores, so the combination of what your skin absorbs and your lungs inhale during a 10-minute shower is greater than the amount you would ingest drinking eight glasses of water from the same tap. In fact, studies at the University of Pittsburgh found less chemical exposure from ingesting chlorinated water than from showering or washing clothes in it. The study found that, on average, absorption through the skin was responsible for 64 percent of waterborne contaminants that enter the human body." - Long-Term Effects of Chlorinated Water on the Skin

Karmen from ShowerHeadly, urges us to consider that, “not only is it dangerous to drink chlorinated water, but it’s even more dangerous to shower or bathe in it.” Even the EPA’s own scientists agree:

“There is a lot of well founded concern about chlorine. When chlorine is added to our water, it combines with other natural compounds to form Trihalomethanes (chlorination byproducts), or THMs. These chlorine byproducts trigger the production of free radicals in the body, causing cell damage, and are highly carcinogenic. “Although concentrations of these carcinogens (THMs) are low, it is precisely these low levels that cancer scientists believe are responsible for the majority of human cancers in the United States“. The Environmental Defense Fund Simply stated chlorine is a pesticide, as defined by the U.S. EPA, who’s sole purpose is to kill living organisms. When we consume water containing chlorine, it kills some part of us, destroying cells and tissue inside our body. Dr. Robert Carlson, a highly respected University of Minnesota researcher who’s work is sponsored by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, sums it up by claiming , “the chlorine problem is similar to that of air pollution”, and adds that “chlorine is the greatest crippler and killer of modern times!” Breast cancer, which now effects one in every eight women in North America, has recently been linked to the accumulation of chlorine compounds in the breast tissue. A study carried out in Hartford Connecticut, the first of it’s kind in North America, found that, “women with breast cancer have 50% to 60% higher levels of organochlorines (chlorination byproducts) in their breast tissue than women without breast cancer.” One of the most shocking components to all of these studies is that up to 2/3s of our harmful exposure to chlorine is due to inhalation of steam and skin absorption while showering. A warm shower opens up the pores of the skin and allows for accelerated absorption of chlorine and other chemicals in water. The steam we inhale while showering can contain up to 50 times the level of chemicals than tap water due to the fact that chlorine and most other contaminants vaporize much faster and at a lower temperature than water. Inhalation is a much more harmful means of exposure since the chlorine gas (chloroform) we inhale goes directly into our blood stream. When we drink contaminated water the toxins are partially filtered out by our kidneys and digestive system. Chlorine vapors are known to be a strong irritant to the sensitive tissue and bronchial passages inside our lungs, it was used as a chemical weapon in World War II. The inhalation of chlorine is a suspected cause of asthma and bronchitis, especially in children… which has increased 300% in the last two decades. “Showering is suspected as the primary cause of elevated levels of chloroform in nearly every home because of chlorine in the water.” Dr Lance Wallace, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency." - Long-Term Effects of Chlorinated Water on the Skin

My Story

A while back when I first started learning about how much more efficient we are at absorbing oils, fat-soluble vitamins, minerals and toxins through our skin than we are at absorbing them through ingestion, I made a promise to myself. I wouldn’t put anything on my skin that I wouldn’t eat.

As the implications of that promise have unfolded, I’ve since become someone who doesn’t use deodorant or perfumes, doesn’t wear makeup, and doesn’t use inedible soaps. While that description may make some people imagine a barefoot hippie who smells like patchouli or lavender oil, I promise I fit in fine with my fellow suburban moms.

And yet….

I never considered the water I was bathing in a health hazard.

For some reason, my brain refused to put two and two together and get four.


Only yesterday, when I was talking with Kathy (co-owner of Radiant Life with her husband Norm) did it all click into place.

1. Our skin absorbs many toxins, including chlorine.

2. When we shower, our body absorbs more chlorine through the skin than it does when ingesting it.

3. Chlorine kills beneficial bacteria in your gut.

4. When we shower in chlorinated water, we are killing off the beneficial bacteria in our gut!

Before talking with her, I commonly asked others “If I wouldn’t eat it, why would I put it on my skin?” Now, I’ve added another question to the list, “If I wouldn’t drink it, why would I bathe in it?”

You see, Kathy shared an anecdote that I had to try out for myself. She said;

“Listen, if you don’t believe that your skin not only absorbs the things you come in contact with but that these can also enter your digestive system, just try this little experiment. Place a mashed garlic clove in your shoe and see how long it takes for you to taste it.”

Until recently, scientists thought of the skin as being a total barrier. Now, thanks to the research leading to the application of transdermal patches for administering therapeutic drugs, we know that the skins permeability has to do with molecular weight.

“Scientists have graded the Hydrogen atom as 1 for molecular weight and have discovered that any molecule below 3000 can enter the skin, below 750 can enter the skin cell, and below 150 can enter into the bloodstream. This discovery is being used increasingly with the introduction of transdermal patches like Nicotine, HRT and pain relief. They are popular because entry through the skin bypasses the stomach where many drugs can be altered by the stomach acid." - Skin Absorption

The most obvious solution is to filter the chlorine out of your water. You can spend a lot on a whole house filter that will do this and remove the chlorine from your drinking water, your laundry water, and your bath water. Or, you can opt for a quick fix, particularly if you’re already drinking filtered water.

Thankfully, they’ve invented relatively inexpensive de-chlorinating filters that fit on your shower heads or can hang under your faucet while you’re running bath water.



For showers, I recommend the Rainshow’r Shower Filter ($52). It’s simple to install and it uses “the most potent KDF filter material on the market, which changes chlorine into a harmless, biodegradable compound.

This is also the only filter to include Crystalline Quartz technology, in which specially-cured crystals act upon the water to create a softer, more energized shower feeling, as well as improved lathering and sudsing.”

For baths, I’m buying this Crystal Bath Ball Dechlorinator ($42). It hangs under your faucet and dechlorinates the water as it passes through.

This is particularly important for infants and young children! I spend so much time and energy making sure my little ones are building up a healthy colony of intestinal flora - feeding them yogurt, sauerkraut, raw milk, and a host of other probiotic, living foods. Why would I toss all that down the drain by letting them bathe in chlorinated water?

If you want to buy dechlorinating filters - either for your whole house, your drinking water, or just for your bath water - check out the listings here.

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is pushing to streamline the approval of 5G cell towers, overriding the little regulation that exists to legalize use of experimental high frequencies without extensive safety testing. 

“To make this work, the 5G buildout is going to be very infrastructure intensive, requiring massive deployment of small cells.” - Tom Wheeler, Former FCC Chairman and corporate lobbyist

Some are talking about using even higher frequencies, in the terahertz range, much higher than previous networks.

A recent statement from Take Back Your Power says:

“US FCC wants to “streamline” the approval process for DAS (Distributed Antenna System) 4G/5G ubiquitous cell towers by exempting them from the 1996 Telecommunications Act! And the US Senate will imminently be voting on S.19 and S.88, to expand DAS 4G/5G deployment! If such efforts succeed, millions of small cell towers (on existing light poles/utility poles, or new ones) will be deployed everywhere, throughout residential neighborhoods. The millimeter microwave radiation deployed will produce horrific health effects, worsening EVERYONE’s health, and will remove the remaining pollinators. It’s THAT serious.  The bees in particular will die off rapidly, per studies of bees and microwave radiation.”

“In essence, 5G will be the mobile networks, often referred to as cell phone towers, that power wireless technology. But get this: As we’re expected to start shifting toward 5G technology around the early 2020s, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler says we can expect to see a lot more of those mobile towers. So while we may enjoy anywhere from 10 to 50 times faster connection speeds that help fuel better data consumption, we may in return get millions of new cell phone towers on our street corners. (Our current 4G LTE technology relies on about 200,000 cell phone towers around the U.S.) But 5G needs a much denser network, meaning many more cell towers of all sizes all over the place. (3) The fact that these things have never been proven safe - and that worrisome science is cropping up around wireless technology — is cause for concern. And it seems this 5G plan is full speed ahead. On July 14, 2016, the FCC voted to approve Spectrum Frontiers, making the U.S. the first country in the world to open up higher-frequency millimeter wave spectrum for the development of 5G fifth-generation wireless cellular technology. Environmental Health Trust is voicing concerns because health, safety and environmental evaluations to understand the impact on humans, wildlife and the environment have not been done. In fact, before the FCC gave 5G the green light, the agency was flooded with comments in opposition to 5G.”

5G is being presented as the next stage of evolution in communications technology, and being promoted with enthusiastic headlines, such as:

Ericsson and IBM announce 5G ‘breakthrough‘ 5G starts with chips like IBM and Ericsson’s silicon antenna Forget 5G, new terahertz band can transmit data faster than 100 Gbps AT&T working on 5G wireless network using Air Gig

Headlines with an alternative perspective read:

Action alert: 5G cellular technology will blanket planetary life with ultra-high microwave frequencies Story image for 5g danger from Financial Times5G mobile networks speed towards an uncertain future

For background on 5G, watch this video from Take Back Your Power, featuring Tom Wheeler, Former FCC Chairman and corporate lobbyist, who delivers a rather intimidating and presumptuous speech praising this new technology.


FCC: Intimidating Press, Suppressing Science at "5G" Announcement

Is there a clandestine force working behind the scenes in the United States, censoring truth about the "5G" rollout? Watch this - then decide.

But what about the people already suffering with symptoms of EMF radiation from wifi, smart phones, smart meters, and newer vehicles? 

The dangers of certain new technologies, as is the case with some biotech and toxic foods, represent a much more insidious reality: cancer causing, body disrupting frequencies.



Related: Microwave EMF Science: Deliberate Claptrap Misinformation? + ElectroSensitivity - A Case Study

The attitude of such technological innovators is perfectly represented in by Tom Wheeler’s statements, pushing for American exceptionalism, demanding 5G deployment as soon as possible with little to no testing of the effects on human beings or the natural environment.

He says billions of dollars are ‘damn important,’ with the part mentioning billions of dollars mysteriously absent from the speech’s official transcsript.

“If the Commission approves my proposal next month, the United States will be the first country in the world to open up high-band spectrum for 5G networks and applications. And that’s damn important because it means U.S. companies will be first out of the gate.”

At events like this, people reasonably approaching the notion of danger are ostracized, while lobbyists like Tom Wheeler condescendingly say things like “talk to the medical people,” in response to genuine concerns.

The FCC is just like the FDA, CDC, NIH, or EPA: regulatory bodies in bed with the very corporations they claims to be regulating. Companies such as IBM, Verizon and AT&T often wield greater power than government, often working directly with government to create their own rules. 



Related: Gestapo In The USA: FCC Intimidates Press And Kills Free Speech At 5G Rollout

The book, Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates, explains this works.

For a deeper insight into the mainstream narrative of the splendors of cell technologies , this video is a sales pitch for the road 1G to 5G.


From 1G to 4G & Towards 5G - Evolution Of Communication

This is the 2nd part of the series Evolution of communication. Part one is here.

We’re already being steered in this direction, forced into a future of smart devices and the internet of things, and it could get so much worse from here. How many rising illnesses, how many symptoms, how many cases of salivary gland cancer, brain cancer, and EMF hypersensitivity will we discover along the way?

As Kevin Mottus said in the above video from Take Back Your Power, we need to fight this with much more persistence.

See the following links for information on the effects of cell technologies, as well as info on what you can do to protect yourself.

“Below is what I call my List of Irrefutability. We can soon reach a turning point, but our voices are each needed at this time. Please quote from and or share these links:” - Kevin Mottus

1) 1,659 studies on EMF and bioeffects:

powerwatch.org.uk

(Of these:

• 1,032 found effects (most effects being harmful)

• a further 370 had other “important insights or findings”

• only 257 did not find effects.)

2) Additional links with several thousand studies show biological effect and/or harm:

bioinitiative.org

justproveit.net

emf-portal.org

stopsmartmeters.org.uk

3) Harvard Ethics Department ebook, “Captured Agency: How the FCC Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates”:

ethics.harvard.edu

4) 2016 Cell Phone Radiation Boosts Cancer Rates in Animals: $25 Million NTP Study Finds Brain Tumors, DNA Breakage

microwavenews.com

5) Watch the ABC Cataylst episode “Wi-Fried”, which got the journalist and entire staff fired due to industry “lobbying”:

Video: vimeo.com

Firing: theguardian.com

6) FCC: intimidating press, suppressing science at “5G” announcement (A report by Josh del Sol)

youtube.com

7) TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION ON “5G”:

parentsforsafetechnology.org

8) 34 Scientific Studies Showing Adverse Health Effects From Wi-Fi:

wifiinschools.org.uk

9) Radiofrequency science charts to visually compare studies, radiation intensities and biological effects:

bioinitiative.org

10) Apple manual states to keep your iPhone away from your body at all times:

newsweek.com

11) Study: Mobile phones are cooking men’s sperm:

telegraph.co.uk

12) Brain surgeon Dr Charlie Teo warns against mobiles, wireless home appliances:

news.com.au

13) American Academy of Pediatrics warns: Limit children’s exposure to cellphones:

today.com

14) More than 60 international warnings on Wi-Fi and microwave radiation:

safeinschool.org

15) A List of Teacher Unions and Parent Teacher Organizations Taking Action On Wi-Fi (USA, Canada, UK, etc):

safetechforschoolsmaryland.blogspot.com

16) TED Talk from a former Environmental Engineer in Silicon Valley:

youtube.com

17) Insurance giant Swiss RE has given electromagnetic frequencies the HIGHEST possible long term risk rating:

takebackyourpower.net

18) Another insurance giant, Lloyd’s of London, will not insure anything wireless:

naturalhealth365.com

19) Risk Management Magazine – The Invisible Threat: Radiofrequency Radiation Risk

.rmmagazine.com

20) Newsweek – “Cellphone Radiation Warning Sign Sparks First Amendment Battle”

newsweek.com

21) US CDC retracts cellphone radiation warning following pressure from industry lobbyists:

microwavenews.com

22) WHO involved in suppression of additional science showing harm, since 2011:

takebackyourpower.net

23) Study Uncovers How Electromagnetic Fields Amplify Pain in Amputees

utdallas.edu

24) CEO of 1 Billion-dollar U.K. company speaks out on microwave sickness:

youtube.com

25) Dozens of specific scientific abstracts that all show harm:

emfsafetynetwork.org

26) Solutions: Reducing Wirelesss Radiation and EMF

youtube.com

27) Solutions: Reducing Your EMF Exposure

emfanalysis.com

"Transgenic Wars," an award-winning film by French investigative journalist Paul Moreira, takes us on a journey through Europe and Latin America, looking at the effects of genetically engineered (GE) crops, both on livestock and human health.

It's a destructive and often incomprehensible allegiance that continues to this day, with the U.S. government's support of and involvement in spreading Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) crops and toxic chemicals around the world - now repackaged as "necessary" for agriculture.



Related: Monsanto's Dirty Dozen: 12 More Crimes Against Humanity And The Environment Concocted By The World's Most Evil Corporation + New Evidence About the Dangers of Monsanto’s Roundup

Monsanto, being a leader in GE seeds and the chemicals that go with them, receives a fair share of the attention throughout the film. Ecologist Patrick Moore, Ph.D., who made the unlikely transition from co-founder of Greenpeace to being a professional GE supporter and lobbyist, is also featured.

In a sensational video that has garnered more than 1.4 million views, Moreira suggested Moore drink a glass of Roundup to prove his assertion that the herbicide is completely harmless. Moore's refusal, saying he's "not stupid," is included in the film.


Danish Pig Farmers Struggle With Mysterious Swine Disease

The film starts off in Denmark, where pig breeders are struggling to determine the cause of a mysterious swine disease, simply referred to as "the yellow death." The disease causes violent diarrhea, and is often lethal to the affected pigs.

Virtually all feed their pigs GE soy, and many suspect this may be the source of the problem. Ib Pedersen is a long-time pig farmer in Denmark.

When he first started feeding his pigs GE soy in the 1980s, the mix contained about 20 percent GE soy. Over the years, the ratio increased, and by 2002, about 90 percent of the soy in the feed was GE.

Like other farmers, Pedersen struggled to contain "the yellow death," which would kill up to 30 percent of the piglets born each year, until one day he decided to remove the GE soy from the feed mix. Within two days, changes were noticeable. There was not a single case of diarrhea among his pigs.

In the three years he's been feeding his pigs all non-GE feed, he's never had a single case of "the yellow death" again. Pedersen single-handedly managed to raise doubts about the safety of GE soy among Danish farmers. Interestingly, Pedersen may have identified the problem even more closely.


He noticed two intriguing connections:

1. When GE soy was sourced from Argentina, all of the farmers who received it ended up with outbreaks of diarrhea among their pigs. What was it about this Argentinian GE soy that was so much worse than others?

2. He found images of deformed Argentinian children online, which local doctors and scientists insist are caused by pesticide exposure, as many villagers are surrounded by GE fields where toxic chemicals are sprayed with wanton abandon.

He was struck by how similar these deformities were to the deformities found in his piglets. Could pesticide-contaminated GE soy be the cause of the pig farmers' problems?


Trailer: Transgenic Wars






Transgenic Soy Destroying Argentina

Argentina is the third largest grower of transgenic crops in the world, and the second-largest producer of GE soy. GE crops have radically altered the face of the country.

Transgenic crops have eliminated the need for large workforces on the farm, eradicating entire villages and contributing to massive poverty.

Gone is the agricultural diversity Argentina used to boast, replaced instead by massive single-crop fields of GE corn, soy and cotton.

Moreira visits Avia Terai, a small rural village surrounded by GE fields. Here, children are born with strange maladies and degenerative diseases of unknown origin. One little girl has large brownish-black spots all over her face and body - marks she's had since birth.

Another is slowly wasting away from an undiagnosed degenerative disease thought to be genetic, aggravated by exposure to herbicides.

Many of the children are deformed in one way or another. Many of the elders are dying from cancer.

The villagers refer to Monsanto's Roundup as "the poison," and do their best to avoid getting sprayed. They all fear the large tractor that sprays one of two things on the fields: water or herbicide, and there's no telling what is being sprayed when.

One woman describes how she shuts herself and her children inside whenever she hears the tractor. Still, avoidance is difficult when you're surrounded by fields, and spray drifts in the wind, settling in water and on clothes hanging out to dry.


Argentinian Farmers Recognize GE Soy Cannot Be Used for Animal Feed

Tellingly, a GE farmer being secretly taped by Moreira reveals they do not feed this GE soy to any of their animals; "If you feed your chickens with it, you can no longer eat their eggs," he says. When asked why, he says because the eggs smell so bad you cannot eat them. This is why all of his GE soy is exported.

Meanwhile, the nearby villagers suffer, being regularly fumigated. Efforts to dialogue with the GE soy farmers have led to naught, and the companies that own the fields are so rich, fines do not dissuade them from spraying well within the illegal perimeter of residential housing.

In the 15 years that transgenic crops have been grown in Argentina, there have only been three convictions for illegal fumigation, despite it being a common occurrence. In the case of Avia Terai, the village is only 200 meters (656 feet) from the transgenic soya field.

By law, pesticides are not permitted to be used within 1.5 kilometers (just under 1 mile) of resident housing.

Their situation is not unique. In fact, the problem is so great, the Argentinian government has been forced to subsidize pesticide-induced disability centers to manage the growing health crisis.

These centers are now filled with children from villages where the parents were exposed to agricultural chemicals. Overall, birth defects are about 350 percent higher in areas where GE crops are grown, compared to the rest of the country.

As noted by one of the nurses at a disability center in Saenz Peña;

“We export our [GE] soy to your countries to feed the animals you are eating … But we are the ones truly paying the price for it."

Retired pediatrician Dr. Maria Del Carmen Seveso goes so far as to call it genocide, saying the situation is really serious.


Deformed Children, Deformed Pigs - Are Herbicides to Blame?

It was images of these deformed Argentinian children, posted on the internet, that got Pedersen, the Danish pig farmer, thinking. Like all other pig farmers, he had his fair share of deformed pigs being born.

He hadn't paid it much attention, other than to recognize that these things happen from time to time, but deformities had become more common, and he was struck by the similarities of the deformities he saw in the Argentinian children who'd been exposed to pesticides in utero.



Related: Bombshell Secret Documents Show Monsanto Knew About Glyphosate Link To Cancer Over 35 Years Ago + How You Can Have Yourself Tested For Glyphosate Contamination

When it comes to determining which pesticides are to blame, there are many open questions. As it turns out, glyphosate is not the only chemical being used on Argentina's GE soy fields. As resistant weeds flourish, many farmers have resorted to adding other chemicals to the mix, and it's unclear who's using what.

The synergistic action of chemicals will typically augment the toxicity of the mixture, compared to any given chemical on its own, but no studies have been done to determine the exact hazard level of various concoctions.

As Moreira comes across a tractor set to spray a field, he finds not only Monsanto's Roundup, but also atrazine - which is banned in Europe but extensively used in the U.S. - and 2,4-D, one of the main components of the military herbicide Agent Orange, extensively used over the jungles during the Vietnam War.

One thing's clear: The promise that transgenic crops would lead to "greener" agriculture and less chemicals has NOT come to pass. Instead, more and more chemicals are being used on our food and the feed we raise our livestock on.


Mutant Enemies

As transgenic crops have taken over Argentina, herbicide-resistant weeds have become a serious problem. More than 30 million hectares (74.1 million acres) of GE soy is planted in Argentina, and glyphosate is applied to each field at least three or four times a year. This has spawned a whole new kind of weed - one resistant to glyphosate, just like the GE crop itself.



Related: Sonoma County, Calif. has become part of the largest GMO-free zone in the US - thanks to voter turnout

To address the problem, farmers not only apply more pesticides, they also mix different pesticides together to prevent the weeds from adapting to a single formula. As a result, anywhere from three to five additional chemicals are routinely added to the glyphosate. Newer GE seeds are also designed to resist even more toxic combinations. 

As noted in the film, there's no definitive proof that agricultural chemicals are responsible for the health crisis in Argentina. But there's no evidence proving they're not responsible either. And the government has done nothing to determine the truth.

In fact, the government of Argentina has been and continues to be very supportive of the GE industry, and Monsanto ads are commonplace on Argentinian TV, assuring the people their products are safe and effective. Meanwhile, no studies have ever been done to ascertain whether all of these chemical cocktails create dangerous interactions or cause the severe health problems now seen among children raised in agricultural areas.


Staggering Increases in Cancer

The only independently organized investigation of the health impact of GE crops, conducted by students of the Rosario Medical University, found that cancer rates increased by 40 percent in a single year in one village.

In another, the cancer rate shot up by 250 percent. What these villages have in common is that they're surrounded by GE fields and the fumigation border is extremely close to where they live.

Sadly, Argentina's economy is now fully dependent on transgenic agriculture. According to Alejandro Mentaberry at the Ministry for Science, Argentina made about $65 billion on GE crops between 1996 - the year GE crops were introduced - and 2011. Mentaberry believes the country owes its "miraculous economic recovery" to the export of transgenic crops.

But at what price this miraculous economic boon? In April 2014, Argentinians took to the streets in Cordoba to protest against Monsanto and the use of their products. "Monsanto out! Yes to life, no to Monsanto! Monsanto is poison. Monsanto is corruption," the people chanted as they marched through the streets.

The film goes on to discuss the political powers that support and steer countries into accepting genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

For example, Wikileaks revealed how U.S. government officials are secretly doing the chemical technology industry's dirty work, cajoling and threatening governments with retaliation as needed. U.K. government officials have also been caught acting like lobbyists and spokesmen for the GE industry.

Transatlantic trade agreements also stand poised to dismantle any remaining prohibitions against the free flow of GMOs and toxic chemicals into Europe, where laws protecting human and environmental health are stricter than in the U.S. Depending on the final outcome of these agreements, it's possible no country will be able to oppose GMOs in the future, no matter what the human or environmental cost.


Patrick Moore and Golden Rice

Moore, a former Greenpeace activist, has become a prominent adversary of the movement against GMOs. According to Moreira, Moore left Greenpeace 30 years ago on bad terms, and has since made a name for himself as a supporter of all things anti-nature, including the nuclear industry, the mining industry and the transgenic industry. "He also thinks global warming is great for the planet," Moreira notes.

He's been a leading advocate for GE Golden Rice, designed to contain high amounts of beta-carotene, ostensibly to combat vitamin A deficiency in Third World countries. There are problems though. For starters, beta-carotene is a fat soluble vitamin. According to the University of Maryland Medical Center, you need at least 3 grams of fat to ensure absorption of beta-carotene supplements.

This enriched rice is intended for impoverished nations where dietary fats are nearly impossible to come by with any regularity, thereby rendering this type of supplementation useless at best.

It's also unknown whether the beta-carotene in Golden Rice will hold up during storage between harvest seasons, or whether traditional cooking methods used to prepare the rice will destroy the beta-carotene. Last but not least, the rice is still under development, and all claims are therefore little more than wishful thinking.

Such facts should have shut down the Golden Rice fairy tale right from the get-go, but it hasn't stopped the likes of Moore from spending much time and effort to promote it, likening the refusal to approve Golden Rice to genocide and Greenpeace's opposition to the rice "a crime against humanity."


To Build a Saner, Safer Food System, Start Close to Home

The problems may seem insurmountable, but there are solutions. The fact of the matter is farmers do not have to use chemical cocktails to produce ample food. Many areas would need serious intervention to improve and rebuild soil quality, which has been destroyed by decades of mechanized farming and chemicals, but it can be done.

As an individual, you can help steer the agricultural industry toward safer, more sustainable systems by growing your own foods and buying what you cannot grow from local farmers you trust.

By far, processed foods are the most likely to contain GE ingredients, so avoiding processed foods of all kinds, including condiments, is one of the best ways to avoid them - and the chemical cocktails sprayed on these crops.



Related: Denmark Intends To Be The World’s FIRST 100% Organic Nation

If everyone were to refuse to buy products containing GMOs, insisting on feeding their families pesticide-free, GMO-free foods, the food industry would have no choice but to respond.

They cannot stay in business if people don't buy their goods, and if food companies refuse to buy GE ingredients, the chemical biotechnology industry will lose its financial power to corrupt and manipulate governments.

It's really just a massive trickle-down effect, and the masses really do have the power, even though Monsanto and their allies would like you to think otherwise.

There's a way out of this mess, and it starts with each person making different purchasing choices for themselves and their families. While many grocery stores now carry organic foods, it's preferable to source yours from local growers whenever possible, as much of the organic food sold in grocery stores is imported.

Everybody wants to be healthy, well-informed and financially free, but most of us receive the wrong advice, believe in popular myths, get sick from ridiculous illnesses that are totally preventable and curable, and then spend our money trying to get ourselves “fixed” by doctors who don’t understand a lick about nutrition.

You hear the Big Food and Big Pharma tales repeatedly, and then you start to believe them. You read them everywhere; you hear them on television. You read them in Prevention Magazine or via WebMD. You look them up in Wikipedia and your MD regurgitates them for bonus cash.

Let’s put an end to all this self-inflicted misery. So, here they come and here they’ll go – away for good, now that you know better. Don’t fall for the top 10 food and medicine myths!


1. Milk… It Does a Body Good

Wrong! Think about this for a minute: Humans are the only animals that drink milk after infancy and from another animal; it’s just not normal.



Plus, all dairy products cause excess mucus to accumulate in the body and lead to inflammation.


2. Red meat is Worse for Your Body Than Chicken, Turkey or Pig

Most meat in America comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) where the animals are cooped up in overcrowded pens, rarely if ever see sunlight or pastures, are shot up with synthetic hormones (that cause cancer), injected with massive amounts of antibiotics to stave off bacterial infections, fed genetically modified feed (that also causes cancer) and slaughtered inhumanely – then processed with bleach, ammonia, nitrates and nitrites for human consumption.



So, with that in mind, it doesn’t really matter if the meat is red, brown, white or green, because it’s all doing the same chronic damage to the humans that consume it regularly. “Eat less red meat?” Try eating no processed meat and you’ll be far better off.


3. Organic Canola Oil is a Healthy Choice

Everything organic is not healthy. Let’s go there. Organic means it doesn’t contain chemical-based insecticides, algaecides, fertilizers and herbicides. What it doesn’t mean is that it’s free of heavy metals or trace amounts of dangerous chemicals.



Canola is not a natural plant to this earth. Canola comes from rapeseed, which is toxic to all animals. What the manufacturers do is remove the stench of rapeseed using hexane, a constituent vapor of gasoline, but there’s still some left in the final product. Irrespective of whether canola is organic or not, it strangles your mitochondria (cells) that need oxygen to function.

Organic canola also inhibits enzyme function. Plus, the omega-3 fatty acids of processed canola oil are transformed during the deodorizing process into trans-fatty acids. The reason why canola is particularly unsuited for consumption is that it contains a very long-chain fatty acid called erucic acid, which is associated with fibrotic heart lesions.


Organic Soy (That’s Unfermented) is a Healthy Choice

Some people think if a product is organic, it’s “good to go.” Wrong. You still need to stay informed. Let’s talk about any soy that’s not fermented, including the organic stuff. Big Food is quickly buying up medium-sized organic companies and pushing soy and canola like it’s healthy.



Just over the past 15 years, 3,000 new soy-based foods, all labeled “certified organic” have hit the shelves. Why? Big Food likes to trick healthy-minded people, that’s why. Remember, Big Food works hand-in-hand with Big Pharma.

All soy that’s not fermented screws with the balance of human estrogen and testosterone. Got breast cancer or “Low-T?” Did you know unfermented soy is linked to immune-system malfunctions, thyroid dysfunction and cognitive decline?

Yep. In fact, hundreds of health studies reveal infant abnormalities, kidney stones and food allergies thanks to soy consumption. No soy was fit to eat until the discovery of fermentation techniques during the Chou Dynasty. Your organic soy “protein” may be causing you chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. Destroy the soy myth and protect your body.


5. Vaccines No Longer Contain Mercury (Thimerosal), and the CDC Even Says So

The CDC says they removed mercury from all childhood vaccines over a decade ago, but they’re lying. Influenza vaccines contain massive amounts of mercury and are highly recommended by the CDC for pregnant women, infants 6 months old, and every person for every year of their lives thereafter.



Yes, influenza vaccines (flu shots) are one of the main causes of the flu and still contain thimerosal, formaldehyde, aluminum and other dangerous preservatives, adjuvants, emulsifiers and virus “deadeners.”


6. Chemotherapy is the Best Chance to Beat Cancer Once You’ve Been Diagnosed

Fact: Chemotherapy yields a miserable 2.3 percent success rate on average. Another fact: 75 percent of MDs and oncologists would never take chemotherapy themselves nor recommend it for their family members.

Chemotherapy destroys the human immune system – the one thing humans need the most to fight off cancer.



Quite ironic, huh? Natural remedies for cancer are abundant and inexpensive, including vitamin C, garlic, oregano oil, CBD oil, hemp seed oil, chaga and reishi mushrooms, baking soda in water, and of course, plenty of vitamin D.


7. Many Cancer Cases Are Inherited in Our Genes From Our Parents or Their Parents

Doctors tell patients almost everything is inherited from their parents so they won’t go out and seek natural remedies that work. Why would any greedy doctor want you cured when you’ll never come back to them? Most cancer is caused by chemical consumption, period.


8. There is No Cure for Cancer

The search for the cure is the ultimate boondoggle. Honest scientists have been curing cancer for decades – even brain cancer. Google the Burzynski Clinic and you’ll be blown away!



Related: Introduction / Overview: The ‘Healing Computer’ Technology

Then research natural remedies online.


9. The FDA and the CDC function in the best interests of American consumers by inspecting food and medicine for dangerous substances

Laughing out loud. The FDA and the CDC are in business with Big Pharma and have been for decades. Want to die of preventable diseases? Just heed their advice.


10. Fluoride in Toothpaste and Tap Water Helps Humans Keep Their Teeth Strong and Free of Decay

If you aren’t already aware of it, it’s time to learn the raw truth about tap water and toothpaste.



Watch this mini-documentary by the Health Ranger, right now!


The Fluoride Deception Exposes the Truth About Water Fluoridation and the Phosphate Mining Industry

The Fluoride Deception exposes the truth about where fluoride really comes from: The toxic byproducts of the phosphate mining industry.

How The Mind Treats “Impossible Things That Couldn’t Be Happening”

When little fragmentary stories about this fact emerge in the mainstream press, they’re one-offs. There is no serious follow-up and no deep investigation. Therefore, the public isn’t aroused.

On May 3, 2016, the Washington Post ran an article detailing deaths from medical errors. This bomb dropped: doctors’ errors account for “about 9.5 percent of all deaths annually in the United States.”

Let that sink in. Roughly one out of every 10 deaths in the US is caused by medical errors. (Under “errors,” you can include a wide range of toxic treatment.)

No major newspaper or news network pounds on this factoid day after day. It’s here and then it’s gone. It’s on the level of: “The last seven presidents have been assassinated. And now, here’s the weather.”

Something else is going on, too. I’ll lay it out for you. Most of the general public, and many reporters, can’t even begin to absorb that medical-death statistic. It bounces off them. They either reject it out of hand, misread it, or fail to transport it to the part of their mind where they think about things.

The statistic is virtually invisible to them. “Let’s see, 10% of all deaths in America are caused by the medical system. REJECTED.”

I even had one person tell me ten percent “wasn’t very much.” I’ve had people change the subject rapidly when I presented them with the statistic. “Car accidents are terrible. My aunt was in a car crash and she…”

So it isn’t just major media. People are running their own fake news operation on themselves.

This has been called “cognitive dissonance” or some other fancy name. It’s just the “bounce phenomenon.” A fact bounces off a person. It has no effect. I’ve dealt with this for more than 30 years as a reporter. I’m in the business of presenting “bounce-able” facts. I’ve seen the full array of reactions, time and time again.

ONE OUT OF EVERY TEN DEATHS IN AMERICA [READ: THE WEST] IS CAUSED BY THE MEDICAL SYSTEM.

Bounce, bounce, bounce. Here is another process that goes on in the mind. It starts this way: WELL, IF THAT WERE TRUE, THEN…

The person starts to think about the boggling fact. He starts to flesh out the implications. And he stops. Because the implications are too much. His mental processes and his basic orientation aren’t flexible enough to deal with them.

I’ve been interviewed and watched this happen. The interviewer begins to absorb what I’ve just told him, and he quickly backs away and redirects the conversation. Or tries to. I bring him back to the boggling fact. But it’s like trying to drive a faulty car. He just can’t make it. He stalls. His wheels spin, and then he gets out of the car and moves on to something else.

Here is a paraphrase of such an exchange. The interviewer was telling me about the purported effects of a disease he claimed was being caused by a virus. I happened to know the virus had never been isolated from a single human being, so I asked him:

“How many deaths would you say occur from the disease, every year in the US?” He puffed up his chest a bit and said, “At least a thousand. It’s terrible.” I said, “Well, did you know that the medical system is the third leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease and cancer?”

BOUNCE. NOTHING REGISTERED.

He said, “This virus I’m talking about can spread rapidly…” Bounce.

Perhaps the most interesting conversation I’ve ever had illustrating the bounce phenomenon occurred at the home of an acquaintance who is a psychologist. I mentioned that every year in the US the medical system kills a minimum of 225,000 people, and then I got part-way into explaining how most people don’t even register the fact when they come across it.

He launched into a major lecture about cognitive dissonance, deploying a few pseudo-technical terms I’d never heard of. I let him go on for a few minutes and then I stopped him. I asked, “Can you remember what I said that started you down this path?”

He scratched his chin, thought about it, and said no. In his case, the bounce brought on a case of outright amnesia.

Of course, I’ve mentioned medically caused death to doctors. Their comments go something like this: “That couldn’t be true.” “That was just one study.”

Then I say no, there are other confirming studies, and I cite them. At that point the big bounce happens, and they change the subject. Or they look at their watches. Or they walk away.

I’ve found reporters more honest - as long as I’m talking to them off the record, and preferably after a few drinks. One reporter said, “I know. But we can’t write about that. We’d get reamed out.”

I don’t care what journalism schools and editors claim the profession is all about. I know what it’s about. You overturn reality. That’s what you do.

In the process, you reveal there are people who are creating that reality for all of us. And if that is true, and it is, then each individual is capable of inventing his own reality. A better one. Along the way, certain facts are going to jump up out of the hopper that tear conventional thinking and perception to shreds.

TEN PERCENT OF ALL DEATHS IN AMERICA [THE WEST] ARE CAUSED BY THE MEDICAL SYSTEM.

“Wow. That would make it the third leading cause of death. That means the more people who are in the system, the more deaths. The public has to know about this…”

No bounce. Ah, now we’re on to something.

On 10 Feb we reported on the intended spread of 1080 over Kahurangi National Park in the South Island amid mainstream media silence.

We were also informed that locals, to their very great credit, declined accommodation for DOC workers doing the pre-feed drop, forgoing a sizeable sum of money.

These people are putting their money where their mouth is. Amidst local rumors whether or not the drop was happening, on the night of the 14th two big hoppers were seen on the back of a truck heading south toward Anatori.

This morning (17th February) several trucks and other vehicles were seen returning from Turimawiwi area just north of Kahurangi Lighthouse. They were obviously part of the drop it was said, as evident by the equipment they had on board.

They had picked up a tramper who had been down at the lighthouse and saw no less than five choppers spraying the area.

The tramper had had to flee from his trip to the light house because 1080 pellets were being dropped both north and south of this favorite tramping spot. The tramper was on holiday from Wellington, and appalled to have seen no notification of the drop.



Greymouth Star: Massive 1080 drop about to start

Pre-feed drop or not, there should have been some notification for the public. This is Unacceptable!

It appears that the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) is seeking accommodation for up to 30 people in the Kahurangi NP area for the first weekend of March.

A pertinent reminder here: 1080 is a broad-spectrum poison: it kills all oxygen-breathing animals and organisms.

1080 is a broad-spectrum poison: it kills all oxygen-breathing animals and organisms. This alone is reason enough to cease dispersing it into the environment. It indiscriminately kills and contaminates everything from the insects that underpin the native fauna food chain to precious native birds, dogs and farm animals.



Related: Dr Meriel Watts, PANANZ

Deer, farm animals and pets are all victims of 1080 poison, it is not selective in its kill range

And in the meantime, the Otago Daily Times reported on the 16th February on the Makarora Valley 1080 operation near Wanaka with concerns about the presence of many tourists still in the bush.

There have been recent reports of 1080 pellets dropping randomly on the unsuspecting. Here is one. And another here.


Concern for Trampers in Pest Operation

“The Department of Conservation has started its Battle for our Birds aerial pest control operation in the Makarora Valley near Wanaka but there are concerns about the apparent high numbers of trampers still in the area."

Makarora Tourist Centre Director Rhondda Osmers said she wrote to Doc expressing her concerns about the number of vehicles parked in the trampers’ car park yesterday, at Makarora.  

See the TheGrafBoys YT channel and website for more videos. Educate yourself on 1080 poisoning. See also 1080science.co.nz

See also our 1080 pages for info and links, and / or search ‘categories’ drop down box for further related articles (at left of any page). 

Like our Facebook page or follow our blog and stay informed. Use the share buttons to help spread the word on all the untruths we have been told – we are about exposing corruption and lies!  


Related Articles:

1080 Poison Dropped On Fishing Guide And Clients On West Coast River

Could This Healthy 23 Year Old’s Cardiac Arrest Have Been Caused by Exposure To 1080? + The Stock Deaths From
1080 Poison & How DOC Is Hiding Them In The Paper Work

1080 Poison & How DOC Is Hiding Them In The Paper Work

1080: NZ Animals Killed For No Reason In $80m Yearly 1080 Drops

Satanists Escape Plan Involves Killing Natives Of New Zealand

Kennedy, De Niro Challenge: $100,000 To The first Person Who Can Find A Scientific Study Proving Thimerosal (Mercury) Is Safe To Inject Into Children
February 18 2017 | From: NaturalNews / Various

As promised, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman of the World Mercury Project (WMP), announced a $100,000 payout to anyone who can find a credible scientific study proving Thimerosal is safe to inject into children at the concentrations currently administered in today’s vaccines.



From the World Mercury Project website:

Related: Kennedy, De Niro Hold Major Vaccine Safety Press Conference

"Thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative, is still in 48 million U.S. flu vaccines each year, tetanus toxoid, meningococcal vaccines and, in massive doses, in the pediatric vaccines given to 100 million children across the developing world. A Centers for Disease Control (CDC) review published last month found that the ethylmercury in thimerosal is as profoundly neurotoxic as the heavily regulated methylmercury in fish. In 2004, an FDA official acknowledged in testimony before a Congressional committee that no government or privately funded study has ever demonstrated thimerosal’s safety, and that still stands today. “On one hand, the government is telling pregnant women which mercury-laced fish to avoid so that they don’t harm their fetuses, and on the other, the CDC supports injecting mercury-containing vaccines into pregnant women, infants and children,” said Kennedy, who spent decades litigating polluters who dumped mercury into water systems. “This defies all logic and common sense.”

Watch the announcement video here:





As the founder and lab science director of CWC Labs, an ISO-accredited mass spec laboratory, I have personally tested vaccines for mercury and found flu shots to contain over 50,000 ppb of mercury, which is more than 25,000 times the EPA’s mercury limit in drinking water.

Over the last several years, the deceitful vaccine industry (and its malicious propagandists such as David Gorski) have deceptively claimed that mercury was removed from all vaccines in the United States.



Related: More Scientific Proof To Refuse Vaccines

That claim is blatantly false. Not only does the CDC openly admit that mercury is still present in 48 million flu shots each year, but this Natural News article documents California’s health secretary Diana Dooley practically demanding that parents inject their children with mercury-formulated influenza vaccines.


Details of the $100,000 Thimerosal Challenge

The aim of the World Mercury Project is to eliminate the toxic heavy metals mercury from medicines and the environment. Because vaccines administered to tens of millions of children in the USA still contain mercury, children are being poisoned right now by an extremely toxic heavy metal that causes severe neurological damage. Beyond mercury, modern vaccines also contain aluminum, MSG and formaldehyde… all documented as known neurotoxins that contribute to brain damage.

From the WMP announcement:

"Kennedy explained that the WMP will pay $100,000 to the first journalist, or other individual, who can find a peer-reviewed scientific study demonstrating that thimerosal is safe in the amounts contained in vaccines currently being administered to American children and pregnant women. Kennedy believes that even “a meager effort at homework” will expose that contention as unsupported by science. He says the science is unequivocal that mercury is a serious health hazard and exposure is linked to many different diseases and conditions (ADHD, Alzheimer’s, Acrodynia and Autism). Even studies listed by the CDC on its website, to exonerate thimerosal as an autism culprit, link thimerosal exposure to low IQ, diminished language and motor skills, and tics, a family of neurological disorders that includes Tourette Syndrome. A Yale University study published last week suggests a link between vaccines and tics, as well as anorexia and OCD."

Mercury, of course, is an extremely toxic, brain damaging (and kidney damaging) heavy metal. The continued mass poisoning of children with this dangerous toxic is a war on children and a crime against humanity. I call it the “medical molestation” of children and a form of “chemical violence” being waged by the sinister vaccine industry.

Because vaccine manufacturers currently enjoy absolute legal immunity against lawsuits, they have no incentive to make vaccines safer.



Related: Study: Almost All Vaccines Contaminated with Toxins and Linked to Side Effects

In fact, they have a financial incentive to make sure that vaccines don’t work as well as claimed, because every outbreak of infectious disease results in yet another round of media hysteria that sells more vaccines.

Watch my mini-documentary on vaccine safety problems here, which asks the question “What would happen if the auto industry operated like the vaccine industry?”

 


While the vaccine companies are pocketing hundreds of billions in annual profits, they are destroying the lives of countless children who are severely and permanently disfigured / damaged by vaccines.

The CDC cover-up that’s unfolding here is unprecedented in the history of medicine and science. Kennedy describes the CDC as “a cesspool of corruption” and is very much aware that the CDC is a criminal cartel of medical con artists who have been running a quack science racket for the benefit of the vaccine manufacturers.

Check out my infographic to learn more about the operations of the Vaccine Racket (click here to view the hi-res version)



Click on the image above to view a larger version in a new window

Related: Half of children’s brain tumors have the SV-40 virus


Why Won’t Vaccine Propagandists Step Forward and Claim an Easy $100k?

Now, thanks to the World Mercury Project’s $100,000 challenge, let’s see if any vaccine pushers step forward to claim the reward. All they have to do is find a single scientific study that shows Thimerosal is safe to inject into children at the volumes currently being administered in pediatric vaccines.

If vaccines are really as safe as they all claim, finding just ONE scientific study to prove the safety of Thimerosal shouldn’t be difficult, should it? Unless they’re all liars and medical child molesters, of course…

Learn more about vaccines at Vaccines.news and watch my podcasts and videos below to discover even more truth the vaccine industry isn’t telling you:


Vaccine Holocaust Explained






FDA documents Admit Vaccines are Linked to Autism!

Related Articles:

If I were at the Kennedy-De Niro presser on toxic vaccines yesterday, I would have read this

“Tap Dancing” Around Vaccine Issues

1. Childhood mental illnesses are caused by genetically influenced chemical imbalances in the brain. Magic bullet cures will come in the form of drugs that correct these imbalances in much the same way that insulin cures diabetes. Greater awareness and improved diagnostics have lead to the spike in incidence rates.

2. We need to let kids be kids. Children by definition are inattentive and moody, and we have to let them run and play, and stop pathologizing normal behaviors in order to drug them into silence for the convenience of quiet classrooms and orderly households.

The truth is, neither of these perspectives tell the whole story. Without question, some children are diagnosed unnecessarily because their behavior is inconvenient to the adult world.



Related: Tribal Parenting – How To Heal Our Children + What Are The Consequences Of A Childhood Removed From Nature?

In All Work and No Play and Childhood Lost, I described pathogenic trends in American culture that undermine children’s psychological health, such as developmentally insensitive school systems, the disappearance of creative play in early childhood, and screen technologies that  immerse them in violent and sexualized worlds.

When you place children in environments that undermine their development, inevitably, some will “not fit in”, and they may find themselves labeled with ADHD, a learning disability, or a mood disorder.

At the same time, many children are struggling with very real symptoms ranging from impulsivity and learning challenges to panic and rage; they are not merely, “unique” “quirky” or “willful” and it is deeply frustrating and demoralizing to parents who are looking for help and guidance and who are judged as inadequate parents who “can’t control their kids”.

It is not outrageous to suggest that a child’s developing brain might be disordered in some way, just as any other organ in the body might be, and that the solutions lies in correcting that disorder. So which is it?

Do we need to fix children’s disordered brains or do we need to let kids be kids? In other words, do solutions lie in fixing their biology or fixing their environments? Or as psychologists like to say, is this a problem of nature or nurture?



My latest edited book: The Science and Pseudoscience of Children’s Mental Health (Praeger, 2015) stipulates that we are asking the wrong question.

Pitting Nature versus Nurture is an outmoded dichotomy that has been replaced in serious scientific circles by the science of Epigenetics; put simply, the understanding that environments, whether they be cellular or social, can activate or silence genes which in turn have a profound effect on brain development. In chapter 3 of Science and Pseudoscience, Neurobiologist Richard Francis provides an overview of the field of epigenetics:

“How is it that our environment can affect our genes? That idea seems incongruous. This seeming incongruity reflects a basic misperception about how genes influence human development, a misperception popularized not only in the media, but by many geneticists as well. Recognizing the role of environment in regulating gene behavior unleashes enormous potential for understanding children’s mental health and developing interventions ranging from diet to relationships, which in turn alter gene expression. The standard view – which focuses on identifying the “ADHD” gene or gene sequence, for example, with a view to intervening at the level of the gene, without any consideration of the role of environment – is shortsighted and fundamentally flawed. DNA has come to be conceived as the instructor of development[.] … From an epigenetic perspective, genes are as much instructed as instructors. I have used the metaphor of a theatrical production to distinguish the executive gene view from that of an epigenetically informed view of genes as they function in the cell (microcosm) and development (macrocosm). From the perspective of the executive gene, DNA functions as the director of the theatrical production, proteins as the actors, and all other biochemicals as the stage hands. From an epigenetic perspective, in contrast, DNA, proteins, and everything else interact more as an ensemble cast."

The science of epigenetics has taught us that when we radically change children’s environments from time spent outdoors to hours sitting in front of screens, from foods that grow in the ground to food that is processed in a laboratory from clean air, soil and water to air, soil and water that is saturated with tens of thousands of man made chemical toxicants – 1,000 of which have been targeted as neuro or brain toxins – that these environments powerfully impact gene expression, and brain development.

In a recent article written for the Lancet, internationally renowned environmental health experts Philip Landrigan and Phillipe Grandjean describe the chemical soup that our children are swimming in as causing nothing less than a global silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity.



Related: The number-one mind-control program at US colleges

Rates of childhood illness have spiked dramatically in the last couple of decades. Everything from childhood cancers and asthma to learning disabilities and autism are on the rise. For example, in the 1970s, Autism was diagnosed in one in every 10,000 children.

Today it is diagnosed in 1 in 63 children and in 1 in 42 boys. The human genome does not evolve quickly enough to explain these rapidly changing statistics, but we have changed children’s environments radically and so we are obliged to consider the impact of these highly unnatural environments on genetic expression and the development of the exquisitely complex and fragile human brain from its embryonic beginnings until it is fully mature in late adolescence.

Furthermore, we cannot anchor our understanding of the interplay of genes and environments to the chemical imbalance theory. It has not stood the test of science. The field of psychiatry has itself rejected this theory. There is no compelling scientific evidence that depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety, ADHD or Autism are caused by chemical imbalances.



Related: Medicating Our Kids: A New Perspective on ADHD

This may surprise and confuse you, because the chemical imbalance theory continues to be widely trumpeted in the media and by PCPs and psychiatrists who work directly with patients.

And yet, as Robert Whitaker notes in chapter 2 of Science and Pseudoscience, leaders in the field of psychiatry are publicly renouncing the theory. Here are some quotes that he shares from three leading psychiatrists:

“[E]arlier notions of mental disorders as chemical imbalances are beginning to look antiquated.” - Thomas Insel, Director National Institute of Mental Health, 2011 “Chemical imbalance is sort of last-century thinking … It’s much more complicated than that. . . . It’s really an outmoded way of thinking.” - Joseph Coyle, Editor-in-Chief, Archives of General Psychiatry, 2012 “In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim, except perhaps to mock it.… [T]he “chemical imbalance” image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding. In truth, the “chemical imbalance” notion was always a kind of urban legend - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists. - Ronald Pies, Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of Psychiatric Times, 2011

And so it seems that the commonly held belief about the cause of mental illness – the chemical imbalance in the brain – is fundamentally flawed.

If we look at the symptoms that drive the psychiatric diagnoses most commonly given to children, and adults for that matter, they are generally very broad and do not point to the source of the illness any more than a fever does.

Lowering a fever can be of vital importance at the acute stage of an illness, but none of us believes that a steady diet of aspirin and cold compresses is in any sense a cure.



Related: The Surprisingly Dramatic Role Of Nutrition In Mental Health

The same is true of symptoms like hyperactivity, and inattention. Sometimes professional training actually serves to narrow rather than illuminate our understanding, and we stop seeing the obvious.

For example, inattention and hyperactivity are generic states of mind that can have a multiplicity of causes: Poor diet, permissive parenting, hours in front of screen entertainments, an outsized imagination, being bullied, neglect or abuse.

And research tells us that prenatal exposures to maternal stress hormones, cocaine or alcohol, and environmental pollutants can epigenetically lead to symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity.

And yet, the belief that all children exhibiting hyperactivity or inattentiveness are suffering from the same well-understood genetically influenced brain disorder called ADHD, with objective diagnostic criteria and well established drug protocols, is widely held by parents and clinicians alike.



Related: How Big Pharma Gets Away With Selling 'P' / Methamphetamine To Children: By Renaming It 'Adderall'

I would argue that it is also more useful to call depression and psychosis symptoms rather than illnesses. To be clear, like fever, symptoms of depression and psychosis can be devastating and life threatening, at which time symptom relief becomes the top priority.

But we need to move beyond the idea that everyone who is depressed, or psychotic or hyperactive has the same disease, any more than we would assume that everyone who has abdominal pain, or headache or fever does. In so doing, we can begin to address the underlying causes rather than just staunching the wound with a tourniquet.

In light of psychiatry’s own disenchantment with the chemical imbalance theory, it is still legitimate to argue that while psychiatric drugs don’t cure illnesses per se, they may provide much needed symptom relief, and because they are vetted by the FDA, they are safe to use.

In fact however, the FDA only requires two clinical trials – designed and funded by the drug companies who make them - that show that the drug has a statistically greater effect than a placebo regardless of whether these statistical differences have any clinical significance and regardless of how many other clinical trials for the same drug fail to show a difference.

Harvard University professor Irving Kirsch’s review of the research on the efficacy of antidepressants reveal that while the effect of antidepressants as compared with placebo are statistically significant, the difference is nonetheless so small, that it doesn’t translate into a therapeutic improvement.



Related: The Myth Of Mental Illness: Psychiatry Is A Fraud And It Is All About Control + “Opposition Defiant Disorder” -
Non-Conformity And Anti-Authoritarianism Now Considered An Illness

Also, this statistical difference is attributable to the fact that antidepressants have a host of side effects unlike placebo pills. Therefore, most patients in these trials “break blind” meaning that they can guess whether they are on an actual medication or not, which affects their expectations.

This doesn’t rule out the possibility that some people experience symptom relief from their medication, and as long as they’re informed about possible adverse effects, of course it’s appropriate that they continue to use their medication. However, it’s a different matter with children who cannot give consent.

Meanwhile, outstanding research from many scientific disciplines has led to deeper understanding of childhood psychological disturbance and paved the way for more effective treatments.

But this science is conveniently placed in a box called “alternative medicine”, which for many is a euphemism for junk science.

The irony is that it is the chemical imbalance theory that represents junk science. How has psychiatry – with its history of insulin coma therapy, lobotomy, shock therapy and today, the wholesale treatment of millions of children with ineffectual and dangerous drugs for questionable diagnoses – become the gold standard against which other disciplines and treatment approaches are measured?

The belief in the “chemical imbalance” and the “bad gene” as the cause of children's mental illness lives on as a powerful cultural myth.



It is stoked by the pharmaceutical industry which has identified children as a fertile market for its products, and by the health insurance industry seeking an easy and cheap solution to complex psychological issues with multifaceted causes.

Personal, family and cultural factors, as well as more compelling biological explanations are swept under the rug if they don't result in increased drug sales and the promise of a quick fix. We might dismiss this as “business as usual” in corporate America if the stakes weren't so high.

As I have described in my last three books, No Child Left Different, Bipolar Children, and Drugging Our Children, the drug cocktails that millions of children are consuming damage their developing brains and bodies while the real source of their suffering remains untreated. But this does not negate the value of scientific research.

The Science and Pseudoscience of Children’s Mental Health exposes the myth of the chemical imbalance and the bad gene and introduces the science of epigenetics as a compelling conceptual framework for understanding the science of children’s mental health.



Related: Andrew Saul: Nutritional Links To Cure Depression And Mental Illness

It presents research on the importance of high quality prenatal and early childhood care in fostering healthy brain development and mental health from a multidisciplinary, epigenetic perspective. Authors present research that sheds light on the impact of neurotoxicants such as heavy metals and pesticides, as well as the salutary effects of micronutrients.

The underpinnings of autism spectrum disorder and concussion syndrome are explored from a functional neurology perspective, which views the brain as a complex, dynamic system with much greater plasticity than we have heretofore understood, opening the door to breakthroughs in diagnosis and treatment.

For evidence-based research on Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, visit the GreenMedInfo.com Research Dashboard.




Creating ADHD Is The New Education

“There is a form of mind control that is really mind-chaos. It shatters the processes of thought into, at best, vaguely related fragments. There is no direction, no development, no progress along a line of reasoning. This is how you disable a person. You disrupt his ability to move from A to B to C. At that point, he becomes passive. He’s willing to be programmed, because it’s easier. He wants to be programmed.” - The Underground, Jon Rappoport

“I learned twenty-four new things today at school,” the child said. “One right after the other. I felt so happy. My teacher told me I was learning accelerated. I wrote on my iPad. I saw pictures. I did group harmony. I added. I divided. I heard about architecture. The teacher said we were filled with wonder at the universe. We solved a problem. We’re all together. I ate cheese. A factory makes cheese.”

Related: Before His Death, Father Of ADHD Admitted It Was A Fictitious Disease

The new education is ADHD.

It’s a method of teaching that surrenders ground on each key concept, deserting it before it’s firmly fixed in the mind of the student. It hops around from idea to idea, because parents, teachers, administrators, students, departments of education, and educational publishers have given up on the traditional practice of repetition.

Repetition was old-world. For decades, even centuries, the time-honored method of instruction was: introduce an idea or concept or method, and then provide numerous examples the student had to practice, solve, and demonstrate with proficiency.

There was no getting around it. If the student balked, he failed. There were no excuses or fairy tales floated to explain away the inability of the student to carry out the work.



Related: Nutrition And Mental Health + ADHD Is A Fabricated Disease, Says Reputed Neurologist

Now, these days, if you want to induce ADHD, teach a course in which each new concept is given short shrift. Then pass every student on to the next grade, because it’s “humane.”

Think of it this way. Suppose you want to climb the sheer face of a high rock. You know nothing about climbing. You engage an instructor. He teaches you a little bit about ropes and spikes and handholds. He briefly highlights each aspect and then skips to the next. So later…while you’re falling five hundred feet to the ravine below, you can invent stories about why the experiment didn’t work out.

Since the advent of organized education on the planet, there has been one way of teaching young children…until recently. Explain a new idea, produce scores of examples of that idea, and get the students to work on those examples and come up with the right answers.

Subtraction, division, decimals, spelling, reading - it all works the same basic way.

For the last hundred years or so, however, we’ve seen the gradual intrusion of Teacher ADHD. School text ADHD.



Related: 4 Facts About ADHD That Teachers & Doctors Never Tell Parents

Not enough examples. Not enough exercises. Education has nothing to do with a full frontal attack to “improve the self-esteem” of the student. It has nothing to do with telling children they’re valuable. It certainly has nothing to do with trying to embed social values and team spirit in children.

And no matter how many fantasies educators spin, schools can’t replace parents. If what I’m writing here seems cruel and uncaring…look at the other side of the picture.

Look at what happens when a student emerges from school with a half-baked, “dumbed-down” education. He can sort of read. He can sort of write. He sort of understands arithmetic. He tries to skate through the rest of his life. He fakes it. He adopts a front to conceal the large territory of what he doesn’t know.

He certainly can’t think straight. Give him three ideas in succession and he’s lost. He goes on overload. He operates on association. You say A and he goes to G right away. You go back to A and he responds with R. He’s up the creek without a paddle.

That’s what’s cruel.

Forty years ago, I was on the verge of landing a lucrative job with a remedial education company. The owner gave me a lesson plan and told me to write a sample program.

I did. He looked at it and said, “There are too many examples and exercises here. You have to move things along faster.”



Related: Harvard Research Finds Link Between Fluoridated Water, ADHD & Mental Disorders

I told him the students would never comprehend the program that way. They had to work on at least 20 exercises for each new concept. He was shocked. “That’s not how it’s done now,” he said. “Oh,” I said, “you mean now the student and teacher both fake it?” And that was the end of that.

Several years ago, I explained much of what’s in this article to a sociologist at a US university. His response: “Children are different now. They don’t have patience. There are too many distractions. We have to operate from a new psychology.”

I asked him what that psychology was. “Children are consumers. They pick and choose.” While I was laughing at his assessment, he capped his display of wisdom with this: “There is no longer such a clear division between opinion and fact. They overlap.” Perfect.

I know all about how the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations torpedoed education in America. But their major effort was cutting off teachers and students from the history of the nation and the meaning of individual freedom.

What I’m talking about here is a different perversion. The unhinging of the young mind from any semblance of accomplishment and continuity.

This goes far beyond the agenda of outfitting children to be worker-drones in a controlled society.

This is the induction of confusion and despair about what used to be called thinking. This is the imprinting of “gaps” that make it very hard for a person to operate, even as a drone.



Related: Kids Meditate Instead Of Taking ADHD Medications, See Amazing Resuts + Elementary School Sends Kids To Meditation Instead Of Detention And The Results Are Astounding

In addition, if you seed children with all sorts of debilitating psychiatric drugs, and you have a profound and dangerous mess that only dedicated parents can undo, one child at a time.

People may wish it weren’t so, but that doesn’t change the facts of the matter. The upside is, when you explain a concept to a child, and you then take him through a great many exercises designed to help him understand that concept, he’ll achieve a victory.

Then you’ll see the lights go on in his mind.

Related: When every moment of childhood can be recorded and shared, what happens to childhood?

“I think if a woman from the age of 50 has a mammogram every year, or every two years, she’s going to get breast cancer as a direct result from that." - Dr. Patrick Kingsley, Clinical Ecologist

This, despite the fact that the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently excluded mammography for women under 50 – based on scientific evidence of limited efficacy in reducing breast cancer mortality for women between 40 and 49 – the IARC working group further noted that early detection of breast cancer through mammography screening have important harmful outcomes such as false positive results, over-diagnosis, over-treatment and radiation-induced cancer.



In 2013, a review of 8 trials involving more than 600,000 women in the age range 39 to 74 years discovered no evidence to establish mammography screening is effective on overall mortality.

“If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% and that over-diagnosis and overtreatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily.”

In 2014, a review of mammography screening by a team of medical professionals (including a medical ethicist, a clinical epidemiologist, a pharmacologist, an oncologic surgeon, a nurse scientist, a lawyer, and a health economist) from the Swiss Medical Board, the Swiss Medical Association, and the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences found no evidence to indicate that the benefits of mammography screening outweighed the harms.

“For every breast-cancer death prevented in U.S. women over a 10-year course of annual screening beginning at 50 years of age, 490 to 670 women are likely to have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination; 70 to 100, an unnecessary biopsy; and 3 to 14, an over-diagnosed breast cancer that would never have become clinically apparent.”

Radiologists of the 2014 Canadian National Breast Screening Study - conducted to compare breast cancer incidences and mortality up to 25 years in women aged 40-59 who did or did not undergo mammography screening - also concluded that “annual mammography in women aged 40-59 did not reduce mortality from breast cancer beyond that of physical examination or usual care when adjuvant therapy for breast cancer was freely available”.

Overall, 22% of healthy women in the screening group (involving 90,000 women) were diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer unnecessarily, they found.





Based on a population sample of 1.8 million Norwegian women, diagnosed with breast cancer between 1987 and 2010, a study titled Trends in breast cancer stage distribution before, during and after introduction of a screening program in Norway found mammography screenings significantly increased incidence of localized stage cancers without reducing the incidence of advanced cancers.

A study published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine added to a growing body of evidence that for every woman helped by a mammogram screening for breast cancer, many more have been harmed.

Using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program from 1975 through 2012, a team of international cancer researchers concluded that women were more likely to have breast cancer that was over-diagnosed, than to have earlier detection of a tumor that was destined to become large.

“[Mammography] Screening did result in more cancers being detected, but the data suggests that only about 30 of the 162 additional small tumors per 100,000 women that screening mammograms found would ever have progressed to a dangerous stage. That means that 132, or 81 percent, of the 162 extra tumors detected represented “over-diagnosis” - the discovery and treatment of tumors that were never destined to harm.”

With a plethora of studies confirming that mammography has been oversold and has failed to protect women against breast cancer, will the medical community and women at large now question its efficacy?

Related Articles:

The truth about mammograms: False positives, over-diagnosis, over-treatment and radiation-induced cancer

Surgeons admit that mammography is outdated and harmful to women

The Dangers of (and Alternatives to) Breast Lumpectomy and Biopsy

Mammograms Again Found to Have No Impact on Mortality

Rethink Pink and Screening Mammography

Surgeons Admit Mammography is Outdated, Harmful at Best

Fake Breast Cancer News from the American Cancer Society

Related: How Money From Pharmaceutical Companies Sways Doctors’ Prescriptions

This story, nine months ago, surfaced and then dropped like a stone in a lake. Gone.

But I haven’t forgotten it. So here it is. Again: The structures of medical propaganda are cracking.

The Washington Post (May 3, 2016) reports on a new Johns Hopkins study. I’ll give you the Post’s explosive quotes and then analyze them.

“…a new study by patient safety researchers provides some context…Their analysis, published in the BMJ on Tuesday, shows that ‘medical errors’ in hospitals and other health care facilities are incredibly common and may now be the third leading cause of death in the United States - claiming 251,000 lives every year, more than respiratory disease, accidents, stroke and Alzheimer’s.” “Martin Makary, a professor of surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who led the research, said in an interview that the category includes everything from bad doctors to more systemic issues such as communication breakdowns when patients are handed off from one department to another.” “’It boils down to people dying from the care that they receive rather than the disease for which they are seeking care,’” Makary said. “His calculation of 251,000 deaths [per year] equates to nearly 700 deaths a day - about 9.5 percent of all deaths annually in the United States.” “Moreover, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t require reporting of errors in the data it collects about deaths through billing codes, making it hard to see what’s going on at the national level.” “Frederick van Pelt, a doctor who works for The Chartis Group, a health care consultancy, said another element of harm that is often overlooked is the number of severe patient injuries resulting from medical error.” “’Some estimates would put this number at 40 times the death rate,’ van Pelt said.”

There you have it. Now let’s dig in.

First of all, this study, as you can see, is focusing on medical errors in hospitals and “other health care facilities.” Did the researchers do much work looking for fatal errors that occur in average doctors’ offices? If not, the death numbers mentioned in this study are on the low side.

The CDC, which regularly reports mortality figures, doesn’t receive data, nor does it require data, from doctors, on errors which lead to patients’ deaths. So the CDC is completely in the dark on the third leading cause of death in the US. This, of course, is the same agency that assures the public that vaccines are wonderfully safe and effective.

Consider the final quotes above. The estimate that “severe patient injuries from medical errors” are 40 times the death figure would give us this: every year in the US, there are 10 million severe injuries as a result of medical errors.

For years, I’ve been hammering on another landmark study out of John Hopkins. It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Association: “Is US health really the best in the world?”

The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert. Starfield separated deaths from errors/mistreatment in hospitals, and deaths from medical drugs:

Yearly deaths from mistreatment and errors in hospitals: 119,000.

Yearly deaths from correctly prescribed medical drugs: 106,000.

The new study doesn’t specifically give a death-number for the medical-drug category.

So again, we can assume the new study is citing an overall death figure that is on the low side. So let’s just round off the new 250,000-death figure and call it 300,000 deaths in America per year as a direct result of the medical system.

That works out to 3 MILLION deaths per decade. And 120 MILLION severe patient injuries per decade.

This is the altruistic umbrella under which more Americans than ever will live and die, as a result of the glorious Obamacare insurance program (which, thankfully, Presdent Trump is now rectifying).

This is the foundation on which doctors and medical bureaucrats stand, when they make statements to the press about the unqualified success of modern medicine - for example, in the area of vaccines.

“I’m the expert here. I represent a system that kills 3 million Americans per decade and severely injures 120 million Americans, and therefore you can believe me when I say that vaccines are remarkably safe and effective.”

Who are the clueless? Who are the liars? Who are the people killing and maiming the people? Who are the lunatics?

The people who opt for natural health? I don’t think so.

No. The lunatics and their dupes and proxies are in plain view, every night, on your television screen.

There they are. Look at them. Understand what is going on. The full meaning of it. Finally.

How Big Pharma is Controlling Your Health Care

Dr. Michael Farley discusses what he calls his 'grave reservations' about big pharma's control when it comes to doctors and your healthcare. Find out what first hand things he's seen.

You'll be shocked at some of the things he's seen and how much control the FDA and pharmaceutical companies have in this country. You might be surprised at just how much big pharma is controlling your healthcare!







Government’s Real War On Natural Health

In 1994, after a lifelong aversion to politics, I ran for a seat in the US Congress out of the 29th District in Los Angeles. My platform was Health Freedom.



At the time, the FDA was raiding offices of natural practitioners, and threatening to cut off citizens’ access to a full range of nutritional supplements.

I watched a trial, if you can call it that, in downtown Los Angeles, in which the federal government was prosecuting a young man for selling, and making health claims about, a substance that occurs naturally in the body.

The defendant told the Judge he was prepared to present extensive evidence that the substance was safe and effective. The Judge refused, saying the only issue was: did the defendant violate an FDA rule?

If so, he was guilty. At that point, the trial was over, and indeed, the Judge soon pronounced a verdict and the young man was led away to serve a prison sentence in a federal lockup.

At that moment, I began to construct my case against the State, and consider what Health Freedom was all about.



Related: Former FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg named in massive conspiracy and racketeering lawsuit involving Johnson & Johnson, a Wall Street hedge fund, and the Levaquin drug

Let’s start here. The FDA, the CDC, and several other federal agencies have blood on their hands. This blood doesn’t wash away. On July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, published a review in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

Starfield concluded that that US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. That would extrapolate to 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade. I subsequently interviewed Starfield (2009), and she told me the US government has never made a significant effort to end this ongoing holocaust.

So, when the government talks about FDA rules governing safety and efficacy of treatments, they should be referring to their own crimes, since, for example, FDA-approved medicines are responsible for roughly half the 2.25 million deaths per decade.

On the other hand, natural health treatments kill virtually no one.



And here is where the situation becomes basic. The decision by a responsible adult, to manage his own health, by his own measure, and to seek out any other person to help him in that regard, is not the business of the State.

The State can license anyone it chooses to, as a health practitioner. Who cares? But there is no exclusive monopoly on healing. There is no monopoly on recovery from illness. There is no monopoly on the quality of a life.

The legal aspect of this is clear: contracts vs. licenses. The State has no Constitutional right to turn its licensing procedures into monopolies. On the other hand, two consenting adults can designate each other “patient” and “healer,” accepting full responsibility, with no future liability attached, for the outcome of their treatment-arrangement (contract).

The State has no Constitutional right to stick its nose into this business.

The State needs to clean up its own act, which is a euphemistic way of saying the State needs to stop killing 2.25 million Americans per decade. Obviously, the government front of “we can’t let people try to heal themselves apart from licensed practitioners, we must protect the people” is a piece of phony propaganda.




The Revolving Door Between the FDA and Big Pharma








It’s a piece of Nanny-Mommy-Daddy State bullshit. This country wasn’t founded on the premise of the government protecting everyone everywhere all the time.

The State has no right to presume it knows, in advance, what will happen when two responsible citizens decide to engage in their own healing contract.

There’s more. If one state in the Union decided to allow this form of responsible contract in the field of healing, people from all over the country would move there - seeking freedom.



As a result, the economy of that State would bloom. Other States, seeing this, would follow suit. There would be a genuine Health Freedom revolution…

And the government of the country could focus on an effort to stop killing people through medical interventions. As for the people of America, their job is to stop giving in to a reflex-reaction of fear when they contemplate health freedom.

“Oh, we can’t just let people decide, on their terms, which health treatments to choose. That could lead to terrible consequences.”

The terrible consequences are right in front of your face. They’re already here. They stem from the federal government’s attempt to run a monopoly on healing, which turns out to be a killing field.

That’s the result of rules and regulations set by the experts.

People either have freedom to choose or they don’t. They have a right to be right or wrong in those choices, or they don’t.

There is no State Mommy or Daddy decreed by some higher power.

"We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.” “Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right.” “We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”

I have written at length about another whistleblower at the CDC, William Thompson, a long-time researcher who, in August of 2014, confessed in writing to massive fraud (archive here).

He admitted that, in a study on the safety of the MMR vaccine, he and his colleagues literally threw vital sheets of data into a garbage can. The study then gave a free pass to the vaccine, claiming it had no connection to autism - when in fact it did. Thompson is the subject of the film, Vaxxed.


Vaxxed From Cover Up to Catastrophe

Now with this letter, we see that other scientists at the CDC are blowing the lid off internal corruption at their Agency.

If, in fact, President Trump gives the green light for an independent investigation of the CDC, as press outlets are now reporting, and if he appoints Robert Kennedy Jr. to head up that panel, as Kennedy claims, we are going to see a large number of hidden facts emerge from the secretive halls of the CDC.

Because this Spider Group is anonymous, I wanted to make sure their letter is real. I contacted reporter Carey Gillam (twitter), who has been covering the story. I received this reply:

"I was able to authenticate the letter by contacting CDC’s public affairs office and asking them directly about it after I received it from internal CDC sources.”

You can read the full Spider Group’s letter here at US Right To Know. (More on the letter by Carey Gillam here.)


Not a Coincidence

And now I write a letter to them, so they can deepen their investigation.

Dear Spider Group: I commend you on making an important start. You’re on the right road. As a reporter who has covered the CDC for many years, I offer you three suggestions. This short list is by no means exhaustive. I’m just pointing to a few areas where your own research will yield very rich and fertile results.


1. Swine Flu Fraud

Let me take you back to the late summer of 2009, and the Swine Flu epidemic, which was hyped to the sky by the CDC. The Agency was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine. Remember?

The problem was, the CDC was concealing a scandal.

At the time, star CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, was working on a Swine Flu story. She discovered that the CDC had secretly stopped counting cases of the illness - while, of course, continuing to warn Americans about its unchecked spread.

The CDC’s main job is counting cases and reporting the numbers. What was the Agency up to?

Here is an excerpt from my 2014 interview with Sharyl Attkisson:

Rappoport: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, [secretly] stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America. Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out? Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all! The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it and, in the end, no broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype. It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.

It was routine for doctors all over America to send blood samples from patients they’d diagnosed with Swine Flu, or the “most likely” Swine Flu patients, to labs for testing. And overwhelmingly, those samples were coming back with the result: not Swine Flu, not any kind of flu.

That was the big secret. That’s what the CDC was hiding. That’s why they stopped reporting Swine Flu case numbers. That’s what Attkisson had discovered. That’s why she was shut down.



Related: Robert F Kennedy’s devastating quotes on vaccines and the CDC

But it gets even worse. Because about three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.

Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response:

“Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents - the CDC’s best guess is 22 million - came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 [2009].” (“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon).

Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.

In the summer of 2009, the CDC secretly stops counting Swine Flu cases in America, because the overwhelming percentage of lab tests from likely Swine Flu patients shows no sign of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.

There is no Swine Flu epidemic.

Then, the CDC estimates there are 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US.


2. The CDC Buys Massive Amounts of Vaccinesand at the Same Time Heads Up Research on the Safety of Vaccines: Explosive Structural Conflict of Interest

If you wanted to buy a product, and the main source of research on the product was the company selling it, would you automatically assume the product was safe and effective?

But you see, that’s the just the beginning of the problem. Suppose the company’s research was cited thousands of times in the press, as the authoritative standard of proof - and anyone who disputed that research was labeled a conspiracy theorist and a quack and a danger to the community and an anti-science lunatic.



Related: TIME Magazine runs vile hit piece against RFK Jr. for daring to tell the truth about mercury in vaccines

Would you begin to suspect the company had some awesome media connections? Would you suspect some very powerful people were backing the company?

This is exactly the situation that exists at the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Read these two quotes:

“The government’s Vaccine for Children Program (a CDC organization) purchases vaccines for about 50 percent of children in the U.S.” - The Atlantic, February 10, 2015 “The CDC currently spends over $4 billion purchasing vaccines [annually] from drug makers…” - Health Impact News, October 24, 2016)

However, the CDC is also the gold standard for research on the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

It turns out an unending stream of studies on these subjects. And the results of those studies are dutifully reported in the mainstream press.



Related: CDC Knowingly LIED About Mercury in Vaccines: Proof Has Surfaced

Do you think, under any circumstances, the CDC would publish data showing vaccines are ineffective and dangerous? They’d be cutting their own throats.

“Well, we spend $4 billion a year buying vaccines from drug companies, but guess what? These vaccines are often dangerous…”

Every time you read about a CDC study on vaccines, keep this obvious (and clearly illegal) conflict of interest in mind.


3. Massive Overestimate of Flu Deaths in the US, in Order to Push the Flu Vaccine

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which created tremors through the halls of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001 - 61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

Boom. You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes. But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure. However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.

In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.

“Well, uh, we say that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”

The CDC must turn out a steady stream of outrageous lies about the need for vaccines. If they didn’t, they’d have no way to justify the billions of dollars they spend every year buying the vaccines from drug companies.

So, Spider Group, don’t stop now. Deepen your probe. Become true heroes for honest research, expose the deep roots of corruption in your Agency, and do the right thing for the people you’re sworn to serve.



Robert F Kennedy Jr: CDC An “Edifice Of Faud”

Robert Kennedy, Jr. “All the things that I do are bent on forcing this [vaccine] debate out into the open - because once the science is in the open, the CDC’s position is so fragile, it’s an edifice of fraud, fraud stacked upon fraud, so high and so wobbly, that even a slight breeze of public scrutiny will topple it.”

Kennedy states that President Trump has appointed him to head up a task force investigating vaccine safety. The above quote indicates Kennedy, would, if given the green light, probe much more than the use of mercury in vaccines - his main topic of interest thus far.

Related: College Student Gets HPV Cancer 18 Months After Receiving Gardasil Vaccine, then Declines Chemo & Heals Herself with Natural Means

This would be a very good thing. The CDC is most certainly an edifice of fraud. It has concealed many of its crimes over the years.

If he hasn’t already, Kennedy should make contact with an anonymous group of scientists at the CDC who call themselves ‘Spider’. They have written a letter to the CDC chief of staff accusing the agency of widespread “unethical practices…influenced and shaped by outside parties…[that] threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.” (More on Spider here.)

In my recent open letter to Spider, I presented three shocking areas of fraud at the CDC that they should expose:

Swine Flu, a dud and phony “epidemic,” presented as a dire global threat requiring vaccination;

A structural conflict of interest, in which the CDC buys billions of dollars of vaccines and, at the same time, carries out many studies assessing vaccine safety - with this much money on the line, the Agency would never, under any circumstances, admit vaccines are dangerous;

A massive overestimation of annual flu deaths in the US, in order to push the necessity of the flu vaccine.

In this second memo, I present two more shocking areas which should receive the immediate attention of the dissident Spider scientists at the CDC, and Mr. Kennedy:


1: The Case of Julie Gerberding

On August 27, 2014, CDC scientist William Thompson came out of the shadows and revealed that he had participated in a major scientific fraud:

Ten years earlier, he and his co-authors had published a study claiming there was no MMR-vaccine connection to autism. They had omitted vital data which contradicted that finding.

The MMR vaccine was increasing the risk of autism. Thompson knew it. So did his co-authors. They buried that chilling fact.



Related: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: Aluminum in vaccines is not safe

Before their fake study was published, Thompson wrote to the head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, informing her that, at an upcoming conference, he would be:

“Presenting the summary of our results from the Metropolitan Atlanta Autism Case-Control Study [and]…I will have to present several problematic results relating to statistical associations between the receipt of MMR vaccine and autism.”

In other words, Thompson was ready to blow the whistle on the MMR vaccine-autism connection. He received no reply from CDC Director Gerberding, and his presentation at the conference was canceled.

Fast forward: in 2009, Gerberding left the CDC. She eventually went to work as the president of the vaccine division at Merck.

Merck. Manufactures. The. MMR. Vaccine. Get it? (full story here)


2: Overwhelmingly, Flu is Not the Flu. Therefore, Even People Who Believe in the Importance of the Flu Vaccine are Being Decieved

Peter Doshi, PhD, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals a monstrosity.

As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.

So they don’t have the flu. Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.

The vaccine couldn’t possibly work. The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.

Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“…Even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive." “…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off. The CDC is supposed to be doing an accurate count of case numbers of diseases in the US. They’re lying and covering up the facts.



Terrible logo, just lazy design. And who signed off on that font? Anyway - maybe they should start doing what is says on the tin...

Those of you in the Spider group of rebel scientists at the CDC, get busy. There are many more instances of massive corruption at your Agency. Dig in. Don’t let the American people down.

Go all the way. You, too, Mr. Kennedy. For Part-1, click here.

If smart technology gadgets don’t heat your skin, then they are safe, which is the standard “tobacco science” pap disseminated by industrial professional societies such as IEEE, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the National Council of Radiation Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), who fund and/or perform the studies the World Health Organization and global government health agencies cite as ‘factual’ science.



Related: School Boards Left On The Hook For Wi-Fi Injuries

Basically, microwave technology industrial professional societies state emphatically there is no such effect as non-thermal radiation adverse health effects, which contribute to and/or cause electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) or what physicians call idiopathic environmental intolerance (IEI) in sensitive people around the world.

However, here’s the unbelievable part: Non-Industry vs. Industry Funded Studies.

NON-Industry studies found 70% HARMFUL effects and 30% found no effects; whereas in INDUSTRY-studies, they found only 32% HARMFUL effects with 68% no effects. Those data were compiled by Dr. Henry Lai, University of Washington, Professor Emeritus - Department of Bioengineering.

Dr. Lai’s work included the “biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (from extremely-low frequency to radiofrequency) and their possible medical applications". Furthermore, Dr. Lai’s work included the development of Artemisinins (derived from extracts of sweet wormwood) for cancer treatment.

Here’s the truly ironic ‘scientific’ part about the above: Almost one-third (32%) of Industry studies found harmful health effects! How, then, can the microwave industry summarily deny such effects don’t exist plus cavalierly – and deliberately – mislead gullible but adoring technology-crazed consumers?



Related: The Gloves Come Off On EMF / Mobile / WiFi Radiation + Understanding The Dangers Of The “5G” Rollout

Even the U.S. Federal Communications Commission is hoodwinked!

The FCC does not have the expertise or the capabilities to determine the safety of electromagnetic fields. FCC stated “Because the Commission does not claim expertise as a de facto health agency, it necessarily considers the views of federal health and safety agencies and institutes that continue to address RF exposure issues in formulating such judgments” in the Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules[3]. Basically, the FCC takes no responsibility for the science. There ought to be a law against that type of obfuscation on the part of a federal agency tasked with setting safety standards.

Microwave science is more than skewed; it’s downright misleading!

In the recently (December 2016) Reviews on Environmental Health - De Gruyter published the article “Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation,” authored by Sarah J. Starkey, Independent Neuroscience and Environmental Health Research, London, UK.



Related: EPA Knew Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMFs) Were A “Probable Human Carcinogen” Decades Ago And Covered It Up

Starkey describes “incorrect and misleading statements from within the [AGNIR 2016] report, omissions and conflict of interests, which make it unsuitable for health risk assessment.

The executive summary and overall conclusions did not accurately reflect the scientific evidence available. Independence is needed from the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP), the group that set the exposure guidelines being assessed.”

In the Introduction, Starkey states:

“The latest AGNIR review has also been relied upon by health protection agencies around the world, including the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and Health Canada. The majority of the global population absorb RF radiation on a daily basis from smartphones, tablet computers, body-worn devices, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth transmitters, cordless phones, base stations, wireless utility meters [aka Smart Meters/AMI Smart Meters] and other transmitters." (Pg. 493)

Under Conflicts of interest, Starkey points out:

“At the time of writing the report, the chairman of AGNIR was also chair of the ICNIRP standing committee on epidemiology. Currently, six members of AGNIR and three members of PHE [Public Health England] or its parent organisation, the Department of Health (DH), are or have been part of ICNIRP.” [….] “How can AGNIR report that the scientific literature contains evidence of harmful effects below the current guidelines when several of them are responsible for those guidelines? PHE provide the official advice on the safety of wireless signals within the UK, but having members in ICNIRP introduces a conflict of interest which could prevent them from acknowledging adverse effects below ICNIRP guidelines." (Pp. 493-94)

“(a) Studies were omitted, included in other sections but without any conclusions, or conclusions left out; (b) evidence was dismissed and ignored in conclusions; (c) there were incorrect statements. Terms such as ‘convincing’ or ‘consistent’ were used to imply that there was no evidence." (Pg. 494)

Under “Studies omitted, included in other sections but without any conclusions, or conclusions left out” and referring to ROS [reactive oxygen species]:

“By only including a few of the available studies, not referring to many scattered throughout the report and not mentioning ROS or oxidative stress in any conclusions or the executive summary, this important area of research was misrepresented. Oxidative stress is a toxic state which can lead to cellular DNA, RNA, protein or lipid damage (7,8) is a major cause of cancer (7), as well as being implicated in many reproductive, central nervous system, cardiovascular, immune and metabolic disorders." (Pg. 495)

However and here’s the BIG however, “ICNIRP only accept thermal effects of RF fields and focus on average energy absorbed,” (Pg. 495) even though 32% of Industry studies found non-thermal effects!

ICNIRP has stated its members are independent of vested and commercial interests. However, several ICNIRP members, e.g., Dr. Alexander Lerchl, have been accused of conflicts of interests, the most famous being Anders Ahlborn, Professor of Epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute and former consultant to the tobacco industry.



Related: 5G Telecomm Radiation The Perfect Tool To Mass Modify Human Brain Waves + More Studies Reveal Dangers

Professor Ahlborn was forced to resign as a member of the WHO’s IARC working group on radiofrequencies. Ahlborn was ‘outed’ that he was the director of the consulting firm Gunnar Ahlborn AB, founded by his brother. That consulting firm served telecom businesses and industry.

Starkey goes on to say:

“Many of the longer-term observational studies described significant associations of RF exposures with symptoms, albeit with limitations in study designs: ‘while some, though by no means all, of the studies reviewed above appear to suggest an association between mobile phone use and symptoms…’, [page 245 (2)] followed by ‘almost all of the studies share a fundamental methodological problem which makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions from them: these studies relied upon the participants’ own descriptions of their mobile phone usage as the exposure variable for their analysis and on self-description of symptoms while knowing exposure status'(2). Longer-term studies on symptoms were omitted from the executive summary. (Pg. 496) No mention was made of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of RF fields as a possible human carcinogen in 2011, which was based on limited evidence supporting carcinogenicity below ICNIRP guideline values.(32) (Pg. 496) By the end of the report, the conclusions on cellular studies had incorrectly become ‘There are now several hundred studies in the published literature that have looked for effects on isolated cells or their components when exposed to RF fields. None has provided robust evidence for and effect.’ "[page 318 (2) (Pg. 497)

The microwave industry considers “cancer” a four-letter-word and does everything within its financial and political prowess to disassociate anyone from proving or even associating cancer etiologies with microwave EMFs/RFs/ELFs, thermal and non-thermal wave radiation.

“Conclusions for further examples: The denial of the existence of adverse effects of RF fields below ICNIRP guidelines in the AGNIR report conclusions is not supported by the scientific evidence. [….] The involvement of ICNIRP scientists in the misleading report calls into question the basis and validity of the international exposure guidelines. To protect public health, we need accurate official assessments of whether there are adverse effects of RF signals below current international ICNIRP guidelines, independent of the group who set the guidelines. The anticipated WHO Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on Radiofrequency Fields, due in 2017, is being prepared by a core group and additional experts with 50% of those named, being, or having been, members of AGNIR or ICNIRP. (Table2) [….] Independence from ICNIRP is necessary to remove the conflict of interest when effects below ICNIRP exposure guidelines are being assessed. [….] Individuals and organisations who/that have made decisions about the often compulsory exposures of others to wireless RF communication signals may be unaware of the physical harm that they may have caused, and may still be causing, because they have not been accurately informed of the risks.” [….] “To prevent further possible harm, restrictions on exposures are required, particularly for children, pregnant women and individuals with medical conditions. (Pg. 499) PHE and AGNIR had a responsibility to provide accurate information about the safety of RF fields. Unfortunately, the report suffered from an incorrect and misleading executive summary and overall conclusions, inaccurate statements, omissions and conflict of interest. Public health and the well-being of other species in the natural world cannot be protected when evidence of harm, no matter how inconvenient, is covered up.” (Pp. 499- 500)

Ironically, the above-cited Starkey paper has 99 References, some of which were included to show corrupted science articles which appear in the published scientific literature. [CJF emphasis added]



Related: Do You Really Understand The Health Risks From Microwave Technology? + The Health Effects Of Microwave
Radiation Spelled Out

The above paper by Sarah J. Starkey is only one intelligently explained example of what’s really going on with microwave ‘science’ to keep consumers enthralled about and with ‘smart’ devices and denied microwave technology health hazards.

There are so many more studies I can cite, but I think readers ought to be getting the picture of what’s not being told to them so that the marketing plans for smart appliances and gadgets can rule consumers’ lives - everything from a ‘smart’ phone, appliances and Wi-Fi to the coveted G5, global Wi-Fi in the sky. Fried brains, anyone?


Related Articles:

How Computer And Mobile Phone Use Affects Our Blood

If Cell Phone Radiation Were Visible, The World Would Look Like This

First Study On 4G / LTE Cell Phone Radiation Shows It Affects Brain Activity

Reports Of Illness Prompt Audit Of Smart Meter Radiation

Mobilize - Finally A Documentary Depicting The Dangers Of Cell Phone Radiation

The Ugly Reality Of Cell Phone And Electronic Device Radiation

Australian Researcher: Phone Radiation Is A Hotline To Brain Cancer + Is Wi-Fi Making Your Child Ill?

Electromagnetic Radiation And Other Weapons Of Mass Mutation

The Truth About Mobile Phone And Wireless Radiation

Massive Government Study Concludes Cell Phone Radiation Causes Brain Cancer + The Effects Of Smartphone Light

The 'Smart' Meter Itself Is The “Hazardous Condition” + Studies On Radiation From Smart Meters Show That
Electromagnetic Frequencies Disrupt And Damage The Nervous System

People aren't born with this condition it develops after a prologued period of exposure after which the body seems to reach a point of critical mass and tips over the edge into electrosensitivity. Electrosensitivity can also be triggered by exposure to a new electronic device.

Electrosensitivity sufferers face denial from the medical establishment and find themselves fobbed off with antidepressants or other non-effective drugs and left to suffer without support. It is only Sweden that officially recognizes electrosensitivity as a medical condition even though it is now a worldwide rapidly growing phenomenon.

One such electrosensitivity sufferer is U.K sculptor Margaret Lovell. The BBC did a 10 minute segment on her for a local television show and we found her through the associated web site. Margaret accepted our offer to trial both a Nu-Me pendant and a p.e.bal to see how they could help with her condition. The following video summarizes her experience.







Penny Hargreaves

Penny is a horse-trainer whose animals, farm and livelihood were systematically destroyed by the presence of a major radio transmission tower on the edge of her property on the outskirts of Christchurch NZ.

For over a decade she has been researching the effects and technologies of electro-magnetic radiation and has become an expert in this area, not academic but experiential.

She was close friends with the late Dr. Neil Cherry, an outspoken critic of EMR and the telecommunications industry. Her information, her experience, her plight, her message are an urgent warning for almost all of humanity who are currently bathed in a carcinogenic sea of weaponized electro-magnetic radiation.


Part One





Part Two





Part Three




Related: Evidence of Penelope Hargreaves for Ouruhia Residents

That’s exactly what people do with toxic junk food – they eat it at every meal, every day for years, and then take antacids, IBS medicine, aspirin, ibuprofen, diet pills and prescription medicines for everything from inflammation to depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia … you name it.

Then, after years of abuse, these same people think that some oncologist is just going to magically cut out the damage, the polyp or the tumor, and they’ll be just fine. It rarely ever works out. Why?

Cancer is the uncontrolled multiplication of mutated cells that thrive off chemicals, and the more toxic food you eat, the worse it gets. It’s like walking on sharp rocks and jagged shells for years and expecting the doctors to just patch you up and send you home. Well, you can forget about it.



Click on the image above to view a larger version in a new window

You need drastic, major lifestyle changes to prevent and/or beat cancer. Sounds difficult, but if you know what to cut out first, it’s actually pretty easy. Here we go.

These top seven causes of cancer are some of the most popular foods, beverages and even medicines known to Americans. Doctors, dentists and dermatologists refrain from telling their patients the truth, or they may lose all their “clients for life.”

Many doctors don’t even know what to tell their patients, because there is zero nutrition education in medical schools. It’s true. Let’s take a look at the major cancer culprits “cutting up” your health daily.


Top Seven Causes of Cancer, and Great Alternatives for Prevention and Healing

#1. Fluoridated water: Want some insecticide in your tap water? You’re in luck! It’s already in there. Municipal tap water often contains toxic sodium fluoride imported from China.



It causes cancer, brittle bones and a lowered IQ. The solution? Get a Big Berkey water filtration system for your home. It’s the best filter on the planet, and even removes other people’s medications, heavy metal toxins, bleach, artificial sweeteners and more.

#2. Artificial sweeteners: They should be called the sweet devils, because aspartame, sorbitol and sucralose trick your body into thinking it’s getting something sweet, increasing cravings for sugar and carbs and contributing to weight gain.



Related: American College of Pediatricians warns: HPV vaccine causes ovarian failure

And, because they’re synthetic and carcinogenic, they warp your cells and lead to cancer of the breasts, prostate, bladder and more. Look into safe alternatives like stevia or xylitol, or just moderate your sugar intake using organic sugar in the raw, or better yet, organic honey.

#3. Nitrites and nitrates in meat: Meat spoils easily, so manufacturers use extra strong preservatives – highly concentrated salts – to preserve them. This goes for nearly all deli meat, barbecued meat, spicy meat, hot dogs, most Chinese food, jerky treats, sausages, and of course, meat in soups.



Related: Vaccine-derived Polio Spreading in “Polio-free” India

Watch out for monosodium glutamate (MSG), a genetically modified preservative used to add flavoring back into meat products that have been processed with ammonia and bleach to kill the E.coli and salmonella. These salts cause migraines, severe dehydration, and yes, cancer. Want safe alternatives? Use organic sea salt, organic garlic salt and organic jalapeño peppers.

#4. Vaccines: Contained in the infamous polio vaccine were nearly 100 million doses of SV40 – a cancer-causing virus that is now believed to be responsible for causing millions of cancer cases in America, according to the CDC.



Related: College Student Gets HPV Cancer 18 Months After Receiving Gardasil Vaccine, then Declines Chemo & Heals Herself with Natural Means

The information was posted on an official CDC fact sheet entitled Cancer, Simian Virus 40 (SV40) and Polio Vaccine. Though the CDC removed it from their site, RealFarmacy.com archived the damning page before the CDC pulled it. Check it out yourself here.

#5. Chemotherapy: Most MDs and oncologists would never take chemotherapy themselves or recommend it for their relatives, knowing as do that it only has a 3 percent chance of success and totally wipes out the human immune system, while flooding the whole body with chemicals that cause new cancers to develop.



Related: Why The Only Thing Influenza May Kill Is Germ Theory

Look into medicinal mushrooms and alkalizing the body to naturally beat cancer.

#6. Pharmaceuticals (prescription medications): The number one cause of cancer is consuming chemicals, so why would you ever take prescription medications that are all made in laboratories using chemicals?



Related: Breakingviews TV: Shkreli shreds pharma

#7. Conventional gluten: Also known as “food glue,” most gluten is processed with bleach and toxic dough conditioners, and it all sticks in your digestive tract for days, rotting everything that comes in behind it and fueling chronic inflammation, IBS, dehydration, polyps, and eventually, cancer.



Related: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: Aluminum in vaccines is not safe

In 1966, Potts wrote articles in the Eugenics Review, one of the original racist, eugenic scientific journals that came from the Galton Institute itself, formerly known as the British Eugenics Society.whose, namesake, Francis Galton, coined the term “eugenics.”



Related: Eugenics / Depopulation Agenda

To this day, he teaches classes at Berkeley about how badly the population needs to be culled, under the guise of “family planning” and other benign, less-descriptive phrases.

He spreads fear about overpopulation, never focusing on the underlying problem of wealth disparity and hegemony, but claiming the innocent men born at the bottom of the bottom class are a threat because they are inherently going to become terrorists.

The term “Malthusian” refers to the philosophy of Thomas Malthus, a “chicken little” of overpopulation fear mongering who openly advocated for spreading disease to kill the poor. Malthus famously encouraged giving disease, famine, and increased mortality rates to the poor, in “An Essay on the Principle of Population, 1826”:

"Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations.*12 But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased from 1 in 36 or 40, to 1 in 18 or 20, we might probably every one of us marry at the age of puberty, and yet few be absolutely starved.”

He is affectionately portrayed at Berkeley, and his cries of “overpopulation” live on today in the work of Malcolm Potts and his ilk.

Today, figures such as Malcolm Potts carry Thomas Malthus’ legacy, and the legacy of the British family who originated eugenics: the Darwin-Galton-Wedgewood-Huxley family.



Related: Nine Scientific Facts Prove The "Theory Of Evolution" Is False

A 2013 paper co-authored by Malcolm Potts plots how to “reduce fertility” in poor populations, encouraging abortions and whatever means necessary to reduce family size, reduce fertility, and reduce population. Read close and make no mistake, this is not speaking in favor of birth control: it is about reducing fertility. It references Darwinian eugenics ideas right off the bat, like this affectionate publication about Thomas Malthus also from UC Berkeley.

Advocating not for freedom, it is titled: “The impact of freedom on fertility decline.” Reading from that paper:

"All societies use a combination of contraception and abortion to limit family size.49–53 In 1975, Tietze and Bongaarts 49 observed that “levels of fertility required for population stabilization cannot be easily obtained without induced abortion”. Conversely, we cannot find a country with replacement level fertility that does not have access to safe abortion, either de jure, as in much of Europe, or de facto as in the Republic of Ireland where women go to England to obtain safe abortions. When safe abortion is accessible in a country, the total fertility rate (TFR) is likely to be one child lower than if abortion is not accessible.54 55 Forty-five years ago demographer Kingsley Davis observed: “Induced abortion … is one of the surest means of controlling reproduction, and one that has been proved capable of reducing birth rates rapidly …. Yet this method is rejected by nearly all national and international … programmes”.56 Today, in spite of powerful evidence of the safety of misoprostol for medical abortion,57 especially in low-resource settings,58 this tablet has not been approved for use by women at home for this purpose.” “We contend that wherever women have access to a range of contraceptive methods with correct information and backed up by safe abortion, fertility will fall. This is the basis of our ‘opportunity model’. Conversely, as long as the international community fails to focus on family planning, the barriers to family planning are allowed to stay in place, and the shortfall in money and commodities persists, there will be further stalls in fertility decline (or an actual rise in family size), particularly among the poorest economic quintiles in low-income countries.”

Malcolm Potts has a feverish obsession with reducing the world’s population of poor people, working veraciously for almost half a century to do so with a tenacity only perhaps rivaling Margaret Sanger herself.

He claims men born into impoverished areas (citing Gaza) are inherently a threat to world stability, essentially saying they are bound to become terrorists, so they should never have been born.

Reading from an article titled: “U.C. Berkeley’s Malcolm Potts’ Ugly New Eugenics Blames Dark-Skinned Teenagers for War and Terrorism”:

"The Bixby Center for Population, Health, and Sustainability at the University of California, Berkeley, features webpages stuffed with noble principles affirming women’s right to family planning access, global population stability, universal justice, and environmental sustainability. Unfortunately, Bixby’s chair, obstetrician and reproductive scientist Malcolm Potts,’ chief tactic to advance these liberal goals is with ugly appeals to 19th century racism and emotional fears toward young, poor people. In its May-June cover story, Miller-McCune - a new magazine that boasts of “smart journalism” that “draws on academic research and other definitive sources to provide reasoned policy options and solutions for today’s pressing issues” but then delivers the same old anti-youth prejudices long moldering in mainstream media - Potts and Stanford University Earth Sciences lecturer Thomas Hayden push the absurdly bigoted notion that “young men are the true engines of war.” Tossing out the usual half-baked bio-cliches on “testosterone” and “aggression,” they argue that “careful statistical studies show that the probability of violent conflict increases as the ratio of young men in a society rises above that of older men.” (Yes, and statistically, the limited notions of “conflict” Potts and Hayden single out also increase along with the proportion of dark-skinned and poor people of all ages.) Therefore, they argue, any excess of young men in a society must be the major cause of war, violence, and terrorism.”

While they wail about overpopulation as the main threat to the future of our planet, they purposefully ignore those responsible for creating war and poverty in the first place: the wealthiest on this planet.

Overpopulation fear-mongerers often belong to the privileged, wealthy class of people, some of which are the very people starting wars of aggression in the Middle East, who fund the terrorists they claim are being created by overpopulation.

They aren’t suggesting their class of people be culled: only the poor.

The forces who keep people in a state of poverty are ignored, and instead the victims are identified as the causes of poverty and suffering, by Malthusian academics hungry for the extermination of poor people.

The truth is, the Earth can support many more human beings, if the land and resources were not hoarded by a very small number of extremely wealthy individuals.

It would also help if the wealthy would cease to influence the poisoning of our land with pesticides and toxic chemicals.

These people hungering for reduced population are not hidden, but operating in plain sight in the most prestigious academic institutions in the West, just as they did a century ago when the Ivy League institutions pioneered eugenics.

If you’d like to understand the insidiousness of Malcolm Potts’ presentation style, take a look at his talk here, where he discusses how poor people reproducing is responsible for climate change.


Malcolm Potts: Avoiding the Next Great Humanitarian Crisis





To learn more about the myth of overpopulation, this video is helpful:

Researchers at King’s College London have discovered that the popular weedkiller Roundup causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The two-year study performed on rats tested the effect of real-world glyphosate doses currently permitted by regulators.

The study, conducted by Dr. Michael Antoniou et.al. and published in Scientific Reports, states:

"Overall, metabolome and proteome disturbances showed a substantial overlap with biomarkers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and its progression to steatohepatosis and thus confirm liver functional dysfunction resulting from chronic ultra-low dose glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) exposure."

Regulators commonly accept toxicity studies in rats as indicators of risks affecting human health, thus, the results of this latest report have grave implications for human health.


The Roundup Addiction

Shockingly, according to the United States Geological Survey, over 2.6 billion pounds of Roundup herbicide were dumped onto USA’s farmland and food supply from 1992 to 2012. Roundup is the most-popular glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) sold worldwide. Hundreds of millions of pounds are sprayed around the world each year.

The proliferation of glyphosate use in big agriculture has had many environmental ramifications, and the quality of soil is being impacted globally. Farmers now face hundreds of glyphosate-resistant superweeds, increasing their costs and requiring use of many more herbicides.

Roundup has been found in rain and air samples, and glyphosate residues have been found in human breast milk and urine, as well as tap water and all types of food, including milk, eggs and baby food. A recent FDA study even found high levels in many popular foods.

"New testing conducted by an FDA-registered food safety lab found alarming levels of the chemical glyphosate (known as Monsanto’s Roundup weed-killer) in several very common foods. This independent research reveals that many popular foods have over 1000 times the glyphosate levels that have been established to be harmful.” - Source

Many scientific studies have shown that exposure to GBHs such as Roundup can lead to serious health problems, such as cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, kidney disease, and Celiac disease. This newest study showing a causal link between Roundup and liver disease is one of the most compelling due to extremely low doses being tested.


Very Low Doses of Roundup Cause Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

The research conducted at King’s College London by Dr. Antoniou and his team was one of the first to take into consideration the effects of exposure to glyphosate amounts currently permitted by regulators.



Related: Dr. Stephanie Seneff explains why modern wheat is causing so many health problems

The researchers were concerned that results from other glyphosate toxicity studies “were obtained at doses far greater than general human population exposure.

"Doses tested were typically over the glyphosate acceptable daily intake (ADI), which is currently set at 0.3 mg/kg bw/day within the European Union (1.75 mg/kg bw/day in the USA) based on hepatorenal toxicity measurements after chronic exposure in rats.”

To address this problem, the team administered Roundup via drinking water at a concentration of 0.1 parts per billion (ppb), or 0.05 microgram/Liter (μg/L). This equals a daily intake of 4 ng/kg bw/day, much lower than the acceptable daily intake in Europe and the USA.

Regardless of the extremely low Roundup concentration, which was thousands of times below what is permitted by regulators, the researchers found the following:

"The results showed that Roundup caused an increased incidence in signs of anatomical pathologies, as well as changes in urine and blood biochemical parameters suggestive of liver and kidney functional insufficiency."

Dr. Antoniou adds:

"Our results also suggest that regulators should reconsider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides.”

Based on this latest study, one would think it obligatory for regulators to reconsider the acceptable daily intake levels for glyphosate-based herbicides. Are these findings sufficient to set in motion even bigger changes?

Related: Glyphosate Herbicide and How to Detox It with Dr. Stephanie Seneff


Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD)

The new study highlights the question of whether Roundup is an unrecognized risk factor leading to an increase in NAFLD, which affects about 25% of the population in the USA. It is just as common throughout Europe.

NAFLD symptoms include fatigue, weight loss, nausea, abdominal pain, jaundice, itching of the eyes, spider-like blood vessels, and swelling in the legs and abdomen. Over time, NAFLD can progress to more serious conditions such as non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, where the liver can swell and become damaged, as well as the irreversible liver cirrhosis.

Considering the high levels of glyphosate contamination of our food and water supply, it seems wise to take proactive action in keeping the liver healthy. Some ways to reduce the risk of NAFLD and even heal a fatty liver are offered by Dr. Mark Hyman.


He is the chairman of the Institute for Functional Medicine and author of The Blood Sugar Solution 10-Day Detox Diet:

Eliminate all high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS),

Get rid of white, processed flour and eliminate or greatly reduce starch,

Add healthy fats,

Improve your metabolism through exercise,

Supplement intelligently, with herbs as milk thistle, and supplements such as glutathione and magnesium.

Eat detoxifying, liver-repairing super foods, such as broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, and leafy veggies (1-2 cups per day)

Power up with protein, including nuts, seeds, eggs, fish, chicken or grass-fed meat (about 4-6 ounces with each meal)

Related: Monsanto Tribunal

.

As you will see from the transcript and related documents and the video footage of the MPs that spoke at the first Reading (5th of December 2016) – National, Labour and the Greens support the Bill. The Labour Party even want to strengthen the legislation by making it mandated by Central Government just in case a DHB tries to wriggle out of it.

In a press release in December 2016, Labour also condemned the Maori Party for running a poll to find out what people think. Progress on the Bill can be found here

Fluoride & The Brain

Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne, who introduced the Bill, has called us “tin-foil hat wearing, UFO-abducted pseudo-scientists.” He mustn’t realise that he is insulting around half of the NZ population.



Related: Undeniable Evidence From Numerous Studies Proves That Fluoride Causes Cancer

Results from all referenda held in NZ show that people tend to vote status quo. As only half of the country is fluoridated (23 councils out of 67, not “27 councils have rejected fluoridation” as Peter Dunne incorrectly stated) which means that roughly half the population is opposed to fluoridation (or maybe more than half) and if a nationwide referendum was held tomorrow, we would have a good chance of winning.

The NZ First Party thinks the issue should be decided by local referendum. The Greens supported the Bill “at first Reading stage” as they, too, have concerns about local decision-making – but the Greens as a party do think fluoridation is safe and effective. It shows that most of them must only have read the Ministry of Health propaganda.


How to Stop the Legislation

The Government is now giving until the 2nd of February for us to send in written feedback on the issue. The law allows everyone who gives feedback to have 10 minutes speaking time for individuals, and 15 minutes for organisations.

At the Hamilton Tribunal in 2013, 1557 people put in a submission, 1385 opposed fluoridation and 130 people spoke at the hearing to support their submission. That required the councillors to sit through 3.5 days of oral submissions and the result was a 7 to 1 vote to stop fluoridation.



Related: Why Does NZ Still Fluoridate? TV Commercial FFNZ

Unfortunately, some Hamilton councillors who had excused themselves from the Tribunal Hearing because of a conflict of interest, and did not bother to attend the Hearing as part of the audience, subsequently worked to overthrow that decision. (See Hamilton page if you would like more information on that).

Therefore, we urge everyone to give written feedback, and do their utmost to speak to that submission in person. We have been advised that It is best to keep feedback to a page or two with around half a dozen really salient points. The Hearing will be in Wellington, which is likely to be in February or perhaps March next year..


Ways to Give Feedback:

Use this Online Form If you don’t know what to say, a personal testimony is good, or attach an article already written (suggestions here) or list a few points as suggested above. Send hard copy to Health Select Committee, Parliament Buildings, Wellington. It is really good if you can also say you will speak to your submission. This can be done by Skype if you cannot make it to Wellington.

Fluoride Free New Zealand will be providing a comprehensive written submission where we will explain the ineffectiveness and dangers of fluoridation and details of public dental health programmes operating overseas that actually do reduce dental decay.



Related: The Fluoride Deception

Please encourage your friends and family to help us now by sending feedback to the Committee and by informing everyone they know on the facts about fluoridation. The number of people that do this makes a difference!

You can also help by posting respectful and informative comments on Facebook, liking posts and comments and joining the discussions, particularly on the Facebook pages of the Health Select Committee Members. See the list below.

Remember, this is election year. We need to let politicians know we will not vote for them if they introduce this draconian legislation.

Health Select Committee Members
Simon O’Connor, Chairperson, National Party, Tāmaki
email: simon.oconnor@parliament.govt.nz
facebook: www.facebook.com/SimonOConnorMP

Barbara Kuriger, Deputy-Chairperson, National Party, Taranaki-King Country
email: barbara.kuriger@national.org.nz
facebook: www.facebook.com/BarbaraKurigerMP

Jacqui Dean, Member, National Party, Waitaki
email: waitaki.mp@parliament.govt.nz
facebook: www.facebook.com/JacquiDeanMP

Julie Anne Genter, Member, Green Party, List
email: julieanne.genter@parliament.govt.nz
facebook: www.facebook.com/JulieAnneGenterMP/

Annette King, Member, Labour Party, Rongotai
email: a.king@parliament.govt.nz
facebook: www.facebook.com/annette.king.127
www.facebook.com/annette.king.of.rongotai

Shane Reti, Member, National Party, Whangarei
email: shane.reti@parliament.govt.nz
facebook: www.facebook.com/drshanereti

Scott Simpson, Member, National Party, Coromandel
email: mpcoromandel@parliament.govt.nz
facebook: www.facebook.com/scottsimpsonmp

Barbara Stewart, Member, NZ First, List
email: barbara.stewart@parliament.govt.nz
facebook: www.facebook.com/barbarastewartmp

Poto Williams, Member, Labour Party, Christchurch East
email: poto.williams@parliament.govt.nz
facebook: www.facebook.com/poto.williams.7

More Information

Local Government New Zealand’s response to amendments to the Act

Ministry of Health’s position statement on current proposed Legislation

Legislative Disclosure Statement from the Ministry of Health.


Related Articles:

New Zealand Government Plans To Drown Its Citizens In Toxic Fluorides

No Consultation Needed For Stopping Or Starting Fluoridation + Fluoridation Decision Is An Attack On Democracy

Fluoride: Poison On Tap Official Trailer

New Zealand Fluoridation Review Unscientific And Intellectually Dishonest Say International Reviewers

Fluoride Free New Zealand: Dirty Science

Secret Fluoridation Review Totally One-Sided Admits Chair

Harvard Research Finds Link Between Fluoridated Water, ADHD & Mental Disorders

A 1080 drop over a West Coast river broke no rules, operators say.

“[My client] talked about whether it was even worth coming back to NZ. He said he thought this was clean, green NZ. The rest of the world is shocked at the fact we use this bloody crap basically. It makes me quite angry just thinking about it.”

The aerial drop was carried out by contractors completing pest control work for the Department of Conservation’s Battle for our Birds programme and primary industries organisation Ospri’s TBfree programme.

In a statement Ospri said details of the incident were unclear as no report had been received. It said all 1080 application operations were clearly regulated under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act and consents were issued by appropriate authorities including the Ministry of Health.

No breaches of consents in the Mokihinui operation had been recorded.



Related: 1080: NZ Animals Killed For No Reason In $80m Yearly 1080 Drops

Ospri said the timing and location of aerial operations was notified to all land users and operators in the region, and was publicly available. Factsheets containing maps detailing the location and boundaries of the operation, which covered 46,000 hecatres, were published, and there were also public notices.

Ospri said tourism concessionaires were provided with operational maps and details on the planned timeframes, including contact details for the contractor.

For the Mokihinui operation, concessionaires were notified on three separate occasions. The operation was completed on December 2.

Murray, co-owner of Murchison’s River Haven Lodge, said he had been notified that a 1080 drop would take place in the Mokihinui catchment, but were also told that the operators would be careful to avoid the waterways.



Related: Satanists Escape Plan Involves Killing Natives Of New Zealand

He said the drops continued throughout the day, and with a strong north-westerly wind blowing, there was no way to control the spread of pellets.

During a break for lunch, he fished out about nine pellets from the river, and saw others in deeper water, but gave up because there were too many.

“All I want to do is get the word out there that people think this 1080 thing is carefully placed and dropping it from the air into the bush. They’re not. New Zealand really needs to wake up, it’s an absolute abomination, it really is.” “Word’s getting around that the NZ green image is getting tarnished. It’s not good for tourism.”

In 2014, two fishing guides caught up in a 1080 drop on the Mokihinui complained that they had not been notified of the operation despite holding permits requiring them be told.


Related Articles:

Drop ‘tarnishes tourism’, says guide

Fishermen furious at 1080 drop

1080 drop queried

Aerial 1080 across the country

Arrest after 1080 protest

President-elect Donald Trump has undoubtedly ruffled feathers in staffing his administration, but the choice of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. - known for his skepticism on the safety of vaccines - to chair a commission tasked with studying the efficacy of and issues concerning vaccinations, will undoubtedly raise eyebrows from both sides of the issue.

While advocates of the heavy vaccination schedule might find the choice of Kennedy - who has been castigated as an anti-vaxxer - quite startling, he insisted Trump remains “very pro-vaccine, as am I,” and only seeks to ensure “they’re as safe as they can possibly be.”



Related: Robert F. Kennedy Jr On Vaccines: Big Pharma Has Captured The Scientific, Regulatory, Law-Making Processes

Corporate media hastily attacked the appointment of a skeptic to such an important commission; however, Kennedy insisted in the press conference public health and safety remains the topic of concern.

“President-elect Trump has some doubts about the current vaccine policies and he has questions about it,” Kennedy said, as reported by NBC News. “He says his opinion doesn’t matter … but the science does matter, and we ought to be reading the science and we ought to be debating the science.”

Vaccination has frequently been a topic of bitter public dispute over the last few years, as parents of autistic children have pegged the ingredient thimerosal - which, in part, contains notoriously toxic mercury - as the culprit for the affliction.

President-elect Trump has, himself, spoken out about blindly supporting a medical practice without thorough and long-term investigation, as he stated in 2015 during a Republican primary debate;

“I am totally in favor of vaccines. But I want smaller doses over a longer period of time. Same exact amount, but you take this little beautiful baby, and you pump - I mean, it looks just like it’s meant for a horse, not for a child, and we’ve had so many instances, people that work for me. … [in which] a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back and a week later had a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.”

Countless anecdotal cases of the onset of autism coincidentally following a certain round of vaccinations have left a growing population of parents excoriating the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for failing to diligently investigate effects of contents of certain vaccines.



Related: Vaccine efficacy: Junk science at its worst

For its part, the CDC scoffs at such comparisons and has painted the anti-vaxx movement - and anyone daring to question vaccination - under the broad brush of hysterics.

“Research does not show any link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder,” the CDC’s website advises - and the conglomerate agency has ostensibly ‘debunked’ the autism link numerous times.

A vocal movement of parents whose children’s autism abruptly took hold after immunization, however, find grave fault with the CDC’s failure to at least address their concerns.

Autism Speaks, an advocacy organization for individuals with autism, which aligns with the CDC, told NBC News in a statement, “Over the last two decades, extensive research has asked whether there is any link between childhood vaccinations and autism. The results of this research are clear: Vaccines do not cause autism.”

Kennedy stated about vaccines at a documentary screening on the subject in 2015;

“They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone. This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country.”

Coming under intense backlash for the capricious use of that term, Kennedy later apologized, stating,

“I employed the term during an impromptu speech as I struggled to find an expression to convey the catastrophic tragedy of autism which has now destroyed the lives of over 20 million children and shattered their families.”

Indeed, with the growing pandemic of autism - and the increased number of immunizations deemed necessary through childhood - it would seem the appointment of someone who finds safety and study relevant would be crucial to the interest of public health.



Related: The Shaken Baby Martyr: Top brain doctor who was struck off for controversial claims speaks out on how jailed parents could be innocent

Kennedy is not, as the mainstream portrays, an unabashed anti-vaxxer - rather, he would like further study to prove or disprove either side in the issue.

After all, as the new chair of the presidential commission to study vaccines, Kennedy said in 2015;

“They can put anything they want in that vaccine and they have no accountability for it.”

Perhaps more imperative than sounding alarms over skepticism, it would behoove the public to give Kennedy’s commission a chance to either prove vaccinations safe and viable - or deleterious to the children they’re supposed to immunize from disease.


Related Articles:

A New Billboard Reminds Parents Vaccines Can Kill Their Baby

Vaccine court confirms healthy 13 year-old boy was made tetraplegic by the chicken pox vaccine

Bill Gates quietly funding effort to develop thousands of new vaccines that conveniently ‘might’ become pandemics

SIRVA: A Risk With Every Vaccine

Cleveland clinic doctor goes full anti-vaccine

10-month-old suddenly suffers 14 seizures a day after receiving new meningitis vaccine, video spreads awareness

Head Holistic MD at Cleveland Clinic Threatened By Hospital For Writing Vaccine Danger Piece

Drug giant Reckitt Benckiser was ordered by the Australian Federal Court to pull its so-called “targeted” ibuprofen products off the shelves after the company admitted that these were identical to the standard tablets.

Painkiller Drugs More Fatal Than Heroin Or Cocaine

A research conducted by a reputed pathologist has revealed that a prescription painkiller is taking more lives than Class A narcotics like Heroin and Cocaine.



Prof Jack Crane of Ireland has said that the Tramadol painkiller is killing more people than any other drug and will therefore be included in the Class A category.

Related: Non-Addictive Natural Pain Killer Kratom Relieves Chronic Pain, Depression - Leave Rx Drugs Behind

The UK has Tramadol listed in Class C drugs, which are considered the least harmful. If Tramadol is taken with alcohol or other drugs, it can have life threatening effects. Tramadol is prescribed for medium to severe pain for patients.

Crane emphasises on the risks of Tramadol and suggests that it needs strict regulation. While many people in the UK are illegally trying to acquire the drug, Crane feels that if Governments and law enforcement do not actively try to regulate illegal Tramadol sales, it could cost many lives.

The report by Crane is revealed in opportune time with cannabis activists trying to legalise medicinal cannabis use and growth under license.

A West Briton report revealed that Tramadol had claimed 20 lives in the UK in 2014.

In the USA, many patients have opioid addictions. A recent report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administrations revealed that a large number of Americans abused prescription painkillers.

1 out of 20 Americans above the age of 12 used psychotherapy drugs at some point. Many people blame Obamacare policies for such drug and opium usage. The laws of Obamacare reimburse the fees of the patients depending on the satisfaction the patient had during his or her stay at the hospital.

It is a rather tough choice for doctors and hospitals where on the one hand your reimbursement is on the line and on the other hand you are fuelling psychotherapeutic drug addiction among your patients.

The Top 10 Most Outrageous Science Hoaxes Of 2016
January 2 2017 | From: NaturalNews

Science hoaxes were running rampant throughout 2016, pushed by the fakestream media (CNN, WashPost, NYT, etc.) alongside complicit government organizations working in collusion with dishonest corporations steeped in scientific fraud (Monsanto, Big Pharma, etc.).



2016 saw more science hoaxes than a typical year, with the media placing special emphasis on the Zika virus terror campaign (rooted in total scientific hucksterism) and more climate change propaganda (all based on fraudulently altered data).

Related: Seeding Doubt: How Self-Appointed Guardians Of “Sound Science” Tip The Scales Toward Industry

In every case, those pushing the science frauds claimed to have a divine monopoly on “science” while declaring all opposing views to be “unscientific.”