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.
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.”
Hidden Agenda of Global Warming Hoax: One-World Government
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.
Dear Bloggers: Thousands of published studies you cite and praise are wrong, useless, irrelevant, deceptive - and the medical journals know it, and they’re doing nothing useful about it.
The issue? Cell lines. These cells are crucial for lab research on the toxicity of medical drugs, and the production of proteins. Knowing exactly which cell lines are being studied is absolutely necessary.
“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.
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.
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?
Herd Immunity Used For Fear And Guilt
Hail to the herd! The herd is all!
The concept of herd immunity (protection for the population) is often used by vaccine addicts as a way to push guilt at people who don’t line up their children for shots.
“Your unvaccinated child is a danger to my vaccinated child!”
Excuse me? Protecting children who are already vaccinated? Really?
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.
Western Food Science Is Broken & We’re All Guinea Pigs In A Failed Decades-Long Diet Experiment March 11 2017 | From: Gizmodo / Vice / Various
There could be a future where we eat incredible, sustainable, engineered foods - 3D-printed or lab-grown meals, chemically optimized to unleash the perfect combination of flavor and nutrients to fit our bodies and our tastes.
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.
If the United States would like a say in the future of food, the government and the people need to start paying attention to our food scientists.
Take Karen Schaich, a Rutgers food science professor who studies the very nature of how food ages. Schaich observes how common foods like tortilla chips and peanut butter go rancid, and believes she’s found processes that cause food to spoil faster than we think. But she struggles to get this important research funded.
"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.
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.
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 NSF does offer grants for food scientists interested in starting a business: The Small Business Innovation Research’s (SBIR) Biological Technologies program gives $225,000 in seed funding to researchers interested in creating a new food-based technology.
Such grants have been used to fund mainly food safety or agricultural technology startups, said Ruth Shuman, SBIR program director, but there’s no reason that folks interested in using technology to find a new process to alter food and its chemistry can’t apply, she said: “If people started sending ideas for developing new foods, I would be happy to review those proposals.”
But most basic science doesn’t progress with a marketable product in mind. When scientists are trying to make a cookie that’s better than all cookies, that’s healthier on a molecular level, tastier, and cheaper all at the same time, sometimes they want to do it for the better of all of us people and society, rather than personal gain.
Of course, a scientist can enter a field with the eventual goal of making a ton of money on an end product, but for most basic research, there’s years of lab work shared with and reviewed by other scientists before a product hits the market. Still, industry is exactly where scientists head for funding help.
Since NIFA funding alone just isn’t enough to generate what universities like to see, Coupland said, “you look around for other sources. It might be a straight out industry contract.”
By doing research for the industry, researchers can use the extra money to buy shiny new equipment and keep their lab up-to-date.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
We’re All Guinea Pigs In A Failed Decades-Long Diet Experiment
"The change in dietary advice to promote low-fat foods is perhaps the biggest mistake in modern medical history."
Let's say you want to lose some weight. Which of these foods would you choose: A skim-milk latte, or the same drink with whole milk? A low-cal breakfast bar or steak and eggs? A salad tossed in light dressing or the same salad doused with butter milk ranch?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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."
Ontario Pulls Plug On 36,000 Rural ‘Smart’ Meters: Is Big Energy Imploding?
& This Former Techie Owes His Fortune To Electronic Devices - Now He Thinks They're Dangerous March 11 2017 | From: CollectiveEvolution / MotherJones / Various
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.
The fact that the film got nominated for 5 Oscars including Best Picture is a huge sign that there are way more people waking up than we ever thought. The wrongs may not be getting righted as quickly as we’d like, but it is happening.
The reality of this shift is clearly evidenced by this news last week from Ontario. After years of obvious problems, Hydro One finally admitted that rural ‘smart’ meters do not work, and has decided to pull the plug on 36,000 of them - to start. We will see more utilities begin to do likewise.
[UPDATE: BC Hydro just announced plans to remove 88,000 meters suspected of failure.]
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.
"“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
Newly Published Retrospective Study Nails Aluminum In Vaccines As Unsafe
+ Mercury In Vaccines May Be Up To 50 Times More Toxic To The Brain Than Mercury In Fish March 10 2017 | From: ActivistPost / NaturalNews / Various
Neil Z Miller is a medical research journalist, who’s been researching vaccines and vaccinology science for 25 years.
Recently, Neil had his retrospective study about aluminum, aka aluminium, “Aluminum in Childhood Vaccines Is Unsafe” published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons,Volume 21, Number 4.
Neil emailed me a pdf file of that outstanding paper, which I think everyone who is disturbed about vaccines, especially in the current climate of ‘science denial’ and ‘science off the rails’ needs to know:
Aluminum is a debilitating neurotoxin. Research going back decades has pointed out aluminum’s health harms, plus the need to do something about removing it from medicine, but to no avail.
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:
Premature birth babies (Premies) should not be vaccinated!
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.
Not all human bodies can tolerate CDC/FDA’s “one size fits all” regimen of toxic chemical vaccines, something no one in Big Pharma, CDC and FDA apparently wants to consider and factor into mandatory vaccination schedules or individual state’s vaccination laws, e.g., California’s SB277.
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.
“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!
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;
“There is evidence that aluminum in vaccines may be linked to autism.
For example, the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry published data showing a highly significant positive linear correlation between the amount of aluminum infants receive from their vaccines and the rates of autism in several developed nations. (Pearson r = 0.89-0.94)” Pg. 112
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:
“Perhaps the most important thing that I took away from the last meeting was that those of us who deal with vaccines have really very little applicable background with metals and toxicological research.” Pg. 113
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!
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.
There is a wealth of documentation Miller cites regarding aluminum, so I encourage readers to take the time and read his extremely well-written paper, plus save it. However, I think the following ought to impress upon parents the FDA’s double standards regarding science and aluminum:
“…FDA has known for many years that aluminum can be dangerous. For example, some infants require parenteral nourishment (administered by intravenous injection). All parenteral nutrition formulas contain aluminum.
According to the FDA, ‘when medication and nutrition are administered orally, the gastrointestinal tract acts as an efficient barrier to the absorption of aluminum, and relatively little ingested aluminum actually reaches body tissues.
However, parenterally administered drug products containing aluminum bypass the protective mechanism of the gastrointestinal tract and aluminum circulates and is deposited in human tissues’. Pg. 115
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!
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.
It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.
The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
- David Rockefeller, 1991 Bilderberg Meeting, Baden, Germany
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)
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.
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:
“In vitro studies comparing etHg with meHg demonstrate equivalent measured outcomes for cardiovascular, neural, and immune cells.”
And then it gets really interesting, because they note that since the two types of mercury have different toxicity profiles, in vivo testing indicated that, “in real-life scenarios, a simultaneous exposure to both etHg and meHg might result in enhanced neurotoxic effects in developing mammals.”
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.
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.
Berkeley Doctor Claims People Die From Chemotherapy, Not Cancer + Cancer Researchers Discover How High-Dose Vitamin Kills Cancer Cells March 5 2017 | From: NaturalBlaze / Sott
People who refuse chemotherapy treatment live on average 12 and a half years longer than people who undergo chemotherapy, says Dr. Jones.
This saddening reality is made worse when it is acknowledged that modern methods of ‘treating’ the disease are often ineffective and only make the symptoms of the disease worse. In fact, according to one Berkeley doctor, chemotherapy doesn’t work 97% of the time.
In the eye-opening video above, Dr. Hardin B. Jones, a former professor of medical physics and physiology at the University of California, Berkeley, discusses how ‘leading edge’ cancer treatment is a sham.
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.
“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.
"People who accepted chemotherapy die within three years of diagnosis, a large number dies immediately after a few weeks.”
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.
"Patients with breast cancer who reject conventional therapy live four times longer than those who follow the system. So this is something that you will not hear in the mass media, which will continue to carry the myth that the best chemotherapy drug in the fight against cancer!”
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.
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.
In 2004, the Journal of Clinical Oncology published a study about chemotherapy’s success rates when looking at how many cancer patients were still alive after 5 years. It states:
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.
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:
“Pending the publication of suitable trials, clinicians must be guided by existing data in the context of a fundamental principle of medicine, "Primum non nocere." (First do no harm.)"
And yet, conventional cancer treatments can in no way, shape or form ever be considered harmless.
"As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."
Alan C Nixon, PhD, former president of the American Chemical Society
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.
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.
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.
"In this paper we demonstrate that cancer cells are much less efficient in removing hydrogen peroxide than normal cells. Thus, cancer cells are much more prone to damage and death from a high amount of hydrogen peroxide," says Buettner, a professor of radiation oncology and a member of Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Iowa.
"This explains how the very, very high levels of vitamin C used in our clinical trials do not affect normal tissue, but can be damaging to tumor tissue."
Normal cells have several ways to remove hydrogen peroxide, keeping it at very low levels so it does not cause damage. The new study shows that an enzyme called catalase is the central route for removing hydrogen peroxide generated by decomposing vitamin C.
The researchers discovered that cells with lower amounts of catalase activity were more susceptible to damage and death when they were exposed to high amounts of vitamin C.
Buettner says this fundamental information might help determine which cancers and which therapies could be improved by inclusion of high-dose ascorbate in the treatment.
"Our results suggest that cancers with low levels of catalase are likely to be the most responsive to high-dose vitamin C therapy, whereas cancers with relatively high levels of catalase may be the least responsive," he explains.
A future goal of the research is to develop methods to measure catalase levels in tumors.
Comment: Intravenous vitamin C does more than just kill cancer cells. It boosts immunity and can stimulate collagen formation to help the body wall off the tumor. It inhibits hyaluronidase, an enzyme that tumors use to metastasize and invade other organs throughout the body and corrects the almost universal scurvy in cancer patients.
The Globalists Are Planning For Something Big! March 3 2017 | From: Infowars
Bill Gates, Chelsea Clinton predict global bio-terrorist pandemic.
On January 18th, in an article titled, “Bill Gates is Teaming Up with World Leaders to Stop the Next Deadly Pandemic,” Business Insider reported that “Governments from Germany, Japan, and Norway have pooled funds along with the Gates Foundation to raise a total of $490 million so far.
The target is $1 billion, which Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) says will help finance the first five years of research and development.”
Top Globalists Foreshadow an Apocalyptic Biological Attack
Gates appeared at January 2017’s Davos World Economic Forum, flaunting his CEPI program. One CBS News headline read, “Bill Gates on How to Outsmart Global Epidemics.”
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is listed as a member of the World Health Organization (WHO).
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.
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:
“One of the more important recent trends in global health governance, though, has been the rise of public-private partnerships (PPPs) where private non-governmental organizations, for-profit enterprises, and various other social entrepreneurs work hand-in-hand with governments to combat specific maladies.”
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;
“IHR compliance needs to be understood through a regional lens and supported by global institutions…” it continues, “regions and individual states cannot do this on their own and WHO has a major role to play in assisting its regional offices and cooperating with its member States.
The wider United Nations system, especially bodies such as the Peace-building Commission and agencies such as the United Nations Development Program and United Nations Children’s Fund, have a supporting role to play in helping states build the technical capacities needed to deliver the IHRs.”
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:
“Those criteria include organizations that give full membership to the Palestinian Authority or Palestine Liberation Organization, or support programs that fund abortion or any activity that circumvents sanctions against Iran or North Korea.”
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
Electromagnetic Energy In The Air + CIA Whistleblower Speaks Out About Climate Engineering, Vaccination Dangers, 911, And The Government’s Persecution Of Truth-Tellers March 2 2017 | From: ActivistPost / GeoengineeringWatch / Various
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.
This article gives an overview of what electromagnetic energy is and how it manifests itself in our every day life.
It can be harmful or it can be beneficial. Once we establish what this stuff is and what it does, we will examine its use as part of today’s global weather modification operations.
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)
"A TERRA satellite view from the early afternoon of January 28th, 2017 about 1 PM reveals an unmistakable north-south aerosol operation over South Florida that drifted with the cirrus level flow out into the Atlantic as the day progressed. These are not chemtrails. They are large volume aerosol plumes or LVAP.
This technique is increasingly used to dump aerosols in much larger volumes than chemtrails, alone could provide.”
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:
"HV [high voltage] static and dynamic EMFs [electromagnetic fields] have been an integral part of the human experience for thousands of years of evolution so that we biologically thrive in response to them.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
"It has…been proposed to release large clouds of barium in the magnetosphere so that photoionization will increase the cold plasma density, thereby producing electron precipitation through enhanced whistler-mode interactions.”
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 technology of artificial ionospheric heating could be as important for weather modification research as accelerators have been for Particle Physics.”
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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:
(Too many people) – (Death due to weather disasters: crop/livestock loss, flood, drought, depleted fisheries, earthquakes, crime, disease, birth defects, blizzards, tropical storms) = More for the "elite"
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.
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.
Canadian Biology Teacher Latest Victim Of Vaccine Inquisition & It’s True: Certain Neurological Disorders Occur In Children Vaccinated Versus Non-Vaccinated Kids February 28 2017 | From: NaturalBlaze / ActivistPost / Various 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.
This time, it is the persecution and punishment of a Canadian Biology and Physics teacher for daring to question the safety of vaccination and, even worse, allegedly asking medical professionals about the side effects of certain medications and whether or not students were being informed as to the possible dangers.
"Sullivan approached the nurses and requested the product information sheets related to the various vaccines. He read the potential side effects to his students. In rare cases, these effects include, vasculitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, encephalopathy and, in the case of the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine, death.
In his letter, Sullivan said his students were not aware of these risks. He asked the nurses administering the vaccines if they were informing the students about them. Sullivan says he was told no.
“Two days later, I was asked to meet with the school principal and was informed I was being written up for harassment of the health unit nurses,” Sullivan says in his letter. “The accusation requires that I show up in front of the Ontario College of Teachers Feb. 21 and Feb. 22 for a disciplinary hearing.”
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.
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;
"The notice says Sullivan “attended the school’s cafeteria a second time and told students not to get vaccinated and/or suggested that they should not get vaccinated; told students they could die as a result of the vaccination and/or that one of the side effects of the vaccine was death.”
The Notice of Hearing says Sullivan “attended at the school’s office during class time to discuss vaccination of students” and “left his class unattended.”
The notice says Sullivan “attended at the school’s cafeteria a third time and accused a public health nurse of hiding information from him about the content of the vaccines.”
The notice says the Grand Erie District School Board suspended Sullivan without pay April 15, 2015. Sullivan said this week that the suspension lasted one day. He has since rejoined the faculty at WDHS.
The Grand Erie District School Board would not answer questions regarding Sullivan’s situation. “This is a personnel matter and we’re unable to comment,” Scott Sincerbox, superintendent of human resources, said Wednesday in an email, the School Board’s only statement.”
According to the Simco Reformer;
"In an interview this week, Sullivan wondered when scientific inquiry became taboo in Ontario schools.
“I never said anything that day that was outside the manufacturer’s insert,” Sullivan said. “I was very carefulabout that. I was actually warned before not to talk about vaccines. But I have to. It’s part of my curriculum.”
In his letter, Sullivan says the way he has been treated “raises serious questions.”
“When did it become unprofessional to read a label to a class? When did it become harassment to ask a nurse about the side effects of a medical product? When did it become harassment to ask if nurses were honouring their professional ethic of informed consent?”
“Unless the Ontario College of Teachers has a change of heart, it appears it is now considered unprofessional for a teacher to ask questions about vaccines in Ontario or if students are properly being informed prior to a medical procedure,” Sullivan says at the conclusion of his letter.
“I plan to continue reading labels and asking questions. And I will be encouraging my students to do the same. To do anything less would be irresponsible, unethical and a violation of our Charter rights and responsibilities.”
Sullivan’s hearing will be held at the OCT office on Bloor Street in downtown Toronto.”
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.
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 . . . .
It’s True: Certain Neurological Disorders Occur In Children Vaccinated Versus Non-Vaccinated Kids
With all the hype from Big Pharma, federal and state health agencies and medical doctors regarding vaccines as being ‘safe’ with no adverse health problems from them, especially neurological.
For example, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), the peer-review medical journal Frontiers in Psychiatry published on January 19, 2017 some rather implicating study results titled “Temporal Association of Certain Neuropsychiatric Disorders Following Vaccination of Children and Adolescents: A Pilot Case - Control Study.”
The study has five authors: one from the Department of Public Health Sciences, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine and four co-authors from Yale Child Study Center, Yale University School of Medicine. One can’t get more mainstreamed than that!
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.
Why did Obama grant Thompson immunity? Thompson still is working at the CDC and has never been made to testify before Congress!
"Background: Although the association of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine with autism spectrum disorder has been convincingly disproven, the onset of certain brain-related autoimmune and inflammatory disorders has been found to be temporally associated with the antecedent administration of various vaccines.
This study examines whether antecedent vaccinations are associated with increased incidence of obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), anorexia nervosa (AN), anxiety disorder, chronic tic disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, major depressive disorder, and bipolar disorder in a national sample of privately insured children.”
Here’s where I think the authors go off the rails in their study:
"Although the controversy over MMR vaccination and ASD still exists for some members of the public, this association has been convincingly disproven.
On the other hand, the onset of a limited number of autoimmune and inflammatory disorders affecting the CNS has been found to be temporally associated with the antecedent administration of various vaccines."
The ASD association that has been “convincingly disproven” is a figment of their scientific imagination, since there have been many studies CDC has shanghaied into a different reality regarding vaccines and autism:
"The infamous Simpsonwood Conference of June 7-8, 2000 where 52 honchos from CDC/FDA, Big Pharma and the World Health Organization powwowed in utter secrecy to figure out how to deal with CDC epidemiologist Verstraeten’s findings that vaccines were implicated in autism - the year: 2000.
Dr. Verstraeten found seven times more autism in children who received ethylmercury-containing vaccines compared with those who didn’t! That’s what “Simpsonwood” was called to discuss: the coverup.
The conspiratorial clan agreed to send Dr Verstraeten back to the drawing boards to rework his findings, which he did, and viola! no vaccine and autism association. Here’s the 48-page transcript of that very incriminating meeting.
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!
Vaccinating should be nothing short of criminal chemical child abuse. Is there any difference between sexually abusing a child and/or injecting toxic chemicals and heavy metals into them?
"More recently, data have emerged indicating an association between the administration of the H1N1 influenza vaccine containing the AS03 adjuvant and the subsequent new onset of narcolepsy in several northern European countries.
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.
The opening comment under “Clinical Significance” states:
"These findings provide preliminary epidemiologic evidence that the onset of some pediatric-onset neuropsychiatric disorders, including AN, OCD, anxiety disorders, and tic disorders, may be temporally related to prior vaccinations."
Temporally related! Isn’t the moon made of green cheese? What’s going on in this article, I think, is something akin to creating a ‘fish with feathers’, e.g., trying to make a new reality.
Fish have scales, not feathers, but if you can convince others that fish scales are some type of feather, well, you’ve won your argument and the science is set.
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.
Chlorinated Showers & Baths Kill Gut Flora February 24 2017 | From: FoodRenegade 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.
These good bacteria help us digest our food, keeping us serene and healthy. But most of us fail to take this thought to it’s logical end. I know I did.
You see, I thought that if I just drank filtered water, I’d have my bases covered. It never even occurred to me that the chlorine in my shower and bath water could be just as damaging, if not more so. That’s because your skin is your largest organ, and it’s naturally gifted with the ability to absorb both nutrients and toxins.
“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."
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."
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.
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.”
It took less than ten minutes. Yep. That’s definitely garlic I’m tasting.
Tell Me. How is this Possible?
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."
In other words, anything that has a low enough molecular weight can be absorbed by the skin.Anything with a molecular weight below 150 can enter directly into your bloodstream from the skin!
Guess what the molecular weight of chlorine is? 35.4
No wonder that study at the University of Pittsburgh found that you are more at risk from showering in chlorinated water than you are from drinking it.
So, What Can You do About it?
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.
5G Network Being Pushed On The Public With Zero Concern For Safety February 23 2017 | From: DCClothesline / Various 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.
Untested frequencies in the range of 28 gigahertz to 100 Ghz or more are set to be deployed all around us without our consent, emanating from an even greater number of new, smaller cell towers. [While this is an American story - it is universally applicable these days as this technology is in virtually every country.]
“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.”
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.
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.
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:”
Transgenic Wars - How GMOs Impact Livestock And Human Health Around The Globe February 23 2017 | From: Mercola "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 also delves into tangential concerns, such as the increased use of glyphosate-based herbicides, atrazine and 2,4-D, the latter of which was an ingredient in the devastating defoliant Agent Orange, used during the Vietnam War.
Coincidentally, Monsanto was a leading producer of Agent Orange during the war, and its war contributions, which began with its involvement in the Manhattan Project and the creation of the atomic bomb, help explain how Monsanto has managed to secure such staunch allegiance from the U.S. government.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Top 10 Food And Medicine Myths You Probably Fell For At Some Point + How The Mind Treats “Impossible Things That Couldn’t Be Happening” February 21 2017 | From: NaturalNews / JonRappoport 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.
All this while we keep eating the same bad food and taking the same symptom cover-up, chemical-based medicines.
Why do we heed all this bad advice and consume chemicals to treat chemical disorders? We do this because corporations are very sneaky, and they push the same lies over and over, across different mediums and even through the mouths of shill doctors, dentists, scientists, academics, journalists and the like.
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!
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.
Golden Bay Locals Decline Accommodation For 1080 Workers Amid Relative Media Silence February 21 2017 | From: EnviroWatchRangitikei On 10 Feb we reported on the intended spread of 1080 over Kahurangi National Park in the South Island amid mainstream media silence.
The Grey Star newspaper was the only newspaper we are aware of, to publish on it.
We’ve encountered denials on various forums and alternative news sites this week, however reliable sources on the ground in the area confirmed for us on the 10th February of the pre-feed drop as actually happening.
Mainstream, say locals, has been strangely silent on the event, although on the 15th February Stuff finally reported on the pre feed drop. This drop is the one that is poison free and accustoms the animals to eating the bait. The poisoned bait will follow.
A pre-feed drop accustoms the animals to eating the bait before the 1080 poisoned drop occurs
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.
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.
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."
Doc Central Otago operations manager Mike Tubbs said the operation would begin today with a pre-feed of non-toxic cereal pellets dropped by helicopters over the Makarora valley and its tributaries, the Fish, Blue, Young, Cameron, Wilkin and Siberia Valleys.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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!
The Science And Pseudoscience Of Children’s Mental Health + Creating ADHD Is The New Education February 16 2017 | From: GreenMedInfo / JonRappoport / Various
Is mental illness simply a matter of a "chemical imbalance" or "bad gene"? Do we need to fix children’s disordered brains or do we need to let kids be kids?
Over the past two decades, there has been a meteoric rise in the number of children – now estimated to be 1 in 6 – diagnosed and treated for a range of psychological disturbances including ADHD, autism, mood disorders, and learning disabilities.
Explanations in the popular media tend to polarize around two viewpoints:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Surgeons Admit Mammography Is Outdated, Harmful At Best February 13 2017 | From: NaturalBlaze / Various
In 2016, an estimated 246,660 new cases of invasive breast cancer, 61,000 new cases of non-invasive breast cancer, and 40,450 breast cancer deaths are expected to be recorded in the United States alone.
With the rising rates of breast cancer, mammography has gained popularity globally as the most effective screening technique to detect the most common cancer among women.
“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.
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”.
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.
“[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?
Holocaust Study: The Medical Cartel Is Destroying America (And The West) + Government’s Real War On Natural Health February 12 2017 | From: JonRappoport / iHealthTube Various
Buckle up. I’ve been telling you about this for years. The following is US-centric but the same applies all across the West.
A message to “quack busters” who attack natural health behind a phony mask of “scientific skepticism”: put your own house in order - that’s where the real quacks and shameless killers are.
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.
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.
CDC “Spider” Scientists Attack The CDC, Blow The Lid Off & Robert F Kennedy Jr: CDC An “Edifice Of Faud” February 4 2017 | From: NoMoreFakeNews
They write a letter to the CDC chief of staff and I write a letter to them...
There is a group of anonymous scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control - they call themselves the Spider Group - Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research. They have penned a letter to the CDC’s chief of staff, Carmen S. Villar:
Here is the explosive accusation they make:
"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.”
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.
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 .”
(“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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
“…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.
I propose that very sort of scientific mischief and outrageousness is going on within vested-interest microwave technology sciences so as to keep you, the gullible and enthralled technology ‘smart’ device consumer, confused into believing there are no adverse health effects from microwaves EXCEPT what’s acknowledged and called thermal radiation, which can heat skin.
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.
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?
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. 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.
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.
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]
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?
Electrosensitivity, also known as ems, es, electrical oversensitivity / hypersensitivity is a state where the body becomes so sensitive to electrical fields that simple, moder, every-day tasks such as using the phone, driving a car, or working on a computer can have unbearable physical consequences for the sufferer.
Symptoms can vary from mild to severe headaches, nausea, insomnia, eye irritations, dizziness, skin rashes, facial swelling, fatigue, joint pains, buzzing/ringing in the ears, abdominal pain, breathing difficulties, irregular heart beat, depression, balance problems, paralysis, poor memory/concentration, seizures.
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 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.
Top 7 Causes Of Cancer And Smart Alternatives For Prevention And Healing January 28 2017 | From: NaturalNews
If you had been walking on sharp rocks and jagged shells all day, and a doctor told you to take some aspirin for the pain, would you go out the next day, and the day after that, and the day after that, and walk on those same rocks and shells, expecting the aspirin to “do the trick” every time, for weeks, months and even years?
Wouldn’t you expect that you would get such a horrible infection that you might lose your foot, your leg or even your life?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
#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?
#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.
Eugenics And Population Control To Save The Planet, Says Berkeley Professor January 26 2017 | From: WakingTimes
Malcolm Potts is a Malthusian figure with deep roots in the history of eugenics. He’s not hiding in the shadows, but in the open as a professor at one of the most prestigious academic institutions in America, one that has been espousing eugenic philosophy for almost a century: University of California, Berkeley.
"It would be a service to mankind if the pill were available in slot machines and the cigarette were placed on prescription." - Malcolm Potts
Malcolm Potts has been a rabid advocate of population reduction for almost 50 years, and was the first physician to promote the main modern method of abortion today, uterine manual vacuum aspiration, and in 1968 became the first Medical Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, not many years after Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was openly calling for the extermination of black people.
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.”
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:
Roundup Now Proven To Cause Liver Disease, And It’s In Your Food January 25 2017 | From: WakingTimes
In addition to the other documented risks of Monsanto’s Roundup, a cutting-edge study using molecular profiling reveals that it also causes liver disease, even at doses currently approved by regulators.
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.
This is the first time that science has shown a direct causal link between the consumption of an extremely low dose of Roundup and a serious disease.
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 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.”
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.
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?
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.
New Zealand Fluoridation Legislation: Take Action Now! January 20 2017 | From: Uncensored / Various Legislation was introduced to Parliament on the 17th November 2016. This Legislation will shift responsibility from the local councils and give it to the District Health Boards. It is designed to make it virtually impossible to stop fluoridation in currently fluoridated areas, or to keep it out of places that do not have it – even if they have said “no” to it in the past.
Local Councils will be required to do as the DHB dictates or face a fine of $200,000 and a further $10,000 per day of non-compliance.
Related: Fluoride Action Network: A Report From New Zealand This Legislation does not allow for DHBs to consult with the community and it only allows a very narrow range for the DHBs to evaluate the subject as they will only be allowed to consider dental health in the community against the cost of fluoridation.
They are being steered to only consider the 2009 Oral Health Survey rather than much more comprehensive data.
They are not given any leeway to consider overall health effects.
Submissions Close 2nd of February
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.
You will also see that none of the speakers know very much about the subject. Health Select Committee Chair Simon O’Connor mistakenly credits his good teeth on taking fluoride tablets as a child.
Unbeknownst to him, the Ministry of Health no longer recommends fluoride tablets because we now know fluoride doesn’t work by swallowing and fluoride tablets cause dental fluorosis!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Big Pharma Suffers Another Major Blow As Study Debunks High Cholesterol Myths, Admitting Statins Are Totally Worthless + Statins Kill, Cholesterol Does Not - The Real Effects Of Statin Drugs January 18 2017 | From: NaturalNews / PreventDisease It's been a tough few weeks for Big Pharma, as three major studies have now completely disproved the effectiveness of its most profitable drugs.
Out of 14 antidepressants, only one was shown to improve depression better than the placebo.
Now, scientists are reporting that cholesterol drugs, which 15 million Americans are prescribed, are also completely worthless. A group of international researchers published a study in the BMJ Open journal that found no link between what's known as "bad" cholesterol and death as a result of heart disease in individuals over 60 years of age.
In fact, the results found that 92 percent of people with high cholesterol actually lived longer. The best way to achieve and maintain good heart health is not through medications but through healthy lifestyle habits.
"Lowering cholesterol with medications for primary cardiovascular prevention in those aged over 60 is a total waste of time and resources, whereas altering your lifestyle is the single most important way to achieve a good quality of life," said vascular and endovascular surgery expert Professor Sherif Sultan from the University of Ireland.
'Lowering Cholesterol With Medications is a Total Waste of Time'
Study co-author Dr. Malcolm Kendrick said their findings show "that older people with high LDL (low-density lipoprotein) levels, the so-called 'bad' cholesterol, lived longer and had less heart disease."
The revelations are sure to have huge implications for the pharmaceutical industry, as the cholesterol drug Lipitor is the most profitable medication of all time – raking in more than $140 billion in sales, according to Health Impact News.
The guidelines for preventing heart disease and the buildup of plaque in the arteries need to be re-evaluated, said the study authors, adding that "the benefits from statin treatment have been exaggerated."
But the truth is that the benefits of statins haven't just been exaggerated, but 100 percent fabricated, as well as the "research" supporting other drugs such as antidepressants and vaccines.
Natural Newsreported in 2013 that the push to get even more U.S. adults on statins was facilitated by doctors tied to the industry. Physicians with the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology issued new guidelines three years ago calling for one-third of all adults to consider taking statins – a push proven to be extremely lucrative for Big Pharma.
When questioned about the conflict of interest, the response was: "Ties between heart doctors and Big Pharma are so extensive that it is almost impossible to find a large group of doctors who have no industry ties."
New Study Says Multiple Vaccines at Once Not Safe for Kids
The third major study in a matter of days to discredit the pharmaceutical industry, comes from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, which found that giving children multiple vaccines at once is unsafe – a complete contradiction to the vaccine narrative shoved down everyone's throats by government, drug companies and the media for decades.
"Although CDC recommends polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and pneumococcal vaccines for two-, four-, and six-month-old infants, this combination of eight vaccines administered during a single physician visit was never tested for safety in clinical trials," wrote medical researcher Neil Z. Miller.
"This is at odds with a CDC report which found that mixed exposures to chemical substances and other stress factors, including prescribed pharmaceuticals, may produce 'increased or unexpected deleterious health effects.'"
So there you have it. The pharmaceutical industry, as well the government mandated policies that support it, have absolutely no credibility, and therefore should not be trusted by anyone.
The best way to maintain good health is to practice healthy lifestyle habits including eating a balanced diet, exercising and taking time to quiet the mind.
Statins Kill, Cholesterol Does Not - The Real Effects Of Statin Drugs
The truth about statin drugs is finally getting attention in scientific journals, and it's the same truth we've been telling customers for years: statins are cellular poison. They accelerate aging and cause diabetes, heart attacks, muscle fatigue and memory loss.
The findings were published in the American Journal of Physiology.
Lead author and stem cell biologist Professor Reza Izadpanah stated;
“People who use statins as a preventative medicine for health should think again as our research shows they may have general unwanted effects on the body which could include muscle pain, nerve problems and joint problems."
In fact, after only a few weeks of use, the study revealed that statins;
“Prevented stem cells from performing their main functions, to reproduce and replicate other cells in the body to carry out repairs...[statins also] prevented stem cells from generating new bone and cartilage...[and] increased ageing."
Recently, a customer who had been on statin drugs and Metformin for several years reported having all of these symptoms: he recently had a heart attack, he has diabetes sores on his toes, loss of memory, and muscle pain.
Though these findings are getting public attention, they are hardly the first. Even in a 2003 article published in the journal Pharmacotherapy,researchers noted that cognitive impairment and dementia were associated with statin therapy.
Natural alternatives have shown they can fill the role of statins without side effects. In fact, a study in BioFactors found that when usage is discontinued, CoQ10 can reverse statin damage. Another natural remedy is Nattokinase, a natural enzyme that breaks down blood clots and acts as a blood thinner. However, it and others are now removed as being NHP by Health Canada.
Life Choice products can be beneficial, too. Consider products like Neurotransmitter Support, SAM-e, L-Arginine, and L-Taurine. It is important that people know there are natural alternatives to statins, but they must be sought out.
I would encourage those on statins to re-evaluate if they are truly needed, and under the care of their health care provider, get off statin drugs and on to natural remedies.
Murray said many pellets landed in the river and some landed on him and his American clients who were appalled by the operation.
“[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.
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.
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.
Outspoken Vaccine Skeptic, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. To Head Federal ‘Vaccine Commission’ January 13 2017 | From: TheFreeThoughtProject / Various 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.
Kennedy, according toUSA Today, will chair the presidential commission “to make sure we have scientific integrity in the vaccine process for efficacy and safety effects,” the environmental activist and politician told reporters after meeting with Trump on Tuesday.
Kennedy noted the incoming president requested the meeting, as he “has some doubts about the current vaccine policies and he has questions about it. 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.”
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.”
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.
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, toldNBC 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.
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.
Pharmaceutical Company Misleads Consumers, Caught In Painkiller Scam + Painkiller Drugs More Fatal Than Heroin Or Cocaine January 10 2017 | From: NaturalSociety / AustralianNationalReview 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.
Marketed under the name Nurofen, all products contained 200mg of ibuprofen, whether they were labelled as “standard,” “migraine,” “period pain,” or “back pain.”
The specific products are about double the price of standard Nurofen. Fortunately, the court ordered that the “specific” tablets be removed from Australian shops within 3 months, with a subsequent hearing planned to decide on a possible fine. This ruling followed legal action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in a rare victory over the pharmaceutical industry.
The Nurofen line is also sold in the UK and New Zealand, but the British government’s MHRA said there was no concern, as it is not involved in the control over pricing. The company has also been ordered to pay the ACCC’s legal costs, explain itself to the public, and implement a consumer protection compliance program.
5 Alternative Pain Solutions
But what are some natural alternatives to ibuprofen?
In one clinical trial involving 150 female students, different groups were prescribed either 250mg of ginger powder, 250g of mefenamic acid, or 400mg of ibuprofen, 4 times daily for the first 3 days of their menstrual period. Check out other health benefits of ginger here.
The severity of their pain decreased in all groups, and there was no difference between the three groups in severity, pain relief, or satisfaction with the treatment. Ginger is an anti-inflammatory as well as a circulatory stimulant, and has not been associated with the side effects caused by ibuprofen.
Another study involving 204 patients with osteoarthritis compared the benefits of arnica (one of 5 natural pain relievers we mentioned before) and ibuprofen, both as gel preparations, prescribed for 21 days.
In terms of pain and hand function, there were no differences between the two treatment groups, but there were slightly less adverse effects reported by the arnica group, at 5 patients instead of 6.
Additionally, fish oil can be an alternative to pharmaceutical painkillers. Over three months, 250 patients with osteoarthritis took either 1200mg (78% of participants) or 2400mg (22%) of the omega-3 fatty acids found in fish (EPA and DHA).
Fifty-nine percent of all patients stopped taking their prescription NSAID drugs for pain, while 60% said their overall pain improved, and 60% again said their joint pain improved.
Eighty percent said they were satisfied with their improvement and 88% stated they would keep taking the fish oil. No significant side effects were reported from the fish oil either.
While still illegal in most areas, cannabis is an increasingly popular natural alternative to pain of all levels of severity. In fact, standardized extracts of cannabinoids such as Sativex have been approved in some regions for pain conditions including neuropathic pain from multiple sclerosis and intractable cancer pain.
THC, which is responsible for the “high” of cannabis, has many anti-inflammatory mechanisms of action which contribute to pain relief, including PGE-2 inhibition and decreased platelet aggregation.
It has 20x the anti-inflammatory potency of aspirin, and twice that of the steroid hydrocortisone, but without the horrible, disfiguring side effects. CBD, which is antipsychotic and gives no high, relieves pain by the same mechanism as capsaicin, as well as being anti-inflammatory by inhibiting TNF-alpha and by its antioxidant abilities.
Other cannabinoids, such as CBG and CBC, have their own painkilling properties.
With all of these alternatives and others, why support a dishonest corporation and aid them in paying for their well-deserved legal costs?
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.
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).
In every case, those pushing the science frauds claimed to have a divine monopoly on “science” while declaring all opposing views to be “unscientific.”
In this way, much of the “science” in today’s corrupt society has really become nothing more than a cult of scientism, complete with “faith” in the correctness of socially-reinforced beliefs while exercising instant rejection of evidence that contradicts the fairy tale narratives of the science elite.
Sadly, “science” in 2016 functioned more like a priesthood of dogmatists fervently demanding the obedient worship of their unassailable assumptions. On every issue that matters, data were thrown out the window and replaced with fraud.
To drive home the fraud, the scientifically illiterate lamestream media catapulted the propaganda to new heights, even while remaining completely oblivious to the laughably false “science” they were promoting.
Here, I offer a summary of the most outrageous science hoaxes of 2016, along with a few links where you can explore more. By the way, the video on the “Cicret bracelet” invention that claims to turn your arm into a mobile device touchscreen is also a complete fraudulent hoax that has fooled millions of people, and I cover that in detail at the bottom of this article.
My primary message for 2017 is to stop believing in all the fake science being pushed by media, governments, academia and corporate liars.
Science Hoax #1: “Scientific” Political Polling
Through the entire year, we were all subjected to an endless onslaught of so-called “scientific” political polls that almost universally showed Hillary Clinton would win the election.
All the “scientific” polls were wrong, it turns out. (And yes, I called all this well before the election, on the record.)
What we now know is that the word “scientific” was slapped onto these fraudulent polls to try to give them an aura of credibility when, in reality, they were all fabricated or distorted to give Hillary Clinton the appearance of certain victory.
But guess what? All the experts were wrong. But how is that possible if all these polls were “scientific” as claimed? Are the pollsters now telling us that science is broken?
Or maybe, just maybe, they were making s##t up all along and there wasn’t any real “science” behind the “scientific” claim in the first place.
Science Hoax #2: The Zika Virus Terror Campaign
2016 saw the rolling out of an elaborate media-fronted Zika terror campaign designed to scare the entire country into ridiculously believing that mosquito bites would cause millions of women in America to give birth to babies with shrunken heads.
Yeah, I know, it sounds like something a Batman villain would threaten to unleash in Gotham City. “Pay me one million dollars or all your babies will be born with shrunken heads! Mwuah hah hah!”
But, alas, the American sheeple bought the medical science hoax hook, line and sinker. Belief in the Zika virus microcephaly hoax was so deeply embedded in the psyche of the nation that even when the Washington Post published a storyadmitting there was no link after all, the vast majority of so-called “scientists” and doctors still believe the hoax!
So, for the record, I’ll say it again in the hopes of educating all the scientifically illiterate “scientists” who still don’t understand actual facts: The original wave of shrunken heads in Brazil was caused by a larvacide chemical that was dumped into the water supply, not by the Zika virus alone.
The “Zika apocalypse” predicted by all the doctors, scientists and TV talking heads simply did not materialize. And when evidence contradicts your theory, you have to start questioning your theory. Otherwise, you aren’t a scientist. You’re just a petty fool.
Science Hoax #3: The Flint Michigan Lead Poisoning Cover-Up
In order to poison a million black children with brain-damaging lead, the U.S. EPA masterminded a large-scale science fraud that deliberately altered heavy metals testing results for the Flint, Michigan water supply.
Eventually, a few of the science scapegoats were charged with felony crimes for engaging in a conspiracy to alter water quality test data, but no one from the EPA was ever charged or prosecuted for their role in the scheme. (This also proves, by the way, that conspiracies are quite real and very much alive in our society right now.)
The result of all this was the mass poisoning of mostly African-American children with a toxic heavy metal that’s well known to damage cognitive function and impede learning.What a great way to raise more democrats!
It’s all part of the new “science” of keeping the sheeple dumbed down so they will keep voting for corrupt criminals like Hillary Clinton.
Instead of “let them eat cake,” the new progressive Jon Podesta version is, “Let them drink lead!”
Science Hoax #4: The Banning of GMO Labeling Nationwide by Scientifically Illiterate Republicans
This was all accomplished via an unholy alliance among biotech corporate giants (like Monsanto) and right-leaning lawmakers, most of whom have never met a toxic chemical they didn’t absolutely love.
Notably, while Democrats are passing local laws that criminalize Big Gulp sodas, Republicans are blocking labeling laws as a way to say, “If you don’t SEE the poison on the label, it doesn’t actually count!”
Keeping consumers in the dark is now the official science policy of the federal government.
How’s that for transparency?
Science Hoax #5: Climate Change Data Fraud
Democrats have their own science fraud, of course, and there’s no better example than global warming / climate change.
To the great frustration of celebritards like Matt Damon, the data don’t show any warming at all unless you “cook” the numbers first.
This means “climate change science” is actually more like climate change alchemy, which isn’t science at all. It’s more like Tarot cards mixed with voodoo blended with AlGoratotalitaritopian idiocy.
Note to intelligent people: If the world were really warming, they wouldn’t have to alter the temperature data, would they?
Science Hoax #6: Abortion Organ Harvesting for “Scientific Research”
According to leftists, chopping up living human babies who have just been forcibly “birthed” in order to harvest their organs and brains isn’t unethical at all. Nope, it’s a tremendous advancement for scientific research, you see.
Organ harvesting isn’t just limited to places like Communist China and North Korea: The practice is alive and well in America, too. But in the U.S., it takes on a genocidal milestone because most abortions are carried out on black babies… yep, the very same black babies that were also intentionally poisoned by the EPA in Flint, Michigan (see above).
Hmmm… there seems to be a pattern in all this, but I can’t quite put my finger on it… but it definitely seems to have something to do with killing as many black babies as possible while labeling it all “science.”
It’s noteworthy to remember that Adolf Hitler’s eugenics programs were also conducted under the umbrella of “science.”
It seems not that much has changed in almost 80 years… except that instead of Jews being exterminated by the millions, it’s now black babies being exterminated by the millions while democrats demand an open borders human blitzkrieg to replace them all with socialist-leaning illegal aliens who are uninformed enough to vote for leftists.
Science Hoax #7: The California Vaccine Mandate
Another large-scale science hoax that also happens to place a disproportionate burden on African-American babies is the California “medical police state” vaccine mandate pushed by California’s own “Mercury Joker” Dr. Richard Pan.
After receiving bribes from vaccine makers, the “medical child molesting” California state senator Richard Pan took part in a media-backed medical terrorism campaign against California’s citizens, attempting to scare everyone into falsely believing that the best way to protect the health of children is to inject them with mercury (instead of, I don’t know, maybe feeding them nutritious foods and vitamin D).
The entire vaccine mandate was founded on blatantly fraudulent quack science claims fronted by the child-murdering vaccine industry, which continues to absurdly insist that vaccines pose zero risk to children (i.e. claiming they do not harm a single child…ever). The claim is, of course, rooted in sheer delusion. But that’s also what passes for “legislation” in California.
We can only hope California’s #Calexit effort succeeds soon, so we can build a wall around California and stop the contagious epidemic of lunacy from spreading Eastward.
No summary of science quackery would be complete without bringing in the subject of “economics.” Yes, it qualifies as a science… at least if you ask the economists. (If you ask non-economists, it qualifies mostly as voodoo.)
Nevertheless, according to Janet Yellen and the decrepit “wizards of collapse” who are currently steering the global debt Titanic directly into an array of large shards of icebergs, the best way to keep a global economy in balance is to create endless new money until the whole thing explodes, at which point the system collapses to “equilibrium” where everybody starves roughly the same amount (i.e. Venezuela).
To demonstrate this brilliant hypothesis, Yellen and her crotchety academic cohorts have been busy pumping trillions of fiat currency dollars into the pockets of their bankster pals while raising interest rates to accelerate the debt avalanche apocalypse timetable.
As a cherry on top, Obama also doubled the national debt in just eight years, all while handing Iran a path to nuclear weapons, dissing Israel, subverting American culture, gutting the U.S. military and secretly telling his Russian counterparts he would drastically reduce U.S. nuclear capabilities.
Yes indeed, the “dream team” of Obama, Clinton and Yellen has pulled off what America’s worst enemies could not: The near-complete financial paralysis of the U.S. economy all while claiming “Everything is awesome!”
Thank God all the pensions across the country are fully funded, huh? Or that would be a real disaster.
Science Hoax #9: Transgenderism and the Lunatic Liberal “Theory of Spontaneous Genetic Transmutation”
2016 also saw many gullible people being convinced to believe that a biological man can instantly transform himself into a biological woman by declaring himself to be a woman.
At least one “journalist” even claimed that a transgendered man could become pregnant after declaring himself to be a woman. Yes, science education in America has utterly collapsed at this point, replaced with liberal P.C. insanity and delusional college lesson plans rooted in “feelings” rather than physical reality.
Across most of today’s gender-confused college-educated youth, belief in the laws of genetic expression have been replaced by belief that a person’s sex is a “choice.” It’s no longer permutations, phenotypes and genotypes… it’s now metrosexual, generation snowflake, pu##ified blathering idiocy with a diploma, “safe space” cry rooms and $100K in student debt.
Sorry to burst their bubble of stupid, but sex classification isn’t a personal choice. A simple genetic test shows you either have XY chromosomes, XX chromosomes, or the far more rare extra-X-or-Y chromosome defect which typically leads to serious physical and mental defects (including infertility).
According to today’s college snowflakes, the National Human Genome Research Institute is a “purveyor of HATE” because their fact sheet page says all these mean things about chromosomal defects:
“Inheriting too many or not enough copies of sex chromosomes can lead to serious problems. For example, females who have extra copies of the X chromosome are usually taller than average and some have mental retardation.
Males with more than one X chromosome have Klinefelter syndrome, which is a condition characterized by tall stature and, often, impaired fertility. Another syndrome caused by imbalance in the number of sex chromosomes is Turner syndrome. Women with Turner have one X chromosome only. They are very short, usually do not undergo puberty and some may have kidney or heart problems.”
Thus, there are only two sexes in the biology of all mammals: Male and female. And no, you don’t get to change them up just because you think it’s trendy to be a gender-confused metrosexual snowflake.
This doesn’t mean you can’t be gay, by the way. Gay men still realize they’re men. They just choose male partners instead of female partners. On the spectrum of personal freedom, I say people should be able to partner with whomever they want.
Gay or straight, it’s all a personal choice as far as I’m concerned, because it’s none of my business… and stop shoving your sexual preferences in my face, all you militant gay mafia activists.
Just be gay and be done with it. The “gay rights” war is over, and you already won it. Stop being bullies and thinking you’re still oppressed victims.
Marry whomever you want, but just #STFU about it already. Obama already lit up the White House with rainbows, for God’s sake.
But to say that yesterday you were a male, but today you’re a female… now that’s just technically bonkers. You’re not really a female. You’re a male impersonating a female and that’s it. Bruce Jenner, take note: You are not a woman, no matter how much you want to impersonate one.
And that’s celebrated by the women? Yeah, it’s insane. And all these same “progressive” women also insist that pervs with dongs should be able to invade women’s restrooms, too, because that’s “embracing gender identity and inclusiveness” blabbity blah blah.
Get a grip, people. Check your drawers and briefly fondle your hardware. If it’s junk, you’re a dude, and stop playing with it already. If it isn’t, you’re a woman. If you have both, go ask a doctor to run a genetic test and find out if you have ovaries.
Science Hoax #10: Every Science “Journalist” Working for the Fakestream Media
This is more of a collection of hoaxes rather than a single hoax. It all centers around the hilarious fact that most science “journalists” are scientifically illiterate morons who only think they understand science.
I remember reading a science column in a major U.S. publication that claimed cell phones could run on water. (Yeah, I know. I tried that by dropping my cell phone into a glass of water, but it turned off all the power for some strange reason. Maybe I need “special” water?)
There has also been a wave of hilariously stupid media coverage for this bracelet computing project called “Cicret” that ridiculously claims to “turn your arm into a touchscreen.”
The entire video promoting this “Cicret” bracelet is a complete fraud. Racking up almost 25 million views on Youtube, the video shown here is accomplished purely with special effects overlays. The bracelet does not exist and cannot exist as depicted in the video for the simple reason that light cannot bend around the curvature of your arm.
Incredibly, countless “journalists” across the mainstream media fell for this total hoax, stupidly believing that a hi-res touchscreen rendition can be projected onto your skin from a bracelet that barely sits just a few millimeters above your skin in the first place.
Question for brain dead “science” journalists: Do you really believe light rays from the Cicret can bend around your wrist and then magically bounce off skin that isn’t in a direct line of sight with the bracelet projector?
Seriously, you have to be incredibly stupid (or scientifically illiterate) to think the Cicret bracelet, as depicted in the videos, can actually function. But that sure didn’t stop publications from all across the world pushing the hype and convincing their readers that this “cool tech” was real.
And yes, the younger people are on social media these days, the more gullible they are, too. So special effects “viral videos” can be very successful at raising millions of dollars in “Kickstarter” funds for devices that cannot ever exist because they violate the laws of physics.
It’s a whole new kind of financial scam that’s legal because it only extracts money from people who are too stupid enough to believe the viral videos. In summary, “Kickstarter” viral videos are a tax on stupid progressives the same way that the lotto is a tax on stupid conservatives.
And now that I’ve thoroughly offended everyone, let’s wrap all this up…
2016 Was a Bad Year For the Credibility of Real Science… Let’s Hope 2017 is Better
In summary, 2016 saw the pushing of numerous science hoaxes by the fakestream media, governments, academic institutions and corporate propaganda whores like Forbes.com. (Oh, and we can’t leave out the actual whores running SNOPES, who were exposed as prostitutes and fetish bloggers.)
So how do we rescue science in 2017? It’s simple: We start using science to tell the truth instead of allowing governments and corporations to use science to lie.
A few fundamental scientific truths I’d like to see finally embraced in 2017 would include:
Yes, there is extraterrestrial intelligence in the universe.
Yes, there is (or was) microbial life on Mars.
Yes, human consciousness is non-material and not located in the physical brain.
Yes, vaccines cause autism.
Yes, flu shots still contain mercury.
Yes, there are many anti-cancer foods that can help prevent cancer.
Yes, transgenderism is a mental disorder, not a “choice.”
Yes, glyphosate causes cancer.
Yes, DEET is toxic to human neurology.
Yes, genetically engineered crops seeds are a genuine threat to the environment and the food supply.
Yes, water can retain non-physical properties that subtly alter its interactions with living systems.
No, carbon dioxide is not the enemy of mankind.
No, chemotherapy does not “cure” cancer. It often makes it worse.
No, harvesting organs from living human babies is not “ethical science.”
No, science journals are not unbiased, objective arbiters of truth.
No, “scientific” political polls are not reliable. They are bunk.
No, the “experts” are not as smart as they think they are. Mostly, they’re idiots who have attained high positions of “persistent idiocy” in academia or government, and their job is to protect the idiocy for as long as possible, making sure no one overthrows idiocy with intelligence.
Why Are Public Officials Protecting GMO And The Pesticides Industry? Digging Down Into The Cesspool Of Corruption December 29 2016 | From: GlobalResearch
It is based on a cesspool of corruption that is most probably responsible for more death and disease than the combined efforts of the tobacco companies ever were. It is sheer criminality that hides behind corporate public relations, media misrepresentations and the subversion of respectable-sounding agencies which masquerade as public institutions.
From CEOs and scientists to public officials and media/PR spin doctors, specific individuals can be identified and at some stage should be hauled into court for what amounts to ‘crimes against humanity’.
In her numerous documents, Dr Rosemary Mason has described the devastating effects of agrochemicals and has singled out certain individuals who, in a different world, would probably be standing in the dock to answer for their roles they have played in poisoning the environment and damaging public health.
Mason has supplied ample, strong evidence to highlight how agrochemicals are killing us and how public institutions and governments collude with the industry to frame legislation and polices to ensure it’s ‘business as usual’.
However, individuals act within circumstances not of their choosing; capitalism corrupts and it is not the concern of the managers of private corporations to look after the interests of the public at large. A CEO’s obligation is to maximise profit, capture markets and defeat the competition.
The naive hope by many is that ‘corporate social responsibility’ and consumers’ perception of a company will oblige corporations to act in a manner that in some way serves the wider public interest. The other hope is that public officials and institutions will safeguard this interest by holding private interests to account.
But in the cold, cynical world of ‘free’ market capitalism, an interlocking directorate of state-corporate interests have for a long time ensured that state institutions in ‘liberal democracies’ are shaped and manipulated to facilitate the interests of private capital.
The ‘free’ market only exists in the warped delusions of those who churn out clichés about its sanctity. We need look no further than the billions of taxpayer dollars that prop up US agriculture and agribusiness profits, for example, or, more generally, how the state facilitates taxpayer-funded corporate welfare across the board.
The bottom line is to maximise profit for private corporations – and, in Monsanto’s case, by all means possible, including the unflinching defence of the health- and environment-damaging (but massively profitable) product glyphosate. Through political influence and co-option, policies are put in place on Monsanto’s behalf, and the public is expected to sit back and take the poison.
Within the cesspool created, corporations bank on their political influence, media hacks, bogus science, lobbyists and public relations departments and firms to churn out the message that they are serving the public interest, while clearly acting against it.
And this leads us back to Dr Rosemary Mason and her new open letter to the European Chemicals Agency. As with her many other open letters to officialdom, Mason takes us on a journey by naming names and shedding light on how corporate power works to encourage scientific fraud and subvert public watchdogs and policy-making institutions with the aim of getting toxic agrochemicals, especially glyphosate, onto the market and ensuring they remain there.
She addresses the letter directly to European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Executive Director Geert Dancet.
1. Scientific fraud and glyphosate. The German government has accused the German Rapporteur Member State Federal Institute of Risk Assessment (BfR) and the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) of scientific fraud for using Glyphosate Task Force (GTF) statistics that for some considerable time claimed them to be BfR’s own work.
Mason demands that the ECHA must act to ban glyphosate immediately and asserts that human health and the environment are being totally destroyed by it as well as the hundreds of other chemicals that have been registered illegally.
“The current EU legislation was originally set up to protect the pesticides industry. Monsanto and other agrochemical corporations helped the EU to design the regulatory systems for their own products and chose which country should be appointed as Rapporteur Member State.
Regulation 1107/2009, Article 63 specified that: “All confidential data …shall be deleted or redacted.” Much of the industry data submitted to the German RMS was redacted.”
2. Glyphosate, conflicts of interest and PR masquerading as science. By naming names (Alan Boobis, Angelo Moretti, Chris Wolf, Michael Pragnell and others), Mason notes how key positions are held by individuals with proven links to the agrochemicals industry. As a result, crucial decisions and documents are slanted accordingly.
Mason mentions Critical Reviews in Toxicology and how, in 2016 Volume 46, Monsanto commissioned five reviews published in a supplement to Critical Reviews in Toxicology. Monsanto also funded them. The whole point was to raise serious doubts about the adverse effects of glyphosate by using junk science and to confuse the whole issue. Mason says that this is what Monsanto paid the scientists for.
3. The ECHA might be preparing itself to support EFSA, the European Commissioners and the Glyphosate Task Force (GTF) to re-license glyphosate in 2017. This is despite the fact that, of the 293 responses to ECHA’s consultation, an overwhelming majority supported the International Agency for Research into Cancer (IARC) position that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic for humans.
4. The German government summoned Prof Dr Andreas Hensel before the Committee on Agriculture and Food where he accused BfR of scientific fraud. BfR stands accused of endangering the population and of intentional falsification of the content of scientific studies. In addition, Prof Dr Eberhard Greiser, a retired epidemiologist at the University of Bremen, says of BfR’s actions, “I’d say this is an intentional falsification of the content of scientific studies.”
5. Evidence given to the International Monsanto Tribunal. Toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing:
“Ample evidence has been provided above showing that European Authorities twisted or ignored scientific facts and distorted the truth to enable the conclusion that glyphosate is not to be considered a carcinogen, thereby accepting and reinforcing the false conclusion proposed by the Monsanto-led GTF.
The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) committed scientific fraud.”
In his evidence to the tribunal, Clausing systematically demolished arguments that the EU authorities used to dismiss the significant findings of glyphosate-induced malignant lymphoma in mouse carcinogenicity studies.
Mason then goes on to discuss the wide-ranging evidence presented to the tribunal, including Lawyer Koffi Dogbevi’s discussion of Monsanto and ecocide (destruction of the environment), which is a crime against humanity that is likely to be subject to prosecution in the International Criminal Court.
She notes the vicious media campaign mounted against Professor Seralini and his team that was instigated by ‘interested circles’ from the chemical industry as well as the industry-financed British Science Media Centre.
6. Industry pressure on the EPA. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), having concluded that glyphosate is not a carcinogen, invited public comments.
Public comments were invited on 16/09/2016 to the Scientific Advisory Panel of FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) on US EPA Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential. However, only four days before the meeting it was suddenly delayed.
Why did US EPA delay the FIFRA SAP meeting at such short notice? Mason provides compelling evidence indicating the industry’s hand in trying to remove certain scientists from being included on the panel. The suggestion is that the EPA bowed to intense industry lobbying from CropLife America (a US trade association representing the major manufacturers, formulators and distributors of crop protection and pest control products).
7. EPA collusion with Monsanto. In 1991, an archival document showed that the US EPA Health Effects Division colluded with Monsanto: glyphosate was to be changed from a Group C carcinogen to Group E (evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans).
Members of US EPA’s Toxicology Branch of the Hazard Evaluation Division Committee, in a consensus review on March 4 1985, had classified glyphosate as a Group C carcinogen, based on the incidence in rats/mice of renal tumours, thyroid C-cell adenomas and carcinomas, pancreatic islet cell adenomas, hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas in males, but on June 26 1991 the Health Effects Division Carcinogenicity Peer Review Committee met to discuss and evaluate the weight of evidence on glyphosate with particular emphasis on its carcinogenic potential.
In a review of the data the committee concluded that glyphosate should be classified as Group E (evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans). However, three of the Committee refused to sign and wrote: DO NOT CONCUR.
8. Monsanto’s sealed secret studies from the US EPA obtained under Freedom of Information. US Scientist Anthony Samsel analysed Monsanto’s sealed secret long-term studies (15,000-20,000 pages) from the US EPA (on mice, rats, rabbit and beagles) and showed that Monsanto knew that glyphosate was carcinogenic from the 1970s.
9. Glyphosate causes cataracts and interstitial damage and a range of diseases. Among Monsanto’s long term studies, an unpublished study on albino rats in 1990 showed that glyphosate entered the eye and caused cataracts and tissue damage.
The rate of cataract surgery in England “increased very substantially” between 1989 and 2004 from 173 (1989) to 637 (2004) episodes per 100,000 population.
A 2016 study by the WHO also confirmed that the incidence of cataracts had greatly increased: ‘A global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks.’ says that cataracts are the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Globally, cataracts are responsible for 51% of blindness – an estimated 20 million individuals suffer from this degenerative eye disease. In the US, between 2000 and 2010 the number of cases of cataract rose by 20% from 20.5 million to 24.4 million.
It is projected that by 2050, the number of people with cataracts will have doubled to 50 million.
Mason then goes on to describe in some detail how the municipality’s spraying of glyphosate effectively destroyed her nature reserve near Swansea, Wales, and is “responsible for cancers, neurological diseases and cataracts, just as Monsanto found in long-term studies before it gained illegal registration with the US EPA.”
10. The UK State of Nature Report 2016. One of the report’s authors, Mark Eaton, says:
“The report includes a new “biodiversity intactness index”, which analyses the loss of species over centuries. The UK has lost significantly more nature over the long term than the global average with the UK the 29th lowest out of 218 countries.
It is quite shocking where we stand compared to the rest of the world, even compared to other western European countries: France and Germany are quite a way above us in the rankings. The index gives an idea of where we have got to over the centuries, and we are pretty knackered.”
Mason provides a great deal of statistical evidence to highlight the massive increase (by crop type) in use of pesticides over the years, not least glyphosate.
And she also provides a great deal of shocking data that highlights the increase in major diseases and the loss of biodiversity, as set out in the State of Nature Report.
In finishing her open letter, Mason asks the various agencies responsible for protecting health and the environment:
“Why are you all protecting the pesticides industry?”
Then she adds:
“Monsanto has been lying to you for the sake of money. They wanted to control the food… CEO Hugh Grant and the US EPA knew that glyphosate caused all of these problems. The corporation concealed the carcinogenic effects of PCBs on humans and animals for seven years.
They have no plans to protect you and your families from the tsunami of sickness that is affecting us all in the UK and the US.”
Exxon Mobil Is Fighting To Keep It's Dangerous Chemicals In Children’s Toys December 26 2016 | From: TheIntercept
Most of us know Exxon Mobil Corp. as an energy giant, which makes sense given that it is the world’s largest publicly held oil and gas company.
Rex Tillerson, the company’s CEO, has spent his entire professional life prioritizing Exxon Mobil’s corporate interests over human rights, the environment, and the diplomatic interests of the U.S., all of which has prompted many journalists and commentators to point out that his appointment as secretary of state is not just a terrible idea but a joke seemingly ripped from the pages of a Marxist comic book.[Comment: Blah blah blah, if you aren't properly informed neither will your judgements be from afar].
What’s less well known is that Exxon Mobil is also one of the world’s biggest chemical companies, and that its chemical interests also sometimes run counter to those of people in the U.S. and beyond.
Petrochemicals accounted for more than a quarter of Exxon Mobil’s $16 billion in net profits last year and wound up in wide range of consumer products such as plastics, tires, batteries, detergents, adhesives, synthetic fibers, and household detergents.
Among Exxon Mobil’s chemical products are phthalates, a family of chemicals widely used to make plastic pliable. Phthalates are in everything from food containers and plastic wrap to rattles, pacifiers, bottle nipples, and teething toys for babies. More than 75 percent of Americans have at least five of the chemicals in their body, according to a 2000 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Exxon Mobil insists its products pose no harm. In response to inquiries for this story, the company emailed a statement to The Intercept saying that:
“Exxon Mobil phthalates have been thoroughly tested, and evaluations by multiple government agencies in the U.S., EU, and Australia show they are safe in their current applications.”
(The email also included a link to the company’s webpage on the health and environmental impacts of phthalates.)
But numerous independent studies have linked the chemicals to health problems, including cancer, neurodevelopmental effects, endocrine disruption, and adverse harm to the male reproductive system.
Given the risks, Congress permanently banned several phthalates in 2008, temporarily banned a few others, and directed the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) to study whether several other phthalates should also be removed from kids’ products. The law required the CPSC to act within 180 days of its final decision.
An expert committee appointed by the CPSC came out with its final report on phthalates in 2014. After years of meetings, public comments, and peer review, the panel of scientists decided that eight phthalates should be banned from use in children’s toys.
The report cited studies showing that babies who were exposed to higher levels of some phthalates in utero tended to have smaller “anogenital distances” and other reproductive tract problems, effects that were also seen in animals exposed to phthalates.
Despite the clear directive of the scientific experts and the Congress-mandated timeframe, the CPSC has yet to finalize its ban. During the almost two years since the deadline passed, Exxon Mobil has been working hard to slow and reverse the commission’s decision, drafting at least one legislative rider designed to keep some of their phthalates on the market and submitting lengthy comments and objections to the ban.
“Exxon has been sending letters, having meetings, they’re just constantly in CPSC’s face in a way designed to suggest that, if you go the wrong way on this, we’re going to sue you,” said Eve Gartner, an attorney with Earthjustice.
Gartner and a few other environmental advocates try to attend these meetings whenever possible, but they describe being outgunned by the big company’s lobbying efforts.
“I don’t have the time to attend all Exxon’s meetings, but they have the time to attend all of ours,” said Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at Natural Resources Defense Council. “There’s a lot more of them and they have a lot more resources.”
As a political force, kids are no match for one of the world’s biggest chemical companies, and they’ll suffer for the lack of clout. While the CPSC fails to finalize its own rule, more and more kids are exposed to phthalates.
The inaction “speaks to the power of Exxon to frighten federal agencies away from doing their jobs,” as Earthjustice’s Gartner put it. And that was before the company’s CEO had a top government job.
Top Doctors Reveal Vaccines Turn Our Immune System Against Us + Study Pulled From Publication After Proving Truth Of Vaccinated Versus Unvaccinated Children December 24 2016 | From: NaturalBlaze/ NaturalNews
The research is hard to ignore, vaccines can trigger autoimmunity with a laundry list of diseases to follow. With harmful and toxic metals as some vaccine ingredients, who is susceptible and which individuals are more at risk?
No one would accuse Yehuda Shoenfeld of being a quack. The Israeli clinician has spent more than three decades studying the human immune system and is at the pinnacle of his profession.
You might say he is more foundation than fringe in his specialty; he wrote the textbooks. The Mosaic of Autoimmunity, Autoantibodies, Diagnostic Criteria in Autoimmune Diseases, Infection and Autoimmunity, Cancer and Autoimmunity – the list is 25 titles long and some of them are cornerstones of clinical practice.
Hardly surprising that Shoenfeld has been called the “Godfather of Autoimmunology” – the study of the immune system turned on itself in a wide array of diseases from type 1 diabetes to ulcerative colitis and multiple sclerosis.
But something strange is happening in the world of immunology lately and a small evidence of it is that the Godfather of Autoimmunology is pointing to vaccines - specifically, some of their ingredients including the toxic metal aluminum – as a significant contributor to the growing global epidemic of autoimmune diseases.
The bigger evidence is a huge body of research that’s poured in in the past 15 years, and particularly in the past five years. Take for example, a recent article published in the journal Pharmacological Research in which Shoenfeld and colleagues issue unprecedented guidelines naming four categories of people who are most at risk for vaccine-induced autoimmunity.
“On one hand,” vaccines prevent infections which can trigger autoimmunity, say the paper’s authors, Alessandra Soriano, of the Department of Clinical Medicine and Rheumatology at the Campus Bio-Medico University in Rome, Gideon Nesher, of the Hebrew University Medical School in Jerusalem and Shoenfeld, founder and head of the Zabludowicz Center of Autoimmune Diseases in the Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer.
He is also editor of three medical journals and author of more than 1,500 research papers across the spectrum of medical journalism and founder of the International Congress on Autoimmunology.
Defined autoimmune diseases that may occur following vaccinations include arthritis, lupus (systemic lupus erythematosus, SLE) diabetes mellitus, thrombocytopenia, vasculitis, dermatomyosiositis, Guillain-Barre syndrome and demyelinating disorders. Almost all types of vaccines have been reported to be associated with the onset of ASIA.”
ASIA – or Autoimmune/inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (also known as Shoenfeld’s syndrome) - first appeared in the Journal of Autoimmunology four years ago.
It is an umbrella term for a collection of similar symptoms, including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, that result after exposure to an adjuvant – an environmental agent including common vaccine ingredients that stimulate the immune system.
Since then an enormous body of research, using ASIA as a paradigm, has begun to unravel the mystery of how environmental toxins, particularly the metal aluminum used in vaccines, can trigger an immune system chain reaction in susceptible individuals and may lead to overt autoimmune disease.
Autoimmune disease results when the body’s system meant to attack foreign invaders turns instead to attack part of the body it belongs to (auto is Greek for self). If the immune system is like a national defence system, antibodies are like drones programmed to recognize a certain type of invader (a bacteria say) and to destroy them or mark them for destruction by other special forces.
Autoantibodies are like drones that are misidentifying a component of the human body and have launched a sustained attack on it. If they mistakenly target a component of the conductive sheath around neurons, for example, nerve impulses stop conducting properly, muscles go into spasm and coordination fails; multiple sclerosis results.
If autoantibodies erroneously focus on joint tissue; rheumatoid arthritis results. If they target the islets of Langerhans in the pancreas, Type 1 diabetes, and so on
“Throughout our lifetime the normal immune system walks a fine line between preserving normal immune reactions and developing autoimmune diseases,” says the paper.
“The healthy immune system is tolerant to self-antigens. When self-tolerance is disturbed, dysregulation of the immune system follows, resulting in emergence of an autoimmune disease. Vaccination is one of the conditions that may disturb this homeostasis in susceptible individuals, resulting in autoimmune phenomena and ASIA.”
Who is “susceptible” is the subject of the paper entitled, “Predicting post-vaccination autoimmunity: Who might be at risk?” It lists four categories of people:
1. Those who have had a previous autoimmune reaction to a vaccine
2. Anyone with a medical history of autoimmunity
3. Patients with a history of allergic reactions
4. Anyone at high risk of developing autoimmune disease including anyone with a family history of autoimmunity, presence of autoantibodies which are detectable by blood tests and other factors including low vitamin D and smoking.
Regarding those who have had a previous adverse reaction to vaccines, the paper cites five relevant studies including the case of a death of a teenage girl six months following her third Gardasil injection against HPV virus.
She had experienced a range of symptoms shortly after her first dose, including dizziness, numbness and tingling in her hands, and memory lapses. After her second injection, she developed “intermittent arm weakness, frequent tiredness requiring daytime naps,” worse tingling, night sweats, chest pain and palpitations.
A full autopsy was unrevealing but blood and spleen tissue analysis revealed HPV-16 L1 gene DNA fragments - matching the DNA found in vials of the Gardasil vaccine against cervical cancer - “thus implicating the vaccine as a causal factor.”
The DNA fragments had also been found to be “complexed with the aluminum adjuvant” which, according to the report, have been shown to persist for up to 8 to 10 years causing chronic immune system stimulation.
“Although data is limited,” Shoenfeld and his colleagues concluded, “it seems preferable that individuals with prior autoimmune or autoimmune-like reactions to vaccinations, should not be immunized, at least not with the same type of vaccine.”
Established Autoimmune Condition
The second group which the paper cites for vaccine exemption is patients with “established autoimmune conditions.” Vaccines don’t work so well in them, say Shoenfeld and his colleagues, and they are at “risk for flares following vaccination.”
Inoculations that contain live viruses including chickenpox, yellow fever and the measles, mumps and rubella triple vaccine (MMR) are “generally contraindicated” for people with autoimmune conditions because of the risk of “uncontrolled viral replication.” But inactivated vaccines are not such a good idea either because they usually contain the added ingredient aluminum, linked to autoimmunity.
The immunologists describe recent studies in which patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease given the influenza vaccine (without aluminum) suffered more joint pain and fever than controls and whose levels of autoantibodies (the drones that attack self) increased after receiving the flu vaccine.
What’s more, they developed new types of autoantibodies that weren’t present before the vaccines, and those persisted. As the presence of autoantibodies can be predictive of developing autoimmune disease in patients without symptoms, even years ahead of disease onset, this is troubling to those who understand immunology.
A number of studies claim vaccines are safe for the “overwhelming majority of patients with established autoimmune diseases,” the study allows, but they only looked at rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and not at severe and active cases so “the potential benefit of vaccination should be weighed against its potential risk,” they cautioned.
Patients With a History of Allergy
Vaccine trials have usually excluded “vulnerable” individuals - only extremely healthy individuals with no allergies are recruited. It’s a “selection bias,” say Soriano and Shoenfeld, and has likely resulted in serious adverse events being “considerably underestimated” in “real life where vaccines are mandated to all individuals regardless of their susceptibility.”
The true incidence of allergic reactions to vaccines, normally estimated at between one in 50,000 to one in a million doses, is probably much higher and particularly where gelatin or egg proteins are on the ingredients list, they say.
There’s a long list of vaccine ingredients that are potential allergens: besides the infectious agents themselves, there are those from hen’s egg, horse serum, baker’s yeast, numerous antibiotics, formaldehyde and lactose, as well “inadvertent” ingredients such as latex.
People’s allergic histories have to be taken before vaccination say the researchers. But some signs of reaction don’t show up until after the shot.
The public health nurse or GP might tell patients that a long-lasting swelling around the injection site after a vaccine is a normal reaction, for example. But that is not what the immunologists say. “[A]luminum sensitization manifests as nodules [hard lumps] at the injection site that often regress after weeks or months, but may persist for years.” In such cases, they say, a patch test can be done to confirm sensitivity and to avoid vaccination.
According to a growing body of research, though, allergy may be only the beginning of many dangerous aluminum-induced phenomena.
The Trouble With Aluminium
Aluminum has been added to vaccines since about 1926 when Alexander Glenny and colleagues noticed it would produce better antibody responses in vaccines than the antigen alone. Glenny figured the alum was inducing what he called a “depot effect” – slowing the release of the antigen and heightening the immune response.
For 60 years his theory was accepted dogma. And over the same time, the vaccine schedule grew decade on decade, but few ever questioned the effects of injecting aluminum into the body, which is strange considering its known toxicity.
A PubMed search on aluminum and “toxicity” turns up 4,258 entries. Its neurotoxicity is well documented. It affects memory, cognition, psychomotor control; it damages the blood brain barrier, activates brain inflammation, depresses mitochondrial function and plenty of research suggests it is a key player in the formation of the amyloid “plaques” and tangles in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients.
When kidney dialysis patients were accidentally infused with aluminum, the “dialysis-induced encephalopathy” (DAE) they developed neurological symptoms: speech abnormalities, tremors, memory loss, impaired concentration and behavioural changes. Many of the patients eventually went into comas and died. The lucky ones survived: when the source of toxicity, aluminum, was removed from their dialysis they recovered rapidly.
With these new observations, researchers began investigating the adjuvant effects of aluminum and in the past decade there has been a flurry of research. Far from being a sandbag that holds the antigen for a while and then gets excreted, it turns out that aluminum salts trigger a storm of defence action.
Vaccines: A Violation of Human Rights
The video below is a rational discussion about vaccines with Christina Hildebrand, President of A Voice For Choice, Inc. where she explains why mandatory vaccines are a violation of your human rights and how they are potentially dangerous to you or your child's health.
Christina is passionate about ensuring people know what they are putting into their bodies - be it food, air, water or medications. For the past 12 years, Christina has spent many thousands of hours researching and sharing her knowledge within her local community.
However, with the growth of the Big Ag and Big pHARMa's influences on US politics, Christina realized that she needed to take this to a different level and educate the masses on their right to informed choice and transparency of what goes into their bodies.
Within hours of injection of the same aluminum oxyhydroxide in vaccines into mice, for example, armies of specialized immune cells are on the move, calling in grid coordinates for more specialist assault forces. Within a day, a whole host of immune system commandos are in play - neutrophils, eosinophils, inflammatory monocytes, myeloid and dendritic cells, activating lymphocytes and secreting proteins called cytokines.
The cytokines themselves cause collateral damage but they send out signals, directing cell-to-cell communication and recruiting other cells into action. If the next phase of the attack is launched: fibroblast growth factor, interferons, interleukins, platelet derived growth factor, transforming growth factor and tumour necrosis factor might all be engaged.
There’s evidence that poorly understood and pesky inflammasomes, (currently a topic of cutting- edge cancer causation research) such as the Nod-like receptor 3( NLRP) are activated too, but it’s all still too early to say exactly what they’re doing.
New research emerging from University of British Columbia has found that aluminum adjuvant injected into mice can alter the expression of genes associated with autoimmunity.
And in their recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, immunologists at the University of Colorado found that even host DNA is recruited into the aluminum assault, that it rapidly coats injected alum, triggering effects that scientists have barely scratched the surface of understanding.
The Significance of Macrophagic Myofasciitis
This mobility or “translocation” of aluminum in the body is perhaps the most disturbing of the mounting evidence in current aluminum research. In 1998, French researcher Romain Gherardi and his colleagues observed an emerging condition of unknown origin which presented in patients post-vaccination with Chronic Fatigue like symptoms including swollen lymph nodes, joint and muscle pain and exhaustion.
Tissue biopsies of the patients’ deltoid revealed lesions up to 1 cm in diameter and unique from similar lesions of other diseases. They went to the lab for analysis and to Gherardi’s astonishment, they mainly consisted of macrophages – large white blood cells in the immune system whose job is to swallow up foreign invaders in the body. Enclosed in the cellular fluid of these phagocytes were agglomerates of nanocrystals of aluminum.
Gherardi and his colleagues began injecting mice with aluminum to see what happened. Their research published in 2013 revealed that the metal particles were engulfed by macrophages and formed MMF-like granulomas that dispersed — to distant lymph nodes, spleen, liver and eventually brain.
“This strongly suggests that long-term adjuvant biopersistence within phagocytic cells is a prerequisite of slow brain translocation and delayed neurotoxicity,” writes Gherardi in his February 2015 review of the relevant research in Frontiers in Neurology.
A more frightening animal study of aluminum is that of Spanish veterinary researcher Lluis Lujan’s study of ovine ASIA.
After huge numbers of sheep in Spain died in 2008 in the wake of a compulsory multiple vaccine campaign against bluetongue in Spain in 2008, Lujan set out to find out what killed them – and he began by inoculating them with aluminum.
His 2013 study found that only 0.5% of sheep inoculated with aluminum vaccines showed immediate reactions of lethargy, transient blindness, stupor, prostration and seizures –
“Characterized by a severe meningoencephalitis, similar to postvaccine reactions seen in humans.”
Most of them recovered, temporarily, but postmortem exams of the ones who didn’t revealed acute brain inflammation.
The delayed onset “chronic” phase of the disease affected far more of the sheep - 50-70% of flocks and sometimes virtually 100% of animals within a given flock, usually including all of those who had previously recovered.
The reaction was frequently triggered by exposure to cold and began with restlessness and compulsive wool-biting, then progressed to acute redness of the skin, generalized weakness, extreme weight loss and muscle tremors, and finally, entered the terminal phase where the animals went down on their front quarters, became comatose and died.
Post-mortem examinations revealed “severe neuron necrosis” and aluminum in the nerve tissue.
The immune system’s reaction to aluminum “represents a major health challenge,” Gerhardi declares in his recent review, and he adds that;
“Attempts to seriously examine safety concerns raised by the bio-persistent character and brain accumulation of alum particles have not been made… A lot must be done to understand how, in certain individuals, alum-containing vaccines may become insidiously unsafe.”
Back to the problem of which “certain individuals” should avoid vaccination to avoid autoimmune disease.
People Prone to Develop Autoimmunity
Soriano and Shoenfeld’s identify a final category: anyone at risk of developing autoimmune disease. Since a number of them have been shown to have genetic factors that would include anyone with a family history of autoimmune disease.
It also includes anyone who has tested positive for autoantibodies which can indicate disease years before symptoms show up. Vaccinations, the doctors say, “may trigger or worsen the disease.”
Smokers too, have an exceptionally high risk of developing an autoimmune disease, says the report. The American Cancer Society estimates that about 18% of Americans smoke. That means about 42 million Americans have an elevated risk of developing an autoimmune disease and they’re stacking the odds with every vaccine.
And finally, factors that Shoenfeld and Soriano associate with high risk of developing autoimmunity are high estrogen and low vitamin D - which means anyone taking birth control or hormone replacement therapy and, according to one 2009 study of vitamin D status, about three quarters of American teens and adults should be wary of vaccines.
Shoenfeld doesn’t seem to mean to exclude all of these people from immunization, however. The paper concludes that “for the overwhelming majority of individuals, vaccines carry no risk of systemic autoimmune disease and should be administered according to current recommendations.”
Which is in stark contrast to the body of the paper. The final word is cautionary about weighing the “potential benefit of vaccination…against its potential risk.”
It’s exemplary of a strange sort of schizophrenia in a wide range of recent immunology papers. The doctors seem to be trying to reconcile a century of “safe and effective” vaccine dogma with the last decade’s worth of terrifying research findings. There’s a lot of “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” in them.
The new research seems about to gain the upper hand, however. A 2013 overview of ASIA by six immunologists including Shoenfeld, for example, is a catalogue of vaccine side effects from Gardasil deaths, narcolepsy epidemics, infertility, chronic fatigue, dead sheep and aluminum-addled brains. It is rife with statements that would have been virtually unheard of inside mainstream medicine a decade ago. Like this shocker:
“Perhaps, in twenty years, physicians will be dueling with better characterized particles of autoimmunity, and the vaccines may become fully safe as well as effective.
Nonetheless the recognition of ASIA has initiated the change to put more efforts in identifying the good, the bad and the ugly of vaccines and in particular of adjuvants as triggers of autoimmunity.”
Bad and ugly of vaccines? What’s wrong with the adjuvants? That’s not in the CDC hand-out.
Or How About This One:
“Despite the huge amount of money invested in studying vaccines, there are few observational studies and virtually no randomized clinical trials documenting the effect on mortality of any of the existing vaccines.
One recent paper found an increased hospitalization rate with the increase of the number of vaccine doses and a mortality rate ratio for 5-8 vaccine doses to 1-4 doses of 1.5, indicating a statistically significant increase of deaths associated with higher vaccine doses.
Since vaccines are given to millions of infants annually, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines…”
That could be any anti-vaxxer jabbering on…but it’s not.
But Here is the Topper:
“The US Supreme Court ruled that vaccines makers are immune from lawsuits charging that the design of the vaccine is defective. Thus there is need for innovative clinical trial design and the vaccines themselves should be redesigned.”
Immunologists including the world’s leading authority on autoimmunity are saying it is time to take vaccines back to the drawing board.
The American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association estimates that 50 million Americans suffer from one of 88 autoimmune diseases - from type 1 diabetes to systemic lupus erythematosus - and some research puts the figure at one in five globally.
At least 40 more diseases are suspected to be immune-mediated. Most of them are devastating - frequently crippling, expensive to treat and incurable. And they are increasing at an astonishing pace.
At this stage, it looks like the more the research pours in, the harder it is going to get for pro-vaccine immunologists to keep multiple personality disorder – or complete nervous breakdown - at bay. Ten years of cutting edge research into aluminum’s effects on the immune system has revealed primarily how wrong they were.
And how little they know. If, after 90 years, doctors finally have begun to seriously examine the mechanism and question the merits of injecting metal toxins into newborn babies, what have they yet to discover? ASIA sounds awful. (Too bad for all the people whose kids suffered through chronic fatigue when it was just a Freudian yearning to sleep with their mother.)
But what if, like Lujan’s sheep, the “negligible” minority that has been paying the price for the good of humanity is actually only the tip of the iceberg? What if some people with no apparent adverse immune reactions still have nanocrystals of aluminum silently depositing in their brains? What if ASIA really includes Alzheimer’s? ALS, autism? ADD? And that’s just the A’s.
Even if immunologists keep wearing their rose coloured glasses, and vaccine ingredients are only responsible for a tiny fraction of the exploding autoimmunity, the “ugly” in vaccines will still get harder and harder to ignore.
When everyone on the planet is getting injected, 20 years is a long time for disabled people to stack up while scientists “duel with the characterized particles of autoimmunity.”
In the fury over the Disneyland measles outbreak that is gripping the world’s vaccine promoters, time is running out for doctors and researchers who see the “bad and ugly” side of vaccines and their adjuvants to do something about it.
There’s slim chance of a vaccine redesign in the absence of a profit incentive and a strong chance of universal vaccine mandates for one and all - previous anaphylactic shock reaction or not.
Study Pulled From Publication After Proving Truth Of Vaccinated Versus Unvaccinated Children
The censorship of science is nothing new. In Canada, for instance, there were serious concerns about the federal government’s increasingly strict regulations that prevented scientists from sharing their findings with the public.
Censorship, on the whole, is a persistently under-acknowledged problem in our society. The election of Donald Trump certainly showcased the fact that the mainstream media only portrays the narratives they want us to see.
In the latest instance of scientific censorship, an article from a scientific journal was “unpublished,” but only after vaccine enthusiasts proclaimed that it needed to be removed. The study, you see, examined the differences in health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
The study’s results indicated that:
“Vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDDs (defined as Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and/or a learning disability).”
From the mothers’ reports, the researchers found that vaccinated children were more likely to have allergies and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs). The team noted that even after controlling for other factors, vaccination remained significantly associated with the presence of an NDD.
VaxXed Stories: Social Engineering of Medical Professionals
Dr. Suzanne Humphries attends a meeting called "Confronting Vaccine Resistance: Strategies For Success" at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York, New York on November 21, 2016.
This meetings speakers were Senator Richard Pan, Dr. Paul Offit and Dorit Rubenstein Reiss. Afterwards she comes out to the VaxXed Bus to share what happened. Camera and editing by Joshua Coleman.
Indeed, those that were vaccinated were three times more likely to be diagnosed with an NDD such as autism. The combination of preterm birth and vaccination produced an even higher risk of NDD, increasing the chances of it by more than six-fold.
In the abstract, the researchers wrote in their conclusion;
“In this study based on mothers’ reports, the vaccinated had a higher rate of allergies and NDD than the unvaccinated. Vaccination, but not preterm birth, remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors.
However, preterm birth combined with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. Further research involving larger, independent samples is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health.”
Baxter Dmitry from Investment Watch Blog notes that the study was “unpublished” from the journal Frontiers In Public Health. Normally, one can still view the cached version in internet archives.
But Baxter says this too was removed, noting that “a cached version available on internet archives has also been removed, suggesting there is a serious campaign to stop members of the public from viewing the study.”
Fortunately, a screenshot of the study was saved before the whole thing was scrubbed off the internet for good.
Prior to being removed from the internet, the study was subjected to massive amounts of scrutiny; apparently in this instance, the use of surveys – which are widely used for data gathering – somehow invites “bias.”
Some of the colorful public comments included;
“This study is of poor design, though not impossible results. Study relies of self-report of moms, inducing bias,” and, “Another garbage vaccine study in Frontiers journal. Scientists, stop reviewing/publishing there.”
This, of course, is not the first time that a study that showcased the potential ill effects of vaccines has been pulled from the internet. In February, the journal Vaccine temporarily removed, and eventually retracted, a study that linked the HPV vaccine to behavioral issues in mice.
Publishing research that contains information that conflicts with the mainstream narrative continues to prove to be a quick and easy way to find yourself blacklisted and censored by conventional media. This just underscores the importance of independent research and alternative media outlets.
Fluoride Action Network: A Report From New Zealand December 23 2016 | From: FluorideAlert
Two weeks ago legislation was introduced into the NZ Parliament in an attempt to force fluoridation on the whole country. Currently, only half of New Zealand’s population is on fluoridated water. The decision-making for fluoridation had been held by local councils since it was introduced starting in the 1960s.
The proposed new legislation has only had its first reading at Parliament and must go through two more readings before it becomes law. The next step is for this drafted legislation to go before the Health Select Committee and this is where citizens can help make changes.
TV advert produced for Fluoride Free New Zealand. Shows that New Zealand is one of the few countries that still has fluoridation and that other countries, without fluoridation, have just as good, if not better, teeth.
It also shows that there are public dental health policies that really work that could be implemented in NZ.
Legislation is often amended once the Committee involved has heard feedback from a wide range of people. So it is possible that a strategic amendment might nullify the proposed legislation.
Interview With Dr. John Colquhoun, 1998
The legislation attempts to shift responsibility from the local councils to the District Health Boards (DHBs), but the DHBs are a branch of the Ministry of Health in the Central Government, and are contractually obligated to do what the Ministry instructs. The DHBs will only have a limited window with which to view the issue: they will only be allowed to consider dental health and weigh that up against the costs of fluoridation.
Their purview will not include considering:
Current fluoride exposure
lternatives to fluoridation, like the Childsmile program in Scotland
ill not include consultation with the community
As far as dental health is concerned, the DHBs are being steered to a single survey carried out in 2009 that found a 40% difference in dental decay rates. However, this survey was only a snapshot in time and did not take into consideration life time residence.
The two studies published prior to this survey (that did look at life time residence), and a study published this year as well as the New Zealand School Dental statistics (published every year) did not find any difference in decay rates. The only differences that can be found in the School Dental statistics is for Maori children.
This fact distorts the picture because the non-fluoridated total includes the poorest area, with a high population of Maori children, while the fluoridated total includes the wealthiest area. The sad irony in all this is that Maori children had perfect teeth before the advent of western diets.
The Health Select Committee is inviting feedback from the public until the 2nd of February and will allow people to also speak in person and by Skype to the Committee. The Hearing is likely to be February or March next year. This Committee is made up of representatives from the top four political parties with the National Party (the current Government) making up the majority.
The aim of Fluoride Free NZ (FFNZ) is to educate the Health Select Committee members in the hope that they will agree to amendments to the legislation. We also aim to educate other Members of Parliament who are not on the Select Committee, so that they are supportive of their members on the Select Committee making changes to the legislation.
Only 23 of the 67 NZ local councils still have any fluoridation, because FFNZ has managed to convince several councils to stop over the past decade.
We also plan to put out as much publicity as our budget allows especially on health effects and the potential for fluoride to damage to the brain – so the general public become more informed and advise political parties and individual MPs that they won’t get their vote unless they change their stance.
As you will see from the Transcript and the video footage of the MPs that spoke at the first Parliamentary Reading of the Bill - none of the MPs that spoke know very much about the subject.
Health Select Committee Chair Simon O’Connor mistakenly credits his good teeth on taking fluoride tablets as a child.
Unbeknownst to him, the NZ Ministry of Health no longer recommends fluoride tablets because we now know fluoride doesn’t work by swallowing and fluoride tablets cause dental fluorosis!
Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne, who introduced the Bill, but fortunately is not on the Health Select Committee, has called opponents of fluoridation “tin-foil hat wearing, UFO-abducted pseudo-scientists.”
He mustn’t realise that he is insulting around half of the NZ population. Results from all referenda held in NZ show that people tend to vote status quo. If a nationwide referendum was held tomorrow, we would have a good chance of winning.
Charges of “anti-science” are sounding rather ridiculous for those who have actually read the literature and even taken a cursory look at the science presented by Michael Connett in the TSCA petition to the US EPA.
However, the ill-informed NZ media do not challenge these inaccurate and insulting attacks on fluoridation opponents, that’s why our advertising campaign is so important.
This really is crunch time for us in New Zealand. If we do not get changes to this draconian legislation, it will be nigh on impossible to get it stopped where it has started and very, very difficult to resist its introduction to areas that don’t have it, even if the vast majority of the community, including local councillors, don’t want it.
On the other hand, if we do get changes we could see an end to fluoridation completely in NZ and the fluoridated world would get even smaller.
As many of your supporters know, when Prof Paul Connett was over here in New Zealand earlier in the year, we were able to persuade a TV station in Auckland to host a 30-minute debate with a well-known NZ scientist, Prof Mike Berridge. We were excited about this because Paul had been trying to get such a debate in NZ with someone who was pro-fluoridation for 12 years.
I think we can safely assume that our side won that debate because the proponents don’t promote or mention this debate and anyone who watched it can see that Paul won this debate. That is why during our campaign we are paying for this debate to be aired again on NZ television – 8 times on FACE SKY Channel 083.
*If you have family or friends in NZ please send them this bulletin and encourage them to tell everyone they know that NZ is under threat of mandatory fluoridation – this includes Christchurch which has some of the most beautiful water in the world.
At Least 6 Dead, Hundreds Sickened In Australia Asthma Attacks *Triggered By Thunderstorm* + Something Very Strange Is Going On In The Pacific - A 'Perfect Cocktail' Of 'Toxic Death Dumps' December 18 2016 | From: HealthNutNews/ AllNewsPipeline / Various
A recent thunderstorm during southeastern Australia’s humid November spring, triggered a rash of asthma attacks across Melbourne last Monday, leaving families grieving in its wake.
At least four people died: 20-year-old law student Hope Carnevali died waiting for responders from Ambulance Victoria to arrive, paramedics also struggled to resuscitate 35-year-old Apollo Papadopoulos, who eventually succumbed to the respiratory attack.
Omar Majoulled, 18, died two days before what would have been his high school graduation. And Clarence Leo reportedly died early Wednesday. Several more remained in Melbourne intensive care units.
Thunderstorm Asthma Hits Kuwait 10 Days After Melbourne
Only 10 days after Melbourne was attacked with Thunderstorm Asthma we have the same occurrence of this VERY RARE PHENOMENON happening across the world in Kuwait. This is not a coincidence. Both places don't have similar pollen problems.
This is BIO WARFARE. This is as a result of Geoengineering (CHEMTRAILS) which have taken place for many years now. The consequences are now being exposed.
We tried to warn everyone over 5 years ago but as always people turn a blind eye to anything that resembles the truth.
Is it too late? We shall see in the coming months and years.
Between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. on Monday, Ambulance Victoria took about 1,900 calls, which is nearly six times the usual volume- that works out to about a day’s work in five hours. In fact, at their peak, 200 calls came within a span of 15 minutes.
From the article:
“Since the first such events were recognized in the 1980s, there have been scattered reports of asthma attack outbreaks during thunderstorms around the globe, including Napoli, Italy and Atlanta. The largest confirmed episode to date was in London in June 1994.
Six hundred-forty Londoners visited emergency departments with complaints of asthma or respiratory problems, of which more than a hundred were hospitalized, according to a 2016 review published in the journal Clinical & Experimental Allergy.”
Allergy experts posit that during the spring season, storms increase pollen’s ability to penetrate deep into the lungs. Because the storms concentrate pollen grains near the ground, the grains swell with so much water that they rupture into tinier pieces.
Once dispersed into the air, the particles basically form a fine allergenic mist that if inhaled, winds up in bronchial crevasses normally too small for unbroken grains to enter.
As "changes in climate" brings about more severe weather, respiratory disease scientists predict these types of “thunderstorm asthma outbreaks” to happen with increased frequency. We’re not sure we agree with these scientists and know some others who disagree.
Hope Carnaveli’s relatives said they waited for more than a half an hour for an ambulance to arrive and would have taken her straight to the emergency room had they known. Our hearts go out to all the grieving families.
Something Very Strange Is Going On In The Pacific - A 'Perfect Cocktail' Of 'Toxic Death Dumps'
Were Nearly 10,000 Hospitalized In Australia Victims Of A Bio-Weapon Attack?
As Samantha tells us, she is very concerned that a possible bioweapon attack had been carried out upon Australia and while ANP is unable to confirm her theory at this time, we will outline some very strong evidence below that proves something very, very strange indeed is going on in Australia and throughout large parts of the Pacific .
“When we've had people calling for ambulances - one call every four-and-a-half seconds at the peak - it was like having 150 bombs going off right across a particular part of metropolitan Melbourne," she said.
"That's something we've never planned for and we need to do that better."
And while most Americans and people across the entire world now know that we'll never get the truth about real issues from the rapidly dying mainstream media, as we do our own research, there is plenty of evidence to indicate that 'weather modification' is now taking place across Australia as well.
As this Thursday story from The Watchers tells us, a spell of very unusual weather has been reported across Australia over the last few days with widespread snow falling in Tasmania on November 24th of 2016, only days before the arrival of their summer.
As we learned from the recent SQnote which linked to this story from Strange Sounds telling us Tokyo had seen their first November snow storm in more than 50 years, this indicates weather warfare manipulation was secondary to the earthquake generation.
Is it just a coincidence that a hurricane and earthquake also hit just off of the Pacific coast of Central America as shared in this linked Yahoo news story and seen in the Drudge Report.
Was what happened in Australia some kind of a 'dry run' for additional weather warfare attacks in the future, possibly upon much larger populations?
Imagine such a situation happening where you live - suddenly and out of the blue, a massive thunderstorm hits with howling winds and heavy rainfall, stirring up all of the poisons that have been delivered by chemtrails sprayed upon us, sending thousands to the hospitals unable to breath and dying.
We can hear TPTB right now:
“Just blame it on the weather... 'thunderstorm asthma'...yeah, that's it."
Well, ANP reader Samantha in Australia isn't buying it and, very few others are buying the official explanation either.
From theories of a perfect cocktail of poisons being sprayed upon them to 'toxic death dumps', we also see that people from other parts of the world are also reporting death being sprayed upon them from above as well.
The Question That Fluoridation Promoters Can’t Answer December 17 2016 | From: FluorideAlert
During 2016, I asked this question to many fluoridation promoters and have yet to receive an adequate scientific answer.
I asked it in several audiences in New Zealand and also to promoters at a council hearing in Naples, Florida and most recently at a debate in Cortland, New York with Johnny Johnson and Steve Slott. Neither Johnson nor Slott, otherwise very vocal on promoting fluoridation, had an answer.
“What primary scientific studies (not bogus reviews conducted by pro-fluoridation agencies) can you cite that gives you the confidence to ignore or dismiss the evidence that fluoride damages the brain as documented in over 300 animal and human studies (including 50 IQ studies).”
If proponents cannot provide an adequate scientific answer to this question: fluoridation should be halted immediately.
On Nov 22, 2016, Michael Connett, JD, asked this question to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on behalf of FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, and several individual mothers, in a petition calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The EPA has 90 days to reply, and if they fail to provide a satisfactory reply then they can be taken to Federal Court.
How you can take this further?
We are requesting that each one of you to ask this question of any promoter of fluoridation – and keep asking it throughout 2017 until you can get an answer. Send that answer to us.
Based on responses we have seen so far we anticipate that there will be no satisfactory answers. In our view, there is no scientific evidence that could justify ignoring the large number of scientific studies that fluoride damages the brain and thus no justification for continuing this unethical and reckless practice of deliberately adding fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water.
This in essence will be our 2017 campaign. Very simple, very direct and very important. We hope that you will support this in two ways: a) ask this showstopper question in as many creative ways as you can and as many times as you can, and b) support FAN financially.
Five More Ways to Take Action:
1. Send a letter-to-the-editor to your local newspapers
Marks told me a CIA representative informed him that the continuation of MKULTRA, after 1962, was carried out with a greater degree of secrecy, and he, Marks, would never see a scrap of paper about it.
I’m printing below, the list of the 1955 intentions of the CIA regarding their own drug research. The range of those intentions is stunning.
Some of my comments gleaned from studying the list: The CIA wanted to find substances which would “promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness.” Serious consideration should be given to the idea that psychiatric medications, food additives, herbicides, and industrial chemicals (like fluorides) would eventually satisfy that requirement.
The CIA wanted to find chemicals that “would produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way.” This suggests many possibilities - among them the use of drugs to fabricate diseases and thereby give the false impression of germ-caused epidemics.
The CIA wanted to find drugs that would “produce amnesia.” Ideal for discrediting whistleblowers, dissidents, certain political candidates, and other investigators. (Scopolamine, for example.)
The CIA wanted to discover drugs which would produce “paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.” A way to make people decline in health as if from diseases.
The CIA wanted to develop drugs that would “alter personality structure” and thus induce a person’s dependence on another person. How about dependence in general? For instance, dependence on institutions, governments?
The CIA wanted to discover chemicals that would “lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men.” Sounds like a general description of the devolution of society.
As you read the list yourself, you’ll see more implications/possibilities.
Here, from 1955, are the types of drugs the MKULTRA men at the CIA were looking for. The following statements are direct CIA quotes:
A portion of the Research and Development Program of TSS/Chemical Division is devoted to the discovery of the following materials and methods:
1. Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public.
2. Substances which increase the efficiency of mentation and perception.
3. Materials which will prevent or counteract the intoxicating effect of alcohol.
4. Materials which will promote the intoxicating effect of alcohol.
5. Materials which will produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way so that they may be used for malingering, etc.
6. Materials which will render the induction of hypnosis easier or otherwise enhance its usefulness.
7. Substances which will enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation and so-called “brain-washing”.
8. Materials and physical methods which will produce amnesia for events preceding and during their use.
9. Physical methods of producing shock and confusion over extended periods of time and capable of surreptitious use.
10. Substances which produce physical disablement such as paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.
11. Substances which will produce “pure” euphoria with no subsequent let-down.
12. Substances which alter personality structure in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced.
13. A material which will cause mental confusion of such a type that the individual under its influence will find it difficult to maintain a fabrication under questioning.
14. Substances which will lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men when administered in undetectable amounts.
15. Substances which promote weakness or distortion of the eyesight or hearing faculties, preferably without permanent effects.
16. A knockout pill which can surreptitiously be administered in drinks, food, cigarettes, as an aerosol, etc., which will be safe to use, provide a maximum of amnesia, and be suitable for use by agent types on an ad hoc basis.
17. A material which can be surreptitiously administered by the above routes and which in very small amounts will make it impossible for a man to perform any physical activity whatsoever.
At the end of this 1955 CIA document, the author [unnamed] makes these remarks:
“In practice, it has been possible to use outside cleared contractors for the preliminary phases of this [research] work. However, that part which involves human testing at effective dose levels presents security problems which cannot be handled by the ordinary contactors.
The proposed [human testing] facility [deletion] offers a unique opportunity for the secure handling of such clinical testing in addition to the many advantages outlined in the project proposal.
The security problems mentioned above are eliminated by the fact that the responsibility for the testing will rest completely upon the physician and the hospital. [one line deleted] will allow [CIA] TSS/CD personnel to supervise the work very closely to make sure that all tests are conducted according to the recognized practices and embody adequate safeguards.”
In other words, this was to be ultra-secret. No outside contractors at universities for the core of the experiments, which by the way could be carried forward for decades.A secret in-house facility. Over the years, more facilities could be created.
If you examine the full range of psychiatric drugs developed since 1955, you’ll see that a number of them fit the CIA’s agenda. Speed-type chemicals to addle the brain over the long term, to treat so-called ADHD.
Anti-psychotic drugs, AKA “major tranquilizers,” to render patients more and more dependent on others (and government) as they sink into profound disability and incur motor brain damage.
Climate Intervention: A Government Cover-Up Of Epic Proportions December 3 2016 | From: WND
I recently addressed how CIA Director John Brennan gave a historic speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, confessing something few thought they would ever hear: the federal government’s explicit and intentional climate intervention via operations like stratospheric aerosol spraying or injections, or SAI.
What I didn’t explain is that SAI is a ginormous federal geo-engineering cover up that is now being exposed, and yet not a single mainstream media outlet has reported on it. Let me explain.
“Albedo modification would work by lacing the atmosphere with tiny particles or aerosols that would reflect sunlight and mimic natural processes.
For example, in 1991 the volcano Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, which spans altitudes from 10 to 50 kilometers.
There, the sulfur dioxide produced aerosols that reflected enough sunlight to reduce global temperature by an estimated 0.3°C for 3 years.
Albedo modification might also work by using aerosols to seed cloud formation in a lower atmospheric layer called the troposphere.”
The U.S. Senate pushed the DOE to pursue albedo modification action a couple months before CIA Director Brennan gave his blessing to stratospheric spraying as a government operation that “potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change.”
What’s crazy about all that government endorsement is that the February 2015 NAS report, on which the feds base their entire toxic rain operation;
“Warned explicitly that albedo modification shouldn’t be deployed now because the risks and benefits were far too uncertain.”
What are those risks? Here are just three grave consequences that we know about:
Drought: The team under Chien Wang, a co-author of the NAS study and a senior research scientist at MIT’s Center for Global Change Science and the Department of Earth, concluded that albedo modification would lead;
“To dangerous changes in global weather: Precipitation would also decline worldwide, and some parts of the world would be worse off. Europe, the Horn of Africa, and Pakistan may receive less rainfall than they have historically.”
Loss of blue sky: According to a report by the New Scientist, Ben Kravitz of the Carnegie Institution for Science explained, “Releasing sulphate aerosols high in the atmosphere should in theory reduce global temperatures by reflecting a small percentage of the incoming sunlight away from the Earth.
However, the extra particles would also scatter more of the remaining light into the atmosphere. This would reduce by 20 per cent the amount of sunlight that takes a direct route to the ground, and it would increase levels of softer, diffuse scattered light,” making the sky appear hazier.
The U.S. government’s own National Center for Biotechnology Information, or NCBI, released a report in January 2016, the goal of which was “Assessing the direct occupational and public health impacts of solar radiation management with stratospheric aerosols.” The NCBI concluded:
“Our analysis suggests that adverse public health impacts may reasonably be expected from SRM via deployment of stratospheric aerosols.
Little is known about the toxicity of some likely candidate aerosols, and there is no consensus regarding acceptable levels for public exposure to these materials.
There is also little infrastructure in place to evaluate potential public health impacts in the event that stratospheric aerosols are deployed for solar radiation management.”
No wonder the co-author of the study on “Climate Intervention,” Dr. James Fleming, called geo-engineering like SAI: “untested and untestable, and dangerous beyond belief.”
Another colleague and co-author, Dr. Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, the Louis Block professor in geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago, and Sweden’s King Carl XVI Gustafn, chairman in environmental science at Stockholm’s Universitet, took it one step further. He warned;
“The nearly two years’ worth of reading and animated discussions that went into this study have convinced me more than ever that the idea of ‘fixing’ the climate by hacking the Earth’s reflection of sunlight is wildly, utterly, howlingly barking mad.”
(That is why Dr. Pierrehumbert prefers to call albedo modification by the name “albedo hacking.”)
Dr. Pierrehumber added: “The report describes albedo modification frankly as involving large and partly unknown risks. It states outright that albedo modification ‘should not be deployed.'”
So, why are the U.S. Senate and CIA director disregarding the dire and passionate warnings of scientists like Dr. Pierrehumbert and Dr. Fleming by demanding that the Department of Energy proceed with trials on geo-engineering? In the words of Dr. Pierrehumber, are they “wildly, utterly, howlingly barking mad”? Answer: Yes!
Is it a mere coincidence that the very government agencies that are spraying our stratosphere with toxic chemicals were the actual sponsors of the NAS report? The NAS itself confessed:
“The study was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. intelligence community, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Department of Energy” (italics mine).
Isn’t that like your right hand quoting your left hand so that your right hand can grab what it’s already holding? Is the NAS report another government push and ploy to collaborate and cite “scientific proof” to justify its clandestine climate agenda?
Why else would the CIA and U.S. Senate be proceeding in climate aerosol spraying when the very scientists preparing the study warned, “Stop! Don’t do it! It’s crazy and dangerous!”
The most colossal and tragic of all government cover-ups is the fact that the feds have been waging climate warfare for more than 30 years, lacing our clouds and stratosphere with dangerous nano-particles, including environmental sulfates, black carbon, metallic aluminum and aluminum oxide aerosols.
The truth is, for decades, the feds have been covertly and overtly running sky criminal operations behind (above!) our backs, leaving humans and the rest of the planet life as lab rats of their toxic cocktail fallout.
Geoengineeringwatch.org reported that a 1978 750-page congressional report was recently discovered with a mountain of information going back decades that “confirms the ongoing extensive involvement of our government in climate modification/weather warfare.
This document also confirms the involvement of foreign governments around the globe, even governments that would otherwise have been considered ‘hostile to US interests.'”
Why hasn’t a single mainstream media outlet reported on the CIA and DOE’s march forward with SAI when the scientific community has explicitly and repeatedly warned against it?
And why in hell are watchdogs on both the left and right dodging the feds’ intentional and hazardous climate intervention, when they seek to uncover government cover-ups and conspiracies with the most scant of evidence?
Dane Wigington, the lead researcher for GeoengineeringWatch.org and a fierce fighter for government geoengineering transparency, was absolutely right when he wrote: “How big does the climate engineering elephant in the room need to be before it can no longer be hidden in plain site?
How much more historical proof do we need of the ongoing climate engineering/weather warfare before the denial of the masses crumbles? When will populations around the globe bring to justice all those responsible for the ongoing and rapidly worsening worldwide weather warfare assault?”
Is it a mere coincidence that, in October 2015, the feds put a universal “gag order” on agency employees in “The National Weather Service,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration” and the “U.S. Dept. of Commerce”?
Is it a mere coincidence that the Obama administration has spent more taxpayer monies for legal prosecutions of government whistleblowers than all other U.S. presidents combined, resulting in 31 times the jail sentences?
It’s time to blow the lid off the government’s climate cover-up!
That is why my wife, Gena, and I encourage citizens everywhere to do their own research on geo-engineering and then write their government representatives to demand action. We also encourage the support of the Legal Alliance of pro-bono lawyers now amassed as a united front to fight the geo-engineering government cover-up in court.
To read or learn more immediately, I highly recommend the work and website of Dane Wigington. GeoEngineeringWatch.org is loaded with great research on the many facets of climate intervention.
Is Psychiatry Bullshit? + Fourteen Lies That Our Psychiatry Professors Taught Us In Medical School November 26 2016 | From: Sott / GlobalResearch Some Psychiatrists View The Chemical-Imbalance Theory As A Well-Meaning Lie.
In the current issue of the journal Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, Australian dissident psychiatrist Niall McLaren titles his article, "Psychiatry as Bullshit" and makes a case for just that.
In 2011, Ronald Pies, editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, stated;
“In truth, the 'chemical imbalance' notion was always a kind of urban legend - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists."
And in 2013, Thomas Insel, then director of the National Institute of Mental Health, offered a harsh rebuke of the DSM, announcing that because the DSM diagnostic system lacks validity, the: "NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories."
So, the great controversy today has now become just how psychiatry can be most fairly characterized given its record of being proven wrong about virtually all of its assertions, most notably its classifications of behaviors, theories of "mental illness" and treatment effectiveness/adverse effects.
Among critics, one of the gentlest characterizations of psychiatry is a "false narrative," the phrase used by investigative reporter Robert Whitaker (who won the 2010 Investigative Reporters and Editors Book Award for Anatomy of an Epidemic) to describe the story told by the psychiatrists' guild American Psychiatric Association.
In "Psychiatry as Bullshit," McLaren begins by considering several different categories of "nonscience with scientific pretensions," such as "pseudoscience" and "scientific fraud."
"Pseudoscience" is commonly defined as a collection of beliefs and practices promulgated as scientific but in reality mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. The NIMH director ultimately rejected the DSM because of its lack of validity, which is crucial to the scientific method.
The criteria for DSM illness are not objective biological ones but non-scientific subjective ones (which is why homosexuality was a DSM mental illness until the early 1970s).
Besides lack of scientific validity, the DSM lacks scientific reliability, as clinicians routinely disagree on diagnoses because patients act differently in different circumstances and because of the subjective nature of the criteria.
"Fraud" is a misrepresentation, a deception intended for personal gain, and implies an intention to deceive others of the truth - or "lying." Drug companies, including those that manufacture psychiatric drugs, have been convicted of fraud, as have high-profile psychiatrists (as well as other doctors).
Human rights activist and attorney Jim Gottstein offers an argument as to why the APA is a "fraudulent enterprise"; however, the APA has not been legally convicted of fraud.
To best characterize psychiatry, McLaren considers the category of "bullshit," invoking philosopher Harry Frankfurt's 1986 journal article "On Bullshit" (which became a New York Times bestselling book in 2005).
What is the essence of bullshit? For Frankfurt, "This lack of connection to a concern with truth - this indifference to how things really are - that I regard as of the essence of bullshit."
Frankfurt devotes a good deal of On Bullshit to differentiating between a liar and a bullshitter. Both the liar and the bullshitter misrepresent themselves, representing themselves as attempting to be honest and truthful. But there is a difference between the liar and the bullshitter.
The liar knows the truth, and the liar's goal is to conceal it.
The goal of bullshitters is not necessarily to lie about the truth but to persuade their audience of a specific impression so as to advance their agenda. So, bullshitters are committed to neither truths nor untruths, uncommitted to neither facts nor fiction. It's actually not in bullshitters' interest to know what is true and what is false, as that knowledge can hinder their capacity to bullshit.
Frankfurt tells us that liar the hides that he or she is "attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality." In contrast, the bullshitter hides that "the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him."
“In truth, the 'chemical imbalance' notion was always a kind of urban legend - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists."
What Pies omits is the reality that the vast majority of psychiatrists have been promulgating this theory. Were they liars or simply not well-informed? And if not well-informed, were they purposely not well-informed?
If one wants to bullshit oneself and the general public that psychiatry is a genuinely scientific medical specialty, there's a great incentive to be unconcerned with the truth or falseness of the chemical imbalance theory of depression.
Bullshitters immediately recognize how powerful this chemical imbalance notion is in gaining prestige for their profession and themselves as well as making their job both more lucrative and easier, increasing patient volume by turning virtually all patient visits into quick prescribing ones.
Prior to the chemical imbalance bullshit campaign, most Americans were reluctant to take antidepressants - or to give them to their children.
But the idea that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance that can be corrected with Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants sounded like taking insulin for diabetes.
Correcting a chemical imbalance seemed like a reasonable thing to do, and so the use of SSRI antidepressants skyrocketed.
In 2012, National Public Radio correspondent Alix Spiegel began her piece about the disproven chemical imbalance theory with the following personal story about being prescribed Prozac when she was a depressed teenager:
“My parents took me to a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital. She did an evaluation and then told me this story: "The problem with you," she explained, "is that you have a chemical imbalance. It's biological, just like diabetes, but it's in your brain.
This chemical in your brain called serotonin is too, too low. There's not enough of it, and that's what's causing the chemical imbalance. We need to give you medication to correct that." Then she handed my mother a prescription for Prozac. "
When Spiegel discovered that the chemical imbalance theory was untrue, she sought to discover why this truth had been covered up, and so she interviewed researchers who knew the truth.
Alan Frazer, professor of pharmacology and psychiatry and chairman of the pharmacology department at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center, told Spiegel that by framing depression as a deficiency - something that needed to be returned to normal - patients felt more comfortable taking antidepressants.
“If there was this biological reason for them being depressed, some deficiency that the drug was correcting, then taking a drug was OK."
For Frazer, the story that depressed people have a chemical imbalance enabled many people to come out of the closet about being depressed.
Frazer's rationale reminds us of Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent, the title deriving from presidential adviser and journalist Walter Lippmann's phrase "the manufacture of consent" - a necessity for Lippmann, who believed that the general public is incompetent in discerning what's truly best for them, and so their opinion must be molded by a benevolent elite who does know what's best for them.
There are some psychiatrists who view the chemical imbalance theory as a well-meaning lie by a benevolent elite to ensure resistant patients do what is best for them, but my experience is that there are actually extremely few such "well-meaning liars." Most simply don't know the truth because they have put little effort in discerning it.
I believe McLaren is correct in concluding that the vast majority of psychiatrists are bullshitters, uncommitted to either facts or fiction. Most psychiatrists would certainly have been happy if the chemical-imbalance theory was true but obviously have not needed it to be true in order to promulgate it.
For truth seekers, the falseness of the chemical imbalance theory has been easily available, but most psychiatrists have not been truth seekers.
It is not in the bullshitters' interest to know what is true and what is false, as that knowledge of what is a fact and what is fiction hinders the capacity to use any and all powerful persuasion. Simply put, a commitment to the truth hinders the capacity to bullshit.
Fourteen Lies That Our Psychiatry Professors Taught Us In Medical School.
Myth # 1:
“The FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) tests all new psychiatric drugs”
False. Actually the FDA only reviews studies that were designed, administered, secretly performed and paid for by the multinational profit-driven drug companies.
The studies are frequently farmed out by the pharmaceutical companies by well-paid research firms, in whose interest it is to find positive results for their corporate employers. Unsurprisingly, such research policies virtually guarantee fraudulent results.
Myth # 2:
“FDA approval means that a psychotropic drug is effective long-term”
False. Actually, FDA approval doesn’t even mean that psychiatric drugs have been proven to be safe – either short-term or long-term! The notion that FDA approval means that a psych drug has been proven to be effective is also a false one, for most such drugs are never tested – prior to marketing – for longer than a few months (and most psych patients take their drugs for years).
The pharmaceutical industry pays many psychiatric “researchers” – often academic psychiatrists (with east access to compliant, chronic, already drugged-up patients) who have financial or professional conflicts of interest – some of them even sitting on FDA advisory committees who attempt to “fast track” psych drugs through the approval process.
For each new drug application, the FDA only receives 1 or 2 of the “best” studies (out of many) that purport to show short-term effectiveness. The negative studies are shelved and not revealed to the FDA. In the case of the SSRI drugs, animal lab studies typically lasted only hours, days or weeks and the human clinical studies only lasted, on average, 4- 6 weeks, far too short to draw any valid conclusions about long-term effectiveness or safety!
Hence the FDA, prescribing physicians and patient-victims should not have been “surprised” by the resulting epidemic of SSRI drug-induced adverse reactions that are silently plaguing the people.
Indeed, many SSRI trials have shown that those drugs are barely more effective than placebo (albeit statistically significant!) with unaffordable economic costs and serious health risks, some of which are life-threatening and known to be capable of causing brain damage.
Myth # 3:
“FDA approval means that a psychotropic drug is safe long-term”
False. Actually, the SSRIs and the “anti-psychotic” drugs are usually tested in human trials for only a couple of months before being granted marketing approval by the FDA. And the drug companies are only required to report 1 or 2 studies (even if many other studies on the same drug showed negative, even disastrous, results).
Drug companies obviously prefer that the black box and fine print warnings associated with their drugs are ignored by both consumers and prescribers. One only has to note how small the print is on the commercials.
In our fast-paced shop-until-you-drop consumer society, we super-busy prescribing physicians and physician assistants have never been fully aware of the multitude of dangerous, potentially fatal adverse psych drug effects that include addiction, mania, psychosis, suicidality, worsening depression, worsening anxiety, insomnia, akathisia, brain damage, dementia, homicidality, violence, etc, etc.
But when was the last time anybody heard the FDA or Big Pharma apologize for the damage they did in the past?
And when was the last time there were significant punishments (other than writs slaps and “chump change” multimillion dollar fines) or prison time for the CEOs of the guilty multibillion dollar drug companies?
Myth # 4:
“Mental ‘illnesses’ are caused by ‘brain chemistry imbalances’”
False. In actuality, brain chemical/neurotransmitter imbalances have never been proven to exist (except for cases of neurotransmitter depletions caused by psych drugs) despite vigorous examinations of lab animal or autopsied human brains and brain slices by neuroscientist s who were employed by well-funded drug companies.
Knowing that there are over 100 known neurotransmitter systems in the human brain, proposing a theoretical chemical ”imbalance” is laughable and flies in the face of science.
Not only that, but if there was an imbalance between any two of the 100 potential systems (impossible to prove), a drug – that has never been tested on more than a handful of them – could never be expected to re-balance it!
Such simplistic theories have been perpetrated by Big Pharma upon a gullible public and a gullible psychiatric industry because corporations that want to sell the public on their unnecessary products know that they have to resort to 20 second sound bite-type propaganda to convince patients and prescribing practitioners why they should be taking or prescribing synthetic, brain-altering drugs that haven’t been adequately tested.
Myth # 5:
“Antidepressant drugs work like insulin for diabetics”
False. This laughingly simplistic – and very anti-scientific – explanation for the use of dangerous and addictive synthetic drugs is patently absurd and physicians and patients who believe it should be ashamed of themselves for falling for it.
There is such a thing as an insulin deficiency (but only in type 1 diabetes) but there is no such thing as a Prozac deficiency.
SSRIs (so-called Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors – an intentional mis-representation because those drugs are NOT selective!) do not raise total brain serotonin.
Rather, SSRIs actually deplete serotonin long-term while only “goosing” serotonin release at the synapse level while at the same time interfere with the storage, reuse and re-cycling of serotonin (by its “serotonin reuptake inhibition” function).
(Parenthetically, the distorted “illogic” of the insulin/diabetes comparison above could legitimately be made in the case of the amino acid brain nutrient tryptophan, which is the precursor molecule of the important natural neurotransmitter serotonin.
If a serotonin deficiency or “imbalance” could be proven, the only logical treatment approach would be to supplement the diet with the serotonin precursor tryptophan rather than inflict upon the brain a brain-altering synthetic chemical that actually depletes serotonin long-term!
Myth # 6:
“SSRI ‘discontinuation syndromes’ are different than ‘withdrawal syndromes’”
False. The SSRI “antidepressant” drugs are indeed dependency-inducing/addictive and the neurological and psychological symptoms that occur when these drugs are stopped or tapered down are not “relapses” into a previous ”mental disorder” - as has been commonly asserted - but are actually new drug withdrawal symptoms that are different from those that prompted the original diagnosis
The term “discontinuation syndrome” is part of a cunningly-designed conspiracy that was plotted in secret by members of the psychopharmaceutical industryin order to deceive physicians into thinking that these drugs are not addictive.
The deception has been shamelessly promoted to distract attention from the proven fact that most psych drugs are dependency-inducing and are therefore likely to cause “discontinuation/withdrawal symptoms” when they are stopped.
The drug industry knows that most people do not want to swallow dependency-inducing drugs that are likely to cause painful, even lethal withdrawal symptoms when they cut down the dose of the drug.
Myth # 7:
“Ritalin is safe for children (or adults)”
False. In actuality, methylphenidate (= Ritalin, Concerta, Daytrana, Metadate and Methylin; aka “kiddie cocaine”), a dopamine reuptake inhibitor drug, works exactly like cocaine on dopamine synapses, except that orally-dosed methylphenidate reaches the brain more slowly than snortable or smoked cocaine does.
Therefore the oral form has less of an orgasmic “high” than cocaine.
Cocaine addicts actually prefer Ritalin if they can get it in a relatively pure powder form.
When snorted, the synthetic Ritalin (as opposed to the naturally-occurring, and therefore more easily metabolically-degraded cocaine) has the same onset of action but, predictably, has a longer lasting “high” and is thus preferred among addicted individuals.
The molecular structures of Ritalin and cocaine both have amphetamine base structures with ring-shaped side chains which, when examined side by side, are remarkably similar. The dopamine synaptic organelles in the brain (and heart, blood vessels, lungs and guts) are unlikely to sense any difference between the two drugs.
Myth # 8:
“Psychoactive drugs are totally safe for humans”
False. See Myth # 3 above. Actually all five classes of psychotropic drugs have, with long-term use, been found to be neurotoxic (ie, known to destroy or otherwise alter the physiology, chemistry, anatomy and viability of vital energy-producing mitochondria in every brain cell and nerve). They are therefore all capable of contributing to dementia when used long-term.
Any synthetic chemical that is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier into the brain can alter and disable the brain. Synthetic chemical drugs are NOT capable of healing brain dysfunction, curing malnutrition or reversing brain damage.
Rather than curing anything, psychiatric drugs are only capable of masking symptoms while the abnormal emotional, neurological or malnutritional processes that mimic “mental illnesses” continue unabated.
Myth # 9:
“Mental ‘illnesses’ have no known cause”
False. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM, published by the American Psychiatric Association, is pejoratively called “the psychiatric bible and billing book” for psychiatrists.
Despite its name, it actually has no statistics in it, and, of the 374 psychiatric diagnoses in the DSM-IV (there is now a 5th edition) there seem to be only two that emphasize known root causes.
Those two diagnoses are Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder. The DSM-V has been roundly condemned as being just another book that laughingly pathologizes a few more normal human emotions and behaviors.
In my decade of work as an independent holistic mental health care practitioner, I was virtually always able to detect many of the multiple root causes and contributing factors that easily explained the signs, symptoms and behaviors that had resulted in a perplexing number of false diagnoses of “mental illness of unknown origin”.
Many of my patients had been made worse by being hastily diagnosed, hastily drugged, bullied, demeaned, malnourished, incarcerated, electroshocked (often against their wills and/or without fully informed consent).
My patients had been frequently rendered unemployable or even permanently disabled as a result – all because temporary, potentially reversible, and therefore emotional stressors had not been recognized at the onset.
Because of the reliance on drugs, many of my patients had been made incurable by not having been referred to compassionate practitioners who practiced high quality, non-drug-based, potentially curable psychotherapy.
The root causes of my patient’s understandable emotional distress were typically multiple, although sometimes a single trauma, such as a rape, violent assault or a psychological trauma in the military would cause an otherwise normally-developing individual to decompensate.
But the vast majority of my patients had experienced easily identifiable chronic sexual, physical, psychological, emotional and/or spiritual traumas as root causes – often accompanied by hopelessness, sleep deprivation, serious emotional or physical neglect and brain nutrient deficiencies as well.
The only way that I could obtain this critically important information was through the use of thorough, compassionate (and, unfortunately, time-consuming) investigation into the patient’s complete history, starting with prenatal, maternal, infant and childhood exposures to toxins (including vaccines) and continuing into the vitally important adolescent medical history (all periods when the patient’s brain was rapidly developing).
My clinical experience proved to me that if enough high quality time was spent with the patient and if enough hard work was exerted looking for root causes, the patient’s predicament could usually be clarified and the erroneous past labels (of “mental illnesses of unknown origin”) could be thrown out.
Such efforts were often tremendously therapeutic for my patients, who up to that time had been made to feel guilty, ashamed or hopeless by previous therapists.
In my experience, most mental ill health syndromes represented identifiable, albeit serious emotional de-compensation due to temporarily overwhelming crisis situations linked to traumatic, frightening, torturous, neglectful and soul-destroying life experiences.
My practice consisted mostly of patients who knew for certain that they were being sickened by months or years of swallowing one or more brain-altering, addictive prescription drugs that they couldn’t get off of by themselves.
I discovered that many of them could have been cured early on in their lives if they only had access – and could afford – compassionate psychoeducational psychotherapy, proper brain nutrition and help with addressing issues of deprivation, parental neglect/abuse, poverty and other destructive psychosocial situations.
I came to the sobering realization that many of my patients could have been cured years earlier if it hadn’t been for the disabling effects of psychiatric drug regimens, isolation, loneliness, punitive incarcerations, solitary confinement, discrimination, malnutrition, and/or electroshock.
The neurotoxic and brain-disabling drugs, vaccines and frankenfoods that most of my patients had been given early on had started them on the road to chronicity and disability.
Myth # 10:
“Psychotropic drugs have nothing to do with the huge increase in disabled and unemployable American psychiatric patients”
False. See Myths # 2 and # 3 above. In actuality recent studies have shown that the major cause of permanent disability in the “mentally ill” is the long-term, high dosage and/or use of multiple neurotoxic psych drugs – any combination of which, as noted above, has never been adequately tested for safety even in animal labs.
Many commonly-prescribed drugs are fully capable of causing brain-damage long-term, especially the anti-psychotics (aka, “major tranquilizers”) like Thorazine, Haldol, Prolixin, Clozapine, Abilify, Clozapine, Fanapt, Geodon, Invega, Risperdal, Saphris, Seroquel and Zyprexa, all of which can cause brain shrinkage that is commonly seen on the MRI scans of anti-psychotic drug-treated, so-called schizophrenics – commonly pointed out as “proof” that schizophrenia is an anatomic brain disorder that causes the brain to shrink! (Incidentally, patients who had been on antipsychotic drugs – for whatever reason – have been known to experience withdrawal hallucinations and acute psychotic symptoms even if they had never experienced such symptoms previously.)
Of course, highly addictive “minor” tranquilizers like the benzodiazepines (Valium, Ativan, Klonopin, Librium, Tranxene, Xanax) can cause the same withdrawal syndromes. They are all dangerous and very difficult to withdraw from (withdrawal results in difficult-to-treat rebound insomnia, panic attacks, and seriously increased anxiety), and, when used long-term, they can all cause memory loss/dementia, the loss of IQ points and the high likelihood of being mis-diagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease (of unknown etiology).
Myth # 11:
“So-called bipolar disorder can mysteriously ‘emerge’ in patients who have been taking stimulating antidepressants like the SSRIs”
False. In actuality, crazy-making behaviors like mania, agitation and aggression are commonly caused by the SSRIs. That list includes a syndrome called akathisia, a severe, sometimes suicide-inducing internal restlessness – like having restless legs syndrome over one’s entire body and brain.
Akathisia was once understood to only occur as a long-term adverse effect of antipsychotic drugs (See Myth # 10). So it was a shock to many psychiatrists (after Prozac came to market in 1987) to have to admit that SSRIs could also cause that deadly problem.
It has long been my considered opinion that SSRIs should more accurately be called “agitation-inducing” drugs rather than “anti-depressant” drugs.
The important point to make is that SSRI-induced psychosis, mania, agitation, aggression and akathisia is NOT bipolar disorder nor is it schizophrenia!
Myth # 12:
“Antidepressant drugs can prevent suicides”
False. In actuality, there is no psychiatric drug that is FDA-approved for the treatment of suicidality because these drugs, especially the so-called antidepressants, actually INCREASE the incidence of suicidal thinking, suicide attempts and completed suicides.
Drug companies have spent billions of dollars futilely trying to prove the effectiveness of various psychiatric drugs in suicide prevention.
Even the most corrupted drug company trials have failed! Indeed what has been discovered is that all the so-called “antidepressants” actually increase the incidence of suicidality.
The FDA has required black box warning labels about drug-induced suicidality on all SSRI marketing materials, but that was only accomplished after over-coming vigorous opposition from the drug-makers and marketers of the offending drugs, who feared that such truth-telling would hurt their profits (it hasn’t).
What can and does avert suicidality, of course, are not drugs, but rather interventions by caring, compassionate and thorough teams of care-givers that include family, faith communities and friends as well as psychologists, counselors, social workers, relatives (especially wise grandmas!), and, obviously, the limited involvement of drug prescribers.
Myth # 13:
“America’s school shooters and other mass shooters are ‘untreated’ schizophrenics who should have been taking psych drugs”
False. In actuality, 90% or more of the infamous homicidal – and usually suicidal – school shooters have already been under the “care” of psychiatrists (or other psych drug prescribers) and therefore have typically been taking (or withdrawing from) one or more psychiatric drugs.
SSRIs (such as Prozac) and psychostimulants (such as Ritalin) have been the most common classes of drugs involved. Antipsychotics are too sedating, although an angry teen who is withdrawing from antipsychotics could easily become a school shooter if given access to lethal weapons. (See www.ssristudies.net).
The 10% of school shooters whose drug history is not known, have typically had their medical files sealed by the authorities – probably to protect authorities such as the drug companies and/or the medical professionals who supplied the drugs from suffering liability or embarrassment.
Important Comment:It should be noted that in most cases such 'False Flag' shooter events, that Mind-Controlled assets are used in order to carry out events pushing Cabal-driven agenda's such as gun control.
In virtually EVERY case the 'perpetrators' are on multiple prescription drugs for mental health issues.
This is not a comfortable subject but it is one that you will need to confront sooner or later, as the truth will become common knowledge at some point.
Interspersed with the rest of this section are details of the reality which hides behind the prescription drugs and their side effects -
The powerful drug industry and psychiatry lobby, with the willing help of the media that profits from being their handmaidens, repeatedly show us the photos of the shooters that look like zombies.
They have successfully gotten the viewing public to buy the notion that these adolescent, white male school shooters were mentally ill rather than under the influence of their crazy-making, brain-altering drugs or going through withdrawal.
Contrary to the claims of a recent 60 Minutes program segment about “untreated schizophrenics” being responsible for half of the mass shootings in America, the four mentioned in the segment were, in fact, almost certainly being already under the treatment with psych drugs – prior to the massacres – by psychiatrists who obviously are being protected from public identification and/or interrogation by the authorities as accomplices to the crimes or witnesses.
Because of this secrecy, the public is being kept in the dark about exactly what crazy-making, homicidality-inducing psychotropic drugs could have been involved.
The names of the drugs and the multinational corporations that have falsely marketed them as safe drugs are also being actively protected from scrutiny, and thus the chance of prevention of future drug-related shootings or suicides is being squandered.
Such decisions by America’s ruling elites represent public health policy at its worst and is a disservice to past and future shooting victims and their loved ones.
The four most notorious mass shooters that were highlighted in the aforementioned 60 Minutes segment included the Virginia Tech shooter, the Tucson shooter, the Aurora shooter and the Sandy Hook shooter whose wild-eyed (“drugged-up”) photos have been carefully chosen for their dramatic “zombie-look” effect, so that most frightened, paranoid Americans are convinced that it was a crazy “schizophrenic”, rather than a victim of psychoactive, brain-altering, crazy-making drugs that may have made him do it.
Parenthetically, it needs to be mentioned that many media outlets profit handsomely from the drug and medical industries.
Therefore those media outlets have an incentive to protect the names of the drugs, the names of the drug companies, the names of the prescribing MDs and the names of the clinics and hospitals that could, in a truly just and democratic world, otherwise be linked to the crimes.
Certainly if a methamphetamine-intoxicated person shot someone, the person who supplied the intoxicating drug would be considered an accomplice to the crime, just like the bartender who supplied the liquor to someone who later committed a violent crime would be held accountable.
A double standard obviously exists when it comes to powerful, respected and highly profitable corporations.
A thorough study of the scores of American school shooters, starting with the University of Texas tower shooter in 1966 and (temporarily) stopping at Sandy Hook, reveals that the overwhelming majority of them (if not all of them) were taking brain-altering, mesmerizing, impulse-destroying, “don’t give a damn” drugs that had been prescribed to them by well-meaning but too-busy psychiatrists, family physicians or physician assistants who somehow were unaware of or were misinformed about the homicidal and suicidal risks to their equally unsuspecting patients (and therefore they had failed to warn the patient and/or the patient’s loved ones about the potentially dire consequences).
Most practitioners who wrote the prescriptions for the mass shooters or for a patient who later suicided while under the influence of the drug, will probably(and legitimately so) defend themselves against the charge of being an accomplice to mass murder or suicide by saying that they were ignorant about the dangers of these cavalierly prescribed psych drugs because they had been deceived by the cunning drug companies that had convinced them of the benign nature of the drugs.
Myth # 14:
“If your patient hears voices it means he’s a schizophrenic”
False. Auditory hallucinations are known to occur in up to 10% of normal people; and up to 75% of normal people have had the experience of someone that isn’t there calling their name. (www.hearing-voices.org/voices-visions).
Nighttime dreams, nightmares and flashbacks probably have similar origins to daytime visual, auditory and olfactory hallucinations, but even psychiatrists don’t think that they represent mental illnesses.
Indeed, hallucinations are listed in the pharmaceutical literature as a potential side effect or withdrawal symptom of many drugs, especially psychiatric drugs.
These syndromes are called substance-induced psychotic disorders which are, by definition, neither mental illnesses nor schizophrenia.
Rather, substance-induced or withdrawal-induced psychotic disorders are temporary and directly caused by the intoxicating effects of malnutrition or brain-altering drugs such as alcohol, medications, hallucinogenic drugs and other toxins.
Psychotic symptoms, including hallucinations and delusions, can be caused by substances such as alcohol, marijuana, hallucinogens, sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics, inhalants, opioids, PCP, and the many of the amphetamine-like drugs (like Phen-Fen, [fenfluramine]), cocaine, methamphetamine, Ecstasy, and agitation-inducing, psycho-stimulating drugs like the SSRIs).
Psychotic symptoms can also result from sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation and the withdrawal from certain drugs like alcohol, sedatives, hypnotics, anxiolytics and especially the many dopamine-suppressing, dependency-inducing, sedating, and zombifying anti-psychotic drugs.
Examples of other medications that may induce hallucinations and delusions include anesthetics, analgesics, anticholinergic agents, anticonvulsants, antihistamines, antihypertensive and cardiovascular medications, some antimicrobial medications, anti-parkinsonian drugs, some chemotherapeutic agents, corticosteroids, some gastrointestinal medications, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and Antabuse.
The very sobering information revealed above should cause any thinking person, patient, thought-leader or politician to wonder:
“How many otherwise normal or potentially curable people over the last half century of psych drug propaganda have actually been mis-labeled as mentally ill (and then mis-treated) and sent down the convoluted path of therapeutic misadventures – heading toward oblivion?”
In my mental health care practice, I personally treated hundreds of patients who had been given a multitude of confusing and contradictory mental illness labels, many of which had been one of the new “diseases of the month” for which there was a new psych “drug of the month” that was being heavily marketed on TV.
Many of my patients had simply been victims of unpredictable drug-drug interactions (far too often drug-drug-drug-drug interactions) or simply adverse reactions to psych drugs which had been erroneously diagnosed as a new mental illness.
Extrapolating my 1,200 patient experience (in my little isolated section of the nation) to what surely must be happening in America boggles my mind.
There has been a massive epidemic going on right under our noses that has affected millions of suffering victims who could have been cured if not for the drugs.
The time to act on this knowledge is long overdue.
Seeding Doubt: How Self-Appointed Guardians Of “Sound Science” Tip The Scales Toward Industry November 23 2016 | From: TheIntercept
At a time when public mistrust of science runs high, and non-experts are hard-pressed to separate fact from industry-sponsored spin, Sense About Science, a charity based in London with an affiliate in New York, presents itself as a trustworthy arbiter.
The organization purports to help the misinformed public sift through alarmist claims about public health and the environment by directing journalists, policymakers, and others to vetted sources who can explain the evidence behind debates about controversial products like e-cigarettes and flame retardants.
One reason the public is so confused, suggested Tracey Brown, the group’s director, in a recent Guardian op-ed, is that the media feeds alarmism by focusing on who sponsors scientific studies, rather than asking more important questions about whether the research is sound.
Even when there is no evidence of bias, Brown contended, journalists attack industry-funded research, running exposés on subjects such as fracking, genetically modified plants, and sugar. Brown lamented that what she called “the ‘who funded it?’ question” is too often asked by “people with axes to grind.”
Brown’s downplaying of concerns about such research invites skepticism. Since the mid-1990s, numerous studies have shown that industry-funded research tends to favor its sponsors’ products. This effect has been documented in research financed by chemical, pharmaceutical, surgical, food, tobacco, and, we have learned most recently, sugar companies.
In the 1960s, the sugar industry secretly paid scientists to minimize the role sugar plays in causing heart disease and blame saturated fat instead, according to a study published in the September issue of JAMA Internal Medicine.
Journalists in pursuit of transparency have good reason to ask, “Who funded it?”
Sense About Science claims to champion transparency. The organization has campaigned to see the evidence behind policy decisions and asked for pharmaceutical companies to release all the results of clinical trials, not just the positive ones.
Nearly 700 organizations have signed on to the clinical trials initiative since it began last year. These are salutary efforts, and Brown points out that with the exception of one program funded by publishers, none of the group’s projects are underwritten by companies. But this sidesteps a larger issue.
Sense About Science does not always disclose when its sources on controversial matters are scientists with ties to the industries under examination. And the group is known to take positions that buck scientific consensus or dismiss emerging evidence of harm.
When journalists rightly ask who sponsors research into the risks of, say, asbestos, or synthetic chemicals, they’d be well advised to question the evidence Sense About Science presents in these debates as well.
A man holds a tobacco sample at the Seita-Imperial tobacco research center on May 29, 2012, in Fleury-les-Aubrais, France
In 2002, Dick Teverne, an English politician and business consultant, founded Sense About Science “to expose bogus science,” he explains in his memoir, “Against the Tide.”
Through his consulting work, Taverne had cultivated relationships with energy, communications, food, and pharmaceutical companies. Sense About Science’s early sponsors included some of Taverne’s former clients and companies in which he owned stock.
Taverne must have known the power of media narratives about science firsthand, because he had experience with the tobacco industry, which labored mightily to change the conversation about its product in the face of evidence that cigarettes were lethal.
The idea for a “sound science” group, made up of a network of scientists who would speak out against regulations that industrial spokespeople lacked the credibility to challenge, was a pitch Burson-Marsteller made to Philip Morris in a 1994 memorandum.
It’s not hard to identify traces of this approach in Taverne’s later work. Writing in his 2005 book, “The March of Unreason,” Taverne complained that “eco-fundamentalists” and fearmongers had fomented a backlash against science and technology, which had in turn produced a “multiplication of health and safety regulations.”
That year British Petroleum donated 15,000 pounds to Sense About Science, and Taverne argued in the House of Lords that as much as 80 percent of global warming might be attributable to solar activity, even though that theory had been discredited two years earlier. Taverne, who stepped down as chairman of Sense About Science in 2012, did not respond to The Intercept’s requests for comment.
Sense About Science established an American affiliate in 2014, under the direction of a Brooklyn-based journalist named Trevor Butterworth. In financial documents, Sense About Science claims Sense About Science USA as a sister organization “with close ties and similar aims.”
From 2003 to 2014, Butterworth contributed to the website of an organization called STATS, a nonprofit that promoted statistical literacy. STATS had its own connections to the tobacco industry, in this case through founder Robert Lichter, a conservative political scientist and now a communications professor at George Mason University.
Lichter also co-founded and continues to run the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which Philip Morris hired in 1994 to survey news reports about tobacco as part of its strategy, outlined in a memo from March of that year, to counter “personal and public bias” in stories about cigarettes’ health risks.
Lichter, like Sense About Science’s Tracey Brown, has argued that industry money doesn’t necessarily taint the science it supports.
In 2003, a congressional report charged the George W. Bush administration with stacking a government committee on childhood lead poisoning with industry scientists.
“Studies have found that scientists who have consulted for industry do not differ in their assessment of risks, of health risks, from scientists who have not consulted for industry.”
Lichter did not respond to The Intercept’s requests for comment or citations to these studies.
Before STATS was dissolved in 2014, and its web site adopted by Sense About Science USA, it received regular grants from free-market sources. Between 1998 and 2014, STATS received $4.5 million, 81 percent of its donations, from the Searle Freedom Trust, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, Donors Trust (a fund largely sustained by Charles Koch), and other right-wing foundations.
Searle, which describes its mission as promoting “economic liberties,” gave STATS $959,000 between 2010 and 2014.
Anti-regulatory foundations, including these, spent over half a billion dollars between 2003 and 2010 to;
“Manipulate and mislead the public over the nature of climate science and the threat posed by climate change,” according to a 2013 study by Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle.
A worker sprays foam before removing asbestos from a ceiling at Jussieu University in Paris, France, on March 25, 1999
With these roots Sense About Science should not surprise anyone when it promotes anti-regulatory voices on issues like asbestos. In a 2006 brochure called “Science for Celebrities” and purporting to correct misperceptions about synthetic chemicals, Sense About Science offers John Hoskins, a toxicologist formerly of the Medical Research Council Toxicology Unit at the University of Leicester.
Under the rubric “Toxic effects depend on dose,” Hoskins reassures us:
“Away from the high doses of occupational exposure a whole host of unwanted chemicals finds their way into our bodies. Most leave quickly but some stay: asbestos and silica in our lungs, dioxins in our blood. Do they matter? No!”
Since then, as countries continue to mine asbestos, industry groups have argued that certain varieties, including chrysotile and crocidolite, are not so toxic.
In response, several groups, including the Collegium Ramazzini, an international body of occupational and environmental health experts, have issued consensus statements warning that no form of asbestos is safe at any dose.
In calling for a universal ban on all forms of asbestos in 2010, the Collegium Ramazzini observed that the asbestos industry’s attacks on evidence that “irrefutably” links its product to cancer “closely resemble those used by the tobacco industry.”
Brown maintains that Sense About Science has not disagreed with the scientific consensus on asbestos, and she notes that dose and type of exposure are the issue. But when I asked Hoskins why his position differed from the scientific consensus, he shrugged over email, “Once upon a time the consensus was that the earth is flat.”
Hoskins further replied;
“Unfortunately, to say that within a population low-level exposure of many chemicals must be dangerous is not borne out by reality, much to the chagrin of those who live in the fantasy world of ‘chemical-free.’ ”
Hoskins’s résumé states that he has represented the Chrysotile Institute in “discussion with the governments of several countries.” But he did not disclose this relationship to the Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Public Health journal when he co-authored two scientific papers disputing claims that chrysotile or crocidolite caused a rare cancer in exposed populations.
When his industry ties came to light, the journal issued errata for bothpapers to disclose this competing interest.
(Hoskins denies any conflict of interest, insisting that his role in authoring the papers was confined to providing information the other authors requested. Yet all but one of the other authors had also failed to disclose their asbestos interests, which now appear in the errata.)
Soon after the first paper appeared, eight public health researchers wrote a letter to the editors of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Public Health expressing outrage that the journal would publish a paper with “gross mistakes” and “no scientific content.”
But the journal’s editors declined to retract the papers, which remain in the technical literature, casting doubt on the scientific consensus that all forms of asbestos are hazardous to human health.
Flames threaten to jump a ridge that firefighting aircraft have painted red with fire retardant above Cajon Boulevard at the Blue Cut Fire on Aug. 18, 2016, near Wrightwood, California
It's hard to make a case for the safety of a substance like asbestos, which most people know causes cancer. Other commercial products are easier to defend, not because they are less hazardous, but because consumers are not as familiar with the evidence questioning their safety and utility.
Scientists have known since 1997 that flame retardants, for example, can cause cancer.
These brominated and chlorinated chemicals are used in a wide range of consumer products, including nursing pads and car seats. For more than three decades, studies in animals and humans have linked them to cancer, developmental delays, and other serious health problems.
By 2010, the evidence was so persuasive that nearly 150 scientists from 22 countries signed a statement warning that flame retardants “are a concern for persistence, bioaccumulation, long-range transport, and toxicity.” Flame retardants’ fire safety benefit not only remains unproven, the scientists asserted, but the chemicals form highly toxic byproducts when burned.
Sense About Science has long relied on dubious numbers to insist on the efficacy of these chemicals.
A European Commission press officer told me she knows of no such report.
“The reference to the 20 percent reduction in fire deaths is repeatedly quoted in papers and publications from flame retardant industries and associations, and they always refer to ‘Flame Retardants, DG Environment Video 2000,’ which we cannot find.”
On the contrary, she told me, it is simply “not possible to correlate fire deaths to non-flammability requirements.”
The same year, Sense About Science again called on John Hoskins, identified as an independent toxicologist, this time to fact-check a study that found potentially carcinogenic flame retardants in sofas. In his response, Hoskins wrote: “The bottom line is that danger of fire is many, many times greater than any imagined danger from chemicals used to prevent it.”
“Everything I wrote about flame retardants was taken from published works,” Hoskins told me.
“Reviewers at the time found nothing to criticize and I have had no comment from the thousands of people who must have read the pieces.”
Sense About Science reprinted its guide on chemicals in 2014. “The trade-off between fire risk and toxicology is changing, and we represented that newer precautionary thinking in our most recent publications,” Brown, the group’s director, told The Intercept in an email.
The new guide acknowledged “allegations of side effects” from flame retardants, including persistence in the environment and toxicity to humans and animals.
But it also retained the unsupported claim that regulations requiring the chemicals saved lives.
The guide even retained the text that countered concerns about traces of flame retardants found in children’s bodies by asserting that because the chemicals protected children from death or injury from fire;
“To fail to expose them to such chemicals could be regarded as negligent.”
Scientists who reviewed human studies had come to a different conclusion the year before. They warned that although such links were impossible to prove conclusively, the evidence suggested that children’s exposure to flame retardants could have serious health consequences, including neurobehavioral and developmental problems. The scientists called for regulatory oversight.
A scientist holds a flask containing bisphenol A, a chemical used to make plastics that numerous scientific studies have linked to developmental and reproductive disorders
Of all the controversial chemicals in the public eye, the one Trevor Butterworth, Sense About Science USA’s director, has most fervently defended is bisphenol A, a compound used to make plastics. BPA is found in hard plastics, the lining of canned drinks and foods, thermal receipts, and other consumer and industrial products, including cigarette filters.
Leading reproductive biologists released a consensus statement in 2007 warning that “the wide range of adverse effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals exposed both during development and in adulthood is a great cause for concern with regard to the potential for similar adverse effects in humans.”
Two years later, while working for STATS, Butterworth published a 27,000-word investigation sharply questioning the validity of the scientific studies and news reports about BPA’s health effects.
Butterworth’s central claim was that a handful of scientists, journalists, and environmental activist groups had ignored good science in a crusade to paint BPA as “the biological equivalent of global warming.”
These reporters, he claimed, relied on flawed studies by independent researchers and unfairly dismissed the industry-funded studies that found no harm.
But the independent studies were not, in fact, flawed. Regulators just didn’t consider them useful, because, like many such academic studies, they didn’t measure toxicity but tested hypotheses about how BPA could alter living systems.
BPA trade groups have long insisted that the substance is metabolized too quickly to cause harm.
Butterworth cites a 2009 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that measured BPA concentrations in newborns to make the same case. The study, he argues, “provides important evidence that infants - even those born prematurely - are able to detoxify BPA in the same way as adults.”
The CDC study he cited was designed to gauge exposure, not metabolism. BPA has been detected in the urine of nearly every American tested. Premature babies’ fragile systems make them particularly vulnerable to environmental contaminants.
The researchers suspected that the use of plastic medical devices in neonatal intensive care units might expose premature infants to higher than average levels of BPA. And that’s exactly what they found: Average BPA concentrations in hospitalized premature babies were about 10 times higher than those measured in adults.
The authors noted that although premature babies appear to have some ability to metabolize BPA, their detoxification pathways “are not expected to be functional at adult rates until months after birth.”
Butterworth ended his critique of what he called “the BPA is dangerous thesis” by suggesting that banning the chemical could result in greater harm:
“What if some parents who turned to glass bottles for fear of … ‘leaching’ BPA drop and break them, causing injury to their babies?”
Reached by email for comment, Butterworth did not account for his questionable characterization of the CDC study. He said that his critique relied on the work of scientists from regulatory agencies involved in risk assessment, and that these scientists had criticized smaller studies that claimed adverse effects.
He maintained that studies assessing the effects of low doses of BPA are inconsistent and unlikely to capture significant results because of methodological and statistical problems.
The year after Butterworth’s 2009 investigation, the anti-regulatory Donors Trust awarded STATS $86,000 for its “research efforts,” and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which belongs to the BPA Joint Trade Association, gave Lichter’s Center for Media and Public Affairs $10,000 for “research support.”
That year Coca-Cola gave more than $30,000 to Butterworth’s future partner, Sense About Science, which hosted a BPA forum the next year. (Since then, Sense About Science has not received corporate donations, which “represented less than 3 percent of our income,” Brown wrote in an email.)
In the forum, a Q&A on social media, Sense About Science put forward a representative of the British Plastics Federation and a toxicologist whose longstanding ties to the chemical industry the organization did not disclose. Participants were assured that BPA posed no risk to human health.
Sales staff exhale vapor while demonstrating their electronic cigarette products at the Vape China Expo at the China International Exhibition Center in Beijing on July 23, 2015
The tobacco industry pioneered tactics to fight regulations by manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that cigarettes kill. So it should be no surprise to encounter a strategy among defenders of the e-cigarette that also centers around doubt. If we don’t know for certain that a product is safe, we might urge caution.
Sense About Science has argued the opposite: so long as we don’t know the product is unsafe, medical professionals have no business urging regulation.
E-cigarettes turn chemical solutions into a nicotine-filled mist, which consumers ingest without the added harm of tobacco tar.
E-cigarettes are too new for scientists to have assessed their long-term health risks. British and American scientific bodies have reacted to this paucity of evidence with different views of the relative dangers.
Last year, Public Health England joined other British public health organizations in encouraging smokers to use e-cigarettes as an aid in quitting tobacco. The Royal College of Physicians effectively endorsed this view in April, when it argued against regulating a product that could help smokers quit.
But American public health officials worry that nicotine, which is as addictive as heroin and cocaine, will hook young smokers and cause lasting harm to their still-developing brains. Nicotine is linked to immunosuppression as well as cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal disorders.
There is evidence that it interferes with chemotherapies and may even play a role in cancer. Researchers are just beginning to study whether the more than 7,000 flavoring chemicals, which typically aren’t disclosed on e-cigarettes, are safe when inhaled.
“Ensure their use does not undermine smoking prevention and cessation by reinforcing the normalcy of cigarette use.”
BMA reaffirmed this judgment as recently as this past June, despite the opposing position of the Royal College of Physicians. Sense About Science reacted to BMA’s call for a ban by asking the association to produce evidence that e-cigarettes caused harm.
“This move towards heavy regulation appears to be driven by the fear that e-cigs might be harmful or act as a gateway to conventional tobacco - despite little or no evidence for either claim,” the organization argued on its website in 2013, two years before Public Health England endorsed e-cigarettes as a tool to quit smoking.
Such regulations, Sense About Science stated, could do more harm than good by inhibiting access to products that may help reduce harm from smoking tobacco cigarettes.
Although Sense About Science has demanded evidence that e-cigarettes cause harm, it seems poised to cast doubt on the evidence when it turns up. In August, the organization challenged the relevance of research presented that month at a cardiology conference showing that nicotine in e-cigarettes can stiffen arteries, an early indication of heart disease.
Sense About Science’s expert dismissively compared the effects of nicotine documented in the research to those of “watching a thriller or a football match.”
In the United States, just this past May, the Food and Drug Administration moved to regulate e-cigarettes, including banning sales to those 18 and under. The CDC, too, takes the health risks of nicotine seriously. Last fall, the centers called for strategies to reduce the use of all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes.
“The potential long-term benefits and risks associated with e-cigarette use are not currently known,” the CDC reported. “What is known is that nicotine exposure at a young age may cause lasting harm to brain development, promote nicotine addiction, and lead to sustained tobacco use.”
David Koch, executive vice president of chemical technology for Koch Industries, listens as U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, not pictured, speaks to the Economic Club of New York on Nov. 20, 2012
Having established itself as a credible voice in debates about science and industrial regulation in the United States and Britain, Sense About Science has set out for what may prove to be its most challenging assignment.
In July, following Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, Sense About Science established an EU branch in Brussels, the headquarters of the European Commission, which has placed tighter restrictions on e-cigarettes, chemicals, and other potentially risky consumer goods than the United States has mustered.
Both Sense About Science and Sense About Science USA undertake some initiatives that serve the public interest. But the founder of the British organization worked with the architects of the tobacco industry’s disinformation strategy, and both groups have been known to promote science that favors private interests over public health.
When an organization claims to serve as a neutral arbiter in high-stakes debates about science, it pays to do what Sense About Science does: ask for the evidence.
Do You Really Understand The Health Risks From Microwave Technology? + The Health Effects Of Microwave Radiation Spelled Out November 19 2016 | From: ActivistPost / EnergyFanatics / Various
One of the most definitive, expansive and inclusive peer-reviewed papers I’ve ever read on any subject was published July 25, 2016 online at Electronic Physician as an “open access article” that I sincerely hope everyone in the media and healthcare industries will take extremely seriously.
Especially those who are promoting more and more ‘smart’ appliances and devices that transmit electromagnetic frequencies and radiofrequencies - microwaves, which damage human health more than we are being told by government health agencies at all levels (local, state and national), manufacturers, employers and school districts that even mandate their uses as “new technologies” to learn and to implement.
New technologies are fine IF and WHEN they take into consideration and implement safeguards for human health, which is not the case with microwave technology, but has been the "dream warfare" technology for the United States military and other governments, so anything goes, including our being bombarded with so much microwaves, we now are experiencing more adverse health effects attributed to what's scientifically termed "Non-thermal Adverse Health Effects."
The U.S. military has had a GREAT interest in keeping microwave safety standards higher than they should be and not as applicable as the science demands.
Dr Magda Havas, PhD, Environmental & Resource Studies, 1600 West Bank Drive, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada, K9J 7B8 on her website published the following incriminating unclassified U.S. Army documents information as to why microwaves are not safe, nor made safer, due to U.S. military involvement with its electronic warfare techniques, which harm everything.
There are two disturbing paragraphs in the document "Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (Radiowaves and Microwaves) - Eurasian Communist Countries (U)". Prepared by U.S. Army Medical Intelligence and Information Agency Office of the Surgeon General and released by the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Adams, R.L. and R.A. Williams. 1976. 34 pp. Unclassified, which clearly indicate the U.S. military's perspective opposing more stringent guidelines for microwave radiation.
No. 1:"If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military function.
The Eurasian Communist countries could, on the other hand, give lip service to strict standards, but allow their military to operate without restriction and thereby gain the advantage in electronic warfare techniques and the development of antipersonnel applications." [Page vii]
No. 2:"Should subsequent research result in adoption of the Soviet standard by other countries, industries whose practices are based on less stringent safety regulations, could be required to make costly modifications in order to protect workers.
Recognition of the 0.01 mW/cm2 standard could also limit the application of new technology by making the commercial exploitation of some products unattractive because of increased cost, imposed by the need for additional safeguards." [Page 24]
Below is the copy and paste job of the Introduction from A review on Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and the reproductive system, which I hope my readers will take seriously and also take necessary steps to protect yourselves, your children, your pets and your home environment.
This is SERIOUS stuff no one is taking as seriously as we ALL should. Those ‘smart’ gadgets’ just may be making you more sick than you can imagine. With 61 References, I think the Electronic Physician article needs to be taken seriously with revisions made to EMF/RF standards by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reflect them.
"People in the modern world frequently are exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Human exposure to EMFs comes from many sources, and situations are different in people's everyday lives.
EMFs emanate from power lines, computer devices, televisions, radios, and telephones. There are many factors that influence the degree to which people may be affected by EMFs. For example, body weight, body-mass index, bone density, and the levels of water and electrolytes can alter the conductivity of and biological reactivity to EMFs (1, 2).
Therefore, the effects of this environmental pollution can depend on gender, tissue density of the body, the period of life, and the exposure levels to EMFs.
Beginning in 1960 when the biological hazards caused by EMFs first were studied, human health became an important focus in the workplace and at home (3).
Although, the biological effects of EMFs are still controversial, in general, the negative effects should not be ignored.
Currently, people are exposed to various types of EMFs, which are non-ionic radiation that cannot release electrons.
They are energy in the form of oscillating electric and magnetic fields that are transformed from one point to another. Many forms of physical energy, such as X-rays, UV light, and sunlight produce EMFs (4).
There are several references that classify EMFs, but, in general, they can be considered to consist of four different types. The first type of EMFs refers to extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs, which are EMFs that are below 300 HZ, and they are produced by military equipment and railroads.
The second type, known as intermediate frequency (IF) EMFs, have frequencies in the range of 300 Hz to 10 MHZ, and they are produced by industrial cables and electrical equipment in homes, such as televisions and computer monitors.
The third type is hyper frequency (HF) EMFs that have frequencies in the range of 10 MHz to 3000 GHz and are produced by mobile phones and radio broadcasting. Radio frequencies (RFs) also are a part of this category, which has frequencies up to 100 MHz (4).
There are also static EMFs that are produced by MRI and geomagnetism and have specified with zero frequency (3).
In 1979, Wertheimer and Looper showed that there is a direct relationship between EMFs and the increased incidence of leukemia in infants (5).
If the body's biological system is exposed to EMFs, which produce electric currents and fields, which, in fact, deal with the current and voltage, the normal physiological balance is upset.
If the density of the electric current increases to the stimulation threshold, membrane depolarization of the nerves and muscles may result. Electric and magnetic fields at environmental levels may extend the lifetime of free radicals and result in damage to people's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) (6).
Some epidemiological studies have been done in various populations, but most have been done in laboratory animals and cell lines (4).
The biological effects of EMFs generally can be divided into thermal and non-thermal effects (7). Thermal effects are defined as the heat generated by EMFs in a specific area.
The non-thermal effects depend on the absorption of energy and changes in the behavior of tissues without producing heat. EMFs have high penetration power, and they are capable of moving charged particles, such as the electrons and ions of large macromolecules and polymers (7).
So EMFs can have devastating effects on tissue with high concentrations of electrons and ions.
EMFs that cause changes in the behavior of cells (8) and tissues alter the function of the cardiovascular system (9) and bone marrow (7).
Electromagnetic fields can have several different effects on cellular components (10), including disorders of cell proliferation and differentiation (10), damaged DNA in cells, chromosomal abnormalities (11), blood disorders (9), birth defects (12), and various mutations, including those associated with long-term exposure to EMFs.
Under the influence of these fields, the balance of the CNS and the hormonal and respiratory systems become weak, resulting in decreased activity of the mentioned organs (13, 14).
Research on the effects of EMFs on the endocrine system has focused mostly on melatonin and the derived tryptophan produced by the pineal gland (15).
Most of the harmful effects of EMFs act through the protein synthesis process (16, 17). In this regard, enzymes, due to their combination of amino acids, are affected, and their catalytic activity is decreased (4).
Studies concerning the cytotoxicicity and genotoxicity effects of EMFs mostly have focused on fibroblasts, melanocytes, lymphocytes, monocytes, and muscular cells in people and on the granolosa cells of rats (18).
A declassified 1976 Defense Intelligence Agency report showed that military personnel exposed to non-thermal microwave radiation experienced "headaches, fatigue, dizziness, irritability, sleeplessness, depression, anxiety, forgetfulness, and a lack of concentration (19).
A 2015 study showed that 2.4 GHz WiFi may be one of the major risk factors for brain tumors and other neurodegenerative diseases (20). Another 2015 paper showed that polarized EMF (man-made) was much more active biologically than non-polarized EMF (21).
Another paper showed that rabbits experienced heart arrhythmia and increased blood pressure when exposed to 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi (22). A long-term study conducted by Lennart Hardell, a Swedish scientist, on glioma and acoustic neuroma brain tumors showed that RF is carcinogenic.
The scientist called for RF to be labeled an IARC Class 1 Carcinogen and recommended urgent revision to safety guidelines (23). A 2011 study by Nora Volkow showed that radiation from cell phones, in areas next to the antenna, increased the metabolism of glucose in the brain.
Increased metabolism of glucose is associated with cancer. The study showed that biological changes occur at levels lower than the current FCC guidelines (24)."
The Health Effects Of Microwave Radiation Spelled Out
On 14 July 2016 the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) of the USA made space available in the radio spectrum for consumer devices to operate within the 25 GHz to 100 GHz of the electromagnetic spectrum. It went on to say:
"The Commission has struck a balance between new wireless services, current and future fixed satellite service operations, and federal uses. The item adopts effective sharing schemes to ensure that diverse users – including federal and non-federal, satellite and terrestrial, and fixed and mobile – can co-exist and expand.”
Nowhere in its document is mention made of consumer safety or well-being. I guess that is fair of the FCC because historically, it is not interested in matters of microwave radiation and consequent thermal and non-thermal effects on the population. Let’s face it, and most people find this hard to believe, the FCC works purely on behalf of the telecoms industries in granting them access to the airwaves, no more and no less.
Industry was very happy to hear the FCC announcement on granting access of large portions of the radio spectrum for yet more of its toys and other consumer devices.
Qualcomm for example talks much about ‘the massive internet of things’, yet nowhere on its 5G musings is mention made of consumer safety or well-being.
That ‘pink elephant’ in the living room regarding safety brings me to the point of this article. The FCC and the telecomms industry rub their hands with glee because lots of money is going to be made as 5G devices rollout yet no recent safety studies have been carried out on consumer safety.
No doubt both the FCC and industry will point regulators to the old, out-dated and one-dimensional so-called ‘safety studies’ (thermal effects) produced by the ICNIRP.
This private organisation is comprised of people and individuals who work in the telecommunications industries with no background in epidemiology, toxicology, radio frequency safety or medical practice.
The implications of 5G on consumer well-being and safety do not look good for one reason: devices that will operate within the 5G electromagnetic spectrum will use antennas that are physically small i.e. from a few millimetres to a centimetre in length.
This means that industry will produce a variety of different antenna systems to do different things.
The weird fact of operating within this very high frequency range is that signals are mostly line of sight or they are easily reflected, refracted or ‘lost’ within the differing build composition of urban environment structures.
In other words, without careful antenna design and recognition of many of the pitfalls trying to propagate microwave signals within urban environments, the signal can be easily degraded or completely lost.
In response to these challenges, the advantages in using very small physical size antennas in the millimetre wavelength is you can feed many antennas in various configuration arrays e.g. vertical or horizontal arays, waveguide, coned or highly directional beam type designs.
These types of antenna designs focus most of the transmitted power into specified directions.
This is bad news for consumers because these very small physical size antennas will pack a mighty punch to our biological systems if we step i