The Illuminati's idea of Population Control falls into two broad categories:
1. Limiting the size of human societies and monitoring/controlling the movement of individuals within that society, and
2. Intentionally reducing the bulk of the world's population through GENOCIDE via the introduction of population slaughter, orchestrated conflicts, and lethal bioengineered disease organisms introduced via vaccines and other means of external transmission.
"Eugenics" is a term coined in the latter part of the 19th century by Englishmen Francis Galton to describe the "science" of bettering human stock and the elimination of unwanted characteristics... and individuals.
Galton proposed societal intervention for the furtherance of "racial quality," maintaining that "Jews are specialized for a parasitical existence upon other nations" and that "except by sterilization I cannot yet see any way of checking the produce of the unfit who are allowed their liberty and are below the reach of moral control."
The Illuminati's idea of Population Control falls into two broad categories:
1.Limiting the size of human societies and monitoring / controlling the movement of individuals within that society, and
2. Intentionally reducing the bulk of the world's population through GENOCIDE via the introduction of population slaughter, orchestrated conflicts, and lethal bioengineered disease organisms introduced via vaccines and other means of external transmission.
“The very word eugenics is in disrepute in some quarters ... We must ask ourselves, what have we done wrong?
I think we have failed to take into account a trait which is almost universal and is very deep in human nature.
People simply are not willing to accept the idea that the genetic base on which their character was formed is inferior and should not be repeated in the next generation.
We have asked whole groups of people to accept this idea and we have asked individuals to accept it. They have constantly refused and we have all but killed the eugenic movement ... they won't accept the idea that they are in general second rate. We must rely on other motivation. ... it is surely possible to build a system of voluntary unconscious selection.
But the reasons advanced must be generally acceptable reasons. Let's stop telling anyone that they have a generally inferior genetic quality, for they will never agree. Let's base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted.”
- From Galton and Mid Century Eugenics by Frederick Osborn, Galton Lecture 1956, in Eugenics Review, vol. 48, 1, 1956
A survey of eugenics in action begins with isolated incidents such as the sterilization of the mentally ill by American health officials in the late 1800's and the castration of children at the Pennsylvania Training School for Feebleminded Children in 1889. The movement quickly picked up momentum.
Formerly established as a study at University College in London in 1904, the first laboratory for the study of the subject was constructed by Charles B. Davenport at Cold Springs Harbor on Long Island (which, perhaps significantly, was also the location of the estates of both Dulles brothers, as well as the current headquarters of the Human Genome Organization for DNA mapping).
The institute was funded in excess of $11 million by the Harrimans and Rockefellers.
Supported in America by the Eastern Establishment, eugenics was nurtured in the hotbeds of Round Table-influenced philosophy, at Harvard, Columbia, and Cornell. The subject was popularized in Germany by Ernst Haeckel, who linked romantic German nature mysticism and the unity of the Volk with clinical bio-policies later instituted by Hitler.
Haeckel believed that there was no unity among the species of mankind, since:
"The morphological differences between two generally recognized species - for example sheep and goats - are much less important than those... between a Hottentot and a man of the Teutonic race."
In the Aryan race Haeckel saw a "symmetry of all parts, and that equal development, which we call the perfect human beauty."
He also believed the "wooly-haired" peoples "incapable of true inner culture or of a higher mental development... no wooly-haired nation has ever had an important history."
Haeckel felt the purpose of the nation state was to enforce selective breeding, praising the practices of the Spartans who killed all but "perfectly healthy and strong children" and thus were "continually in excellent strength and vigor."
In 1906 a group of Haeckel's academic followers formed the influential Monist League, agitating for a German government patterned along social Darwinian lines.
By 1907 in America, Indiana passed compulsory sterilization for the mentally ill and other "undesirables," while 475 males received vasectomies at the Indiana State Reformatory.
In 1912 the First International Congress of Eugenics was held in London, including among its directors Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Charles Elliot (President emeritus of Harvard University), and David Starr Jordan (President of Stanford University).
The National Conference on Race Betterment was convened in United States in 1914, while by 1917 fifteen American states had eugenics laws on the books, almost all of them legalizing the sterilization of habitual criminals, epileptics, the insane, and the retarded.
H.H. Laughlin, the Expert Eugenics Agent of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Immigration and Naturalization presented a Model Sterilization Law in 1922. This was to provide the basis for many state eugenics laws, as well as for eugenics law in Nazi Germany.
In 1928 the American Eugenics Society sponsored a contest for essays on the caused of decline in Nordic fertility, while Dr. Robie, at the Third International Congress of Eugenics, called for the sterilization of 14,000,000 Americans with low intelligence scores.
“[Sterilization could] be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types.”
The Nazi Party in Germany passed in 1933 the "Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseases in Posterity," also known as the "Sterilization Law," written by professor Ernst Rudin, one of the country's leading psychiatrists. "Heredity Health Courts" were formed, and within three years two hundred and twenty-five thousand German "undesirables" had been sterilized.
Hitler's policies have been characterized as "a rather straightforward form of German social Darwinism." Far from being original with him, his policies were expansions upon already-extant political and scientific culture.
By 1939 German policies had evolved to include euthanasia upon asylum inmates while eugenics concepts were implemented to the fullest in Nazi concentration camps during World War II.
In 1942, U.S. psychiatrist Foster Kennedy recommended the killing of retarded children. During the three year period between 1941-1943 over 42,000 people were sterilized in America.
After World War II the idea of "eugenics" was tainted in the public by its association with Nazism. The term was discarded and a facelift was performed on its parent study psychiatry, which resulted in the establishment of the World Federation of Mental Health (WFMH).
Since then, this group has continued to support electroshock, lobotomization, mind control and other activities already detailed, as well as employing within its ranks many German practitioners who had been happy to further Hitlerian goals during the Second World War.
What this brief survey shows is something the popular press has chosen to ignore: eugenics programs were not the inventions of mad Nazi scientists, but that the political climate of Germany allowed a full implementation of programs part and parcel of international psychiatry and medicine. Eugenics, from its beginning, was encouraged and financed by the rich self-styled "aristocrats" of the day.
These groups influenced a change in U.S. policies specifically during 1966-67, when population control was adopted by the State Department as a stated goal.
The recent world depopulation push retains the flavor of eugenics bio-policy of the first half of this century in the statements of advocates such as the Eastern Establishment's Sergeant Shriver, speaking before the Congressional Select Committee on Population in 1978:
"...this Committee's interest [is] in improving the quality of life and enhancing the biological product of this society; rather than just controlling or limiting birds."
Jaffe and Dryfoos of the federally-funded Guttmacher Institute have stated that, "With the overall decline in fertility in the United States, concern has shifted from numbers of births to insuring that those children being born have fewer physical, social and economic handicaps."
It is odd that little mention of "the overall decline in fertility" finds its way into Rockefeller-subsidized literature of depopulation activists. Nor was the fact that teenage pregnancy was at its lowest ebb in forty years brought up when federally mandated family planning and sex education in schools was enacted in 1978.
Studies have shown that sex education classes increase early sexual experimentation while doing nothing to reduce adolescent pregnancy. It has also been demonstrated that when such classes are discontinued, as in Utah in 1980, the incidence of teenage pregnancy decreases.
Still, officials insist sex classes should extend from "kindergarten throughout a person's educational career."
Why? Originators and administrators of the programs candidly admit that their agenda includes depopulation and eugenics.
Lester Kirkendall, a founder of the Sex Information and Education Council, wrote in 1965 that;
“Sex education is... clearly tied in a socially significant way to family planning and population limitation and policy..."
Dr. Jane Hodgson, at the National Abortion Federation conference in 1980, was even more forthright, calling for compulsory abortion for pregnant teenagers.
The methods of sex education programs in public schools vary, but uniformly emphasize the huge expense and drawbacks of having kids, providing summaries of methods of contraception, serialization, and abortion. Students are often taken on tours of birth control clinics, where they meet the staff, fill out patients' forms, and are assured of the confidentiality of services. Children are also recruited as depopulation activists with pitches informing them, as in widely-used text Meeting Yourself Halfway:
“The population problem is very serious and involves every country on this planet. What steps would you encourage to help resolve the problem?
...volunteer to organize birth-control information centers throughout the country;
...join a pro-abortion lobbying group;
...encourage the limitation of two children per family and have the parents sterilized to prevent further births.”
Much of the sex education literature portrays the nuclear family – long a cohesive political and social glue among the populace – as obsolete and statistically insignificant, while the normalcy of homosexuality and bachelorism ("Playboyism") is stressed.
Children are encouraged to report in detail on conditions at home, to report parental shortcomings, and to divulge disagreements they have with their parents, opening the door to intervention by "social services."
Davis in Economic Development and Cultural Change says that an effective strategy in lowering the birth rate is to:
“Lessen ... the identity of children with parents, or lessen... the likelihood that this identity will be satisfying,"
adding that certain trends that might bring population levels down are "very high divorce rates, homosexuality, pornography and free sexual unions..."
Davis sees a positive note in "the child welfare services, which have increasingly tended to displace the father as a necessary member of the family, and the health services which have increasingly flouted parental authority with respect to contraception and abortion."
This "flouting of parental authority" is a familiar theme in sex education classes, which repeatedly emphasize the child's independence from their parents and their ability to make decisions for themselves.
The message to children, provided by proponents of sex education without the courtesy of having the parents agree upon it, is obvious; the world is awash in excess poor population, and something has to be done about it in a hurry, starting at the nearest abortion clinic.
Educator John Taylor Gatto, voted New York's Top Teacher of 1991, further comments on the mechanisms:
“Social machinery to suppress proliferation of systematic families... has two components:
One, a campaign aimed at family-formation before it commences, employing such tactics as encouragement of personal greed (best enjoyed in bachelor style, of course), public pornographic celebrations of the body parts of nubile young woman, effortless divorce, mass adoption, tolerance of sexual ambiguity, and many similar tactics.
The second component aims at producing pseudo-families: small households (whether biological or synthetic) without any overriding loyalty to the common family cause.
Instead, these are associations of expedience wearing the costume of affection and concern, but always on the lookout for a better deal...
During the childhood phase, parents in pseudo-families are made use of by the state to transmit certain values, to maintain and discipline a new serf class composed of their own children, and to report radical cases of deviance to medical, police and re-training authorities...
It is a system infused in many places with such black genius in understanding crowd control it is hard not to stand in awe of its unseen architects.”
Target populations for sterilization in the United States bear noting. According to Michael Garrity in Trilateralism, edited by Holly Sklar, American Indian women are being sterilized unbeknownst to them or against their wishes in public health clinics nationwide. Garrity also maintains, "Full blooded Indian woman are the special target of the doctors."
Ruthann Evannoff, in "Reproductive Rights and Occupational Health" in WIN, has said that;
“Overall, at least 25 percent of the Native American women of childbearing age have been sterilized, although the total population numbers less than one million. Recent reports estimate that the percentage sterilized in one tribe alone, the Northern Cheyenne, is close to 80 percent."
The secret (now declassified) paper NSSM 200, "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests," also known as the Scowcroft Document (authored by the CFR's Brent Scowcroft), gives insight into U.S. government plans for population reduction internationally, linking these plans to goals that have very little to do with alleviating human suffering, and everything to do with the maximization of profit.
Prepared in 1974 for the National Security Council (and remember, this is a government document, although one not likely to be offered for free in late night Public Service Announcements) NSSm 200 proposes means for the reduction of worldwide population by "concentration on key [i.e. Third World] countries," with the stated goal of reduction of population growth rate from an annual 2 percent growth to 1.7 percent.
While this might sound like an altruistic goal proposed by clear-sighted social stewards, intended to reduce suffering in countries with marginal standards of living, the study makes it clear that government interest in depopulation has nothing to do with concern for living standards in developing countries. It is because:
"The United States has become increasingly dependent on mineral imports from developing countries" and
"endemic famine, food riots, and breakdown of social order... are scarcely inducive to systematic exploration for mineral deposits or the long-term investments necessary for their exploration."
Note that the breakdown of "social order" referred to consists of the populace revolting against their living conditions.
One of the conclusions of the study is that "mandatory [emphasis added] population control measures" may be "appropriate."
Speaking of depopulation programs currently being implemented in the Third World, former Brazilian health minister Carlos Santana said;
"The World Bank, through their reports of its Presidents, has always made its proselytizing for a rigid birth control policy explicit,"
Santana reported that included in World Bank credit packages and investment in Third World countries is an implicit agenda of depopulation, and questioned why Brazil was targeted for birth reduction,with approximately forty per cent of Brazilian woman having been already sterilized.
What the depopulators omit saying is that in Brazil most of the depopulation programs are being directed toward the native population, and that they are implementing an alternative program to the pistoleiros hired to attack small landowning families, appropriating the land for the use of large cash-croppers and the international conglomerates that are stripping the country bare.
Depopulation programs run worldwide are directed and funded by major international money interests, including McGeorge Bundy of the CFR, the architect of nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction policy; Warren E. Buffet, the second wealthiest man in the United States; and, ubiquitous when it comes to eugenics funding, the Rockefellers.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America and International Planned Parenthood Federation are Buffett-funded and run a huge abortion and sterilization network worldwide, with one subsidiary, the Brazilian Society for Family Welfare, having over 2,500 outlets in that country.
Bill Gates, Monsanto, and Eugenics: How one of the World's Wealthiest Men is Actively Promoting a Corporate Takeover of Global Agriculture February 20 2012 | NaturalNews
After it was exposed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the philanthropic brainchild of Microsoft founder Bill Gates, purchased 500,000 shares in Monsanto back in 2010 valued at more than $23 million, it became abundantly clear that this so-called benevolent charity is up to something other than eradicating disease and feeding the world's poor. It turns out that the Gates family legacy has long been one of trying to dominate and control the world's systems, including in the areas of technology, medicine, and now agriculture.
The Gates Foundation, aka the tax-exempt Gates Family Trust, is currently in the process of spending billions of dollars in the name of humanitarianism to establish a global food monopoly dominated by genetically-modified (GM) crops and seeds.
And based on the Gates family's history of involvement in world affairs, it appears that one of its main goals besides simply establishing corporate control of the world's food supply is to reduce the world's population by a significant amount in the process.
William H. Gates Sr., former head of eugenics group Planned Parenthood
Bill Gates' father, William H. Gates Sr., has long been involved with the eugenics group Planned Parenthood, a rebranded organization birthed out of the American Eugenics Society.
Gates also admitted during the interview that his family's involvement in reproductive issues throughout the years has been extensive, referencing his own prior adherence to the beliefs of eugenicist Thomas Robert Malthus, who believed that populations of the world need to be controlled through reproductive restrictions.
Though Gates claims he now holds a different view, it appears as though his foundation's initiatives are just a modified Malthusian approach that much more discreetly reduces populations through vaccines and GMOs.
Gates Foundation has invested heavily in converting Asian, African agricultural systems to GMOs
William Gates Sr.'s association with Planned Parenthood and continued influence in the realm of "population and reproductive health" is significant because Gates Sr. is co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This long-time eugenicist "guides the vision and strategic direction" of the Gates Foundation, which is currently heavily focused on forcing GMOs on Africa via its financing of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).
The same report explains that the Gates Foundation pledged $880 million in April 2010 to create the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), which is a heavy promoter of GMOs. GAFSP, of course, was responsible for providing $35 million in "aid" to earthquake-shattered Haiti to be used for implementing GMO agricultural systems and technologies.
Back in 2003, the Gates Foundation invested $25 million in "GM (genetically modified) research to develop vitamin and protein-enriched seeds for the world's poor," a move that many international charities and farmers groups vehemently opposed. And in 2008, the Gates Foundation awarded $26.8 million to Cornell University to research GM wheat, which is the next major food crop in the crosshairs of Monsanto's GM food crop pipeline.
If you control agriculture, you control the populations of the world
The Gates Foundation's ties with Monsanto and corporate agriculture in general speak volumes about its real agenda, which is to create a monopolistic system of world control in every area of human life. Vaccines, pharmaceuticals, GMOs, reproductive control, weather manipulation, global warming - these and many other points of entry are the means by which the Gates Foundation is making great strides to control the world by pretending to help improve and save it.
Rather than promote real food sovereignty and address the underlying political and economic issues that breed poverty, Gates and Co. has instead embraced the promotion of corporately-owned and controlled agriculture and medicine paradigms that will only further enslave the world's most impoverished. It is abundantly evident that GMOs have ravished already-impoverished people groups by destroying their native agricultural systems, as has been seen in India.
Some may say Gates' endeavors are all about the money, while others may say they are about power and control. Perhaps it is a combination of both, where Gates is still in the business of promoting his own commercial investments, which includes buying shares in Monsanto while simultaneously investing in programs to promote Monsanto.
Whatever the case may be, there is simply no denying that Gates now has a direct interest in seeing Monsanto succeed in spreading GMOs around the world. And since Gates is openly facilitating Monsanto's growth into new markets through his "humanitarian" efforts, it is clear that the Gates family is in bed with Monsanto.
"The World Bank, through their reports of its Presidents, has always made its proselytizing for a rigid birth control policy explicit,"
"Although Bill Gates might try to say that the Foundation is not linked to his business, all it proves is the opposite:
Most of their donations end up favoring the commercial investments of the tycoon, not really "donating" anything, but instead of paying taxes to state coffers, he invests his profits in where it is favorable to him economically, including propaganda from their supposed good intentions,"
wrote Silvia Ribeiro in the Mexican news source La Jornada back in 2010.
"On the contrary, their 'donations' finance projects as destructive as geoengineering or replacement of natural community medicines for high-tech patented medicines in the poorest areas of the world ...
Gates is also engaged in trying to destroy rural farming worldwide, mainly through the 'Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa' (AGRA).
It works as a Trojan horse to deprive poor African farmers of their traditional seeds, replacing them with the seeds of their companies first, finally by genetically modified (GM)."
While, at first glance depopulation programs may seem like a good idea to promote the reduction of mouths-to-feed worldwide, what they ignore are the root causes of overpopulation. High birth rates are the direct result of poor living standards of he areas, and in countries where malnutrition has been reduced and the incidence of child-death lowered, birth rates have also lessened.
The Third World (in particular) is being forcefully relieved of natural resources and exploited for cheap labor, and is in fact no doubt seen by elite landowners and major corporations as only maintaining maximum profitability as long as it is kept in abject poverty.
"The strategy of underdevelopment" is the term used by agriculture economist Harry Cleaver. Rather than offering the people in rich countries such as Brazil, in actuality one of the richest countries in the world, an equitable portion of profits made through the use of their resources, they are manipulated (when not killed outright) and kept at the razor edge between starvation and profitability.
Depopulation organizations propagandize that we are experiencing a crisis of epic proportions; that the world is reaching the point where it can no longer support the number of people living on it. In many instances population may in fact be economically beneficial, and tending to a long-term increase of arable land and per capita (rather than per corporation) income.
"No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child… without a permit for parenthood."
- Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) in her proposed The American Baby Code, intended to become law.
Also noted is a current usage of approximately three-tenths of one percent of the planet's surface for human habitation, an amount sustainable with no limit to growth on sight.
United Nations and U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics show that world food production has increased more rapidly than population growth in recent years, while Colin Clark, former director of the Agriculture Economic Institute of Oxford University has stated that farmers could currently support seven times the current population of the Earth, or twenty-one times the current population at Japanese standards of food consumption.
Roger Revelle, former director of the Harvard Center for Population Studies estimates that current agricultural resources could provide an adequate diet for eight times the current populace, i.e. forty billion individuals, and has estimated that Africa is capable of feeding ten times its current population. Revelle quotes Dr. David Hopper, another agricultural expert:
"The world's food problem does not arise from any physical limitation on potential output or any danger of unduly stressing the environment. The limitations on abundance are to be found in social and political structures of nations and in the economic relations among them. The unexploited global food resources are there, between Cancer and Capricorn. The successful husbandry of that resource depends on the will and actions of men."
Hopper pronounces "world fascism" very politely.
Francis Moore Lappe of the Institute for Food and Development Policy maintains:
"If the cause of hunger is neither scarcity of food, nor scarcity of land, we've come to see that it's a scarcity of democracy. That may sound rather contrived, because in the West we tend to think of democracy as a political concept.
But democracy is really a principle of accountability; in other words, those making the decisions must be accountable to those who are affected by them.
Once we understand hunger as a scarcity of democracy, what we are saying is that from the village level to the level of international commerce, fewer and fewer people are making decisions, and more and more anti-democratic structures are being entrenched. This is the cause of hunger."
And, it should be repeated, the cause of overpopulation.
The Illuminati's idea of Population Control falls into two broad categories:
1. Limiting the size of human societies and monitoring/controlling the movement of individuals within that society, and
2. Intentionally reducing the bulk of the world's population through Genocide via the introduction of population slaughter, orchestrated conflicts, and lethal bioengineered disease organisms introduced via vaccines and other means of external transmission.
The Illuminati's current plan to reduce the world's population was set into motion at a 1957 symposium on future world development. The astonishing 'conclusion' of this seemingly benign symposium was that over-population and excessive exploitation of the environment would result in the self- destruction of the earth by the year 2,000 or shortly thereafter
(Note:Illuminti front organizations for New World Order propaganda, like Cornell University, continue to "illuminate" us, to this very day, with this over-population point of view).
President Eisenhower secretly commissioned a group of scholars, known as The JASON Society to review the conclusions of the '57 symposium. The members of the JASON Society are in fact part of a secretive Illuminati group known as the Order of the Quest. The same individuals who formed the JASON Society were also key members on the Council on Foreign Relations known as the Wise Men. (1)
Not surprisingly, the Jason Society agreed with the symposium's conclusions and drafted three proposals for Eisenhower's consideration. The three proposals were labeled Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. Eisenhower rejected Atlernative 1 because it involved the use of nuclear weapons. However, Eisenhower did approve the implementation of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 (as did the Soviet Union).
In order to preserve the 'best' of humanity when the supposed 'self-destruction' of the earth takes place around the year 2,000, the JASON Society proposed that a vast network of underground cities be built in order to secure living quarters for the chosen Illuminati elite, high level cooperative politicians, and selected military elements.
Underground cities are also co-habitated by extraterrestrial alien groups that the secret government has made treaties with for technology exchange and human-alien hybrid breeding programs. The idea of the earth 'self destructing' around the turn of the century due to overpopulation was perhaps an early cover story for the justification of the underground cities.
In the 1950's and 60's, the American public was led to believe that the contiuance of government, in the event of worldwide nuclear war, was a logical reason for undeground facilities, but we now know that the entire Soviet / American cold war and MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) scenario was an orchestrated Illuminati deception to bleed both Russian and American citizens of their wealth in order to finance black budget operations, secret technology developments, underground city construction, genetic engineering projects, time & space travel research, and anti-gravity, flying saucer spacecraft development.
Another possible reason may have to do with information that the Illuminati obtained from aliens in 1947, following the Roswell crash. The aliens may have warned the secret government of the inbound trajectory of a huge planet named Nibiru, causing earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, and earth movements of cataclysmic and Bibrical proportions.
The American public, kept in the dark about these inderground construction plans, would have to fend for themselves on the surface when the Bad Times came (it's also possible that the inbound Nibiru / cataclysm scenario is (was) a disinformation ploy ).
Based on 1989 information, it was claimed that there were at least75 underground cities in existence below the soil of America interconnected by high speed, frictionless trains called Maglev trains (Magnetic Levitation). The former Atomic Energy Commission had also constructed 22 seperate underground cities for their own use.
In 1995, Phil Schneider said that there were 129 underground cities and in May of 2001, Stewart Swerdlow, former mind controlled "Montauk Boy" , claimed that there now exists 133 underground cities in North America. Al Bielek also claims that there are many hundreds of underground cities and bases built worldwide]
Due to the access to certain alien technologies-including interplanetary space flights-which became available to the American government as a result of the Greada treaty signed by President Eisenhower and aliens in 1954, the JASON Society proposed that operational bases should be set up on the Moon and Mars - which would alsoprovide a safe sanctuary for the highest of the elites when the 'self-destruction' of the earth was going to take place a little after the turn of the new century.
Bases on the Moon and Mars have indeed been built and have been in operation since the late1950's.
All three Alternatives included recommendations for population "control". They included:
1. Birth control
2. Sterilization, and
3. The introduction of deadly microbes to reduce of otherwise slow the growth of the earth's population.
AIDS, Ebola, Gulf War Illness (GWI), and many other "new" diseases were intentionally bioengineered in laboratories that are mostly found in the United States and include the Army's secretive facilities at Ft. Detrick Maryland
Drs. Nancy and Garth Nicholson have done a great deal of research and investigation into the cause and treatment of Gulf War Illness, since they and their daughter (who was a helicopter flight nurse in the 1991 Gulf War) ALL came down with GWI. In 1996, the Nichols published a paper which states their deep suspicions that GWI is due to bioengineered pathogens and that a hidden population control agenda appears to be in place.
Some bioengineered pathogens were designed to target certain ethnic groups for elimination. These groups likely include blacks, hispanics, Black Africans, Native Americans, and homosexuals. The preferred Iluminati method to introduce disease is via vaccinations.
Dr. Len Horowitz firmly established in his 1995 book, Emerging Viruses, that the HIV virus which causes AIDS was introduced and spread throughout the majority of black populations in Africa via the World Health Organization (WHO) during their mandatory smallpox vaccine campaigns of 1976-1980.
The pathogens which produced Gulf War Illness were introduced to a limited number of Gulf War troops via "special" vaccinations (not recorded on the troop's official vaccination records) for Anthrax and other supposed dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.
It was a CIA test run to see how many Gulf troops would succumb to the disease and how quickly they might die off. The results have been somewhat disappointing for the CIA / Illuminati planners. They thought their new little bugs would wipe out a lot more people, a lot faster than it has.
Eventually, the US military has to be eliminated because they are seen as a threat by Illuminati planners when they kick in their plans to dissolve the United States and incorporate the former United States into the New, 10 Region States of America which will include Canada and Mexico.
Retired Army flight nurse Joyce Riley presented damning Department of Defense classified "Secret"documentation to an audience at the Granada Forum in Tarzana, CA on July 1, 1999 which supported the contention that the military intentionally innoculated Gulf War troops with the pathogens that eventually caused Gulf War Illness as part of an insideous program directed by the CIA called MK Ultra.
Domestically, the strategy is to make the public believe that bio attacks by foreign terrorists (like Osama bin Laden-who seems to be the government's latest incarnation of Hitler; he having replaced former title holders like Kadaffi, Hussein, and Milosevic for the honor) is inevitable and when it happens the government will say that they have tried to warn us all along.
A similar tactic is being used by the government to accilimate the public to the notion that these new, bugs are showing up everywhere-birds in New York, wild deer and antelope in national parks, etc. and that they are being spread by international travel, etc. (same set of lies they used when AIDS started showing up in 1983-85).
Starting in December of 1997, this administration of Illuminati puppets have been seeding stories into print and electronic outlets about the "growing fear" of Anthrax attack and the need to "protect" the troops. When it comes to the public, however, former CIA director John Deutch told CNN in July of '99 that the government wasn't prepared for that task, so further preparations need to be taken. I guess we're suppose to believe that the military's staging of mock battles in US cities is also part of the government's "protection" plans for us against those nasty foreign terrorists.
9-11 Attack of America
The staged and planned attacks of the World Trade Center and Pentagon buildings were deliberate acts orchestrated by Illuminati planners using naive arab dupes (the "terrorists") to pull off a suicide mission in which they were allowed, guided, and facilitated by hidden intelligence agents and operatives.
The dessimination of biowarfare agents in America to reduce population needed a convenient cover and the "terrorists" scenario provided it. I'm simply astonished at the gullibility of so many Americans in accepting this poorly covered up orchestration.
What do the SAT, the Kellogg Company, Woodrow Wilson and Adolf Hitler all have in common? They are all connected by the practice of eugenics in the first half of the 20th century.
From 1904 until shortly after the close of WWII, the United States aggressively engaged in a scientific quest to create a master race. This radical new science, dubbed “eugenics” by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, called for selective breeding between those deemed “fit” for existence (i.e. generally those of Nordic descent), with sterilization, marriage prohibition and even euthanasia aimed at those deemed “unfit.”
“Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly... Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who should never have been born.”
Based on an extreme view of social Darwinism, eugenics permeated the scientific and academic elite, securing funding through such notable organizations as the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation. The Supreme Court eventually came to sanction eugenic practices, and 27 U.S. states enacted incredibly racist laws enforcing its doctrines.
Overseeing these laws and heinous practices presided a virtual army of scientists and doctors steeped in the desire to eradicate anyone seen as a threat to society. These included immigrants flooding in from Europe, Native Americans, epileptics, alcoholics, Jews, Mexicans, Blacks, small-time crooks, the mentally ill, and even those unfortunate enough to be caught unemployed and homeless at the wrong time.
Spreading from Long Island to across the whole United States, from the Liberty Bell to the Golden Gate Bridge, eugenics wormed its way overseas to England and the whole of Europe before it ultimately landed, like a kind of lamp containing an evil genie, into the lap of Adolf Hitler.
Here are 33 disturbing but true facts about eugenics, a pseudoscientific belief that began in the cradle of the land of liberty and ended in the clutches of a genocidal regime:
1. Even with concentration camps, euthanasia campaigns and sterilization wards public knowledge in both Germany and America, early eugenic founders looked on with approval as Nazi Germany enacted brutal racial campaigns against its own citizens.
Joseph DeJarnette, superintendent of Virginia’s Western State Hospital even complained in 1934, “Hitler is beating us at our own game.”
2. The term “social Darwinism” never came from Darwin himself. It was a term distilled around the notion that in the struggle for survival, some humans were not only less worthy but were actually more or less supposed to die away. Merely acting to help the weak and needy within society became itself an unnatural act. This thinking helped propel the eugenic movement forward during its embryonic stages at the start of the 20th century.
3. On July 15, 1911, the American Breeders Association, or ABA, an organization comprised of eugenic-minded scientists and doctors, met in Manhattan to identify ten groups classified as “socially unfit” and deserving of elimination. These included, in order of priority: the feebleminded, the pauper class, alcoholics, criminals of varying degrees such as petty thieves and those imprisoned for not paying fines, epileptics, the insane, the constitutionally weak class, those genetically predisposed to specific diseases, the deformed, and finally, the deaf, blind and mute.
4. In 1907 Indiana became the first state to legalize forced sterilization on its mentally impaired patients and poorhouse residents. Known as Sharp’s Bill (named after a Dr. Harry Clay Sharp who was already sterilizing and castrating men and women in Indiana’s prisons well before it became legal) it passed the Indiana House 59 in favor, 22 opposed, and passed in the Senate with 28 ayes and 16 nays.
5. New Jersey passed its own sterilization legislation in 1911. It allowed for the creation of a three-man board that would determine whether “procreation is inadvisable” for the reams of prisoners and children living in poor houses and other charitable organizations.
The governor who signed the bill into law was Woodrow Wilson, who was elected president of the United States the following year.
6. The term “moron” comes from the eugenic movement. Coined by Henry Goddard, an early eugenic founder, it comes from the Greek word moros, meaning “stupid and foolish.” We use the term lightly these days as a kind of vague, almost teasing insult. For Goddard and the eugenic community, a “moron” was anyone deemed unfit for life and indeed a target to be eliminated.
7. The IQ Test also emerged from eugenics. In 1916, using an intelligence test created by a Dr. Binet of Stanford University, eugenic activist Lewis Terman devised a simple way to score an individual.
By dividing mental age by chronological age and multiplying by 100, Terman created what he nicknamed “IQ” score, or “intelligence quotient.”
8. In 1917, as America entered WWI, eugenic psychologists devised an intelligence test for the armed forces known as the Army Alpha Test. Carl Brigham adapted the test as part of a college entrance exam. The College Board later asked Brigham to create another qualifying test for other colleges in the country. Eventually, Brigham’s efforts produced the Scholastic Aptitude Test, or the SAT. [It is also known that in New Zealand that entry testing for the Police is designed to weed out any applicant over a certain IQ level - they do not want independent thinkers in the Police - only those who will blindly follow orders]
9. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg of Battle Creek, Michigan served as a member of the state board of health and operated a sanitarium known for its unorthodox food regimens. He developed for his patients a natural product made of wheat flakes.
In 1898 his brother, Will Kellogg, invented the corn flake and began selling it commercially through a company that would ultimately become the cereal behemoth the Kellogg Company. In the same year as the founding of the company, Dr. Kellogg founded the Race Betterment Foundation to help stop the “propagation of defectives.”
10. President Theodore Roosevelt long held eugenic views. After he left office, he wrote Charles Davenport, the man considered the father of the American eugenic movement, and said:
“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind. Some day, we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty, of the good citizen of the right type, is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type."
Such a statement certainly takes the old snarky phrase “white man’s burden” a step further.
11. Virginia may be “for lovers” these days, but shortly after WWI, the state was well known for sweeping its social outcasts into homes for the feebleminded and epileptic. While those two terms meant virtually the same thing in practice, they also equaled another kind of diagnosis: shiftlessness. Shiftlessness, a term that could easily be applied from unruly boys to legitimate mental patients, generally meant “worthless” or “unattached in life.”
12. On May 2, 1927, with only one justice dissenting, the Supreme Court officially sanctioned eugenic sterilization in the case of Buck v. Bell. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, a man revered throughout the nation as a voice of reason and justice, wrote the opinion for the majority that could have sprung from the Third Reich:
It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.
Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
13. The Beach Boys sang about the girls in California. The state is known for its pristine beaches and laid back populace. But the Golden State also is famous for something else: leading all states in the U.S. in eugenic sterilization. From 1907 to July of 1925, at least 4,636 sterilizations were performed. All mental patients and those deemed feebleminded were allowed to have their procreative powers removed. The threat of asexualization even included criminals found guilty of any crime three times, at the discretion of a consulting physician.
14. Although not wholly related to the eugenic movement, the birth control campaign as orchestrated by Margaret Sanger emerged from the conjoined spirits of women’s rights and population control.
However, before the term “birth control” reached the American consciousness, it had many prior variations that included: voluntary parenthood, voluntary motherhood, the new motherhood, constructive generation, the new generation, Neo-Malthusianism, Family Limitation, Conscious Generation, population control, race control, and finally, birth rate control. It was only when someone suggested dropping the word “rate” from the previous term that “birth control” became the name of Sanger’s growing movement.
Is it any surprise that a campaign designed to eliminate the weakest within the population aborted so many undesirable names before finally choosing its correct moniker?
15. In its quest to find and identify anyone of mixed blood and separate them from those of pure, Nordic stock, the state of Virginia enacted the Racial Integrity Act on March 8, 1924. Falsely registering your race in the subsequent consensus and questionnaires was considered a felony and punishable by a year in prison.
16. Following the Racial Integrity Act, Virginia’s registrar encountered a problem. Some citizens of Indian descent were registering as white but actually had African ancestry in their genes as well. To remedy this intolerable snafu, the registrar devised used a highly scientific and accurate method to differentiate a person of Indian or African stock: a hair comb.
Walter Plecker, health officer of Elizabeth City County, wrote of the comb solution, “If it passes through the hair of an applicant he is an Indian. If not, he is a negro.” If those Guinness Ad guys had been around when Plecker devised his comb strategy, they would have surely declared “Brilliant!”
17. America was not alone in the growing field of eugenics. Britain passed its own legislation against the “unfit” in the form of the Mental Deficiency Act of April, 1914. The Act defined four classes of undesirables: idiots, imbeciles, the feebleminded and moral defectives. If you had the misfortune of having a doctor identify you as any one of those, you could then be carted off to a special colony, sanitarium, or hospital designed to house your kind.
18. Switzerland passed its own eugenically spirited law in 1928 that targeted a poorly defined class of “unfit.” While concrete numbers have never been ascertained concerning Switzerland’s eugenic conduct, some estimates say that 90% of sterilization procedures were performed on women.
19. Norway had its own forced sterilization legislation on the books for 43 years. After passing a law legalizing it in 1934, it wasn’t until 1977 that the law was amended to make sterilization voluntary. In the interim, 41,000 operations we performed, with almost 75% done on women.
20. But even if you managed to escape Britain, Germany, and Norway, you still had Sweden to worry about. Known throughout the world for its mostly blonde-haired, blue-eyed populace, Sweden passed its own sterilization law in 1934 as well.
Similar to laws in other countries at the time, the new law targeted pretty much anyone classified as having a mental illness or having mental defects in any way. It even targeted those who had an “anti-social way of life.” Again, as with Norway, the largest victim group was women, who suffered forced sterilization at the rates of 63% to 90% over their male counterparts. In all, over 63,000 government-approved sterilizations were performed on the “unfit” individuals who had the misfortune of living within Sweden’s borders.
21. George Bernard Shaw, the renowned Irish playwright who has the distinction of being the only person to receive both a Nobel Prize for Literature and an Oscar, was also a eugenic extremist. Speaking at London’s Eugenic Education Society in 1910, the scribe had this to say regarding the use of lethal gas chambers on the unfit:
"A part of eugenics politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence, simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them."
22. However, while lethal gas chambers weren’t employed on the weak until the rise of Nazi Germany, there were many instances of euthanasia performed by doctors of eugenic persuasion. On November 12, 1915, a woman named Anna Bollinger gave birth to a baby with severe intestinal abnormalities at German-American Hospital in Chicago. But rather than fighting to keep the baby alive, the hospital chief of staff, Dr. Harry Haiselden, decided it was not fundamentally worth saving. A friend of the mother’s pleaded for him to save the baby’s life, but Dr. Haiselden only laughed and said, “I’m afraid it might get well.” The baby died shortly thereafter. A health commission investigation later questioned the doctor for his decision, but he was ultimately exonerated of any wrongdoing and allowed to continue practicing.
23. Haiselden persisted in his eugenic euthanasia over the years, and justified it by declaring that public institutions used to house the unfit in effect acted as lethal chambers anyway. He secretly visited the Illinois Institution for the Feebleminded where he discovered that windows were left open to allow the flies to cover the patients, and the inmates were given milk from a herd of cattle infected with tuberculosis.
24. Eugenics has its own movie. In 1917, Hollywood produced The Black Stork, a story about a mismatched couple who are counseled by a doctor against having children. However, the couple become pregnant anyway and the woman gives birth to a defective child that she allows to die.
The deceased baby’s spirit then ascends into the arms of Jesus Christ. Hailing it as a “eugenic love story” in publicity ads, the eugenic movement had its own propaganda film at last, and it promoted The Black Stork throughout the nation.
It’s catch-phrase: “Kill Defectives, Save the Nation and See ‘The Black Stork.”
Not quite “Save the Cheerleader, Save the World,” but close.
Dr. Haiselden, then famous in eugenics circles for his baby-killing ways in Chicago, played himself as the doctor in the film.
25. Even during WWI the American eugenic movement strengthened its ties with Germany. The book credited with planting eugenics throughout Germany was Madison Grant’s The Passing of the GreatRace. Published in 1916, Grant’s tome asserted that the white Nordic race was destined to rule the planet. It inspired thousands of German scientists, allowing them to mask their already racist feelings under the guise of objective science. It also galvanized the country’s future dictator, Adolf Hitler.
26. Not content to produce books and films extolling the virtues of eugenics, followers of the new pseudoscience in Germany introduced a series of race cards in 1927. Coming ten in a package just like baseball cards today, the cards profiled every racial variation from the Tamils of India to the Baskirs of the Ural Mountains.
27. Eugenic sterilizations began literally the moment Hitler assumed power in Germany. Starting on January 1, 1934, the Reich Interior Ministry’s eugenic expert declared that children as young as ten and men over the age of fifty were all able targets for the scalpel. Quickly, this mass program became known as Hitlerschnitte, or “Hitler’s cut.” In the first year alone, at least 56,000 Germans were sterilized, or almost 1 out of 1200 citizens.
28. While Germany savaged Poland in the beginning of the Second World War, the Reich also committed euthanasia against elderly German citizens to conserve its valuable wartime resources. Starting in 1940, between 50,000 and 100,000 Germans were taken from old age homes, mental institutions, and other places and exterminated in gas chambers.
29. Dr. Edwin Katzen-Ellenbogen presided over the extermination practices at the concentration camp Buchenwald. He was also a founding member of the Eugenics Research Association and chief eugenicist of New Jersey under then-governor Woodrow Wilson.
30. The rare brain disease Hallervorden-Spatz Syndrome is named after two Nazi doctors who discovered the condition in 1922.
31. For years one of eugenics greatest crusaders, Harry Hamilton Laughlin, fought to sterilize the feebleminded and people diagnosed with epilepsy. He was well known for believing that people with epilepsy did not belong in society.
Laughlin was also known among colleagues for his occasional seizures. It turned out the doctor kept a tightly held secret for most of his life: Harry Laughlin, the attacker of the “unfit” and eugenic co-founder, himself had epilepsy.
32. Even though they have not been used for years, eugenic sterilization laws are still officially on the books in North Carolina. Chapter 35, Article 7 permits the state to perform them for moral as well as medical improvement.
33. Despite post-war Germany denouncing its Nazi past, investigators discovered that some universities still house body parts taken from prisoners used in eugenic experiments and later killed in concentration camps. The University of Vienna’s Institute of Neurobiology still houses four hundred Holocaust victim’s brains. In addition, tissue samples and skeletons have also been found in Tubingen and Heidelberg.
The 'Oligarchs', the 'Nobility and Aristocrats', Liken Themselves as Superior in Every Respect
“Blue blood” is considered pure or free from inferior lines. The very origin of the word eugenics itself stems from the Greek words “good” and “generation” or “wellborn”.
[In-breeding is a great idea, which explains why the "elite" are all retarded, delusional and incompetent.]
Charles Darwin, an illuminati tool and concocter of the Darwinism farces
Francis Galton coined it himself, to denote controlled breeding for the purification of the human race. As mentioned, Galton was a cousin of Darwin’s; they shared the same grandparent: Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), a Freemason and one of the founding members of the elite-scientific Lunar Society.
Erasmus was the author of Temple of Nature and Zoönomia, or, the Organic Laws of Life, in which the basic outline of the theory of evolution can be discerned.
It is important to remember that evolutionary theory was originally couched in white race / Anglo-Saxon terms and gained acceptance through a western literate audience.
The dominance and intelligence of the white race over the whole circumference of the earth, to them, was the single greatest sociological proof by which western man had demonstrated to the world its superiority and god-given right to rule.
Combined with Malthusian population control, the power elite utilize evolution and eugenics as a weapon against the undesirables: the morons, imbeciles and lesser races.
Eugenics became a well-funded industry. As you know, seed money for research was heavily supplied by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, prominent Skull and Bones families such as the Harrimans and Kelloggs, and most of the eastern WASP (White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant) establishment.
In England, those who would advance the study of eugenics were family names such as Darwin, Huxley, Dodge, Osborn, Keynes and Downs.
Charles Darwin’s own son, Major Leonard Darwin (1850-1943), was the Eugenics Society President from 1911-1928, an Honorary President from 1928-43, and an attendee of the 1921 Second International Congress of Eugenics in New York.
In turn, Major Leonard Darwin’s niece, Ruth Darwin, was on the 1931 Brock Committee, which came to the conclusion that compulsory sterilization was the right course of action for “undesirables”.
Nothing has changed today. Frederick Osborn - founding member of the American Eugenics Society and co-founder with John D. Rockefeller III of the Population Council in 1953 - famously said:
"Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics.”
Thus, the names of the various organizations have dispensed with the eugenic moniker in favor of more palatable titles.
The American Eugenics Society (1926-1973) changed its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology (1973-present).
The American Eugenics Society had also published the journals Eugenical News (1939-53) and Eugenics Quarterly (1953-68); afterwards, the publication was conveniently renamed as Social Biology (1969-95).
Ostensible “family planning” organizations, such as the Rockefeller-funded Population Council, still operate in much the same manner as originally intended – though, the “undesirables” are now represented by the over-populated poor in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Birth control, abortion, and sterilization are still the tools of the eugenical trade. It’s used strategically to reduce population, along with war, disease and famine.
The elite believe they are a more advanced form of human. In order to justify their belief they grafted Darwin's theories of biological evolution onto social organization to create Social Darwinism.
Over the centuries they have referred to the public variously as cattle, sheep and "its" (as Plato did in The Republic) and Social Darwinism is merely the modern expression of this attitude and their elitist belief system. Under this belief system only those that have proven their worth over many generations of dominance and control are worthy of entrance into high elite circles.
Eugenics / Selective Breeding
The elite throughout history in support of belief in their own superiority over the common person have practiced interbreeding among themselves. They do this to preserve intelligence, love of power and above all the ruthlessness and willingness to kill as required.
They still practice this today. Also, along similar lines they believe in and practice of eugenics on the public to control the population and to make them more docile, controlled, stupid and compliant. Having been exposed by Hitler's atrocities the elite went underground - for example by renaming Eugenics Quarterly to Social Biology in 1969.
Psychopathy Among Elites
This is not a belief but more of a sobering fact that must be considered when evaluating the values and actions of the elite. It has been well established, as shown by Andrew Lobaczewski in his book "Political Ponerology", that the elite and those that are most capable of rising to the top of a system based on money are psychopathic. This includes leaders in all centers of power including business and politics. As psychopaths they have no conscience, lust for power and control and are literally capable of anything.
Because the elite truly believe that the ends justifies the means and the fact that they are for the most part psychopathic, they have absolutely no problem lying to the public. This is also known as the ethics of war where the only morally abhorrant act is losing.
Mystery Religions / Occult
As hard as it is to imagine, the elite practice a form of pagan religion based on the mystery school religions of Sumer and Babylon under which they seek to achieve godhood. Equally important is the use of religion to control the masses and to that end they create exoteric (visible) religions for the masses while embedding in those religions esoteric (hidden) meanings that only those that and enlighted, or illumined as they call it, are able to understand.
Consequently, the ancient symbols used thousands of years ago can still be seen in religion, business and the media today.
Collectivism as Social Control
After experimenting for hundreds of years with different forms of social organization, the elite have concluded that collectivism is the best form of social control. For this reason, and according to the United Nations, totalitarian China is considered the model state for the future.
The elite have long viewed a rising population as a threat to their dominance. They realized that eventually a large number of people will inevitably overthrow and remove them from power. They are particularly concerned with the middle class whose intelligence and capacity to organize makes them the biggest threat.
Consequently, the elite plan to destroy the middle class and make all the of public equally poor and thus incapable of rebelling. As written on the Georgia Guidestones, they want a global population of just 500 million. This means 6+ billion people must die over the coming century.
The evolution of society is not something the elite can leave to chance since society could evolve in thousands of different and unpredictable ways. If they were ever to allow this they might lose their control and dominance over us. In order to continue their position as the dominant minority, they plan decades and even centuries in advance.
Revelation of the Method
The elite's do tell us through their books and publications, movies and news releases what they are doing - this is called Revelation of the Method. If you are too stupid to recognize it for what it is that is your problem from their point of view. It is a form of ritual mocking of the victim.
NZ Media Calls For Compulsory Vaccinations & Sweden Bans Mandatory Vaccinations Over ‘Serious Health Concerns’ June 9 2017 | From: Uncensored / Stuff / HealthNutNews / Various
Somewhere between the leading edge of scientific discovery and the right of people to decide their own medical treatment lies the fate of thousands of defenceless children.
For the last several hundred years, science and, most importantly, the medical profession have been peeling back the dark curtain of superstition, ignorance and profit-driven chicanery which directed the treatment of human illness.
Investigation, experimentation and rigorous testing has slowly replaced guesswork, witchcraft, old wives’ remedies and unmitigated humbug as thinking people sought effective remedies and cures for the many ailments which invaded their lives.
So it was coming wasn’t it? Really hard to read. Whore media doing the cabal’s bidding. The following article was written by someone with cognitive dissonance - oblivious to the dangerous truths about vaccines.
Foremost among these discoveries was the concept of boosting our natural immune systems against invasive disease by vaccination.
I still recall with sadness attending the funerals of two of my young schoolmates who died of tuberculosis more than 50 years ago now. There was also a vivacious and spirited little girl who became horribly twisted and crippled by poliomyelitis (then called infantile paralysis).
She died just before her 16th birthday from complications caused by that terrible affliction. Her bravery in her last hours was inspirational. Then there was the tortured death of a little cousin who died of whooping cough. The unfairness of these very personal and sad events made a huge impression on me in my youth which remains as strong today. Had vaccinations been available back then those children might not have died.
Not all attempts at finding new solutions to old problems were successful and there were not a few tragedies along the way. At each failure, however, lessons were learned, new safeguards put in place and the march of logical scientific investigation slowly loosened the hold of old superstitions on the more vulnerable people in the community.
Sometime after World War II most of those old beliefs, in New Zealand at least, had simply disappeared into history. Those which remained became novelty entertainments at fairgrounds and similar places where so-called Gypsies would tell fortunes with crystal balls, read tea leaves and horoscopes or a dozen other harmless methods for a fee.
Few people were in any doubt that it was harmless fun and entertainment. Most newspapers still carry horoscopes for those bored enough to read their ambiguous messages and few people take them seriously.
Then, about two decades ago, some old superstitions began to reappear, but not simply as entertainments, but as the basis of a lucrative business venture. They were not taken seriously by most people then and most are still not today.
We tolerantly accept that people are free to attend seances, have so-called readings taken by some modern-day medium who claims to be in touch with the dead, play with tarot cards and pay some of these tricksters to clear houses of non-existent evil influences.
It is one thing to observe some of these rituals as part of an inherited culture but something very different when vulnerable, gullible and sometimes frightened people are persuaded to pay for them.
Like a malignant tumour which suddenly reappears after a period of remission, we can no longer ignore some of these practices. They are no longer entertainment or trivial amusements as they have engendered an illogical and very dangerous distrust of modern and proven medical procedures.
The latest and most sinister of these developments is the campaign against vaccinations for children on the spurious accusation that infant vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella can cause autism. The myth was created by Dr Andrew Wakefield, whose flawed research, published in the Lancet 20 years ago, has been extensively studied, proved to be incorrect and discredited by leading medical professionals many times since.
Adults can engage in almost any form of alternative healing processes they like as they are only putting themselves at risk. They can also refuse any medical treatment for themselves as encapsulated in the New Zealand Bill of Rights. However making those decisions for vulnerable children is a very different and dangerous matter.
We have made huge advances in preventative medicine in the last few decades and it would be simply unforgivable to deny that protection to defenceless children simply because adults are stupid enough to believe obvious misinformation and humbug. Ironically though most of them have probably been protected by the very vaccinations they would deny their children.
Compulsory vaccination may be the only alternative if we are to avoid some of the tragic epidemics of the past.
Sweden Bans Mandatory Vaccinations Over ‘Serious Health Concerns’
Sweden has boldly decided to ban mandatory vaccinations citing both “serious health concerns” and the violation of each citizen’s constitutional rights to choose their own healthcare.
Well done Sweden. To see the full report click here. (Once on the page if your browser will allow it you can translate the page, otherwise, you’ll have to translate chunks of it with Google Translate.)
The Swedish Riksdag (parliament) rejected seven motions on May 10th, that would have locked forced vaccinations into law, stating:
"NHF Sweden sent a letter to the Committee and explained that it would violate our Constitution if we introduced compulsory vaccinations, or mandatory vaccinations as was submitted in Arkelsten’s motion.
Many others have also submitted correspondence and many citizens have called up Parliament and politicians. Parliamentary politicians has surely noticed that there’s a massive resistance to all forms of coercion with regard to vaccinations.
NHF Sweden also shows how frequent serious adverse reactions according to the rate at which FASS specifies in the package leaflet of the MMR vaccine, when you vaccinate an entire year group. In addition, one must take into account that each age group will receive the MMR vaccine twice, so the side effects are doubled. We must not forget that, in addition, similar adverse reaction lists apply for other vaccines.
In the letter, we have even included an extensive list of the additives found in vaccines – substances which are not health foods and certainly do not belong in babies or children. We also included for lawmakers a daunting list of studies that demonstrate vaccination is a bad idea.”
I’m both thrilled and shocked. Swedish families are lucky to have politicians working for their best- not for the best of those hiding behind the vaccines that maim and kill.
But, it’s time we do the same. Thankfully, we have people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who recently appeared on the Tucker Carlson Show, on our side to expose the “lawless mafia state” that has become Big Pharma and their “extremely lucrative” vaccines scam.
If you haven’t yet watched the interview, please do, it’s worth your time.
RFK, Jr: My Meeting with Trump on Vaccine Commission
Dr. Peter Gøtzsche Exposes Big Pharma As Organized Crime + Six Ways That The Medical System Makes Us Ill Before Kindergarten June 5 2017 | From: Sott / NaturalSociety / Various
The drug industry buys the professors first, then chiefs of department, then the other chief physicians and so on. They don't buy junior doctors. - Dr. Peter Gøtzsche
Big Pharma drugs kill around 200,000 Americans every year - half of them die while doing what their doctors told them. Sadly, the side effects and medical errors combine to cause the 3rd leading cause of death in America.
In this video interview courtesy of Dr. John McDougall, he exposes how the pharmaceutical companies stealthily act as an organized crime ring unbeknownst to the consumer.
Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD is a Danish medical researcher, and leader of the Nordic Cochrane Center at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark. He has written numerous reviews within the Cochrane collaboration.
Dr.Gøtzsche has been critical of screening for breast cancer using mammography, arguing that it cannot be justified; His critique stems from a meta-analysis he did on mammography screening studies and published as Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable?
In The Lancet in 2000. In it he discarded 6 out of 8 studies arguing their randomization was inadequate.
In 2006 a paper by Gøtzsche on mammography screening was electronically published in the European Journal of Cancer ahead of print.
The journal later removed the paper completely from the journal website without any formal retraction. The paper was later published in Danish Medical Bulletin with a short note from the editor, and Gøtzsche and his coauthors commented on the unilateral retraction that the authors were not involved in.
In 2012 his book Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy was published. In 2013 his book Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare was published.
Six Ways That The Medical System Makes Us Ill Before Kindergarten
What do you think needs to be fixed most?
Mothers of small children ask me about natural health all the time. It happens in the line at my favorite natural grocer, or after a yoga class. Sometimes I receive questions through email or through a friend of a friend.
It’s a universal desire for parents to give their children the best start possible, but our medical system is not set up to do that at all. In fact, in 6 key ways, it is harming our children and damaging their prospects for future health. Here’s how:
1. Higher C-Sections Rates Put Babies at Risk
When I recently was preparing for birth through a Bradley birthing class, I was astounded to find out how high the C-section rates are at most hospitals. I understand that sometimes they are medically necessary, and they have their place, but this invasive, and dangerous procedure is getting out of control.
When a baby is born via C-section, there are numerous issues that cause possible long-term harm. Firstly, when a newborn passes through the vaginal canal, they are exposed to billions of beneficial bacteria which become part of their growing immune system. C-section babies are not exposed to this immune-boosting bacteria, and are more likely to become ill.
A baby’s skull is also designed to shift as it comes through the birth canal, and when they don’t, many mothers report the need for cranial sacral therapy to mimic the natural process of child birth to correct behavioral problems and neurological risks imposed by birth trauma.
2. Formula-Fed Babies are at Higher Risk for Depleted Immunity
Since babies can’t go straight to eating organic, non-GMO food from your plate, they rely on sustenance from another form – and Mother Nature has provided the perfect food – breast milk. A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that babies born by C-section and that drank formula instead of breast milk were more likely to be obese when they were older.
They were also more prone to inflammatory bowel disease, allergies, asthma, and even cancer.
"Our study addresses an important knowledge gap, since the infant gut microbiota has rarely been characterized with sequencing methods that provide sufficient coverage of the entire bacterial community,” writes Dr. Anita Kozyrskyj, University of Alberta, with coauthors.
“Our findings are particularly timely given the recent affirmation of the gut microbiota as a ‘super organ’ with diverse roles in health and disease, and the increasing concern over rising cesarean delivery and insufficient exclusive breastfeeding in Canada.”
3. Babies Subjected to 6x as Many Vaccines as They Were 40 Years Ago
The billion dollar pharmaceutical industry now thinks your children should be taking 49 doses of 14 different vaccines before your child even reaches the age of 6. By the time your baby is just two months old, they are supposed to have shots for diptheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, HIB, Hepatitis B, Rotavirus, and PCV.
To put it simply, this is just too much, too soon.
4. We’re Given Antibiotics Instead of Probiotics
How many children are given amoxicillin or other antibiotics when their health care provider could help parents avoid the over-use of antibiotics which is causing super bugs and other medication-resistant disease by simply educating them about probiotics?
I’ve been giving my six-month-old small doses of probiotics in his breast milk since he was just a few days old. When my husband and I came down with a nasty upper respiratory infection recently, we were down for a week, my infant got over it in a day, and his immune system is still in its infancy, as he is.
Pregnant mothers can also boost their own healthy gut flora by making sure they take probiotics themselves to ensure they have sufficient healthy bacteria when it comes time to give birth.
5. Our Kids Don’t Play Outside Anymore
From the time a child can sit in a high chair, they are taught to look at a monitor or a cell phone. By the time they can run and catch a ball, instead of playing outside they’ve been trained to be chained to an electronic device.
Not only does this keep our children from the infinite wonders of the outdoor world – from worms crawling in the soil, to the wind blowing in the trees – but they miss out on numerous health benefits provided by nature.
Pediatricians’ offices have big screen televisions instead of books or tree houses, and the medical establishment rarely tells parents to make sure their kids are spending time in green spaces.
18% of adults do not wash their hands after using the bathroom
23% do not wash up before handling food
25% do not wash after changing a diaper
So how do we still fight disease? It’s simple. Our immune systems.
When given half a chance to do what they were designed to do, our immune systems protect against foreign germs and viruses very well. Medical doctors spend about 1% of their time in school learning about the diet and how important it is to our overall health.
This means that people who are arguably ignorant about how to keep a child healthy by supporting their immune systems naturally through diet, herbs, rest, and time in nature are telling us how to raise our kids.
Forget about the hand sanitizer; your toddler will probably lick the floor. You don’t have to worry though, if you know about the #1-5 keys outlined in this article and do all you can to boost their natural immunity. Then, those nasty germs don’t stand a chance.
A Smart Home Mega Sensor Can Track What Goes On In A Room + EKG Evidence That Smart Meters Negatively Affect The Human Heart May 27 2017 | From: Enadget / WakingTimes / Various
The concept digests all environmental data in a space to trigger IoT routines.
Creating a smart home currently requires either linking every connected device one-by-one or adding sensor tags to old appliances to make a cohesive IoT network, but there might be an easier way.
Researchers at Carnegie Mellon developed a concept for a hub that, when plugged into an electrical outlet, tracks ambient environmental data -- essentially becoming a sensor that tracks the whole space. With this in hand, savvy programmers can use it to trigger their own connected home routines.
Synthetic Sensors: Towards General-Purpose Sensing
We explore the notion of general-purpose sensing, wherein a single, highly capable sensor can indirectly monitor a large context, without direct instrumentation of objects.
Further, through what we call Synthetic Sensors, we can virtualize raw sensor data into actionable feeds, while simultaneously mitigating immediate privacy issues. We deployed our system across many months and environments, the results of which show the versatility, accuracy and potential of our approach.
The researchers introduced their sensor nexus -- dubbed Synthetic Sensors -- this week at ACM CHI, the human-computer interaction conference. As the video demonstrates, just plug it into a USB wall port and it automatically collects information about its surroundings, uploading it to a cloud back-end over WiFi.
Machine learning on the device parses results into recognizable events, like recognizing a particular sound pattern as "dishwasher is running" -- making them "synthetic" sensors. Folks can use them as digital triggers for other IoT behaviors. For example, one could use "left faucet on" to activate a room's left paper towel dispenser -- and automatically schedule a restock when its supply runs low.
There's one sensor missing from the device's suite, though: A camera. Its creators are sensitive to privacy issues, which is also why raw environmental data isn't uploaded to the cloud -- just the analyzed results.
The Synthetic Sensor is still in a prototype phase, but it's a promising replacement for the jumble of individual tags needed to hook up old appliances or proprietary smart devices.
Ever wondered why your energy supplier and governments are so keen to give you a smart meter?
We lay out some not-so-good reasons in this 4 minute animation. Your private data, lifestyle and behavioural
choices can be amalgamated into a data-set that is monetised and sold to 3rd party companies. Our usual
satire of dark subjects aim to entertain and inform you.
EKG Evidence That Smart Meters Negatively Affect The Human Heart
There have been numerous whistleblowers to warn of the negative effects of smart meters on human health but perhaps none has been so successful in scientifically proving this claim as Warren Woodward of Sedona, Arizona.
He recently put AMI ‘smart’ meters to the test, and using EKG technology, has proven that smart meters throw the human heart off its balanced beat.
A smart meter digitally sends information about your energy usage to utility companies, ostensibly, so that they can monitor your home remotely. Aside from giving companies access to a trove of information (which can then be used to manipulate energy prices, etc.), these meters infringe on our privacy, and have been said to cause numerous adverse health conditions.
In a first-of-its-kind, video-taped, scientifically documented presentation, Woodward shows how a smart meter adversely affects the human heart in the YouTube video below.
Woodward sits next to a smart meter that is used in Arizona, but that are also commonly used in many countries.
Many people have complained of adverse health conditions, among them:
Ringing in the ears
EMF exposure has been documented as being harmful before, but this is the first time someone has shown what EMF in the form of smart meters do to the human heart directly.
Woodward points out that in his rural location there is cell phone coverage, but that the EMF from cell towers is low intensity. Due to his location, there are no other forms of EMF that he is being exposed to.
Triggering Agents of Electromagnetic Sensitivity
Dr. Rea presented his compelling evidence and recommendations for a healthier world at Creating Safe Havens in a Toxic, Electromagnetic World, a conference hosted by the International Institute for Building-Biology & Ecology.
He also attempts to do a controlled test by hooking himself up to the EKG while not knowing when the smart meter is on or off, so that his body cannot anticipate a response, nor can he affect his heart rhythm with his own free will.
He has no health conditions, and is on no medications, however, when he is exposed to the smart meter, his heart skips beats – literally.
Any device that affects the functioning of the heart should be of profound concern. To wit, Pao L. Chang writes:
“The heart is one of the most important organs in the human body, because it is one of the main mediums for connecting us to each other and the Universe. Conventional science has taught us that the main role of the heart is to pump blood to all the systems of our body.
This definition of the heart is not very accurate. Besides pumping blood, the heart also has an intelligence of its own.
According to neurocardiologists, 60 to 65 percent of heart cells are neuron cells, not muscle cells. This discovery has helped them develop experiments that have proved the heart works similar to the brain and in some ways is even superior to the brain.
This may be the reason that the heart is the first organ to function after conception. Within about 20 days after conception, the heart starts to function, but the brain does not function until after roughly 90 days. This information tells us that the brain is secondary to the heart.”
Knowing what we do now about the intelligence of the heart, and how intimately it is linked to the endocrine system, the nervous system, and even to the signaling of the brain and gut – how would you imagine smart meters might be affecting your neuro-psycho-biology? Is this yet another (attempted) way to control the innate intelligence of the population at large?
EKG Proof That "Smart" Meters Affect the Human Heart
Everyone's health is being affected by "smart" meters. The evidence in this video is a world first, and shifts the debate from whether anyone should have to pay a fee to refuse a "smart" meter to: When does the safety recall start?
We now know that even if people are not showing outward symptoms, their bodies are being unnecessarily and involuntarily stressed by "smart" meters. There must be a complete safety recall of all "smart" meters at once.
According to the Edison Foundation, there are more than 70 million smart meters currently installed, with 90 million expected to be up and running by 2020.
Need another reason to go off-grid?
Heartbreaking Letter From Dying EPA Scientist Begs Monsanto “Moles” Inside The Agency To Stop Lying About Dangers Of RoundUp (Glyphosate) & Monsanto Funneled Money To Front Groups To Attack Anti-GMO Activists, Court Documents Reveal May 26 2017 | From: NaturalNews / Various
The following letter from EPA scientist Marion Copley (now deceased from cancer) has surfaced in the unsealed court documents originally uncovered by U.S. Right to Know and posted in plain text at this Glyphosate.news document page.
In this letter, EPA scientist Marion Copley begs Monsanto “mole” Jess Rowland to do his job and protect the public rather than protecting Monsanto’s profit interests, saying:
"For once in your life, listen to me and don’t play your political conniving games with the science to favor the registrants. For once do the right thing and don’t make decisions based on how it affects your bonus.”
She also accuses Rowland and another EPA scientist Anna Lowit (still with the EPA) of engaging in science intimidation tactics to force EPA scientists and bureaucrats to change their conclusions in favor of Monsanto.
"You and Anna Lowit intimidated staff on CARC and changed MI ARC and IIASPOC final reports to favor industry,” says Copley.
This tactic, by the way, is 100% aligned with the deeply evil corporate culture at Monsanto, which routinely engages in intimidation legal tactics, science intimidation and character assassination campaigns against anti-Monsanto activists.
Copley further warns that EPA scientists are likely being bribed by Monsanto, saying:
"Your Nebraska colleague took industry funding, he clearly has a conflict of interest. Just promise me not to ever let Anna on the CARC committee, her decisions don’t make rational sense. If anyone in OPP is taking bribes, it is her.”
Marion Copley signs off with a plea for humanity, knowing that she is nearing death but wanting to help save humanity from the toxic chemical “holocaust” being pushed by Monsanto and a criminal EPA:
I have cancer and I don’t want these serious issues in MED to go unaddressed before I go to my grave. I have done my duty.
Read the full letter to Jess Rowland (the “Monsanto mole” inside the EPA) from Marion Copley (now deceased, former EPA scientist) to get the full picture. Read the entire unsealed court document that includes this letter at this page on Glyphosate.news.
Letter from Marion Copley to Jess Rowland, March 4, 2013
Since I left the Agency with cancer, I have studied the tumor process extensively and I have some mechanism comments which may be very valuable to CARC based on my decades of pathology experience. I’ll pick one chemical to demonstrate my points.
Glyphosate was originally designed as a chelating agent and 1 strongly believe that is the identical process involved in its tumor formation, which is highly supported by the literature.
Chelators inhibit apoptosis, the process by which our bodies kill tumor cells
Chelators are endocrine disruptors, involved in tumorigenesis
Glyphosate induces lymphocyte proliferation
Glyphosate induces free radical formation
Chelators inhibit free radical scavenging enzymes requiring Zn, Mn or Cu for activity (i.e. SODs)
Chelators bind zinc, necessary for immune system function
Glyphosate is genotoxic, a key cancer mechanism
Chelators inhibit DNA repair enzymes requiring metal cofactors
Chelators bind Ca, Zn, Mg, etc to make foods deficient for these essential nutrients
Chelators bind calcium necessary for calcineurin-mediated immune response
Chelators often damage the kidneys or pancreas, as glyphosate does, a mechanism to tumor formation
Kidney/pancreas damage can lead to clinical chemistry changes to favor tumor growth
Glyphosate kills bacteria in the gut and the gastrointestinal system is 80% of the immune system
Chelators suppress the immune system making the body susceptible to tumors
Previously, CARC concluded that glyphosate was a “possible human carcinogen”. The kidney pathology in the animal studies would lead to tumors with other mechanisms listed above. Any one of these mechanisms alone listed can cause tumors, but glyphosate causes all of them simultaneously.
It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer. With all of the evidence listed above, the CARC category should be changed to “probable human carcinogen”. Blood cells arc most exposed to chelators, if any study shows proliferation of lymphocytes, then that is confirmatory that glyphosate is a carcinogen.
Jess, you and I have argued many times on CARC. You often argued about topics outside of your knowledge, which is unethical. Your trivial MS degree from 1971 Nebraska is far outdated, thus CARC science is 10 years behind the literature in mechanisms.
For once in your life, listen to me and don’t play your political conniving games with the science to favor the registrants. For once do the right thing and don’t make decisions based on how it affects your bonus. You and Anna Lowit intimidated staff on CARC and changed MI ARC and IIASPOC final reports to favor industry.
Chelators clearly disrupt calcium signaling, a key signaling pathway in all cellos and mediates tumor progression. Greg Ackerman is supposed to be our expert on mechanisms, but he never mentioned any of these concepts at CARC and when I tried to discuss it with him he put me off.
Is Greg playing your political games as well, incompetent or does he have some conflict of interest of some kind? Your Nebraska colleague took industry funding, he clearly has a conflict of interest. Just promise me not to ever let Anna on the CARC committee, her decisions don’t make rational sense. If anyone in OPP is taking bribes, it is her.
I have cancer and I don’t want these serious issues in MED to go unaddressed before I go to my grave. I have done my duty.
Recently obtained court documents have revealed that Monsanto has been secretly feeding money to “think tanks,” such as the infamous Genetic Literacy Project. From the document obtained by US Right To Know:
Monsanto quietly funnels money to “think tanks” such as the “Genetic Literacy Project” and the “American Council on Science and Health,” organizations intended to shame scientists and highlight information helpful to Monsanto and other chemical producers.
For example, the American Council on Science and Health has recently published articles accusing the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of ignoring the “science” on glyphosate.
Sources say that these allegations are backed up by a string of emails which were used in court as evidence.
Some of these exchanges even involved Monsanto executives instructing their staff to “ghost write” material on their products and then have some phony “independent scientists” sign their names to cut back on costs. One such exchange occurred between Monsanto’s William Heydens and his colleagues:
"A less expensive/more palatable approach might be to involve experts only for the areas of contention, epidemiology and possibly MOA (depending on what comes out of the IARC meeting), and we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections.
An option would be to add Greim and Kier or Kirkland to have their names on the publication, but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak. Recall that is how we handled Williams Kroes & Munro, 2000."
In addition to the emails and evidence of Monsanto’s collusion with government agencies and “think tank” organizations, there is also reason to believe that Monsanto has been hiring “trolls” to defend the company on the web - and to attack anyone who dares speak out against them.
Evidence presented in the pretrials of Monsanto court cases at the US District Court in San Francisco has revealed that under their ever-so-aptly titled “Let Nothing Go” program, Monsanto reportedly hired individuals who appeared to have no relation to the company for the sole purpose of trolling the internet with positive comments, defend Monsanto, and praise their toxic chemicals and GMO crops.
The goal of the “Let Nothing Go” program is “to leave nothing, not even Facebook comments, unanswered…” and the plaintiffs say that Monsanto has been targeting all forms of social media and other online materials under this initiative.
Anti-GMO activists like Mike Adams, have been particularly susceptible to these attacks. Unsurprisingly, Adams has been a prime target for GMO trolls: The Genetic Literacy Project and other shills have published hit pieces on him and other activists - all with the goal of trying to discredit them and silence journalists who expose Monsanto’s nefarious operations.
The evidence revealed in these court documents certainly leaves Monsanto with a lot of explaining to do. But it seems that they are already losing in the court of public opinion.
Mainstream Media Insults The Public's Intelligence On Vaccines & Vaccinated Vs. Unvaccinated Pilot Study: Early Vaccination Sees Exponential Increase In Chronic Disorders + Lies, Vaccines And The New Zealand Media May 26 2017 | From: Sott / GreenMedInfo / WavesNZ / Various
Mainstream media and medical groups, typically funded or backed by Big Pharma, cast parents who are skeptical about vaccines as conspiracy theorists whose backward beliefs put the public at risk.
Vaccine skeptics cast vaccine promoters as paid shills, hired by Big Pharma to cover up documented vaccine-related injuries.
In mainstream and progressive media coverage (Mother Jones, Alternet, Huffington Post, Truthout, Progressive, The Nation) there is zero tolerance for critical debate about vaccine safety. Question why the hepatitis B vaccine is routinely given to babiesat birth - for a disease mainly transmitted through sex and I.V. drug use - and you're labeled "anti-science."
Suggest that some vaccines, including those such as the highly promoted HPV Gardasil and Cervarix (both of which have been linked to adverse reactions and death) are not exactly "life-saving," and you might as well yell "bring back polio."
The media routinely discredits parents of vaccine-injured children, accusing them of not knowing anything about medicine (except raising their own challenged child of course) and of "imagining" or even causing their child's deficits.
Progressive news sites that would never defend corporate media coverage of Monsanto or GMOs drink the vaccines-are-safe Kool-Aid. Last month, Jezebel ran this headline: "Robert De Niro and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Call Vaccines Dangerous, Which They Are Not."
In a 2015 article, the Atlantic sneered that "Vaccines Are Profitable, So What?" And the Daily Beast has gone so far as to praise Paul Offit, perhaps the nation's most extreme vaccine promoter.
Comment: According to Robert F, Kennedy Jr: Dr. Offit is a "thorough charlatan, a snake oil salesman and he has everyone flimflammed. That made me angry. After that, I learned that he was also venal."
RS: What do you mean "venal"?
RFK, JR: Well, my original assumption was that he was lying in service to the vaccine program. I later learned that vaccines were a lavishly profitable enterprise for Dr. Offit.
RS: How so?
RFK, JR: He is on permanent retainer to Merck to "right vaccine wrongs". And, both Merck and the CDC have rewarded his service with extraordinarily lucrative opportunities. In 1999, the CDC allowed him to sit on the committee that voted the rotavirus vaccine onto the schedule, even though he was working on his own rotavirus patent.
Electing not to recuse himself, he cast his vote to add rotavirus to the schedule. That version of the rotavirus vaccine caused so many agonizing childhood deaths from intussusception that the CDC had to withdraw it a year later, making room for Offit's version, a turn of events that made him a vaccine tycoon.
His rotavirus vaccine patent sold for $182 million; his cut was at least $29 million. When I learned about this caper and his other money schemes, I just thought, "Well, he's a hoodlum."
RS: He's also a misogynist and a bully.
RFK, JR: It's disturbing because the media treats him like a deity. And, like all bullies, he's a coward. He dismisses women who question him as superstitious hysterics.
He lobs vicious bombs at the mothers of vaccine-injured children from the editorial pages and national TV shows which give him a platform for his poison. But, he refuses to debate me or anyone else who knows what they are talking about.
RS: Do you think, when Paul Offit says that babies could safely be given 10,000 vaccines at the same time, that he really believes that?
RFK, JR: I don't feel competent to psychoanalyze Offit. It's hard to look into another person's mind. And Offit's brain has got to be a really dark and scary zip code where I don't really want to spend time. In his defense, we all have some capacity for self-deception and it's possible that Offit is as gifted at deceiving himself as he is at deceiving the public.
Upton Sinclair observed that, "It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." But I do think it's more likely that he knows that what he's saying is dishonest. For years, he claimed Bill Thompson's 2004 study was "the definitive proof" of thimerosal safety.
He's been silent about that since Thompson disavowed his own study. That suggests a purposeful mendacity. Like a lot of other people, Offit seems to have made the self-serving calculation that all of the dead and damaged children are just collateral damage - unfortunate sacrifices in a program that serves the greater good.
RS: Is that even a legitimate moral calculation?
RFK, JR: You mean to kill one child in order to save fifty? Ethicists and theologians could argue the point. But that isn't Offit's real moral dilemma.
Offit's moral Donnybrook is his absolutist defense of the industry position that all vaccines are always safe for all people and that the safety of thimerosal is unassailable. That approach has unnecessarily damaged vulnerable subgroups that could easily have been protected and sacrificed millions of kids, not for the greater good but for the bottom line.
As the vaccine industry's lead pitchman for thimerosal, Offit's been extraordinarily successful at crafting a persuasive alternative to fact-based reality and selling it like a carnival barker. He has made himself the high priest of the weird dogma that it's somehow safe to inject mercury into babies.
One wants to ask these progressive sites: Do you really think Pharma has never steered us wrong, just for the sake of profit? What about all the drugs that had to be pulled from the market, after Pharma insisted they were safe?
The fact is vaccines are not all safe. That's why the National Vaccine Injury Compensation (VICP) program, established to provide monetary compensation to victims of vaccine injuries, exists. The VICP website states:
"Most people who get vaccines have no serious problems. In very rare cases, a vaccine can cause a serious problem, such as a severe allergic reaction.
In these instances, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) may provide financial compensation to individuals who file a petition and are found to have been injured by a VICP-covered vaccine."
"It's true that there have been 24,000 reports of adverse events with Gardasil" and "106 deaths." But the author of the Forbes article rationalizes:
"There have also been 60,000 reports of adverse events with the mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine, and 26,000 following vaccination with . . . Prevnar, for pneumococcus bacteria."
We ask: Do two wrongs make a right, Forbes?
The CDC maintains a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) where people can see for themselves the adverse effects and deaths related to a particular vaccine. A search for people who have died from the measles vaccines MEA, MER, MM, MMR or MMRV revealed 416 deaths. Last summer, the mainstream science outlet
EurekaAlert submitted that reading VAERS info "may not build public trust or adherence."
That is an understatement.
Profiteering and Conflicts of Interest Not Even Hidden
There is no question vaccines are profitable. In some states, Blue Cross Blue Shield gives doctors bonuses for the vaccines they give patients. And an increasing number of drugstore chains now offer vaccines.
There are brazen and unhidden conflicts of interest between mainstream media and vaccine makers who influence reporting and discourage healthy debate about vaccine safety. Mike Papantonio, of the America's Lawyer TV show, reports:
"According to a 2009 study by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, with the exception of CBS, every major media outlet in the United States shares at least one board member with at least one drug company. These board members wake up, they go to a meeting at Merck or Pfizer, and then they have their driver take them over to a meeting at a TV station."
The Gates Foundation is deeply entangled with vaccine makers, as are our own government agencies, including the CDC.
It's clearly a fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation. The vaccine industry also "gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters," reports CBS.
In 2013, the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Healthreported that the seriousness with which academics portrayed the 2009-2010 swine flu outbreak was shaped proportionately by how much funding they had received from Pharma.
What Does the Science Say?
When you read the scientific papers published about vaccine safety - and especially about links to childhood autism - it seems as if they are all written by four scientists who know each other and who work for Big Vac.
Despite overwhelming evidence that the mercury used in vaccines, thimerosal, is harmful to children and to pregnant women and the elderly, the official position of pro-vaccine scientists is "it was totally safe but we took it out anyway."
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman of The World Mercury Project, disagrees. Vaccines containing thimerosal are neither safe, nor is thimerosal gone from vaccines he claims.
Kennedy offers $100,000 to anyone who can find a published study indexed in PubMed proving mercury levels in vaccines are harmless for infants and developing fetuses at the levels they are given.
Though they are scientists, pro-vaccine researchers use embarrassing non-logic in their vaccine defenses - they actually employ the "Raven Paradox" which many of us learned in Logic 101.
It declares that "all ravens are black; that bird is black; it must be a raven." In other words, according to logic-challenged researchers: "Mercury is safe - and it doesn't cause autism - so all vaccines are safe."
Meanwhile, the pro-vaccine scientists seldom, if ever, address the more complicated scientific questions surrounding vaccines - such as other metals used in them, like aluminum.
Or whether the current series of multiple vaccines administered to children today could overwhelm their immune systems. Or whether live vaccines or disease antibodies could paradoxically cause the disease they're intended to prevent.
According to published articles, it's not just the thimerosal but metals in general, such as the currently used aluminum in vaccines, that are under suspicion. Such metals can cross the child's blood brain barrier and set off increased oxidative stress which is linked to autism, say journal reports.
Oxidative stress is an imbalance between the production of free radicals and the ability of the body to counteract or detoxify their harmful effects through neutralization by antioxidants.
Too many vaccines given too closely together to children that are too young also increases the stress, say those who question vaccines and vaccine schedules.
When a scientific paper appears to clearly show a link between childhood vaccines recommended in the U.S. and impaired neurodevelopment, pro-vaccine scientists savage it.
A 2010 paper published in Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, a quarterly peer-reviewed scientific journal covering neuroscience, found that "rhesus macaque infants receiving the complete U.S. childhood vaccine schedule" did not "undergo the maturational changes over time in amygdala volume that was observed in unexposed animals."
Why does the amygdala matter? The researchers wrote:
"Neuropathological and neuroimaging studies of individuals with an ASD [autism spectrum disorder] . . . have provided growing evidence of a central role for the amygdala." Specifically, it is enlarged in such children "compared with neurotypical controls."
Pro-vaccine scientists pounced. Not enough monkeys were used to establish a scientific finding, said one scientist. Opposite findings about the amygdala have been reached, which invalidate the study, said another scientist.
One angry scientist was even willing to discredit the monkey study by claimingthat monkeys are not a valid model for human disease - thus annulling millions of experiments including the ones on which human drugs are approved! Of course, many in the animal welfare community have questioned the validity of animal "models."
On behalf of Pharma, mainstream science and media set up a strawman called "vaccines cause autism." Then they knocked it down and declared vaccines safe.
It is an insult to the public's intelligence, especially in light of clear injuries that exist, including those documented in the VAERS database - not to mention injured people, especially parents of injured children.
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alone has awarded $3.18 billion in 16,000 claims since 1988.
Do vaccine injury cases prove that vaccines are always unsafe and should always be avoided? Of course not. But those cases do prove that vaccines are not "completely safe" as the well-funded vaccine dogma continues to insultingly tell us.
Vaccine Dangers Being Hidden From the Public
Dr. Suzanne Humphries explains how vaccines became the norm in modern medicine. She also explains why you rarely hear about any risks or dangers associated with them. Find out how those issues are being kept from the public.
Vaccinated Vs. Unvaccinated Pilot Study: Early Vaccination Sees Exponential Increase In Chronic Disorders
The move towards mandatory vaccination is no longer a conspiracy theory. California Senate Bill 277 snapped families into a reality where informed consent and health freedom do not apply.
Presently, the American people are facing 173 vaccine-related bills in 40 states. The language of many of the new bills aims to increase tracking, target non-vaccinating families, force vaccine schedules, and further persecute families who choose not to accept vaccines; the private products of for-profit, legally protected pharmaceutical companies.
The corporate media and medical industries have thrown their full influence behind Big Pharma’s transparent ‘safe and effective’ messaging. At the same time, both industries are simultaneously censoring discussions around the fraud, dangers, mounting injuries, and criminal behavior inherent within the vaccine industry and those pushing for mandatory vaccination.
A central point of contention, and human rights violation, is the fact that historically, no true study has been conducted between vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. However, such a study has now come to fruition.
Since long-term health outcomes of the current vaccination schedule haven’t been studied, Dr. Mawson and his coauthors set out to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children across a broad range of health outcomes.
The study was designed as a cross-sectional survey of homeschooling mothers on their vaccinated and unvaccinated biological children ages 6 to 12. It included mothers of 666 children ranging from fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated.
The mothers were asked to indicate on a list of more than 40 acute and chronic illnesses all those for which her child or children had received a diagnosis by a physician among other questions.
“DIRECT ORDER” An Award-Winning Documentary Tells the Story of Members of the Military who were Ordered Against their Will to Take the Controversial Anthrax Vaccine.
Federal regulators approved a plan by biotechnology company, VaxGen to test its experimental anthrax vaccine on about 100 people.
The vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with the following: allergic rhinitis, other allergies, eczema/atopic dermatitis, a learning disability, autism spectrum disorder, any neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD) (i.e., learning disability, ADHD or ASD) and chronic illness.
The following is a breakdown of the specific results for vaccinated children:
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) was 4.7-fold higher in vaccinated children
ADHD risk was 4.7-fold higher
Learning disability risk was 3.7-fold higher
Vaccinated children in the study were 3.7 times more likely to have been diagnosed with some kind of (NDD).
Preterm birth and vaccination was associated with 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD
Vaccinated children were also significantly more likely to be diagnosed with an immune-related disorder. The risk of allergic rhinitis (commonly known as hay fever) was over 30 times higher in vaccinated children, while the risk of other allergies was increased 3.9 fold and the eczema risk was increased 2.4 fold.
Given the current global climate as described in this article’s introduction, the study highlighted three extremely noteworthy conclusions as follows:
“…the strength and consistency of the findings, the apparent “dose-response” relationship between vaccination status and several forms of chronic illness, and the significant association between vaccination and NDDs all support the possibility that some aspect of the current vaccination program could be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity.”
“Vaccination also remained significantly associated with neurodevelopmental disorders after controlling for other factors…”
“…preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of neurodevelopmental disorder above that of vaccination alone.”
While all three conclusions should be, and are, resonating deeply within the masses of health professionals and parents, the study’s third conclusion is especially timely and relevant beyond its stated assertion.
Over the last year, numerous medical whistleblowers and scientific research papers have warned and demonstrated that routine vaccine injury to preterm infants in hospital neonatal intensive care units (NICU) is occurring. Whistleblower nurses Michelle Rowton James and Joanne [last name unavailable] publicly spotlighted how inhuman and commonplace NICU vaccine injury have rooted in the culture of establishment medicine.
While three major studies ,, have corroborated the nurse’s whistleblowing admissions. Meanwhile, in April 2017 The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) released a statement asking for all Americans to join them in their call for a ban on vaccination of infants in the NICU. Speaking on the call to action Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, CEO, and Director of IPAK, stated:
"We’ve asked the biomedical community to produce studies that show ill effect of vaccines on neonates, and they have not produced them.”
There is currently a clash happening between religious-like vaccine dogma and increasingly aware segments of the public, research, and medical communities. In the balance hangs the opportunity for a truly open discussion on vaccines and a rare chance to reform a pharmaceutically-dominated medical community that has lost its way.
Giving the current trend, the consequences of not seizing the opportunity for open dialogue appears to lead down a road of mandatory medicine and censorship of exponentially mounting human injury and mortality.
Put simply, the battle now rages between openness and transparency versus the protection, through omission and overt censorship, of Big Pharma’s business model and need for ever-expanding bottom lines at all costs.
Bombshell: Study Proves Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier
Studies put to question the safety of current vaccination practices.
Celeste McGovern joins Rob Dew and Owen Shroyer to discuss the first ever study comparing the health levels of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
Another day, another poorly-written and ill-advised scare story in New Zealand’s fabulous ‘print media’. This time, a piece in the Dominion Post claiming measles ‘could have been eradicated by now if it were not for anti-vaccine campaigners and conspiracy theorists’. Nothing to do with faulty live-virus vaccines, is it?
According to the article, posted on Stuff.co.nz, the measles vaccine is safe, and the reason people are refusing it is because of a ‘study’ by Dr Andrew Wakefield that was ‘discredited’ and led to him being struck off the register by the GMC. That or because they listen to ‘conspiracy theorists’.
No mention, of course, that it wasn’t a study – it was a small case series – or that his co-author who was also struck off the register, Dr John Walker-Smith, was exonerated and the case overturned two years ago, following an appeal.
The entire trial against the doctors was dismissed as faulty and the General Medical Council admonished for a trial that was full of ‘inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion’.
The Dominion Post piece states that we were struck off the charities register for promoting a view that vaccination was ‘ineffective and dangerous’ – again, this is not true. The reason for our removal from the register was that we were viewed as promoting a viewpoint rather than advancing education (one of the categories for being on the register).
While we disagree with the basis of the decision, the reality is that it makes little difference to who we are and what we do – we are still a charitable organisation and still work hard to ensure parents have the information necessary to make an informed decision about vaccination.
Click on the image above to open a larger version in a new window
The Ministry of Health tell us that New Zealand has a 93% uptake of vaccination by age two. This is worth remembering when reading the following paragraphs.
According to the article, there were 274 cases of pertussis (whooping cough) in Auckland in 2012, and a further 328 on the West Coast in the same year. In reality, according to the Public Health Surveillance Report for the year on pertussis, there were a total of 5,389 cases reported up until the 7th December 2012 for that year, the majority of which were in vaccinated persons.
According to the report, 252 cases were reported in Auckland up until that date for the year, and the West Coast had just 139 cases. Of the over 5,000 cases reported for the year, there were just two deaths – one in a premature infant too young to be vaccinated, and one in a child with ‘underlying health conditions’.
The data is also available online for the year 2013, so why 2012 was highlighted in the article is something of a mystery…
On to measles. According to Helen Petousis-Harris of the Immunisation Advisory Centre, measles could be eradicated in New Zealand if it weren’t for us pesky ‘anti-immunisation’ groups.
This statement is laughable for a number of reasons (not least that WAVESnz is not an ‘anti-immunisation’ group, but a group lobbying for informed choice and freedom of choice in health decisions).
Firstly, we have 93% uptake of vaccinations in this country by age two, which includes MMR at 15 months. Given the theoretical ‘herd immunity threshold’, or number of vaccinated persons needed to eliminate the disease amongst a population is generally accepted as being somewhere around 92-94%, it’s somewhat astonishing we’re still seeing these outbreaks, don’t you think?
Sounds to me that it’s less a case of rogue families making their own minds up about the health of their families, and more a case of a vaccine that simply does not work the way the media and government would have us believe.
Yes, those naughty parents who think for themselves and decide not to vaccinate make a very convenient scapegoat for a vaccine that simply does not work the way we’re told it does.
According to the 2012 report, the latest available, there were a total of 68 cases of measles reported for that year. Of those, 21 were in children aged under 15 months, which we will discount when assessing vaccination efficacy as they aren’t eligible for vaccination according to the New Zealand schedule (though one was reported to have had a single dose anyway!).
That leaves us with 47 cases of measles in persons aged 15 months and over, 17 of whom had had at least one or two doses of a measles vaccine, with 20 reporting no vaccination and 10 with unknown vaccination status.
Surely, if the vaccine worked so well, we’d see the vast majority of those cases in unvaccinated people, rather than an almost 50/50 split? And while it could be argued that this does lean towards better odds being vaccinated than not given the higher population of vaccinated individuals, one has to question how exactly that works given the vaccine datasheet claims 95% efficacy against measles…
Despite the claims of the pro-vaccine lobbyists, vaccination does not guarantee you won’t get the virus in the first place, as those vaccinated individuals who contract the disease have discovered. Nor does not getting vaccinated guarantee you will get it – and if you do, the chances of it being a serious disease in a healthy individual replete with Vitamin A are extremely low.
It’s worth noting now that the vaccine contains live attenuated measles virus (as well as live rubella and mumps).
The datasheet itself contains warnings about not vaccinating immune-compromised individuals due to risk of infection, notes that the rubella component can be ‘shed’ and spread by recently-vaccinated individuals, and while it states that there are ‘no reports’ of transmission of the measles component from recent vaccinees, it doesn’t mean that it can’t happen.
What it does mention, however, is that a common side-effect is fever or a ‘measles-like rash’ or both (which of course can’t be measles, it’s all a coincidence, it just looks like measles!). Very interesting… could it be that the vaccine itself is responsible for some of these outbreaks?
Next, to call organisations such as ourselves as ‘anti-immunisation’ is misleading to say the least – we have no problem with immunisation. In fact, it is something we actively encourage. Immunisation simply means to ‘make immune’, not ‘to vaccinate’, which often doesn’t lead to any significant ‘immunity’ at all.
We actively advocate for and encourage long-term breastfeeding, good nutrition, healthy lifestyles, sleep, exercise, and generally supporting the body’s natural immune system so that we can all live happy, health lives. All of which can be classed as a form of ‘immunisation’ and protection against these diseases the media love to hype so very much.
Lastly, it’s worth pointing out the glaringly obvious part that the fear-and-blame piece has left out: what to do if your child DOES contract either measles or pertussis (the terror illnesses du jour), and how to prevent them becoming the terrible diseases they’d have us believe…
So, what is really to blame for an uptick in measles cases lately? Is it, despite very high rates of vaccination that should be buoying us up with the mythical ‘herd immunity’ we hear so much about, the naughty few who choose to think for themselves and opt out of vaccination?
Is it terrible organisations such as WAVESnz who promote freedom of choice in healthcare? Is it a nearly 16-year-old case series written by an English doctor who has been thrashed in every media outlet globally since that time, who most people haven’t even looked at and most believe is a fraud?
Or could it be a failing live-virus vaccine that simply does not work the way we’re told it does, which is causing illness throughout the community, and which parents are beginning to question despite the poorly-written anti-choice propaganda churned out by the corporate-owned media on a near daily basis?
So many of the factors that are negatively influencing public heath could easily be prevented or removed from society, yet the decisions of the ruling class continue to ensure that our food supply is toxic, that our environment is compromised, and that our exposure to chemicals and industrial waste is total. Why?
With the stroke of a pen carcinogenic poisons like Monsanto’s Roundup could be banned. Industrial disasters like Fukushima or the Deepwater Horizon could easily get the attention they deserve from world powers, but the will to intervene on behalf of human and environmental health is zero, while the will to intervene militarily in corporate and political affairs is guaranteed.
People are suffering more than ever from a host of chronic conditions and illnesses that can wreck even the healthiest and strongest of us. To be sick is the new normal, and to be healthy is outstanding and unusual.
Concerned citizens are battling grass roots struggles on all fronts, yet, at the top levels of society the corruption, gross negligence, and seeming incompetence continue unabated, ensuring that important decisions always favor the health of corporations and special interests.
With such obvious disregard for life, it would be naive to presume that our national and global leadership have our best interests at heart, and also to assume that any of this could be accidental.
And when we look at comments and statements from some of the world’s most influential people, a dark philosophy is uncovered, and a shocking agenda to depopulate planet earth is revealed. See for yourself:
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
– Bill Gates
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”
– Jacques Coustea
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
– Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder
“This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage.”
– Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka
“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”
Make what you will out of these statements, but the fact remains that globally, human health and the environment are in critical condition and there is no sign of relief in sight.
Couple this with the fact that many of the world’s elite do publicly fantasize of culling the human population, and the realization is harsh: we are targets.
Our world simply does not have to be poisoned with chemtrails, radiation leaks, GMO’s, electro-magnetic pollution, frack wells, fluoride, mercury, vaccine adjuvants, depleted uranium, oil spills, antibiotics, endocrine disrupting chemicals, toxic food additives, agro-chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and so much more.
The aggregated, generations long effect of such total contamination is the explosion of a host of bizarre and life-altering illnesses and ‘conditions,’ that chronically sap our energy and vitality, slowly debilitating us, separating us from our power and putting us into the doctor’s office.
The following 11 common symptoms are signs that the global depopulation slow kill is in play and is effective, and that within a couple of generations the human race will no nothing of health, wellness and vitality.
1. Gut and Digestive Issues
The primary attack on the body’s immune system takes place in the digestive system where the body’s natural bacterial defenses live.
Chronic poor digestion, leaky gut syndrome, gastritis, colitis, inflammatory bowel syndrome, candida overgrowth, food sensitivities and other serious issues are become increasingly common, resulting from the consumption of denatured foods laden with chemicals and sugars, GMO poisoning and so on.
Roundup herbicide is known to kill healthy bacteria in the body after being ingested in only residual amounts. Antibiotic overuse and contamination in the water supply means that building a health but biome is nearly impossible.
2. Chronic Fatigue and Low Energy
The body’s natural store of energy is the first thing to become depleted when the body and mind are over-exposed to pollution and stress. The persistent exposure to toxic foods, poisoned spaces, electromagnetic radiation, psychological attacks, continually forces the body and psyche to be in a state of crisis.
The regular amount of energy needed to perform the ordinary rigors of life is not available, and as a result we become chronically tired, low-energy, lethargic and generally slowed down.
Even when we balance diet, exercise and meditation, maintaining personal energy is difficult, so many people are having to constantly dose themselves with caffeine and so-called energy drinks just to accomplish an ordinary day.
3. Dietary Diseases Like Obesity And Diabetes
Dietary illnesses such as the sweeping obesity and diabetes epidemics are a sign that the soft kill is greatly impacting public health. Public relations and social engineering have changed the public’s understanding of what food actually is, and as our consumption of crap corporate foods increases, so do our wastelines and our chances for getting getting chronic disease like diabetes.
Of course, both of these conditions are entirely curable with a proper diet, but in a country where raw milk is illegal, the truth about food and health is rarely spoken in the mainstream.
The maintenance of chronic illness is very profitable for the medical establishment, and obesity is a gateway to many chronic and life-threatening illnesses.
4. Disorientation and Brain Fog
Many people these days suffer from spells of disorientation and fogginess of the mind, without any clear cause or reason as to the mind should be functioning so poorly. Brain fog is a difficult to identify chronic condition where a person feels disconnected, confused and distant, almost an illness of consciousness.
A spell can last for a day, or it can last for years, often persisting until a person finally isolates the primary cause. Candida overgrowth, a condition where negative bacteria is being over-produced within the body, is the result of poor diet and a compromised gut biome, and is thought to cause disorientation and brain fog.
5. Chronic Inflammation
Chronic inflammation is part of a biological response to harmful stimuli and is increasingly being recognized as a serious silent killer because of the health problems it trigger.
The purpose of inflammation is to rid the body of any causes of damage or injury and to initiate repair. It is a defense mechanism that being constantly activated primarily consuming by inflammatory foods.
Modern wheat is an example of a food that has been so genetically altered that it now no longer provides nutrition, but rather instead irritates the tissues of the body, causing chronic inflammation, leading to bigger health problems.
People suffer more seriously from seasonal and random allergy attacks than ever before, and some attacks can be severe enough to temporarily disable a person. Everyone is watching pollen counts on the nightly news, but allergies simply weren’t this serious a generation ago.
Something has changed in the body and in the environment, and with the omnipresence of chemtrails and geo-engineering projects in the sky, suspicion that the respiratory system is being attacked is warranted.
Autism in children is rising frighteningly and without a precise indication of exactly what is causing it, we should be dramatically erring on the side of caution. It could be environmental, it could be vaccines, GMO’s, or household chemicals, but something is taking our children. Will autism rates have to get to one-in-two before a Manhattan Project like effort is initiated to end this?
It is predicted that soon at least 1 in 3 adults will have some form of cancer, which, as we know, has become a booming industry.
Alternative cures, treatments and therapies are targeted for extermination by the state, and the sick are corralled into risky, expensive treatments that fail to address the root causes of cancer and promote healthier living.
9 . Morgellon’s
This strange and scary disease appears to be an infection of sorts by some still unknown type of organic material. Manifesting as tiny living threads or worms that surface at the skin, irritating the patient, it is believed that no Morgellon’s patient has ever been able to undergo an autopsy due to an attempted global cover up.
With no clear answers available from science, many point to geo-engineering and chemtrail spraying as the source.
10. Dental Fluorosis
The public fluoridation of water in the US and other nations is medication without consent and without controlling dosages. This is a form of torture. The US government just admitted that Americans are overdosed on fluoride when they lowered the recommended amounts to put in public water supplies.
Fluoride is linked to many health problems including cancer and lowered IQ in children, yet the government still forces into just about everyone. Dental fluorosis is a sign of overexposure to fluoride, and a sign of deliberate poisoning.
11. ‘Chemical Imbalances’
Some will disagree, but mental health issues like ADD/ADHD, anxiety, insomnia, and depression can all be cured with proper diet, exercise and supplementation. In fact, these conditions are fairly new to the human population, and are on the rise, or at least diagnoses are on the rise.
Of course the medical establishment benefits greatly from having more and more patients consuming drugs to remedy mental health issues.
The soft kill is about distracting you from life, debilitating you, and getting you out of the game and into the pharmacy.
It would take very little to eradicate so much of the toxicity from our modern world, but the initiative of the ruling elite is to destroy, contaminate and compromise all that which is most fundamental to life on planet earth. A deliberate soft kill.
Is this an accident, or the global depopulation soft kill strategy working effectively for the world’s elite? What do you think?
Fluoride Officially Classified As A Neurotoxin In World’s Top Medical Journals & Former EPA Senior Scientist Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ May 17 2017 | From: HealingLifeIsNatural / WakingTimes
Ostensibly, the purpose of adding the fluoride to public drinking water supplies is to improve dental health in the community, yet even the U.S. Government had to modify this claim by lowering the national fluoride levels in 2015, citing increases in dental fluorosis.
In 2012, a major Harvard study found that public water fluoridation poses a risk to the developing intelligence of children, essentially lowering the IQ of those in communities with public water fluoridation. This study invigorated the public debate on this issue, yet, fluoridation continues, despite the known risks, and all the while, scientific evidence continues mounts in the case against fluoride.
"The information now available supports a reasonable conclusion that exposure of the developing brain to fluoride should be minimized, and that economic losses associated with lower IQ’s may be quite large. ”
The research team involved in the study was headed by William Hirzy, PhD, a former US EPA senior scientist who specialized in risk assessment. He offers the following explanation of the significance of this particular study:
"The significance of this peer reviewed risk analysis is that it indicates there may be no actual safe level of exposure to fluoride.
Groups of children with lower exposures to fluoride were compared with groups having higher exposures. Those with higher exposures performed more poorly on IQ tests than those with lower exposures.
Applying two different, standard risk analysis techniques used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to published data on the impact of fluoride exposure in children shows that daily intakes in excess of about 0.05 mg of fluoride may result in depressed intellectual capability. This calculation involved using safety factors designed to protect the most vulnerable child.
One well-conducted Chinese study indicated that children exposed to 1.4 mg/day had their IQ lowered by 5 IQ points. Current average mean daily intakes among children in the United States are estimated by EPA to range from about 0.80 mg/day to 1.65 mg/day.
Fluoride may be similar to lead and mercury in having no threshold below which exposures may be considered safe.”
The study can be read in its entirety, here, and is worth sharing with anyone still on the fence about the so-called benefits of fluoridated drinking water.
Water fluoridation is medication without consent, yet people tolerate this abuse from government in many parts of the world without a full understanding of the negative effects of fluoride toxicity. The struggle to stop public water fluoridation is winnable at the community level, though, and every year, the grassroots movement against it grows.
Former EPA Senior Scientist Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ
Evidence of how negatively fluoride can impact our health has been increasing in rapid pace throughout the past few years. People are hoping that by bringing awareness to this that somehow we can get sodium fluoride removed from the world’s water supply.
A big step has been made here recently. In the most prestigious medical journal. One known as The Lancet. fluoride has been at last classified as a neurotoxin one hundred percent. This puts it in the same category as things like lead, arsenic, and mercury.
This news was released by the author Stefan Smyle who actually cited a report that had been published in The Lancet Neurology, Volume 13, Issue 3 to be exact in the March of 2014 edition. In this, the authors stated that many more of these neurotoxins remain undiscovered throughout the world.
They noted that many children are now being affected by neurodevelopmental disabilities caused by these neurotoxins. These authors have found that while fluoride in our water supplies is a major cause and issue there is another major cause as well, fluoride can actually also be found in heavily processed brands of tea that are grown in most likely overly polluted areas.
Sodium Fluoride is what is added to our water - a toxic insecticide
These authors have found that while fluoride in our water supplies is a major cause and issue there is another major cause as well, fluoride can actually also be found in heavily processed brands of tea that are grown in most likely overly polluted areas.
Most parents have been avoiding fluoridated toothpaste altogether and are jumping on the natural bandwagon in order to help ensure their families safety. A good natural go-to brand is known as Earthpaste for those who may not be aware of it. If you want to get away from fluoridated toothpaste I suggest using it or making your own. I will include a video at the end on how to make natural fluoride free toothpaste.
Fluoride is added to our water supply throughout North America but in most other countries fluoride is banned. Why is this? Because fluoride is extremely dangerous for our health. Fluoride in our drinking water has been linked to many different kinds of cancer. If you haven’t already filtering out the fluoride in your water is a must if you want to help yourself and your family stay healthy.
How To Make Your Own Natural Fluoride Free Toothpaste
The Body Is Not A Computer, So Stop Thinking Of It As One May 15 2017 | From: Gizmodo
When former DARPA chief Regina Dugan announced on stage last month that Facebook planned to build a brain computer interface to allow users to send their thoughts directly to the social network without a keyboard intermediary, it had all the Silicon Valley swagger of Facebook circa "move fast and break things".
With the same audacity with which any other Facebook product might be announced, Dugan explained that the company hopes to have this revolutionary brain-hack ready to ship "within a few years".
It's an admirable goal, but there's a problem. The body is not a computer. It cannot be hacked, rewired, engineered or upgraded like one, and certainly not at the ruthless pace of a Silicon Valley startup.
Over the past decade, science has made some notable progress in using technology to defy the limits of the human form, from mind-controlled prosthetic limbs to a growing body of research indicating we may one day be able to slow the process of ageing. Our bodies are the next big candidate for technological optimisation, so it's no wonder that tech industry bigwigs have recently begun expressing interest in them. A lot of interest.
Facebook's announcement that it plans to build a brain-computer interface that types at 100 words-per-minute came on the heels of Tesla-founder Elon Musk's announcement that he was forming a new venture, Neuralink, to develop a brain implant capable of telepathy, among other things.
Take the most computational part of the body, the brain. Our brains do not "store" memories as computers do, simply calling up a desired piece of information from a memory bank. If they did, you'd be able to effortlessly remember what you had for lunch yesterday, or exactly the way your high school boyfriend smiled.
Nor do our brains process information like a computer. Our grey matter doesn't actually have wires that you can simply plug-and-play to overwrite depression a la Eternal Sunshine.
The body, too, is more than just a well-oiled piece of machinery. We have yet to identify a single biological mechanism for ageing or fitness that any pill or diet can simply "hack". Research into some of these things is underway, but so far much of what it has uncovered is that the body and brain are incredibly complex.
Scientists do hope, for example, that one day brain computer interfaces might help alleviate severe cases of mental illnesses like depression, and DARPA is currently funding a $US65 million ($88 million) research effort aimed at using implanted electrodes to tackle some of the trickiest mental illnesses.
After decades of research, it's still unclear which areas of the brain even make the most sense to target for each illness.
But as Silicon Valley has begun to dip its toes in the realm of biology, it has brought along its hacker ethos. All you need to achieve ambitious feats of technological innovation are a few all-night hackathons, right?
Within a mere two years, Facebook thinks it will know whether its plan to send 100-word-per-minute status updates from our brains to our screens is possible. The current record for typing with a brain-computer interface, by the way, is somewhere around eight words-per-minute with an implant placed inside the brain.
And Musk, famous for taking on seemingly impossible moonshots with no clear deadline, said he imagines Neuralink's brain-computer interface making its debut within a decade. This is despite the fact that the brain-reading technology it relies upon is, at this point, little more than a fanciful blueprint.
The technology available today can only measure a fraction of the neural activity necessary to link someone's entire brain to a computer, or allow them to communicate with another person without speaking.
In 2009, University of Wisconsin-Madison biomedical engineer Justin Williams oversaw an effort that successfully used a brain-computer interface to send messages from the brain to Twitter.
"Ten years later have we gotten much further? I'm not sure."
"It was both a small and a big step," he told Gizmodo. "Ten years later have we gotten much further? I'm not sure."
Something like an email or a Facebook post, he noted, is infinitely more complicated than a 140-character, text-only tweet.
Just last spring, for the first time a man was able to not only control a prosthetic arm with his mind, but "feel" the arm move, too. That, however, is still a long way off from understanding all the brain's 100 billion neurons and their 100 trillion interconnections, then developing technology good enough to connect every single one of them to a machine. The issue isn't in the technology - it's in the approach to it.
"Twitter is about as simple as you can get," he said. "Sending an email sounds easy, but take a minute to think about all the processes that are involved - filling out the subject, the address field, the body. From a biological and technological standpoint, that's really complicated. There are a lot of moving parts."
Startups like Nootrobox and Halo Neuroscience claim that they are already delivering consumer-ready products to make us smarter, faster and stronger. But with so much of this science still so uncertain, it's hard to either prove or disprove their claims.
The complexity of human biology means that this research doesn't always move at the pace of Moore's Law, and yet when the tech industry approaches these problems, said Williams, "there is a get-it-done kind of attitude that's pretty pervasive."
Over time, as technology has changed, so have the metaphors, but the gist is the same: The body is but a fancy machine.
Conflating machines with the body is a very old human habit. In the 1500s, automata powered by springs and gears led thinkers like René Descartes to suggest that humans are simply complex machines.
In the 1800s, German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz compared the brain to a telegraph. In his 1958 book The Computer and the Brain, the mathematician John von Neumann stated explicitly that the human nervous system is "prima facie digital".
Over time, as technology has changed, so have the metaphors, but the gist is the same: The body is but a fancy machine.
This mode of thinking has spawned a philosophical doctrine, generous research funding, and misleading jargon in both the realms of biology and computing (see the brain's "circuits" or deep learning's "neural networks", which have more in common with classical computational models than anything neurobiological).
But this point of view becomes especially troubling when the realms of biology and computing merge. We risk starting to treat the human body - in all its complexity, fragility, resilience and mystery - like the machines we compare it to.
We risk over-promising on the deliverables, wasting time, money and public patience on far-out research we suggest we can hack together in a few years. And we risk compromising our health and well-being in the process.
Both Facebook and Neuralink have hired top scientific minds to tackle their respective projects. Facebook hired Dugan, and has partnered with UC Berkeley, Johns Hopkins Medicine and other leading academic research institutions. Likewise, Neuralink has brought on high-profile academic researchers.
A flush of Silicon Valley funding into basic research at a time when funding is scarce could very well wind up doing more for scientific progress than every NIH grant combined.
At the same time, many scientists are sceptical that the "move fast and break things" approach will work very well when applied to us. After all, we are living, breathing organisms, not inanimate machines. That's something we should try to remember.
Famous Medical-Journal Editor Torpedoes Medical Journal + Why Isn’t There A Medical Edward Snowden? May 6 2017 | From: JonRappoport / Various “There is a system designed to affect every human on the planet, from cradle to grave. For each person, I’m talking about 30 or 40 diagnoses of physical and mental conditions, many of which are false; and treatment with toxic chemicals that progressively debilitate, confuse, weaken, and destroy health and life. What would you call this system? Who would you blame?” - The Underground, Jon Rappoport
Her name is Dr. Marcia Angell. During her 20 years of work, she looked at, perused, and analyzed more medical studies than all mainstream science bloggers in the world put together.
You want to listen to an actual pro? Listen to her. Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, in the NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption”:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.
I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
Before you count Dr. Angell as a hero, consider this: why didn’t she blow the whistle loud and clear while she was editing The New England Journal? Why didn’t she burn her own Journal down to the ground? After all, she was publishing studies of clinical trials of new drugs, and those fake studies were praising the drugs as safe and effective.
And therefore, The New England Journal was aiding and abetting a crime - unleashing dangerous and ineffective drugs on the public. Her Journal was responsible for that.
Yes, the dreaded R word. Responsibility. In many circles these days, it’s not a popular term.
Take drug companies, for example. As I wrote in a recent piece, when lawsuits are launched against these companies for making drugs that kill and maim, the standard defense is:
“Don’t blame us. The FDA approved our medicine as safe and effective. We’re off the hook. We’ve discharged our responsibility.”
Really? Who created the drug in the first place? Who did the clinical trials? Who sells the drug?
There’s an either-or situation here. It needs to be exposed. It goes this way: Either the pharmaceutical company or the FDA is responsible for people dying. You can’t accuse both. Pick one.
That’s a fool’s game. Both entities are responsible; the company that created the drug and the FDA who approved it and certified it as safe and effective. (And the medical journals that published the crooked studies of clinical trials are also responsible.)
The FDA seal of approval doesn’t automatically exonerate the company. “Well, the government said our company’s drug was fine.” So what? Since when does the government have the last word?
Would you say the US military-industrial complex is solely the responsibility of the government, and the defense contractors play no role in launching endless wars? That would be naïve to the extreme.
As my readers know, because I’ve cited the key review dozens of times, pharmaceutical drugs kill 106,000 Americans every year. That’s a conservative mainstream estimate. (See Dr. Barbara Starfield, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”)
All those drugs are approved as safe and effective by the FDA. They’re also created, developed, tested, and sold by drug companies. Anyone with a shred of understanding of RESPONSIBILITY would correctly point to the FDA AND the drug companies. (And medical journals.)
Therefore, a company arguing in court that they’re off the hook for killing people with their drugs, because the FDA approved them, is evading responsibility and trying to shift it to the government. And an honest judge and a reasonably intelligent jury would recognize that in a minute.
From the drug company’s point of view, there is a game going on. The company is doing whatever it can to please and satisfy the FDA, and if it can, then it can walk away without shouldering blame.
Obscuring one’s own responsibility is one of the major industries in any nation you care to examine. The numbers of people involved, the amount of money, the time, energy - this is a field of endeavor that expands every year.
A simple law would go a long way toward righting the ship:
“A government certification of a product does not exempt the creator, developer, and seller of the product from facing legal action in criminal and civil court.”
From the street thug, to the highest corporate boardroom, to professional academic fabricators, the theme is the same: “It wasn’t me.” Oh yes it was. And is.
Let’s break down the word-origin of “responsible.” “Respond” comes from the Latin. “Re”=“again.” “Spondere”=“to pledge.” This construction eventually morphed into: pledging again for one’s actions, standing behind one’s actions, re-affirming one’s actions. And finally, “responsible” also means “legally accountable.”
As opposed to attributing the cause of one’s action to someone else.
“I defend my actions by claiming: ‘it wasn’t me’, someone else was in charge, someone else decided my actions were correct.” No. Not even close.
Of course, the US Dept. of Justice isn’t interested in any of these matters. If they were, they would be arresting drug company executives and researchers, FDA executives and drug-reviewers, and medical-journal editors who permit the publication of obviously fake studies of new drugs.
Understand: When you have medical drugs killing 106,000 Americans a year, this necessarily implies that published studies of clinical trials of those drugs - studies that praise those drugs as safe and effective - are a rank fraud.
Medical journals, the FDA, drug companies (and doctors) - a club. And each member of the club is responsible. Accountable. Culpable.
The next time a doctor, or some “science blogger” who loves mainstream published studies, sounds off about “real science,” show them this piece. And if they say that Dr. Marcia Angell is just one medical-journal editor, point them to the following:
Richard Horton (another pro’s pro), editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”:
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…
The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours.
Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale... Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…”
Two famous editors (Angell and Horton) of two of the most prestigious medical journals in the world torpedo their own corrupt practices.
And if that isn’t enough to put a dent in some potato-head, conventional, medical devotee, then just keep going with this, by the same Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet (from the same piece I just quoted:
Horton makes reference to a recent symposium he attended at the Wellcome Trust in London. The subject of the meeting was the reliability of published biomedical research. His following quote carries additional force because he and other attendees were told to obey Chatham House rules - meaning no one would reveal who made any given comment during the conference.
‘A lot of what is published is incorrect.’ I’m not allowed to say who made this remark [at the conference] because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides.
Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in ‘purdah’ - a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll.
Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium - on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week - touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations [biomedical science]”.
Conventional science bloggers, take notice. You’re working in a field where studies supporting the general consensus are tainted and stained.
Starting sentences with “the FDA approves” or “the CDC confirms” or “a study published in The New England Journal established” isn’t a ticket to the truth. Far from it.
You’re wading in a stench-ridden swamp, and you don’t know it; or you do know it and you don’t care, because you want to be part of the club; or someone is paying you to make absurd assertions. One way or another, you’re doomed if you follow the party line.
This is a much different landscape than you think it is. It’s a wholesale fabrication of what looks, sounds, smells, tastes, and feels like truth. But it isn’t. It’s a lying cartoon.
And it has vicious consequences for the health of the millions of people.
Why Isn’t There A Medical Edward Snowden?
The US press is aware that medically caused death is the third leading cause of death in America. But nothing happens in their elite corner of the “information age.”
For years, I’ve been pointing out that the medical apparatus is best-protected structure in the US and the world.
One piece of evidence for that statement: we haven’t had, symbolically speaking, a medical Edward Snowden. Indeed, if you go to WikiLeaks or some other source that routinely exposes leaks, you’ll be hard pressed to find anything substantial about the inner workings of what I call the medical cartel.
And when I say inner workings, I mean memos, emails, and other documents that irrevocably reveal:
How medical studies are routinely twisted and cooked to achieve a predetermined outcome in contradiction to the facts;
How virus-hunters casually claim to have discovered “the virus” that causes a disease, when they have not followed standard procedure, and are merely making insupportable and self-serving assumptions;
How researchers ignore evidence that a “new disease” is indistinguishable from an old disease that has been on the scene for decades or even longer; there is money in new diseases;
How medical drugs are having grave toxic effects on patients and delivering no visible results;
How government health officials are conspiring with drug companies to bring medicines to market, despite the fact that there is every reason to assume the drugs are worthless and destructive;
How public health agencies, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies cover up the widespread harm vaccines are causing;
How fake epidemics are launched to convince the public that they must follow prescribed vaccination schedules.
These are just a few of the many issues we would expect an insider to expose in blowing the whistle. We would expect to see these issues (crimes) revealed in numerous and detailed and irrefutable paper trails.
What the CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, exposed in 2014 (see the film Vaxxed) mainly concerned one study that falsely exonerated one vaccine (the MMR) from a role in causing autism. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Over the years, I’ve gone after the medical cartel from many angles. There is a surprising amount of open-source material.
I have also interviewed medical “dissidents,” doctors who have left the fold and are ready to talk. And using straightforward logic, I’ve discovered deep flaws in spurious medical arguments, and those flaws have led to deeper flaws and lies.
I could easily do a week-long course for honest and independent medical reporters on what I’ve found and how I’ve found it.
Connecting the dots often requires a prior knowledge of basic fallacies in the medical framework of “knowledge.”
I have never encountered a medical insider who had access to miles and miles of damning data and was prepared to release it to the world.
Understand: I’m NOT talking about practicing physicians who are willing to talk about medical lies. I’m talking about people who are buried deep in the heart of the pharmaceutical/government agency/research establishment, who are ready to step forward with documents that turn the establishment upside down, as a matter of duty to their various oaths.
This absence of deep insiders speaks to the wall that has been built around the medical cartel. We’re not just talking about insiders’ fear of going public. We’re talking about more. For example, the refusal of major media to cover deep revelations that threaten to torpedo the whole medical structure.
A potential whistleblower pauses for thought in the face of that. He could risk everything, and then - silence from the press.
No “Snowden coverage.” There would be unanimous press attacks on his person, accusations that the documents are forged or inconclusive, and he is mentally unbalanced. Accusations that he is preventing people from believing in a system that saves lives every day. And so on and so forth.
But that isn’t the end of it. The wall around the medical cartel is, in its origin, a Rockefeller wall. Modern medicine is a Rockefeller production, jump-started in the early 20th century with the famous Flexner Report.
On the basis of the Report, medical systems devoted to discovering and treating disease were gradually transformed into a machine that routinely kills 225,000 Americans a year - and that is a conservative estimate.
Rockefeller influence is no small thing.
The march to include every human on the planet under the umbrella of modern diagnosis and treatment is relentless. It is part and parcel of an agenda to weaken, debilitate, confuse, control, and destroy populations. I do not make that statement lightly.
I have shown, in past investigations, that medical-cartel players are surely aware of the damaging effects of their drugs, and yet, for decades, they have stood by and done nothing.
The profit motive is one thing; but this is, at the least, indifference to human suffering and death. You could call it reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, but these are euphemisms for assault with deadly weapons (the drugs) and murder.
You could say the reason medical insiders do not step forward and reveal key data is fear for their own lives; but this is true of whistleblowers in other professions who do step forward.
Suppose Edward Snowden, considering a plan to obtain and leak NSA data, felt strongly that the leaks would have no effect, that his revelations would be blacked out by the mainstream press, that no mainstream reporters would take his material and publish it?
Suppose there was no Glenn Greenwald to come to Snowden’s aid? Suppose the NSA had such a powerful propaganda arm that the public was utterly convinced the Agency was an angel with wings and was saving countless lives through its technology?
Suppose, the public believed every act of NSA spying was comparable to doctors in an emergency room putting an accident victim back together after a car crash?
Snowden would have paused for thought. He would have wondered deeply about whether his leaks would have any effect at all.
Let me give you an example. For years, I have been writing articles about medically caused death in America. One of the key studies I’ve cited is decidedly mainstream. It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered and honored public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Starfield concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.
That would extrapolate to 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade.
Aside from a brief flurry of mainstream press articles that followed Dr. Starfield’s publication, in 2000, the press has been silent. My articles, which have been published at my site and other independent sites, have garnered no mainstream attention. Zero.
I’m not complaining. I’m merely pointing out the degree of mainstream censorship. The medical cartel has great influence.
A medical Edward Snowden, observing the media landscape, would have every reason to pause and consider his options. Why would he risk his reputation, his job, his paycheck, his future, his life, if the cartel he is exposing is so well protected that nothing would come of his bravery?
This is one reason why I write articles about the expanding power and influence of independent media. The day may come, and soon, when a medical Edward Snowden realizes he doesn’t have to find an editor at the New York Times who will look at his treasure trove of data and consider publishing it.
Instead, he can pass along that data to any one of a hundred independent media operations and strike gold.
Or he can simply dump all the data on to a site he himself has created, comfortable in the knowledge that these same independent media sources will pick up the data, analyze it, and launch an unstoppable attack on the medical cartel.
Not one day’s coverage. A month, a year of coverage. Operation Relentless Medical. Then, the blind spot obscuring medical crimes will recede and vanish. The public will no longer feel queasy about these revelations; the public will not feel they are witnessing a despicable attack on a wonderful messiah who has come to save the planet.
Eventually, the public will be able to make the distinction between emergency/crisis medicine, where competent and careful doctors (not sloppy and ignorant doctors) can save the lives of people who are lying on streets, after car wrecks, who need to be put back together - the public will be able to separate that from long-term fake medicine, where people are falsely diagnosed and drowned in toxic drugs which create a whole array of new symptoms which are then criminally diagnosed as new medical conditions, leading to the prescription of even more toxic drugs…all the way to the grave.
The public will understand how unnecessary and dangerous surgeries, and unnecessary and poisonous vaccines, are being foisted on them and those they love.
The public will understand. And will rise up.
This is not a pipe dream, if independent media continue to expand, and if they realize revelations of deep medical crimes are at least as important as exposures about the military industrial complex or the spying systems of national governments, or corporate pollution, or high-level money manipulation.
True medical insiders will step forward and reveal the secrets of the Temple. I assure you, if we are alert, we are far more important and effective than “they” are.
The Spiritual Consequences Of Alcohol Consumption + The Likely Cause Of Addiction Has Been Discovered, And It Is Not What You Think April 29 2017 | From: CostaRicaNews / HuffingtonPost
Although it is mass produced, mass promoted, legal, and ingested by a multitude of people all over the world, most people don’t ever consider or understand the spiritual consequences of drinking alcohol.
Let’s begin by taking a look at the etymology of the Word alcohol. Etymology means the root of the word… where it is derived from.
The word “Alcohol” comes from the Arabic “al-kuhl” which means “BODY EATING SPIRIT”, and gives root origins to the English term for “ghoul”. In Middle Eastern folklore, a “ghoul” is an evil demon thought to eat human bodies, either as stolen corpses or as children.
The words “alembic” and “alcohol”, both metaphors for aqua vitae or “life water” and “spirit”, often refer to a distilled liquid that came from magical explorations in Middle Eastern alchemy. In the words of writer and health enthusiast, Jason Christoff - “In alchemy, alcohol is used to extract the soul essence of an entity.
Hence its’ use in extracting essences for essential oils, and the sterilization of medical instruments.
By consuming alcohol into the body, it in effect extracts the very essence of the soul, allowing the body to be more susceptible to neighboring entities most of which are of low frequencies (why do you think we call certain alcoholic beverages “SPIRITS?”).
That is why people who consume excessive amounts of alcohol often black out, not remembering what happened.
This happens when the good soul (we were sent here with) leaves because the living conditions are too polluted and too traumatic to tolerate.
The good soul jettisons the body, staying connected to a tether, and a dark entity takes the body for a joy ride around the block, often in a hedonistic and self-serving illogical rampage. Our bodies are cars for spirits.
If one leaves, another can take the car for a ride. Essentially when someone goes dark after drinking alcohol or polluting themselves in many other ways, their body often becomes possessed by another entity.”
I became aware of this phenomenon years ago when I was given a spiritual vision. In this vision, I was transported as an observer above a popular bar and nightclub.
Above the venue where a variety of ghoul-like entities. Inside the bar were people drinking alcohol, socializing, dancing, and so on. I watched as certain people became very drunk. I saw their souls, while connected through a thread, exited the body.
I understood that the soul was leaving the body because of the great discomfort of being in a body highly intoxicated with alcohol. When the soul exited the body, other non-benevolent entities entered or latched on to their vacant shells. Once the entities took hold of the body, they used the body to play out all kinds of dark acts, such as violence, low-level sexual encounters, destructive behaviors, rape, and more.
Years later, while reading a book called Mans Eternal Quest, by Paramahansa Yogananda, this spiritual master clearly explained the exact same thing as I was shown in the vision. I began to look back over my life and remember situations where I saw dark spirits hanging around people who had become very drunk.
Let me elaborate a bit when I say I saw these entities; I have had the abilities of clairvoyance (the ability to perceive things beyond the natural range of the senses which can include: ESP, extrasensory perception, sixth sense, psychic powers, second sight; telepathy, and more), clairaudience (the ability to perceive sounds or words from outside sources in the spirit world), and the experience of being a spiritual intuitive and empath since childhood.
I have the ability to see energies and spiritual manifestations that most people don’t see. As I looked back over my life I could remember many incidents of encountering non-benevolent spirits in the presence of intoxicated individuals. I also have had experiences of looking into the eyes of a few people who were surely “possessed” by dark energies that were not their own.
I also remember a psychology course I once took. In part of this course, we studied advertising and the effects on humans. We looked at the advertising for alcohol.
A master teacher of this subject illuminated the fact that most alcohol advertisements are embedded with hidden messages and images – not typically perceivable to the common sight, yet perceived through the subconscious.
Knowing how powerful the subconscious is in our decisión making, feelings, reactions, beliefs, etc., the slick sales teams of alcohol (as well as tobacco and other products) used this sinister technique to trick us into buying their products and joining the societal cult of mental apathy and cultural obedience.
Many of these hidden messages and images were extremely sexual – working to influence some of the basest urges and primal nature of humans.
Let this example bring you to a place of curiosity and questioning. Why have the marketing teams felt the need to trick us and coerce us through subliminal messages to buy products that are harmful to the human body and to our soul?
How many times have you or someone you know, after becoming quite intoxicated with alcohol, behaved in a manner uncommon to them? Perhaps you experienced the changing of voice, violence, sexual promiscuity, ingesting of harmful substances, destruction to property, conflictual behavior, and other negative expressions.
Consider these experiences and ask yourself - is this the manifestation of light, love, and positivity? Do these occurrences represent a path of consciousness and health?
It is a known by many that ingesting alcohol depresses the nervous system, kills brain cells, is toxic to the liver, weakens the immune system, and has many other harmful effects. We are taught that long-term alcohol use can lead to unwanted weight gain, diseases of the liver, lowering of intelligence, and negative effects on hormones.
Drinking alcohol while pregnant can lead to birth defects, mental retardation, and deformities in the developing fetus. Yet still, it is mass promoted and supported by our mainstream culture.
Have you ever considered that alcohol is a slick tool of the supporters of the Matrix (global mind control and oppression program) to keep people on a path of disempowerment and sickness?
We have to ask why is alcohol legal throughout most of the world, yet in many countries, and specifically the United States, psychedelics are illegal.
The conscious and safe use of psychedelics or “visionary medicines”are known to assist in mind expansion, to initiate spiritual experiences where people have communed with the divine, healed numerous physical and spiritual ailments, increase intelligence, help to re-pattern the brain in a positive way, assist people in aligning with their soul’s purpose, and have inspired many people to create great works of art and other innovative creations.
It seems that these substances would definitely be banned and discouraged if there truly is an agenda seeking to oppress the human potential and keep us “in the dark” regarding who we are as spiritual beings, our innate potential, and the path to empowerment.
As we strive to heal, awaken, and transform our world – I pray that we wise up to the dirty trick played upon humanity in regards to alcohol. Non-benevolent forces have wanted to keep us oppressed, disempowered, and asleep.
How many of us have seen families broken and lives lost because of alcohol and alcoholism?
Do you think it makes us smarter or healthier or overall better people? It’s time to change things. Let’s stand behind replacing the rampant abuse of alcohol with more health enhancing practices and activities and learn how to live awakened and empowered lives!
Before I close this writing, I want to share a little more about the history of the word alcohol. There have been some people who look into the etymology and discover this explanation:
Alcohol (n.) – 1540s (early 15c. as alcofol), “fine powder produced by sublimation,” from Medieval Latin alcohol “powdered ore of antimony,” from Arabic al-kuhul “kohl,” the fine metallic powder used to darken the eyelids, from kahala “to stain, paint.”
Paracelsus (1493-1541) used the word to refer to a fine powder but also a volatile liquid. By 1670s it was being used in English for “any sublimated substance, the pure spirit of anything,” including liquids.
Sense of “intoxicating ingredient in strong liquor” is first recorded 1753, short for alcohol of wine, which was extended to “the intoxicating element in fermented liquors.” In organic chemistry, the word was extended 1850 to the class of compounds of the same type as this.
Upon further research, we can find that in ancient Egypt, the eyes of both men and women were lined top and bottom with a thick black powder known as kohl, kajal, or mesdemet.
The outlined eye resembled the almond-shaped eye of the falcon god Horus observed in the Eye of Horus glyph. It was believed that this shape invoked the god´s protection and warded off evil spirits.
Yet if one were to dig deeper, as a true scientist, researcher, or truth seeker does, you will also discover these interesting facts…
Dr. Rachel Hajar, an accomplished modern-day editor, author and medical advisor, while researching an article on alcohol for her online medical journal, found additional meanings in ancient Arabic texts;
Al kol: Genie or spirit that takes on varied shapes or a supernatural creature in Arabic mythology.
Al kol: Any drug or substance that takes away the mind or covers it.”
The word alcohol is also linked to the fixed star in astronomy known as Algol- also known as “the Demon’s head.”
The current Arabic name for alcohol (ethanol) is الغول al-ġawl – properly meaning “spirit” or “demon”.
It is not a coincidence that alcohol has often been referred to as spirits. There is a deep history behind this intoxicating substance. There are layers of information throughout our culture, sometimes we have to look below the surface of things to find the fullness of truth.
I encourage you to deeply consider the information shared here, look at the effects of alcohol in your life, in the lives of the people you know, and in society at large.
Make conscious, informed, and health enhancing decisions. The more people who awaken to truth and seek health and liberation from mind control agendas, the more likely we are to make positive changes and co-create a world we feel good about living in.
The Likely Cause Of Addiction Has Been Discovered, And It Is Not What You Think
It is now one hundred years since drugs were first banned - and all through this long century of waging war on drugs, we have been told a story about addiction by our teachers and by our governments. This story is so deeply ingrained in our minds that we take it for granted.
It seems obvious. It seems manifestly true. Until I set off three and a half years ago on a 30,000-mile journey for my new book, Chasing The Scream: The First And Last Days of the War on Drugs, to figure out what is really driving the drug war, I believed it too. But what I learned on the road is that almost everything we have been told about addiction is wrong - and there is a very different story waiting for us, if only we are ready to hear it.
If we truly absorb this new story, we will have to change a lot more than the drug war. We will have to change ourselves.
I learned it from an extraordinary mixture of people I met on my travels. From the surviving friends of Billie Holiday, who helped me to learn how the founder of the war on drugs stalked and helped to kill her. From a Jewish doctor who was smuggled out of the Budapest ghetto as a baby, only to unlock the secrets of addiction as a grown man.
From a transsexual crack dealer in Brooklyn who was conceived when his mother, a crack-addict, was raped by his father, an NYPD officer. From a man who was kept at the bottom of a well for two years by a torturing dictatorship, only to emerge to be elected President of Uruguay and to begin the last days of the war on drugs.
I had a quite personal reason to set out for these answers. One of my earliest memories as a kid is trying to wake up one of my relatives, and not being able to. Ever since then, I have been turning over the essential mystery of addiction in my mind - what causes some people to become fixated on a drug or a behavior until they can’t stop?
How do we help those people to come back to us? As I got older, another of my close relatives developed a cocaine addiction, and I fell into a relationship with a heroin addict. I guess addiction felt like home to me.
If you had asked me what causes drug addiction at the start, I would have looked at you as if you were an idiot, and said: “Drugs. Duh.” It’s not difficult to grasp. I thought I had seen it in my own life. We can all explain it. Imagine if you and I and the next twenty people to pass us on the street take a really potent drug for twenty days.
There are strong chemical hooks in these drugs, so if we stopped on day twenty-one, our bodies would need the chemical. We would have a ferocious craving. We would be addicted. That’s what addiction means.
Put a rat in a cage, alone, with two water bottles. One is just water. The other is water laced with heroin or cocaine. Almost every time you run this experiment, the rat will become obsessed with the drugged water, and keep coming back for more and more, until it kills itself.
The advert explains: “Only one drug is so addictive, nine out of ten laboratory rats will use it. And use it. And use it. Until dead. It’s called cocaine. And it can do the same thing to you.”
But in the 1970s, a professor of Psychology in Vancouver called Bruce Alexander noticed something odd about this experiment. The rat is put in the cage all alone. It has nothing to do but take the drugs. What would happen, he wondered, if we tried this differently? So Professor Alexander built Rat Park.
It is a lush cage where the rats would have colored balls and the best rat-food and tunnels to scamper down and plenty of friends: everything a rat about town could want. What, Alexander wanted to know, will happen then? In Rat Park, all the rats obviously tried both water bottles, because they didn’t know what was in them. But what happened next was startling.
The rats with good lives didn’t like the drugged water. They mostly shunned it, consuming less than a quarter of the drugs the isolated rats used. None of them died. While all the rats who were alone and unhappy became heavy users, none of the rats who had a happy environment did.
At first, I thought this was merely a quirk of rats, until I discovered that there was - at the same time as the Rat Park experiment - a helpful human equivalent taking place. It was called the Vietnam War.
Time magazine reported using heroin was “as common as chewing gum” among U.S. soldiers, and there is solid evidence to back this up: some 20 percent of U.S. soldiers had become addicted to heroin there, according to a study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. Many people were understandably terrified; they believed a huge number of addicts were about to head home when the war ended.
But in fact some 95 percent of the addicted soldiers - according to the same study - simply stopped. Very few had rehab. They shifted from a terrifying cage back to a pleasant one, so didn’t want the drug any more.
Professor Alexander argues this discovery is a profound challenge both to the right-wing view that addiction is a moral failing caused by too much hedonistic partying, and the liberal view that addiction is a disease taking place in a chemically hijacked brain. In fact, he argues, addiction is an adaptation. It’s not you. It’s your cage.
After the first phase of Rat Park, Professor Alexander then took this test further. He reran the early experiments, where the rats were left alone, and became compulsive users of the drug. He let them use for fifty-seven days - if anything can hook you, it’s that. Then he took them out of isolation, and placed them in Rat Park.
He wanted to know, if you fall into that state of addiction, is your brain hijacked, so you can’t recover? Do the drugs take you over? What happened is - again - striking.
The rats seemed to have a few twitches of withdrawal, but they soon stopped their heavy use, and went back to having a normal life. The good cage saved them. (The full references to all the studies I am discussing are in the book.)
When I first learned about this, I was puzzled. How can this be? This new theory is such a radical assault on what we have been told that it felt like it could not be true. But the more scientists I interviewed, and the more I looked at their studies, the more I discovered things that don’t seem to make sense - unless you take account of this new approach.
Here’s one example of an experiment that is happening all around you, and may well happen to you one day. If you get run over today and you break your hip, you will probably be given diamorphine, the medical name for heroin. In the hospital around you, there will be plenty of people also given heroin for long periods, for pain relief.
The heroin you will get from the doctor will have a much higher purity and potency than the heroin being used by street-addicts, who have to buy from criminals who adulterate it.
So if the old theory of addiction is right - it’s the drugs that cause it; they make your body need them - then it’s obvious what should happen. Loads of people should leave the hospital and try to score smack on the streets to meet their habit.
But here’s the strange thing: It virtually never happens. As the Canadian doctor Gabor Mate was the first to explain to me, medical users just stop, despite months of use. The same drug, used for the same length of time, turns street-users into desperate addicts and leaves medical patients unaffected.
If you still believe - as I used to - that addiction is caused by chemical hooks, this makes no sense.
But if you believe Bruce Alexander’s theory, the picture falls into place. The street-addict is like the rats in the first cage, isolated, alone, with only one source of solace to turn to. The medical patient is like the rats in the second cage. She is going home to a life where she is surrounded by the people she loves. The drug is the same, but the environment is different.
This gives us an insight that goes much deeper than the need to understand addicts. Professor Peter Cohen argues that human beings have a deep need to bond and form connections. It’s how we get our satisfaction.
If we can’t connect with each other, we will connect with anything we can find - the whirr of a roulette wheel or the prick of a syringe.
He says we should stop talking about ‘addiction’ altogether, and instead call it ‘bonding.’ A heroin addict has bonded with heroin because she couldn’t bond as fully with anything else.
So the opposite of addiction is not sobriety. It is human connection.
When I learned all this, I found it slowly persuading me, but I still couldn’t shake off a nagging doubt. Are these scientists saying chemical hooks make no difference? It was explained to me - you can become addicted to gambling, and nobody thinks you inject a pack of cards into your veins. You can have all the addiction, and none of the chemical hooks.
I went to a Gamblers’ Anonymous meeting in Las Vegas (with the permission of everyone present, who knew I was there to observe) and they were as plainly addicted as the cocaine and heroin addicts I have known in my life. Yet there are no chemical hooks on a craps table.
But still, surely, I asked, there is some role for the chemicals? It turns out there is an experiment which gives us the answer to this in quite precise terms, which I learned about in Richard DeGrandpre’s book The Cult of Pharmacology.
Everyone agrees cigarette smoking is one of the most addictive processes around. The chemical hooks in tobacco come from a drug inside it called nicotine. So when nicotine patches were developed in the early 1990s, there was a huge surge of optimism - cigarette smokers could get all of their chemical hooks, without the other filthy (and deadly) effects of cigarette smoking. They would be freed.
But the Office of the Surgeon General has found that just 17.7 percent of cigarette smokers are able to stop using nicotine patches.
That’s not nothing. If the chemicals drive 17.7 percent of addiction, as this shows, that’s still millions of lives ruined globally. But what it reveals again is that the story we have been taught about The Cause of Addiction lying with chemical hooks is, in fact, real, but only a minor part of a much bigger picture.
This has huge implications for the one-hundred-year-old war on drugs. This massive war - which, as I saw, kills people from the malls of Mexico to the streets of Liverpool - is based on the claim that we need to physically eradicate a whole array of chemicals because they hijack people’s brains and cause addiction. But if drugs aren’t the driver of addiction - if, in fact, it is disconnection that drives addiction - then this makes no sense.
Ironically, the war on drugs actually increases all those larger drivers of addiction. For example, I went to a prison in Arizona - ‘Tent City’ - where inmates are detained in tiny stone isolation cages (‘The Hole’) for weeks and weeks on end to punish them for drug use.
It is as close to a human recreation of the cages that guaranteed deadly addiction in rats as I can imagine. And when those prisoners get out, they will be unemployable because of their criminal record - guaranteeing they with be cut off even more. I watched this playing out in the human stories I met across the world.
There is an alternative. You can build a system that is designed to help drug addicts to reconnect with the world - and so leave behind their addictions.
This isn’t theoretical. It is happening. I have seen it. Nearly fifteen years ago, Portugal had one of the worst drug problems in Europe, with 1 percent of the population addicted to heroin. They had tried a drug war, and the problem just kept getting worse. So they decided to do something radically different.
They resolved to decriminalize all drugs, and transfer all the money they used to spend on arresting and jailing drug addicts, and spend it instead on reconnecting them - to their own feelings, and to the wider society. The most crucial step is to get them secure housing, and subsidized jobs so they have a purpose in life, and something to get out of bed for.
I watched as they are helped, in warm and welcoming clinics, to learn how to reconnect with their feelings, after years of trauma and stunning them into silence with drugs. One example I learned about was a group of addicts who were given a loan to set up a removals firm. Suddenly, they were a group, all bonded to each other, and to the society, and responsible for each other’s care.
The results of all this are now in. An independent study by the British Journal of Criminology found that since total decriminalization, addiction has fallen, and injecting drug use is down by 50 percent. I’ll repeat that: injecting drug use is down by 50 percent. Decriminalization has been such a manifest success that very few people in Portugal want to go back to the old system.
The main campaigner against the decriminalization back in 2000 was Joao Figueira, the country’s top drug cop. He offered all the dire warnings that we would expect from the Daily Mail or Fox News. But when we sat together in Lisbon, he told me that everything he predicted had not come to pass - and he now hopes the whole world will follow Portugal’s example.
This isn’t only relevant to the addicts I love. It is relevant to all of us, because it forces us to think differently about ourselves. Human beings are bonding animals. We need to connect and love. The wisest sentence of the twentieth century was E.M. Forster’s - “only connect.”
But we have created an environment and a culture that cut us off from connection, or offer only the parody of it offered by the Internet. The rise of addiction is a symptom of a deeper sickness in the way we live - constantly directing our gaze towards the next shiny object we should buy, rather than the human beings all around us.
The writer George Monbiot has called this “the age of loneliness.” We have created human societies where it is easier for people to become cut off from all human connections than ever before.
Bruce Alexander - the creator of Rat Park - told me that for too long, we have talked exclusively about individual recovery from addiction.
We need now to talk about social recovery - how we all recover, together, from the sickness of isolation that is sinking on us like a thick fog. But this new evidence isn’t just a challenge to us politically. It doesn’t just force us to change our minds. It forces us to change our hearts.
Loving an addict is really hard. When I looked at the addicts I love, it was always tempting to follow the tough love advice doled out by reality shows like Intervention - tell the addict to shape up, or cut them off. Their message is that an addict who won’t stop should be shunned. It’s the logic of the drug war, imported into our private lives.
But in fact, I learned, that will only deepen their addiction - and you may lose them altogether. I came home determined to tie the addicts in my life closer to me than ever - to let them know I love them unconditionally, whether they stop, or whether they can’t.
When I returned from my long journey, I looked at my ex-boyfriend, in withdrawal, trembling on my spare bed, and I thought about him differently. For a century now, we have been singing war songs about addicts.
It occurred to me as I wiped his brow, we should have been singing love songs to them all along.
Urgent National Security And International Terrorism Alert April 26 2016 | From: NesaraNews
The following was written to inform you of large-scale human rights violations and systematic physical attacks on the civilian population within all countries of the world using modern electromagnetic weapons and neuro-weapons, often in combination with non-consensual implants and covertly administered nanotechnology.
What makes these weapons particularly dangerous and devastating for societies is that they act covertly. Using the fact that electromagnetic waves propagate without being noticed by humans and can penetrate walls, these weapons can be used to destroy human life and permit the perpetrators to escape detection.
The systematic and clandestine nature of the crimes and their striking similarity around the world indicate that it is a global program run by the international military-intelligence complex committing premeditated mutilation, torture, systematic subjugation and a silent genocide of parts of the population.
It amounts to crimes against humanity and a global death camp program.
I am writing to formally request that under you statutory duty to investigate crimes against humanity, protect the civilian population from acts of terrorism, communicate matters of national importance to your government and uphold human rights, or otherwise, you pass on this message to the relevant authorities and you yourself act within your means to ensure that all victim cases are investigated and that these large-scale criminal operations are shut down in your country by 1st June 2017.
The actions you take in response to this communication will be followed up over the coming months and, should it turn out that you chose to ignore this notification and your duties to act to stop these crimes and to support the victims, you might be charged with, for example, official misconduct, malfeasance in office, dereliction of duty, conspiracy, aiding and abetting crimes against humanity, high treason or your legal system's equivalent of such offences.
Should that be the case, you will be called to account and held liable in one of the upcoming court or tribunal cases for crimes against humanity.
The attacks on victims are launched from mobile directed energy weapon units as well as telecommunication infrastructure such as cell towers and satellite systems. This is an integrated weapons system that has been built up covertly around the world.
The weapons system is now fully operational around the world and is destroying innocent victims' life in the millions and is subverting nations covertly.
Individual victims are hounded and tormented by the national surveillance networks, encircled by perpetrators at all times and systematically tortured and mutilated with electromagnetic as well as ultrasonic weapons in public as well as in their homes.
The assaults exploit the fact that beams from electromagnetic weapons are silent, invisible and can penetrate the walls of buildings such that victims can be assaulted everywhere without leaving traces that lead back to the perpetrators.
By these means, victims are effectively placed into individual concentration camps that are erected around them by the intelligence agencies, corrupted members of law enforcement and their network of criminal operatives.
This operation is accompanied by targeted slander campaigns, infiltration and subversion of every aspect of victims' life, including their social circle, their family, their work place and especially their medical care.
Operatives enter victims' home clandestinely, damage property, sabotage computer equipment directly or remotely, poison food and run harassment campaigns to psychologically disintegrate the victims so that they are eventually driven to suicide or are murdered.
The electromagnetic and neuro-weapons have capabilities that transcend anything that the world has experienced in terms of weapons technology in the past.
Due to their ability to attack and manipulate biological processes, inner organs and the human nervous system as well as neurological processes, these devices are the most dangerous weapons produced by mankind to date.
The effect on humans is devastating as the weapons can simulate many illnesses, cause pain and organ damage, brain damage, strokes, heart attacks and death. The most common form of harm through the use of these weapons is DNA damage and tumour formation and eventually cancer.
DNA damage in the reproductive eggs of women alters the mitochondrial DNA and thus damages entire future generations. The operations of these weapon systems is therefore a threat to the future of humanity itself.
Another insidious aspect of these weapons is that they can be used to impair, alter and control human bodily functions, movement, behaviour and even thought processes often without the realisation of the victim.
This can be used to subvert the functioning of every aspect of human endeavour from personal relationships, business endeavours, to democratic processes and the national security infrastructure of a nation.
Mobile directed energy weapons come in all sizes and have various capabilities. They are hidden by the perpetrators in adjacent properties, cars, drones, planes and even parts of the national infrastructure. Agents of the surveillance networks carry assault weapons in bags and rucksacks.
This covert weapons system is fully integrated and centrally controlled. Victims who fled to other countries discovered that their assault protocol travels with them and is continued by the local surveillance and law enforcement system in whichever country they reside.
From what could be established from declassified documents, the organisational matrix of the assault teams follows the protocol used for the death squads run by the large intelligence agencies in, for example, Vietnam and South American countries. It is of paramount importance for national security to stop this terrorism and shut down the funding and the systems that enable its proliferation.
The weapons technology itself has largely been classified for a very long time. There are, however, countless publicly known cases from around the world where the weapons have been applied to individuals over many years with the intent to intimidate, torture, maim and murder.
From the testimonies of those victims, many of whom have shared their plight online on blogs and through social media, publicly known patents and declassified documents, we know of the devastating effect of these weapons and the staggering scale of the crimes being committed around the world. Please assist us in stopping this global silent Holocaust.
Chemicals Are Making Us Sterile And Dumb March 26 2017 | From: Sott
Over the last seventy-five years, men have seen a sharp reduction in reproductive capacity, and evidence suggests that commonly found chemicals are to blame.
If that news isn't stark enough for the future of humankind, these chemicals are also making us dumber. A recent piece in the New York Times drew attention to an important issue: endocrine-disrupting chemicals in everyday consumer products are killing or disabling sperm and making men sterile.
The numbers are extremely troubling. Scientists say that approximately 90% of sperm in a typical young man are misshapen, meaning they are unable to swim correctly. Additionally, sperm counts have decreased sharply over the last seventy-five years. As one researcher bluntly stated, "Not everyone who wants to reproduce will be able to."
Our grandfathers may not have been able to understand our smart phones, but their ability to produce offspring vastly outpaced our own.
There's a great deal of evidence to suggest endocrine-disrupting chemicals are the major cause of this problem. They're found in plastics, pesticides, and many other products. Quite simply, these chemicals disrupt the proper functioning of hormones.
One study by Canadian scientists found that adding endocrine disruptors to Lake Ontario turned male fathead minnows into intersexual fish (fish with both male and female characteristics), which are unable to reproduce. Unfortunately, it is far from the only study positing a link between chemicals and infertility.
The mayhem caused by these chemicals appears to happen in utero, when endocrine disruptors mimic certain hormones and confuse the biological process that turns a fetus into a male.
Chemical exposure, unfortunately, affects far more than just reproductive health. A recent study discussed in The Atlantic details the damage that certain environmental contaminants - including endocrine disruptors, but also lead, ethanol, mercury, arsenic, and more - can have on the brain. These effects include lower IQs, ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, and more.
"Our very great concern," the authors of the new study write, "is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies."
The authors also note that genetic factors account for only 30 to 40% of all cases of brain development disorders. They suggest that environmental exposures to industrial chemicals are causing a "silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity."
What are federal regulators doing to deal with the rise in infertility and this "silent pandemic" of brain disorders? Not much. Humans have made, found, or used over 50 million unique chemicals, yet federal regulators have tested only 200. And only five of those were deemed harmful enough to be subject to new regulations.
This isn't simply a case of federal agencies being asleep at the wheel. Sometimes it's plain old corruption, as we'll see in the next piece in this week's Pulse of Natural Health.
Genetics Are The New Eugenics: How GMO’s Reduce The Human Population
& This Major Report On GMO Safety Has Just One Small Problem: Undisclosed Conflicts Of Interest March 25 2017 | From: GlobalResearch / Sott
Last year, we had a series of mergers in the agribusiness’ GMO-corporations worldwide. This has created an alarming concentration of corporate power in the hands of basically three corporate groups.
The first one is Bayer AG of Germany, which made a friendly takeover of Monsanto. The reason for this was that Monsanto became identified in the public mind as pure evil and everything bad about GMO’s, which was accurate.
This became a burden on the whole GMO project. So, Bayer stepped in, which has a friendly image of an aspirin, harmless, nice company, but in fact is the company that invented heroin in the 1880’s and made gas for the ovens of Auschwitz during WWII.
It’s one of the dirtiest agribusiness companies in the world with a series of homicides and pesticides that killed off bee colonies and many other things that are essential to life and to nature.
ChemChina – China State Chemical giant – for some reason took over Swiss Syngenta, which makes weed-killers.
Then, Dow Chemicals and DuPont merged their GMO businesses together.
So, we have three gigantic corporate groups worldwide controlling the genetically-modified part of the human food chain.
As dangerous as the GMO crops are and the more they sell, it is becoming more and more obvious that they are the chemicals that by contract must be applied to those GMO seeds by the corporations.
They demand that if you buy roundup ready soybeans or corn, you must use Monsanto (now Bayer) roundup.
Therefore, this is giving more corporate power to the GMO industry than ever before and that’s an alarming trend. They are putting pressure on the bureaucracy in Brussels.
One example: there was a massive public campaign against the renewal of the license of the European Commission for Glyphosate. Glyphosate is the most widely used weed-killer in the world. Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Monsanto’s roundup. The other ingredients are Monsanto’s corporate secret, but the combination of them is one of the most deadly weed-killers.
The World Health Organization’s body responsible for assessing genetic dangers made a ruling the last year that Glyphosate was a probable cancer-causing agent.
The license came up for automatic renewal last year – a 15-year license. The EU commission for health was prepared to automatically renew it for 15 years. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which is responsible allegedly for the health and safety of European citizens, recommended approval based on a German study by the German Food Safety Agency that was simply lifted 100% from studies given by the private corporation Monsanto!
So, the whole chain was corrupt from the beginning and all the information was rigged. In reality tests have shown that in minuscule concentrations, lower than in recommended levels in Europe and in the US, Glyphosate causes kidney disease, liver disease, and other illnesses that are potentially fatal.
Now, Glyphosate has shown up in urine tests, in urban drinking water, in gardens, in ground water and so forth. And that gets into the system of childbearing women, for example, with embryo. It’s all in this!
The EU commission, despite a million petitions – this is a record setting – and despite recommendations from leading scientists around the world to not renew the license, made a compromise under huge industry pressure and renewed it for 18 months. Why did they renew it for that time?
Because at the end of 18 months, they were told by Bayer and Monsanto that the takeover of those two giant corporations will be completed and Bayer is going to replace Glyphosate with another, likely more deadly toxin, but not so well-known as Glyphosate. So, they simply bought time. And that is just one example.
This agenda of GMO is not about the health and safety; it’s not about increasing crop yields – that’s a lie that has been proven in repeated tests in North America and all around the world.
Crop yields for farmers, using GMO plants, may increase slightly for the first 1-2 harvest years, but ultimately decline after 3-4 years.
And not only that! We’ve been promised by Monsanto and other GMO giants that the use of chemicals will be less, because of these “wonderful” traits that GMO plants resist.
In fact, the weeds become resistant and you have super weeds, which are 5-6 feet in a height and choke out everything. It’s a catastrophe.
So, farmers end up using added weed killers to kill the super weeds. This whole mad playing around with the genetic makeup of nature is a disaster from the beginning.
The real agenda of GMO, which I have documented in great detail in my book “Seeds of Destruction”, comes from the Rockefeller Foundation.
It comes out of the 1920s-1930s Eugenics movement. The Rockefeller Foundation during the 1930’s, right up to the outbreak of World War II when it became politically embracing too, financed the Nazi Eugenics experiments of Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin and in Munich.
Why did they do this? Their goal was the elimination of what they called “undesirable eaters”. That is called population reduction.
After the war, the head of the American Eugenic Society, who was a good friend of John D. Rockefeller, at the annual conference of the American Eugenic Society said:
"From today, the new name of eugenics is genetics”.
Moreover, if you keep that in mind – genetic engineering, the Human Genome Project and so forth – they all are scientific frauds. Russian scientists have proven that the entire Genome Project utterly disregarded 98% of the scientifically valuable data in favor of 2% that was completely nonsense and a waste of billions of dollars.
Therefore, they have been obsessed with the idea of how to reduce human population in a way that would not be so obvious as simply going out and carrying out mass-sterilization.
Actually, they have done that in Central America together with the World Health Organization by giving certain vaccines that they cooked-up to have abortive effects.
Therefore, the women of child-bearing age in Central America were given these vaccines against tetanus.
The organization of the Catholic Church became suspicious because the shots were given only to women, not to men. And they found that there was buried in the vaccine an abortive effect that made it impossible for women to conceive and bear children. This is all covert population reduction.
These are the Western patriarchs who believe they are the gods, sitting on the throne with great dignity, controlling mankind. I think they are a bunch of fools, but they have this agenda of genetic manipulation. It’s against nature, it’s chemically unstable.
And I have to congratulate the Russian Federation that they had the courage and the moral concern for their own population to ban GMO cultivation across Russia.
That was a step forward for mankind. I would hope that Russia will use its influence to get China to do the similar thing, because their agriculture is in dire need of some healthy Russian input. But this step by Russia to make a GMO-free agriculture is a great step for mankind.
This Major Report On GMO Safety Has Just One Small Problem: Undisclosed Conflicts Of Interest
Researchers allege undisclosed conflicts of interest on a National Academies of Sciences panel. About a year ago, the prestigious National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine produced a 584-page report assessing the health, environmental, and agronomic impact of genetically modified crops.
Not surprisingly, the report did little to "end the highly polarized dispute over biotech crops," concluded New York Times reporter Andrew Martin in an article just after the report's release. He added that both sides of the debate "pointed approvingly to findings that buttressed their viewpoint and criticized those that did not."
And a new paper, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS-One, ups the temperature of that long-simmering debate.
The authors - Sheldon Krimsky, a professor in the Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts, and Tim Schwab, a researcher at Food & Water Watch - found that 6 of the 20 scientists who contribute to NASEM's GMO report had ties to the ag-biotech industry that weren't disclosed in the paper.
Five of them "had patents or industry research funding" while they served on the committee, and another one "reported receiving industry research funding" a few years before.
As Krimsky and Schwab note, the NASEM paper states that the GMO assessment, launched only after face-to-face conversations;
"Determined that no one with an avoidable conflict of interest is serving on the committee."
They also uncovered another undisclosed potential conflict: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, a nonprofit institution, has had substantial funding from the very companies whose products were assessed in the report:
"The organization's annual financial reports do not give exact figures but note that three leading agricultural biotechnology companies (Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow) have given up to $5 million dollars each to the NASEM."
The National Academies even hosted a 2015 workshop on communicating the science of GMO crops to the public, funded in part by Monsanto and DuPont.
The PLOS-One findings do not invalidate the findings of the GMO assessment, of course. Having a financial interest in an industry does not automatically make a scientist incapable of commenting honestly on that industry's products. Fred Gould, professor of entomology at North Carolina State University and the chair of the committee that wrote the report, defended it in an email.
"The one implicit rule on our committee was that if you wanted something to go into the report, you had to back it up with evidence that was acceptable to everyone on the committee," he wrote.
"No one person could steer the committee with an opinion. I welcome people to scrutinize the accuracy of our report." (Gould was not one of the six committee members found by the PLOS authors to have industry ties.)
In a statement, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine denied that members of the committee violated conflict-of-interest disclosure norms. NASEM maintains a;
"Stringent, well-defined, and transparent conflict-of-interest policy, with which all members of this study committee complied," the statement reads. "It is unfair and disingenuous for the authors of the PLOS article to apply their own perception of conflict of interest to our committee in place of our tested and trusted conflict-of-interest policies."
However, NASEM's published policy on the topic mentions "patents, copyrights, and other intellectual property" and "research funding and other forms of research support" as potential conflicts of interest.
William Kearney, deputy executive director and director of media relations for NASEM, said the group sees such relationships as conflicts only when they're worth at least $10,000. By NASEM's reckoning, none of the committee members violated the group's disclosure policy.
All of that said, the undisclosed relationships uncovered by Krimsky and Schwab raise questions about the NASEM's ability to fulfill its mission of providing "nonpartisan, objective guidance for decision makers on pressing issues." And as Krimsky and Schwab also note, the National Academies' problem with conflicts of interest is long-standing.
Back in 2006, the Center for Science in the Public Interest issued a report finding that nearly a fifth of the scientists appointed to one of the group's panels over a three-year period had "direct financial ties to companies or industry groups with a direct stake in the outcome of that study."
The Drugs May Be The Problem - Inconvenient Truths About Big Pharma And The Psychiatric Industry + Psychologist Speaks Out: Psychiatry Is Misleading Public About Mental Disorders March 25 2017 | From: NaturalBlaze / Sott / Various
I borrowed the title from psychiatrist Peter Breggin’s ground-breaking 1999 book Your Drug May Be Your Problem.
Thousands of Big Pharma whistle-blowers like me, along with millions of other skeptics concerning the alleged safety (now disproven) and alleged efficacy (now disproven) of Big Pharma’s often toxic and often addictive psych drugs, are justifiably concerned with the huge influence that the for-profit, essentially amoral, multinational pharmaceutical corporations have over the medical establishment, including the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health) and academic psychiatry.
Many whistle-blowers that have been trying to expose the frailties and fraudulence of the psychiatric drug industry regard Dr Breggin as a mentor, and increasingly, many survivors of psychiatric drug addiction and neurotoxicity feel the same. His books occupy a significant section in my personal library.
I have spent many hours reading and studying Breggin’s books.
Over and over again, I have confirmed the veracity of his evidence and applied his insights in my past practice of holistic mental healthcare, where I saw hundreds of patients who had been seriously sickened by and addicted to irrational cocktails of psych drugs, which has been prescribed in trial-and-error experimental fashions.
Sometimes, when all the psych drugs and their combinations and dosages of drugs had been tried and failed (usually making the patient worse), brain-disabling and seizure-inducing electroshock, the ultimate psychiatric method of last resort, was added, with the predictable loss of employability, personality and memory – both short-term and long-term.
Sadly, because Breggin has been such a big threat to the profitability of Big Pharma and the practice of psychiatry, he has unfairly been regarded as a medical heretic, and therefore he, his courageous truth-telling and his books have been essentially black-balled by psychiatrists and the medical establishment.
Despite the fact that his ideas are considered heretical in mainstream psychiatry, his books continue to be inspirational and educational for psychiatric patients who know that they have been sickened and/or made worse by the use of brain-disabling drugs and electroshock.
Breggin is a giant among psychiatric whistle-blowers and a huge thorn in the side of the super-wealthy and obscenely profitable multinational psychopharmaceutical corporations (and much of academic psychiatry).
He has been influential with free-thinking physicians and feared by establishment types ever since his first ground-breaking book was published in 1991.
That book was titled Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock and Biochemical Theories of the ‘New Psychiatry’.
Last year was the 25th anniversary of Toxic Psychiatry’s publication and I dedicated a recent seminar that I did in St Paul, MN to him. It needs to be emphasized that Breggin’s books are virtually banned books in polite medical establishment circles. They are rarely found on mainstream book-seller’s store shelves, and they are absent from hospital libraries that are designed for physician education.
“We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth… For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.”
- Patrick Henry (1775)
“It would be good for humankind and bad for the fishes if all the drugs were thrown into the sea.”
- Dr. William Osler
“One of the first duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take medicine…The good physician treats the disease; the great physician treats the patient who has the disease… The person who takes medicine must recover twice, once from the disease and once from the medicine.”
- Dr. William Osler
“Prozac and its successor antidepressants cause sexual dysfunction in as many as 70% of people taking them.”
- Dr Loren Mosher
Among the approximately 2 dozen books Dr Breggin has written during his long career as author and practicing psychiatrist (he is still curing patients at age 80) is his Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry: Drugs, Electroshock and the Role of the FDA (1997, revised in 2008).
That book exposed the corrupted pseudoscience and out-and-out bribery that has enabled the psychopharmaceutical industry to convince the CDC, the FDA, the NIMH, and academic psychiatry (all of which have enormous power in essentially every medical school and major medical clinic in the nation), to thrive by foisting their potentially addictive, potentially brain-damaging and potentially dementia-inducing synthetic psych drugs (and their potentially brain-damaging electroshock “treatments”) onto an unsuspecting, indoctrinated and often naive healthcare industry (and the brain-washed populace).
Pharmaceutical money in the hundreds of millions are showered upon those supposedly independent groups every year.
Corporate, for-profit “science” has not been recognized as pseudoscience and therefore has been spreading, thanks to the propaganda that is repeated endlessly in the popular media that overwhelms the accurate, unbiased neuroscience research that is published (but not read by most physicians) in relatively obscure journals.
Non-corrupted “pure” science that doesn’t rely on Big Pharma money can only be done if the influence of big money isn’t a factor.
And the journal articles written about that science are being written by conscientious and under-funded research scientists who haven’t been bought or co-opted by the pharmaceutical corporations that are collectively known as Big Pharma.
The full title of Dr Breggin’s 1999 book, co-authored with Dr David Cohen, is Your Drug May Be Your Problem: How and Why to Stop Taking Psychiatric Medications.
Psychiatrist William Glasser wrote the following in the forward to the first edition:
"Nowhere does the false medical thinking (that there is a drug cure for almost all common diseases) do more harm than in the modern psychiatric argument that mental illness is easily diagnosed and then cured by a side-effect-free drug.
Nowhere is the correct psychiatric thinking more evident than in the books by Peter Breggin. In them he explains clearly that patients with mental illnesses are in almost all instances suffering from their inability to connect with important people in their lives and need help in making these vital connections.
He supports safe, drug-free counseling as a more effective way to help people, and I enthusiastically agree with this premise."
Psychiatrist Alberto Fergusson wrote:
"This book is one of the most important things that has happened to psychiatry and especially to so-called ‘psychiatric patients’ during this century.
Having worked for more than 20 years with so-called schizophrenics – the main victims of the abuse by prescribed psychiatric drugs – I can say that Breggin and Cohen must be praised for the courage they have had to unmask many pseudo-scientific conclusions frequently present in supposedly scientific literature.”
Psychiatrist Douglas C. Smith endorsed the book with this:
"One hundred years from now, people will read current psychiatric textbooks with the same incredulity we have about blood-letting and snake oil.
Your Drug May Be Your Problem will be remembered as the turning point and as the beacon that showed the way out of these dark days of widespread psychiatric drugging. Breggin and Cohen provide us with critical information we need to know in order to make informed decisions about psychiatric drugs, including when and how to stop taking them.
They present it all within a coherent philosophy of life and health that makes the routing use of psychiatric drugs obsolete. If you have reached that inevitable point of being disillusioned with your psychiatric drug, this book will be your best friend and guide.”
In 2008, another of Breggin’s ground-breaking books was published. It was titled Medication Madness: A Psychiatrist Exposes the Dangers of Mood-altering Medications. The liner notes say:
"Medications for everything from depression and anxiety to (so-called) ADHD and insomnia are being prescribed in alarming numbers across the country, but the “cure” is often worse than the original problem.
“Medication Madness” is a fascinating, frightening and dramatic look at the role that psychiatric medications have played in 50 case histories of suicide, murder, and other violent, criminal and bizarre behaviors…
“Psychiatric drugs frequently cause individuals to lose their judgment and their ability to control their emotions and actions. The book raises and examines the issues surrounding personal responsibility when behavior seems driven by drug-induced adverse reactions and intoxication.
“Many categories of psychiatric drugs can cause potentially horrendous reactions. Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Adderall, Ritalin, Concerta, Xanax, lithium, Zyprexa and other psychiatric medications may spellbind patients into believing they are improved when too often they are becoming worse.
Psychiatric drugs drive some people into psychosis, mania, depression, suicide, agitation, compulsive violence and loss of self-control without the individuals realizing that their medications have deformed their way of thinking and feeling.
The book documents how the FDA, the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical industry have oversold the value of psychiatric drugs. The book serves as a cautionary tale about our reliance on potentially dangerous psychoactive chemicals to relieve our emotional problems and provides a positive approach to taking personal charge of our lives.”
The Tragic Story of the Soteria Project and the Plot to Kill it (A Conspiracy Between Big Pharma, the NIMH and Academic Psychiatry)
“Psychiatry has been almost completely bought out by the drug companies… We’re so busy with drugs that you can’t find a nickel being spent on [non-drug] research.”
- Dr Loren Mosher
Psychiatrist Loren Mosher (who earned degrees from both Harvard and Stanford) was the highly esteemed founder of the experimental “Soteria Project: Community Alternatives for the Treatment of Schizophrenia” from 1971 to 1983.
Five years before his untimely death in 2004, Dr Mosher endorsed Breggin’s Your Drug May Be Your Problem. He wrote:
"Confronting current psychiatric drug prescribing practice head-on is a daunting task and we owe Drs Breggin and Cohen a vote of thanks for openly speaking the truth.
Despite what the pharmaceutical companies would have us believe, we don’t need ‘a better life through chemistry.’ This book will help debunk this myth and provide practical advice on how to avoid psychiatric drugs and get off them.”
The Soteria Project proved that patients with first onset psychotic breaks could actually be cured without the need for coercive, in-patient psychiatry or the so-called “anti-psychotic/major tranquilizer” drug treatments that were considered the standard of care in all of America’s in-patient psychiatric facilities.
One only has to recall Jack Nicholson’s psych ward in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest where everybody was forced to take the authoritarian Nurse Ratched’s Thorazine at “Medication Time”.
Neither Nurse Ratched, the psychiatrists nor the treatment staff working on Randle McMurphy’s ward had any idea that the antipsychotic drugs that were routinely administered commonly caused permanent iatrogenic brain damage, including tardive dyskinesia, tardive dementia, Parkinson’s disease, brain shrinkage and sexual dysfunction, not to mention a high incidence of the following antipsychotic drug-induced signs and symptoms: akathisia, depression, suicidality, homicidality, disability, unemployability, homelessness, loss of IQ points, chronic constipation, dry mouth, premature death, and general feelings of zombification.
Thorazine, and its sister “first generation” anti-psychotic drugs like Mellaril and Haldol, and every other so-called anti-psychotic drug ever made since then (including the second generation/“atypical” antipsychotics (and even the SSRIs) that wouldn’t come to market until the 1990s, have been found to cause diabetes, obesity, gynecomastia, pituitary dysfunction, cardiac rhythm disturbances, sudden death, etc.
Soteria’s lucky patients had been randomized into the Soteria Project and therefore most of them avoided being falsely labeled as life-long chronic schizophrenics.
Most importantly, most of them didn’t wind up as permanent patients on life-long psych drugs.
If it hadn’t been for the existence of the Soteria Project, they would have instead been sent to a typical coercive Southern California insane asylum, where they were told that they had a non-existent chemical brain imbalance and therefore had to be on dependency-inducing, brain-altering and brain-damaging psychiatric drugs for the rest of their lives.
Because of the luck of the draw many Soteria patients were cured of their temporary psychosis at far less costs of care and without the brain damage.
Some of the Soteria patients went on to lead normal lives following their discharge. In contrast, the vast majority of the patients who had been randomized into the “insane asylums”, wound up chronically drugged with dangerous, untested (for safety) cocktails of drugs, often for the rest of their lives (which were destined to be shortened by 25 years because of the drugs).
Tragically, especially for the millions of future mis-diagnosed (and therefore mis-treated) so-called “chronic schizophrenics” since then, the Soteria Project was sabotaged by Dr Mosher’s own National Institute of Mental Health.
The obviously unwelcome positive findings that were coming out of the Soteria Project were accurately seen by the establishment types in the NIMH, Big Pharma and Big Psychiatry as an economic threat to their industries, and they had to act to subvert the project. Scandalously, the project was defunded in 1983.
Psychology Professor Tells Truth About Psychiatry - "The Emperor Wears No Clothes"
In a posthumously published book (2004), Dr Mosher and his co-authors describe the highly successful innovative, non-drug therapeutic approach that was given to Soteria’s patients by the young, caring, altruistic, but non-professional staff.
The book was titled Soteria: From Madness to Deliverance. It told the story of the noble experiment that managed to alleviate the temporary mental suffering of some otherwise doomed fellow humans who would have been put at risk of permanent life-long drug-induced disabilities rather than given a chance at a cure.
A good description of the project can be read at Robert Whitaker’s Mad In America website.
"Soteria is the story of a special time, space, and place where young people diagnosed as ‘schizophrenic’ found a social environment where they were related to, listened to, and understood during their altered states of consciousness.
Rarely, and only with consent, did these distressed and distressing persons take ’tranquilizers’. They lived in a home in a California suburb with nonmedical caregivers whose goal was not to ‘do to’ them but to ‘be with’ them.
The place was called ‘Soteria’ (Greek for deliverance), and there, for not much money, most recovered. Although Soteria’s approach was swept away by conventional drug-oriented psychiatry, its humanistic orientation still has broad appeal to those who find the mental health mainstream limited in both theory and practice.”
One can appreciate the anguish that Mosher and all the committed and enthusiastic non-professional healers felt when the NIMH pulled the plug on the experiment. Mosher became disillusioned with the APA and eventually resigned.
Loren Mosher’s 1998 Letter of Resignation from the APA: “I want no part of it anymore.”
Here are excerpts from Mosher’s letter of resignation from the APA, a professional trade and lobbying organization to which he had been a long-time member. For good reason, he called the APA the American Psychopharmaceutical Association.
He unintentionally outlines in his resignation letter the well-known strategy of how dysfunctional organizations often try to get rid of their best people (especially the creative and talented ones who also happen to be a threat to the less competent and ingrained upper management types whose positions of power, influence and seniority may be at risk).
Making life miserable for promising up-and-coming employees is commonly orchestrated by threatened superiors by demoralizing the subordinates into quitting the organization.
Such cowardly attacks can avoid controversy and legal entanglements. Mosher felt the pressure and logically resigned, saying “I want no part of it anymore”. Here is some of Mosher’s resignation letter:
"The trouble began in the late 1970s when I conducted a controversial study: I opened a program — Soteria House - where newly diagnosed schizophrenic patients lived medication-free with a young, nonprofessional staff trained to listen to and understand them and provide companionship.
The idea was that schizophrenia can often be overcome with the help of meaningful relationships, rather than with drugs, and that such treatment would eventually lead to unquestionably healthier lives.
“The experiment worked better than expected. Over the initial six weeks, patients recovered as quickly as those treated with medication in hospitals.
“The results of the study were published in scores of psychiatric journals, nursing journals and books, but the project lost its funding and the facility was closed. Amid the storm of controversy that followed, control of the research project was taken out of my hands.
I also faced an investigation into my behavior as chief of the National Institute of Mental Health’s Center for Studies of Schizophrenia and was excluded from prestigious academic events.
By 1980, I was removed from my post altogether. All of this occurred because of my strong stand against the overuse of medication and disregard for drug-free, psychological interventions to treat psychological disorders.
“I soon found a less politically sensitive position at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland. Eight years later, I re-entered the political arena as the head of the public mental health system in Montgomery County, Md., but not without a fight from friends of the drug industry.
The Maryland Psychiatric Society asked that a state pharmacy committee review my credentials and prescribing practices to make sure that Montgomery County patients would receive proper (read: drug) treatments.
In addition, a pro-drug family advocacy organization arranged for more than 250 furious letters to be sent to the elected county executive who had hired me. Fortunately, my employers were not drug industry-dominated, so I kept my position.
“Why does the world of psychiatry find me so threatening? Because drug companies pour millions of dollars into the pockets of psychiatrists around the country, making them reluctant to recognize that drugs may not always be in the best interest of their patients.
They are too busy enjoying drug company perks: consultant gigs, research grants, fine wine and fancy meals
“Pharmaceutical companies pay through the nose to get their message across to psychiatrists across the country. They finance symposia at the two predominant annual psychiatric conventions, offer yummy treats and music to conventioneers, and pay $1,000-$2,000 per speaker to hock their wares.
It is estimated that, in total, drug companies spend an average of $10,000 per physician, per year, just on “education”.
“And, of course, the doctors-for-hire tell only half the story. How widely is it known, for example, that Prozac and its successor antidepressants cause sexual dysfunction in as many as 70% of people taking them?…
“Recently, it was dues-paying time for the American Psychiatric Association, and I sat there looking at the form. I thought about the unholy alliance between the APA and the drug industry.
I thought about how consumers are being affected by this alliance, about the overuse of medication, about side effects and about alternative treatments.
I thought about how irresponsibly some of my colleagues are acting toward the general public and the mentally ill. And I realized, I want no part of it anymore.”
The demise of the Soteria Project is just another of the multitude of daily examples of amoral, non-human, sociopathic corporations doing what is best for their bottom line and not what is best for the people that are targets of their dangerous products. We are all poorer for their actions.
Psychologist Speaks Out: Psychiatry Is Misleading Public About Mental Disorders
Dr. Toby Watson, a clinical psychologist is the former Chief Psychologist for the State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections, and the past International Executive Director of the International Society of Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry (ISEPP).
He is an outspoken critic of psychiatric industry's claim that mental disorders are biological or medical conditions despite the fact there are no scientific or medical tests to back up this claim.
He has submitted written testimony and research to the FDA on the dangers of SSRI antidepressants and Electroshock; he has testified before the Congress of Mexico against psychotropic drugging of children and for 15 years has educated the courts and people about the harmful outcomes of psychiatric treatment, including how psychotropic drugs can cause violent and suicidal behavior.
A Quick Review Of Fake Medical Diagnostic Tests + Author Exposes The “Vaccine Deep State”- A Massive Criminal Fraud And Embezzlement Ring Inside The CDC March 23 2017 | From: JonRappoport / NaturalNews
Over the years, during my investigations of deep medical fraud, I’ve uncovered diagnostic tests that are wrong-headed, misleading, and fallacious.
1: Antibody test. This is given to detect the presence of a specific germ in a human. However, prior to 1985, a positive test was generally taken as a sign of good health: the patient’s immune system detected the germ and defeated it.
However, after 1985, public health agencies and doctors reversed field. They claimed a positive test showed the person was ill or was going to become ill. No true science backed up this claim.
In fact, a vaccine purportedly produces antibodies and, therefore, is said to confer immunity - but the very same antibodies, generated naturally by the body, signal illness. This is absurd.
2: The PCR test. The Polymerase Chain Reaction tests for the presence of virus in a patient. It takes a tiny sample, which technicians assume is a genetic piece of a virus far too small to observe, and amplifies it many times, so it can be identified.
But in order to cause disease in a human, a huge quantity of virus (easily observed without the PCR) needs to be present. Therefore, a PCR test-result indicates nothing about disease - except that medical personnel couldn’t find enough virus in a person, to begin with, to assume the person was ill or would become ill.
3: MRI brain imaging. As I reported this morning, a significant bug in the software had been discovered in 2015. The software, not medical personnel, is responsible for creating the brain images. Therefore, 40,000 published papers relying on MRI results have been invalidated.
4: All tests resulting in a diagnosis of any of the 300 officially certified mental disorders. There are no definitive tests. No blood, saliva, hair tests. No genetic assays. No brain scans. All so-called mental disorders are diagnosed on the basis of consulting menus of behaviors. This is pseudoscience.
5: All tests designed to assess the effectiveness of vaccines. The only marker is: does the vaccine produce antibodies in a human. But antibodies are only one aspect of the immune system. They aren’t the whole picture. There are numerous studies that reveal vaccinated persons coming down with the disease against which they were supposedly protected.
Food for thought: “Publications by the World Health Organization show that diphtheria is steadily declining in most European countries, including those in which there has been no immunization. The decline began long before vaccination was developed.
There is certainly no guarantee that vaccination will protect a child against the disease; in fact, over 30,000 cases of diphtheria have been recorded in the United Kingdom in fully immunized children.” (Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 58.)”
6: Unsupported claims from public health officials. No tests at all. For example, at the height of the so-called Swine Flu epidemic, in the fall of 2009, the CDC secretly stopped counting cases in America.
Why? Because the overwhelming percentage of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients, sent to labs, were coming back with no trace of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.
In other words, the epidemic was a dud and a hoax. Based on this vacuum of evidence, the CDC went on to estimate that, in America, there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu.
But don’t worry, be happy. Keep your mouth shut and obey all doctors’ orders.
Author Exposes The “Vaccine Deep State”- A Massive Criminal Fraud And Embezzlement Ring Inside The CDC
One of the most explosive books you’ll ever read that documents the shocking criminal enterprise known as the CDC - including details of fraud, cover-ups and embezzlement - is called Master Manipulator - The Explosive True Story of Fraud Embezzlement and Government Betrayal at the CDC by James Ottar Grundvig. You can find the book at this Barnes & Noble link.
The book is published by Skyhorse Publishing, which I consistently find to be the single most courageous publisher of truth books in America. Time and time again, so many of the best titles exposing fraud, corruption and criminality inside the “status quo” are published by Skyhorse.
The foreward for Master Manipulator is written by none other than Sharyl Attkisson, and the introduction is penned by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who states:
"This is a story of how CDC used a con man to gull the public and ended up getting conned itself! Poul Thorsen is a world-class villain whose manipulation of health data gave CDC and big pharma what they wanted: a report clearing thimerosal of any possible role in the autism crisis.
His story merits a book length expose because the fraud he casually helped orchestrate has had a monumental impact on the health of millions of children globally."
Master Manipulator is a must-read for anyone hoping to be truly informed about the depths of criminality and fraud inside the CDC, “science” and the vaccine industry. One section in particular is especially noteworthy.
The monolith of the CDC-FDA-NIH is supposed to be separated by a divide with the big pharma vaccine producers. But since the NIH rejected the Swedish scientist’s brief that all thimerosal should be removed from vaccines in 1992, there has been little to no separation of powers, policies, messaging, or enforcement between government oversight and industry manufacturers.
The separation of church and state doesn’t exist anymore in the vaccine industry, not with Vaccine Court squashing all comers, the Dick Armey “Lilly Rider” slipped into the 2002 Homeland Security Act, and the FDA’s approval to double the doses of aluminum adjuvants in several vaccines.
Vaccines today are part of a program rife with ROT and deception.
In a September 2007 hearing by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions for “Thimerosal and Autism Spectrum Disorders: Alleged Misconduct - this was a case of one hand washing the other.
It read: While the five studies in question may have varying connections to the CDC and/or vaccine manufacturers, their value to consideration of an alleged link between vaccines and autism is a matter for the experts of the ISR Committee, and not for Congress.
What the findings got wrong by one half of the government to keep Congress in its place, since they were not qualified to review scientific data, as good as the “experts” that false assertion was nothing more than a ruse, a smokescreen.
What Congress needs to do is evaluate the human side of this tragedy and ongoing fraud. It has nothing to do with science - no scientific expertise is required, just the nose to follow the money.
It has everything to do with corruption, cover-up, relentless greed, pulling the ripcords on golden parachutes, shielding vaccine makers from harm, all while exposing millions of babies, children, and people around the world to great harm.
Congress needs only to examine agendas, follow the email trails, and begin to pull the weeds that have infested the CDC, FDA, and NIH lawn, removing all of the ROT as they should have done in 1990 with the Agent Orange finding.
Had they done that, then maybe Coleen Boyle would have become a librarian instead of the director of NCBDDD, and Diana Schendel would have done good collaborative studies instead of the studies that had a fixed objective to show no association, and maybe Poul Thorsen wouldn’t have been invited to come to the CDC as a visiting professor or been able to secure funding for the cooperative agreements because the “hunt for good data” never would have taken place.
Why is it so hard for mainstream media, independent journalists, and government officials on both sides of the aisle to grasp the dangers of micro small toxins?
If they believe that the unseen greenhouse gas particulates and molecules can superheat the world and change climate, why is it so hard to believe that traces of mercury and aluminum in vaccines have harmed so many once promising, healthy children for the past two decades?
If a grown man can die from a tiny amount of venom in a bee sting, then why is it so hard to believe that trace amounts of metals in babies who weight from seven to twenty-five pounds can have adverse reactions to being injected with toxins, especially when all of their bodies - from the central nervous and immune systems to the brain and lungs - are under development?
“Less is more” is a motto that our politicians need to take up with the Vaccine Deep State and rein it in. If they cannot do it, don’t have the will to do it, don’t have the balls to do it, or won’t expend the political capital to do it, a tipping point will soon one day force there hand.
When will that occur? When 1 in 40 babies are born on the spectrum? One in 25 babies born? How about 1 in 10?
Will the rate of autism incidence have to soar to that sky high number for our government to react and belatedly realize that the autism epidemic has been real all along, and its long-over due to do something about it?
The next generation, who will be born over the next decade, is awaiting your call to action. Will you act?
How LED Lighting May Compromise Your Health & Why Sunlight Deficiency Is As Deadly As Smoking March 23 2017 | From: Mercola / GreenMedInfo / Various
Can light affect your health? In this interview, Dr. Alexander Wunsch, a world class expert on photobiology, shares the hidden dangers of light-emitting diode (LED) lighting that most people are completely unaware of.
In fact, this could potentially be one of the most important video interviews I've done, as it has enormous impacts - not only on preventing blindness as you age but it is also a pervasive hidden risk factor for sabotaging your health.
Largely as a result of energy efficiency, there's been a major transition to using LED as a primary indoor light source. In this regard, it worked like a charm, reducing energy requirements by as much as 95 percent compared to incandescent thermal analog sources of lighting.
However, the heat generated by incandescent light bulbs, which is infrared radiation, is actually beneficial to your health, and hence worth the extra cost.
There are major downsides to LEDs that are not fully appreciated. LED lighting may actually be one of the most important, non-native EMF radiation exposures you're exposed to on a daily basis.
If you chose to ignore these new insights, it can have very serious long-term ramifications. It could lead to age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which is the leading cause of blindness in the United States and elsewhere.
Other health problems rooted in mitochondrial dysfunction may also be exacerbated, and these run the gamut from metabolic disorder to cancer.
What Is Light?
The definition of light, as applied to artificial light sources, is rather distinct. Visible light is only between 400 nanometers (nm) and 780 nm, but "light" is actually more than just what your eye can perceive. As explained by Wunsch:
"When we look at sunlight, we have a much broader spectral range, from somewhere around 300 nm up to 2,000 nm or so. For our energy efficiency calculation, it makes a big difference if we are talking about this broad natural range or if we are only talking about … vision performance
[T]he definition that we are only looking at the visible part of the spectrum [given in the 1930s] … led to the development of energy-efficient light sources like the fluorescent lamps or what we have nowadays, the LED light sources, because they are only energy efficient as long as you take the visible part of the spectrum [into account] …
[F]or example, [lamps providing] phototherapy with red light can be used in medical therapy to increase blood circulation, and this is a part we are taking away as long as we only look at the visible part.
Physicists think that infrared radiation is just thermal waste. But from the viewpoint of a physician, this is absolutely not true; in the last 30 years there have been hundreds of scientific papers published on the beneficial aspects of a certain part in the spectrum, which is called near-infrared or infrared-A."
What Makes Near-Infrared so Special?
You cannot feel near-infrared as heat, and you cannot see it, but it has a major beneficial impact in terms of health. Near-infrared is what's missing in non-thermal artificial light sources like LED.
There's also a difference between analog and digital forms of light sources, and this difference is another part of the complexity. In essence, there are two separate but related issues: the analog versus digital light source problem, and the spectral wavelength differences.
Starting with the latter, when you look at the rainbow spectrum, the visible part of light ends in red. Infrared-A or near-infrared is the beginning of the invisible light spectrum following red. This in turn is followed by infrared-B (mid-infrared) and infrared-C (far-infrared).
While they cannot be seen, the mid- and far-infrared range can be felt as heat. This does not apply to infrared-A, however, which has a wavelength between 700 and 1,500 nm.
"Here you have only very low absorption by water molecules, and this is the reason why radiation has a very high transmittance," Wunsch says.
"In other words, it penetrates very deeply into your tissue, so the energy distributes in a large tissue volume. This near-infrared A is not heating up the tissue so you will not feel directly any effect of heat.
This significantly changes when we increase the wavelength, let's say, to 2,000 nm. Here we are in the infrared-B range and this already is felt as heat. And from 3,000 nm on to the longer wavelength, we have almost full absorption, mainly by the water molecule, and this is [felt as] heating."
Dr. Mercola and Dr. Wunsch on the Dangers of LED Lights
Near-Infrared Is Critical for Mitochondrial and Eye Health
The near-infrared range affects your health in a number of important ways. For example, it helps prime the cells in your retina for repair and regenerate.
Since LEDs have virtually no infrared and an excess of blue light that generates reactive oxygen species (ROS), this explains why LEDs are so harmful for your eyes and overall health.
Chromophores are molecules that absorb light. There's an optical tissue window that ranges from 600 to 1,400 nm, which means it is almost completely covered by the infrared-A part of the spectrum. This optical tissue window allows the radiation to penetrate several centimeters or at least an inch or more into the tissue.
Chromophores are found in your mitochondria and in activated water molecules. In your mitochondria, there's also a specific molecule called cytochrome c oxidase, which is involved in the energy production within the mitochondria. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) - cellular energy - is the end product.
ATP is the fuel your cells need for all of their varied functions, including ion transport, synthesizing and metabolism. Remarkably, your body produces your body weight in ATP every day. And, while you can survive for several minutes without oxygen, were all ATP production to suddenly stop, you'd die within 15 seconds.
Lighting Plays an Important Role in Biological Energy Production
This is why this issue of lighting is so important. Light is a sorely misunderstood and overlooked part of the equation for biological energy production, specifically at the mitochondrial ATP level. As further explained by Wunsch:
"The cytochrome c oxidase, which is this [light] absorbing molecule, is the last step before the ATP is finally produced in the mitochondria. Here we have this tipping point where light in a wavelength range between 570 nm and 850 nm is able to boost energy production, especially in cells when energy production is depleted …
We know today that many signs of aging, for example, are the consequence of hampered mitochondrial functioning, and so we have a very interesting … tool to enhance the energy status in our cells, in the mitochondria in our cells, and not only on the surface but also in the depths … of the tissue.
This is one important aspect and there are hundreds of papers published on these positive effects …
Infrared saunas are another magnificent way to nourish your body with near-infrared light. But not just ANY infrared sauna. Most offer only FAR-infrared and are not full spectrum. Most also emit dangerous non-native EMFs. So you need one that emits low or no non-native EMFs.
After searching for a long time I finally found a near perfect one and hope to have it made to my customized specs in a few months. And it should be significantly less than $1,000. So stay tuned for this exciting development.
Wound Healing and Anti-Aging Procedures Make Use of Near-Infrared
These beneficial effects can be seen in wound healing and anti-aging procedures where near-infrared is employed. Since the cytochrome c oxidase is responsible for an increased production of ATP, the cell has a better supply of energy, which allows it to perform better, and this is true no matter where the cell resides.
This means liver cells with more ATP will be able to detoxify your body more efficiently; fibroblasts in your skin will be able to synthesize more collagen fibers and so on, because ATP is crucial for all cellular functions. Wunsch expands on this even more in the lecture above.
According to Wunsch, as little as one-third of the energy your body requires for maintaining the thermal equilibrium comes from the food you eat.
The electrons transferred from the food, primarily the fats and the carbohydrates, are ultimately transferred to oxygen and generate ATP. The more near infrared you get, the less nutritional energy is required for maintaining thermal homeostasis.
That said, a differentiation is in order. Most of the METABOLICALLY USED energy does come from food. But there is a thermodynamic aspect to it as well.
Maintaining a normal body temperature (37 degrees C or 98.6 degrees F) involves two mechanisms: Energy production in your mitochondria from food, and photonic energy (near-infrared radiation from sunlight and incandescent light bulbs) that is able to penetrate deeply into your tissue, even through clothing.
"The radiation can enter your body and then be transformed into longer wavelengths in the infrared part. They are very important for supporting the temperature level, the thermal energy level, of our body which is … a very crucial aspect. A lot of energy comes in the form of radiation and this is supporting our thermal balance," Wunsch explains.
The key take-home message here is that your body's energy production involves not just food intake. You also need exposure to certain wavelengths of light in order for your metabolism to function optimally. This is yet another reason why sun exposure is so vitally important for optimal health.
Analogue Versus Digital Lighting
LED lamps are a form of digital non-thermal lighting whereas incandescent light bulbs and halogens are analog thermal light sources.
"For a color changing system you have three different LEDs, a red, a green and a blue LED, and the intensity of these three colored channels has to be changed in order to achieve different color use, which is perceived by the eye in the end.
The control of the intensity output of an LED is realized in a digital manner because it's very difficult to have a low intensity in many different steps.
The dimming of LEDs is realized by a so-called pulse-width modulation, which means the LEDs switch on to the full intensity and then they fully switch off, and then they switch on again.
So we have the constant on and off in frequencies, which are higher than our eyes are able to discriminate. But on the cellular level, it is still perceivable for the cells …
[T]his causes a flicker, which is not perceivable for let's say 90 percent of the population. But it's still biologically active. And flicker is something that is very harmful to your [biology]."
You've likely experienced this if you're old enough to recall the older TVs that had a very visible and intense flicker. Modern flat screens do not have this perceptible flicker, but they're still switching on and off.
Scientists are now trying to develop systems capable of transmitting information via high-frequency flicker in the LED lighting to replace the wireless LAN system. According to Wunsch, this is a very bad idea, from a health perspective.
"I call these LEDs Trojan horses because they appear so practical to us. They appear to have so many advantages. They save energy; are solid state and very robust,. So we invited them into our homes.
But we are not aware that they have many stealth health-robbing properties, which are harmful to your biology, harmful to your mental health, harmful to your retinal health, and also harmful to your hormonal or endocrine health,"he says.
Unfortunately, the use of LEDs has been mandated by federal policy in both the U.S. and much of Europe, in an attempt to conserve energy.
While inarguably effective in that regard, the biological impact of these bulbs has been completely ignored, and by mandating them, options have been restricted.
Understanding the Dangers of LEDs
Understanding how LEDs can harm your health begins with the recognition that light emitted from an LED bulb is of a different quality than a natural light source. Normally, a natural light source is a black body radiator that gives off all kinds of wavelengths in a more or less continuous manner.
LEDs are fluorescent lamps, consisting of a blue LED, a driver LED, and a fluorescent sheet that covers the blue LED, transforming part of the blue light into longer wavelengths, thereby creating a yellowish light.
The yellowish light from the fluorescent layer combines together with the residual blue light to a kind of whitish light, a large portion of which is an aggressive blue light.
"Blue has the highest energy in the visible part of the spectrum and produces, infuses, the production of ROS, of oxidative stress," he says.
"The blue light causes ROS in your tissue, and this stress needs to be balanced with near-infrared that is not present in LEDs. We need even more regeneration from blue light, but the regenerative part of the spectrum is not found in the blue, in the short wavelength, part. It's found in the long wavelength part, in the red and the near-infrared. So tissue regeneration and tissue repair results from the wavelengths that are not present in an LED spectrum.
We have increased stress on the short wavelength part and we have reduced regeneration and repair on the long wavelength part. This is the primary problem … [W]e don't have this kind of light quality in nature. This has consequences. The stress has consequences in the retina; it has consequences in our endocrine system."
You probably know by now that blue light in the evening reduces melatonin production in your pineal gland. But you also have cells in your retina that are responsible for producing melatonin in order to regenerate the retina during the night.
If you use LED lights after sunset, you reduce the regenerative and restoring capacities of your eyes.
Needless to say, with less regeneration you end up with degeneration. In this case, the degeneration can lead to AMD, which is the primary cause of blindness among the elderly. However, and this is that most fail to appreciate, LED light exposure that is not balanced with full sunlight loaded with the red parts of the spectrum is always damaging to your biology. Just more so at night.
So, to summarize, the main problem with LEDs is the fact that they emit primarily blue wavelengths and lack the counterbalancing healing and regenerative near-infrared frequencies. They have very little red in them, and no infrared, which is the wavelength required for repair and regeneration.
When you use these aggressive lower frequencies - blue light - it creates ROS that, when generated in excess, causes damage. So when using LEDs, you end up with increased damage and decreased repair and regeneration.
Are There Any Healthy LEDs?
There's a wide range of LED lights on the market these days. Some are cool white, others are warm white, for example. The former emits higher amounts of harmful blue light.
The warm LEDs can be deceptive, as they give out a warm-appearing light but do not actually have the red wavelength.
The warmth comes from masking the blue with high amounts of yellow and orange.
There are also LEDs available with less blue, which are closer to the spectral distribution of incandescent lamps with regard to the blue part of the spectrum. Unfortunately, without tools to measure it, you won't know exactly what you're getting.
This is in sharp contrast to an incandescent light bulb, where you know exactly what kind of light spectrum you're getting.
"With LED, the layman is not able to tell if it's a tailored spectrum where you have the blue part only masked by excessive parts of other spectral regions," Wunsch says.
"There are different technologies … Soraa, for example, have violet driver LED, not blue … By their technology, the red is a little bit more emphasized compared to the standard white light fluorescent LEDs.
So there are in fact better and worse LED types around. But the spectral distribution is just one thing … We are interested in the R9, which represents the full reds. This information is sometimes given on the package.
You have, for example, CRI, which is the color rendering index of 95 with an R9 of 97 or so. This is the only sign for the customer that you have a high level or a high index for the R9."
How to Identify a Healthier LED
So, when buying LEDs, one way to get a healthier light is to look at the CRI. Sunlight is the gold standard and has a CRI of 100.
So do incandescent light bulbs and candles. What you're looking for is a light that has an R9 (full red spectrum) CRI of about 97, which is the closest you'll ever get to a natural light with an LED. Another factor to look at is the color temperature. There are two different kinds of color temperature:
1. Physical color temperature, which means the temperature of your light in degrees Kelvin (K). This applies to sunlight, candlelight, incandescent lamp light and halogens. What this means is that the source itself is as hot to the touch as the color temperature given.
The sun, for example, which has a color temperature of 5,500 K, has a temperature of 5,500 K at its surface, were you to actually touch the sun. Incandescent lamps have a maximum of 3,000 K, as the filament would melt if the temperature got any higher.
2. Correlated color temperature. This is a measurement that tells you how the light source appears to the human eye. In other words, it is a comparative measurement. A correlated color temperature of 2,700 K means it looks the same as a natural light source with a physical color temperature of 2,700 K.
The problem here is that while such a light LOOKS the same as a natural light, it does not actually have the same quality, and your body, on the cellular level, is not fooled by what your eye sees. On a cellular level, and on the level of the retina, the majority of the light is still cold, bluish white, despite its apparent, visible warmth.
Incandescent light bulbs have a color temperature of 2,700 K whereas LEDs can go up to 6,500 K - the really bright white LED. In this case, the closer you are to incandescent, the better. Lastly, there's the digital component, which is virtually unavoidable no matter what. To determine how good or bad a particular LED is:
"You would have to measure somehow if the LED produces flicker or not. Two, three years ago, it would have been much easier because the camera of an older smartphone was not as high-tech equipped as they are today. With an old smartphone camera, when you look into the light source, you can see these wandering lines, so you can detect if the light source is flickering," Wunsch explains.
A simpler way would be to purchase a flicker detector, which are available fairly inexpensively. Another way to determine the flicker rate would be to use the slow motion mode on your camera. Record the light source in slow motion mode and check it for visible flickering.
Unfortunately, it doesn't always work. Some newer cameras and smartphones have a built in algorithm that will detect the flicker frequency and change the shutter speed accordingly to improve the recording, thereby eliminating the interference. If your camera has this algorithm, it will not record a visible flicker even if it's there.
I like being on the cutting edge of technology and I quickly switched out all my incandescent bulbs for LED lighting. I now realize the enormity of my mistake, but at the time - going back almost 10 years now - I was completely unaware that it could have health consequences. Before that, I used full-spectrum fluorescents, which is equally deceptive, as it is full spectrum in name only.
I'm now convinced LED light exposure is a very serious danger, especially if you are in a room without natural light.
The biological risks are somewhat mitigated if you have plenty of sunlight streaming through windows. At night, LEDs become a greater danger no matter whether you're in a windowless room or not, as there is no counterbalancing near-infrared light.
Personally, I've not swapped all my lights back to incandescent because they're such energy hogs. But all the lights I have on at night have been switched to clear incandescent bulbs without any coating that changes their beneficial wavelengths.
So the take-home message of this interview is to grab a supply of the old incandescents if you can and switch back to incandescent light bulbs.
Just remember to get incandescents that are crystal clear and not coated with white to give off a cool white light. You want a 2,700 K incandescent, thermal analog light source. Actually, fragrance-free candles would be even better. Be particularly mindful to only use this type of light at night. After sunset, I also use blue-blocking glasses.
"It is definitely a good idea to keep away the short wavelengths in the evening, so after sunset. It's also a good idea not to intoxicate your environment with too much light. We know that artificial light levels at night have reached insane intensity. The candle, the intensity of the candle for example, is absolutely sufficient for orientation.
If you have to read in the evening or at night time, my personal favorite light source for reading tasks is a low-voltage incandescent halogen lamp, which is operated on a DC transformer. Direct current will eliminate all the dirty electricity and it will eliminate all the flicker.
There are transformers available where you can adjust the output between 6 volts and 12 volts. As long as it's direct current, there is no flicker, there is no dirty electricity, and you are able to dim the halogen lamp into a color temperature that is comparable to candle light even. This is the softest, the healthiest electric light you can get at the moment," Wunsch notes.
Low-voltage halogen lights are also very energy efficient - up to 100 percent more energy efficient than the standard incandescent lamp. Just be sure to operate it on DC. Incandescent lights, including halogen, can be operated at both AC and DC, but when operating on AC, you end up generating dirty electricity, Wunsch explains.
On DC, you get no electrosmog with a low-voltage halogen.
The following graphic illustrates the differences in color spectrum between an incandescent light, which has very little blue, compared to fluorescent light and white LED.
This next graph illustrates the differences between daylight, incandescent, fluorescent, halogen, cool white LED and warm white LED.
As you can see, there's a tremendous difference between incandescent and warm LED. While they may look the same to the naked eye, there's no comparison when it comes to their actual light qualities.
Looking at the spectral differences between incandescent and halogen lamps, there seems to be no difference at all. In order to elucidate the disparity, Wunsch did some measurements of incandescent and halogen lamps using his UPRtek MK350S spectrometer. The differences are almost imperceptible, indeed.
Spectrum of a standard incandescent lamp: Correlated color temperature (CCT) = 2890 K.
Spectrum of a energy saving halogen lamp: Correlated color temperature (CCT) = 2842 K.
How to Make Digital Screens Healthier
When it comes to computer screens, Wunsch suggests reducing the correlated color temperature down to 2,700 K - even during the day, not just at night.
Many use f.lux to do this, but I have a great surprise for you as I have found a FAR better alternative that was created by Daniel, a 22 year old Bulgarian programmer that Ben Greenfield introduced to me.
He is one of the rare people that already knew most of the information in this article. So he was using f.lux but was very frustrated with the controls.
He attempted to contact them but they never got back to him. So he created a massively superior alternative called Iris. It is free, but you'll want to pay the $2 and reward Daniel with the donation. You can purchase the $2 Iris software here.
OLED screen technology is another development that may be better than conventional screens.
"[With] the OLEDs technology, I'm not sure if the color is really stable in every angle you can look at the display," Wunsch says. "But definitely, if you have the screen technology where black is really black, then you have less radiation coming into your eyes and the OLEDs technology is able to provide this.
So the high contrasts between the black and white, all the black areas in the thin-film-transistor (TFT) screen or the standard screen are not really black. They are also emitting shortwave radiation.
The OLED screen only emits where you see light, where there is black on the screen, there is no light. This might be preferable as long as you have no problems with the [viewing] angle."
To Protect Your Health and Vision, Stick to Incandescent Lights
LEDs are a perfect example of how we're sabotaging our health with otherwise useful technology. However, with knowledge, we can proactively prevent the harm from occurring.
In summary, we really need to limit our exposure to blue light, both during the daytime and at night. So for nighttime use, swap out your LEDs for clear bulb incandescents, or low-voltage incandescent halogen lights that are run on DC power.
I also strongly recommend using blue-blocking glasses after sundown, even if you use incandescent light bulbs.
Without these modifications, the excessive blue light from LEDs and electronic screens will trigger your body to overproduce ROS and decrease production of melatonin, both in your pineal gland and your retina, the latter of which will prevent repair and regeneration, thereby speeding up the degeneration of your eyesight.
"One thing to emphasize again, it's not the blue light coming from the sun itself which we should be concerned about. It's the blue light, the singular high energy visual light (HEV), which comes from cold energy-efficient non-thermal light sources.
This is what causes the problem, not the blue light which comes together with longer wavelengths in a kind of natural cocktail that has the beneficial near-infrared spectrum …
The light surrogates from non-thermal light sources, these are [what cause] problems, and you have to be clever to avoid these Trojan horses. If you want to make it [safe], stay with the candles, stay with the incandescents," Wunsch says.
Another Healthy Light Alternative
Candles are even a better light source than incandescent bulbs, as there is no electricity involved and is the light that our ancestors have used for many millennia so our bodies are already adapted to it. The only problem is that you need to be very careful about using just any old candle as most are toxic.
As you may or may not know, many candles available today are riddled with toxins, especially paraffin candles. Did you know that paraffin is a petroleum by-product created when crude oil is refined into gasoline?
Further, a number of known carcinogens and toxins are added to the paraffin to increase burn stability, not including the potential for lead added to wicks, and soot invading your lungs.
To complicate matters, a lot of candles, both paraffin and soy, are corrupted with toxic dyes and fragrances; some soy candles are only partially soy with many other additives and/or use GMO soy. There seems to be a strange mind-set that exposure to small amounts of toxins is OK, even though the exposure is exponential over time!
Why Sunlight Deficiency Is As Deadly As Smoking
A groundbreaking new study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine has revealed something absolutely amazing about the role of the Sun in human health: a deficiency of sunlight could be as harmful to human health as smoking cigarettes.
They assessed the differences in sun exposure as a risk factor for all-cause mortality, within a prospective 20-year follow up of the Melanoma in Southern Sweden (MISS) cohort. The women were aged 25-64 years at the start of the study and recruited from 1990 to 1992. When their sun exposure habits were analyzed using modern survival statistics they discovered several things.
"Women with active sun exposure habits were mainly at a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and noncancer/non-CVD death as compared to those who avoided sun exposure."
"As a result of their increased survival, the relative contribution of cancer death increased in these women."
This finding may be a bit tricky to understand, so let's look at it a little closer.
Because cancer risk increases along with biological age, the longer you live, the higher your cancer risk will be. Therefore, because increased sunlight exposure actually increases your longevity, it will also appear to increase your risk of cancer. But this does not necessarily mean that sunlight is intrinsically "carcinogenic," which is commonly assumed.
Because heart disease is #1 killer in the developed world, and since sunlight reduces this most common cause of premature death, even if it increases the risk of the #2 most common cause of death (cancer), the net effect of sunlight exposure is that you will still live longer, which helps to contextualize and neutralize the "increased cancer risk" often observed.
Keep in mind, as well, that a huge number of cancers are overdiagnosed and overtreated, without sufficient acknowledgement by the medical establishment, whose culpability is rarely addressed. These "cancers" greatly inflate the statistics.
With millions of so-called early stage cancers like these - especially breast, prostate, thyroid, lung, and ovarian -- being wrongly diagnosed and treated, the complexity of the topic makes determining the role of sunlight exposure and cancer risk all the more difficult to ascertain.
Moving on, the point about the longevity promoting properties of sunlight are driven home strongly by the third major observation:
"Nonsmokers who avoided sun exposure had a life expectancy similar to smokers in the highest sun exposure group, indicating that avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking."
This is a powerful finding with profound implications. To say that "avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking," is to point out that sunlight exposure, rather than being the constant lethal threat it is perceived to be, warranting the slathering on all over the body of synthetic sunscreens virtually guaranteed to cause harm from toxicant exposure, is essential to our health.
In fact, according to the CDC, smoking is responsible for 6 million unnecessary deaths a year, and the "overall mortality among both male and female smokers in the United States is about three times higher than that among similar people who never smoked."
And so, sunlight exposure may be so powerful an essential and necessary ingredient in human health that it might be considered medically unethical not to provide access to it, or to advise more routine exposure to it.
The fourth and final observation of the study was that:
"Compared to the highest sun exposure group, life expectancy of avoiders of sun exposure was reduced by 0.6-2.1 years."
Sunlight Attains Its Former Status As An Indispensable Component of Health
While we can say that sunlight deficiency may contribute to lethal outcomes on par with smoking, we can rephrase the information positively by affirming that the Sun and its light may be as important to human health as is clean food or water.
Consider the work of Gerald Pollack, PhD, author of the "The 4th Phase of Water" (see video below), who explains how infrared energy of the Sun charges up the water molecules within our body (99% of the molecules in our bodies in number are water) like trillions of molecular batteries.
The Fourth Phase of Water: Dr. Gerald Pollack
When pertaining to cardiovascular health, sunlight energy in the form of infrared charged water molecules supports the heart's job of pumping the blood throughout the blood vessels by producing a form of highly structured and energized water known as Exclusion Zone water, or EZ water, and which may actually provide over 99.9% of the biomechanical energy needed to push the 1.2-1.5 gallons of blood in the average adult body through the literally thousands of miles of blood vessels.
Provocative new research also suggests the body contains a variety of photoacceptors/chromophores (e.g. cytochrome C oxidase) capable of accepting and utilizing sunlight to generate so-called “extra synthesis” of ATP.
Natural health advocates have sung the praises of sunlight for health since time immemorial.
While in modern times, sunlight-phobia is omnipresent, with parents of especially lighter skinned ethnicities forcing their children to don space-suit level all body protective gear, along with spraying or slathering them with extremely toxic petrochemical derivatives and nanoparticle metals with potentially cancer-promoting properties, there is a growing appreciation that we need the Sun as both a form of food, energy and information.
It’s, of course, not all about vitamin D. To reduce the perceived health benefits of sunlight to this hormone like compound is as reductionistic as saying a orange’s health benefits are solely dependent on and reducible to the molecular scaffolding of atoms that comprise the chemical skeleton of the ascorbic acid molecule.
We are beginning to learn that certain wavelengths of sunlight activate a wide range of ancient, hard-wired genetic and epigenetic programs, relevant to all of our body's systems.
This phenomena, also known as biophotomodulation, opens up a radically new perspective on the role of the sun in human health and disease.
If sunlight deficiency is really as deadly as actively smoking cigarettes, it could be said that those who do not experience regular natural light exposure are no longer truly human, or capable of experiencing the optimal expression of their biological, mental, and spiritual blueprint.
A fundamental right, and health practice, would be daily outdoors exposure. How many of us have considered the state of office workers, institutionalized educational systems without windows, night shift work, and prisons?
Sunlight depravation, in light of these new findings, could be considered a significant violation of human health rights.
This new study my pave the way for a deeper understanding of what humans need to be truly healthy, with sunlight deficiency being a prime example of what is most wrong about our modern incarnation as a primarily indoors focused creature, leading to our physical and psychospiritual degeneration.
As new models of cellular bioenergetics emerge, taking into account the ability of the body to directly or indirectly harvest the various light wavelengths of the Sun, direct daily exposure to sunlight may be looked upon as at least as an important step as "taking your vitamins," or exercising, for maintaining our health.
Conversely, sunlight deficiency and / or depravation will be likely be viewed to be as dangerous or lethal as smoking.
Peer Reviewed 'Science' Losing Credibility Due To Fraudulent Research & Manufacturing Consent In Science: The Diabolical Twist March 19 2017 | From: CollectiveEvolution / JonRappoport
Science today, in all fields, is plagued by corruption. Yet, more often than not, attempts to create awareness about scientific fraud - an issue that few journalists have been willing to address - are met with the response, “Well, is it peer-reviewed?”
Although good science should always be reviewed, using this label as a form of credibility can be dangerous, causing people to dismiss new information and research instantaneously if it doesn’t have it, particularly when that information counters long-held beliefs ingrained into human consciousness via mass marketing, education, and more.
If you’re one who commonly points to the “peer-reviewed” label, then you should know that there are many researchers and insiders who have been creating awareness about the problem with this label for years.
Who Says So? And From What Fields?
Many people have spoken up against the corporatization and politicization of science.
For example, Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climatologist and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, has voiced his concern that some scientists are, according to an interview given to the Daily Mail, “mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist.”
He claims that there are multiple indicators for how “science is gradually being influenced by political views.” (Source)
Professor Joanna D. Haigh, a British physicist, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, and former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, has also spoken up about the politicization of climate science. (Source)
The Australian prime minister’s chief business advisor has done the same, and so have other politicians, like Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. You can read more about that story here.
Unfortunately, the mainstream vilifies such people, and to great effect.
Below is an excellent snippet of a lecture given by Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change.
He knows that all climate science we receive is IPCC United Nations science. One of the scientists mentioned on the senator’s list, in this video, he talks about the politics of climate science and the manipulation of data - something that plagues all fields of science today.
Is Science Progressing?
Featuring Richard S. Lindzen, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute; Emeritus Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; moderated by Patrick Michaels, Director, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute.
For many fields of science, there is little doubt that the period 1830-1965 was a golden age. There is also little doubt that changes in the support structure for science since the late 60's have powerful elements that serve to inhibit major developments.
Dr. Lindzen will discuss these changes from the personal perspective of a climate scientist, and place them in the historical perspective of other areas of study.
Quantification of the effects of the support structure is complicated. There are a multiplicity of factors involved, including the existence of branches of science that are closely associated with political and social agendas.
Changes in the character of major research centers, including the federalization of major research universities, also plays a major role, independent of the particular area of science. Serious studies of marginal factors such as diminishing returns as funding increases are sorely lacking.
Medical Science / Health Science / Food
In the case of medicine, a lot of information has emerged showing just how much corruption really goes on. The Editors-in-Chiefs of several major medical journals have been quite blunt, with perhaps one of the best examples coming from Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-in-Chief of TheLancet, who says;
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”
Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), also considered one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, alongside The Lancet, has said that:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”
- Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal
As you can see, this has been a problem for quite some time.
A Couple of Examples:
One of the best examples of political influence over scientific publication comes from an episode involving Genetically Modified Maize. Monsanto published a study a few years ago which purported to demonstrate the effects of GMO maize on rats over a 90 day period.
They reported no ill effects on the rodents from this diet. Given the fact that there are no long term studies examining the health risks associated with GMOs, independent researchers then decided to conduct the same study, with one difference:
The study was published in November of 2012, in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, and then instantly retracted. After hundreds of scientists condemned the retraction, the U.S. did not publish it. The study was then re-published in multiple peer-reviewed scientific journals (in Europe last year ), like Environmental Sciences Europe.
This fact was also made clear by WikiLeaks documents:
"Resistance to the advent of genetically modified foods has been pronounced across Europe. The continent features some of the strictest regulations governing the use and cultivation of GMO products, and public skepticism about biotech goods is quite high – a fact not lost on American diplomats.
In a lengthy report dating from late 2007 , a cable issued by the State Department outlined its “Biotechnology Outreach Strategy, ‘which, among other things, recognized the European Union’s ‘negative views on biology’ and committed as a national priority to limiting them (O7STATE160639).
Initial attention paid to the State Department’s part in pushing industrial manufactures on its allies obscured the even bigger role it played in assuring a place for genetically modified agricultural products (GMOs) in a region that largely wanted nothing to do with them.
The American campaign promoting biotech products was a worldwide effort. In all, some 1,000 documents from the Cablegate cache address this effort, a significant number of which originate in Europe. U.S. diplomats on the continent gave considerable attention to insuring the interests of American biotech firms in Europe
– Whether through “education” programs, government lobbying, or outright coercion – as well as stripping down European Union regulations designed to act as a bugger against them. Available cables published by WikiLeaks suggest that the United States invests considerable time, effort, and expense in its operations on behalf of the American biotech firms."
In 1996, Steven M. Druker, being a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance For Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods.
He’s recently published a book on the lawsuit that provides details of his experience. He has also released the documents on his website, showing the significant hazards of genetically engineering foods and the flaws in the FDA’s policy.
Another study published in the British Medical Journal by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen showed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials.
Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported.
Tamang Sharma, a PhD student at Cochrane and lead author of the study, said:
“We found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested them. I’m actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation would be if we had the complete data.”
Another co-author of the study, Dr. Peter Gotzsche, who co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration (the world’s foremost body in assessing medical evidence), found in a separate analysis that 100,000 people in the United States die each year from the side effects of correctly used prescription drugs, noting that:
“It’s remarkable that nobody raises an eyebrow when we kill so many of our own citizens with drugs.”
He has published many papers arguing that our use of antidepressants is causing more harm than good, and taking into consideration the recent leaks regarding these drugs, it seems he is correct.
Below is a brief video of him elaborating on this problem -
Dr Peter Gøtzsche Exposes Big Pharma as Organized Crime
Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD is a Danish medical researcher, and leader of the Nordic Cochrane Center at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark. He has written numerous reviews within the Cochrane collaboration.
Dr.Gøtzsche has been critical of screening for breast cancer using mammography, arguing that it cannot be justified; His critique stems from a meta-analysis he did on mammography screening studies and published as is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable in The Lancet in 2000. In it he discarded 6 out of 8 studies arguing their randomization was inadequate.
In 2006 a paper by Gøtzsche on mammography screening was electronically published in the European Journal of Cancer ahead of print.
The journal later removed the paper completely from the journal website without any formal retraction. The paper was later published in Danish Medical Bulletin with a short note from the editor, and Gøtzsche and his coauthors commented on the unilateral retraction that the authors were not involved in.
In 2012 his book Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy was published. In 2013 his book Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare was published. www.cochrane.org
Vaccines are getting more attention now than ever before. In fact, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman of the World Mercury Project (WMP), recently announced a $100,000 challenge aimed at putting an end to the inclusion of mercury, a neurotoxin that is 100 times more poisonous than lead, in vaccines administered in the U.S and globally.
It’s offered to anybody, including journalists and scientists, who can provide a study showing that it is safe to inject mercury into babies.
Multiple cases of vaccine fraud have been uncovered, but this is something you might not know given the fact that the mainstream media completely ignores these facts, and vaccines are heavily marketed.
For example, Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry and is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine, as well as a medical investigator, uncovered documents that reveal vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. - Source
But perhaps one of the biggest revelations in medical history, also unfortunately ignored by mainstream media, came only a couple of years ago and is still making noise, as it should.
However, Dr. Thompson recently admitted that it was “the lowest point” in his career when he “went along with that paper.” He went on to say that he and the other authors “didn’t report significant findings” and that he is “completely ashamed” of what he did. He was “complicit and went along with this,” and regrets that he has “been a part of the problem.” (source)(source)(source)
A study with revised information and no data omitted was published by Dr. Brian Hooker (a contact of Dr. Thompson) in the peer reviewed journal Translational Neurodegeneration, and it found a 340% increased risk of autism in African American boys receiving the Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. The study has since been retracted, around the same time this controversy arose.
You can read the full study here, although, unsurprisingly, it has since been retracted.
Thompson’s attorneys, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Bryan Smith of Morgan & Morgan, also released a statement from Dr. Thompson, which mentioned Hooker:
“I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent.”
he had to invoke whistleblower protection and turned extensive agency files over to Congress. He said that, for the past decade, his superiors have pressured him and his fellow scientists to lie and manipulate data to conceal a causal link between vaccines and brain injuries, including autism.
As you can see, scientific fraud is a big problem across the board, and this article has only provided a few examples. The problem is not just with GMOs and vaccines - it affects cosmetics, food, cleaning supplies, and so much more. How have so many products, which cause so much harm, been approved by the agencies that are tasked to protect us?
There are so many books on this topic, but they don’t get the attention they deserve, since the major mainstream media shareholders are identical to those of the entire health industry. Why would they bash their own products on their own national television networks?
The power of corporate America has taken over almost every aspect of our lives. If you’re wondering what we can do about it, well, I believe the first step is awareness. There is still a plethora of information that the general public is completely unaware of, but if we backtrack to a decade ago, information that used to be considered a conspiracy is now simply fact.
A great example is the corporate takeover of science, as discussed in this article, but another one could be the Snowden Leaks on mass surveillance, or 9/11. Studies are now being published by physicists and engineers regarding that event.
Awareness makes it harder for the elite to manipulate us. Once we become aware of something, we can stop it. For example, look at Genetically Modified Foods and the pesticides that go with them.
As soon as the masses became aware of their dangers, they began to change their shopping habits. Now, most countries around the world have completely banned these foods.
It’s difficult to accept that there are unseen powers, motivated by their own greed and lust for power, that are doing us harm disguised as good. It is only when we become aware of how we are being harmed and change our shopping habits - hurting their bottom line - that they change their tactics.
On the other hand, it’s encouraging to know that once we do come together for a common goal, anything can be accomplished, and we actually do have the potential and power to change our world.
Manufacturing Consent In Science: The Diabolical Twist
“Science plays a larger and larger role in running the world. But much of it is misleading science, slanted, cooked, biased, stepped on, false, and invented out of thin air.” - The Underground, Jon Rappoport
In the famous 1988 Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman book, Manufacturing Consent, the authors explore how media distort the news and employ propaganda, in order to bring about consent in the population.
This is nothing less than the creation of reality.
From so many directions, official science is shaping our future - that’s why it’s vital to understand the manipulations involved.
It’s one thing to say media collaborate to sell a false picture of reality, a picture which is then bought by the masses.
It’s quite another thing to say media collaborate to PRETEND there is ALREADY a consensus of the best professional minds on a given scientific subject - when there ISN’T.
I’ll start with a theoretical example. Let’s say three researchers at a university examine data based on US space shuttle missions, and they conclude that a small set of new conclusions is true. I’ll call this set X.
The researchers publish an article in a journal, and a healthy debate ensues in professional circles. Is X correct? Are there flaws in the research?
However, a powerful public agency decides that X is dangerous. X could lead to inquiries about contractors, investigations into cost overruns, missing money, and, worst of all, flawed engineering of the shuttles. Therefore, this powerful agency goes on an all-out propaganda campaign, tapping its press sources, culminating in a new study that concludes X is entirely false.
The press basically trumpets: “Experts agree X is false. X was the result of shoddy research. The original researchers made numerous amateur mistakes.”
Notice that, in this case, the press isn’t simply distorting the news. It’s announcing that a superior consensus already / suddenly exists among the best scientific minds.
It’s lying about a consensus that doesn’t exist among scientists who, up until that moment, were having a healthy debate. The press is presenting the false consensus as if it were real and widespread, when it isn’t.
But at this point, all relevant scientists get the message: keep quiet, don’t debate for another moment; otherwise grant monies will vanish, demotions will occur, peers will lay on heavy criticism, excommunication from The Club will follow.
So these scientists do keep quiet - and NOW a consensus among them comes into being, by implied threat and coercion.
“The most famous cold fusion claims were made by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989. After a brief period of interest by the wider scientific community, their reports were called into question by nuclear physicists.”
Not just called into question; defamed, derided, mocked, slammed over the head with a sledgehammer.
A superior consensus was invented, despite the fact that many scientists were intensely interested in the Pons / Fleishmann findings. Some of these scientists tried, in vain, to point out that failed efforts to reproduce those findings resulted because researchers were altering Pons and Fleishman’s methods.
No dice. Cold fusion was labeled a giant error and even a fraud. The official door was closed. THEN a consensus hardened - through coercion and intimidation.
In my research leading up to the publication of my first book, AIDS INC., in 1988, I reviewed the period of the early 1980s, when many researchers were coming at the question of the cause(s) of AIDS from different angles. But then, suddenly, in the spring of 1984, the US government officially announced, at a televised press conference, that a virus called HTLV-III (HIV) was the cause.
The science was shoddy, to put it mildly. It was bad science and no science. There was no single published paper that meticulously laid out proof of HIV as the cause of AIDS. But no matter.
Overnight, all the monies that had gone into discovering what caused AIDS were diverted into the question: How does HIV cause AIDS? Any scientist who failed to see the handwriting on the wall was shoved out into the cold.
The press closed ranks. The consensus (though it was manufactured in the blink of an eye) was trumpeted around the world.
The big news headline wasn’t just false and distorted. It was false-and-distorted about a consensus that, until a few seconds ago, didn’t exist - and only existed now because researchers went silent and accepted dogma and folded up.
Predatory corporations, who spray poisonous pesticides all over the world and cause birth defects, need special protection and cover?
Public health agencies that recommend giving vaccines to pregnant women, and increase the risk of babies born with defects?
Solution: invent, overnight, and broadcast, a consensus that a basically harmless virus is the cause of those tragic birth defects.
I can assure you there are many scientists who don’t, for a second, believe the Zika virus is such an agent of destruction. But they have kept their mouths shut, and have chosen to roll with the tide.
However, that tide is turning, in many arenas of science. Journalists and researchers with no allegiance to official bodies have emerged.
A different species of handwriting is being inscribed on the wall. What can the mainstream press do about it?
They can only deploy the crass tactics I’ve mentioned here. A massive and stunning re-education is taking place among the population. No school is running it. No agency is sponsoring it. It’s happening from the ground up.
It turns out that living as a cipher and a unit in the sticky web of fabricated consensus isn’t nearly as attractive as it once was.
More and more, major media are using the consensus strategy to invent the news - and people are rejecting it.
Without realizing it, the press is committing professional suicide.
An article that was once headlined, “Three dead horses found in a field,” has become, “Scientists agree that the three dead horses were an unconnected coincidence.”
And people are laughing the press out of court.
The ongoing scandal surrounding the film, Vaxxed, is a good example.
Trailer: Vaxxed - From Cover Up to Catastrophe
The press assures the population that pointing out a connection between a vaccine and autism is absurd, because scientific experts agree there is no such connection.
But the film features a long-time researcher at the Centers for Disease Control, who confesses that he and colleagues falsified a 2004 study in order to exonerate such a vaccine, the MMR, which does increase the risk of autism.
One of the film’s subjects is false consensus. And the press can do no better than repeat, over and over: the consensus is real and valid.
The CDC researcher and whistleblower, William Thompson, essentially said: I was part of the fake consensus. Don’t you get it? I was a card-carrying member of the club that invents fake consensus. And now I’m telling you that.
Bottom line: the media are collapsing into their own swamp. The swamp they manufacture.
For decades, the press, government agencies, the UN, and a whole host of think-tank, foundation, university players, and financiers have been fronting for a consensus which they falsely claim is already established: planned societies.
They frame this consensus as technology/science - as if science itself dictates that the future must consist of interlocked organizations which insert citizens into slots. Slots where they live, where they work, where they socialize.
Abstract patterns, imposed on humans.
This has the flavor of science, but on reflection, not the substance. “We can make the top-down organization of society look scientific, as if we’re following physical laws. We can sell this as science.”
Really? Is a chart detailing how thousands of slaves will transport huge blocks of stone to chosen sites, where monuments will be built, scientific? Of course not.
In the modern world, this fakery is called technocracy. Technocracy may employ methods such as technological surveillance, but the overriding plan for organizing society has nothing to do with science. It has to do with control.
And when you see it that way, the supposed consensus falls apart. Who wants to live in an assigned slot “for the greater good?” Up close and personal, who wants to give up his freedom?
Review your understanding of Marxism. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
It, too, was sold as a scientific analysis of human society. It was imbued with the flavor of science, as if this Marxian principle had been discovered, just as molecules and atoms had been discovered.
And it too was promoted as an already-existing consensus among the wisest and the best and the brightest.`