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.
Surgeons Admit Mammography Is Outdated, Harmful At Best February 13 2017 | From: NaturalBlaze / Various
In 2016, an estimated 246,660 new cases of invasive breast cancer, 61,000 new cases of non-invasive breast cancer, and 40,450 breast cancer deaths are expected to be recorded in the United States alone.
With the rising rates of breast cancer, mammography has gained popularity globally as the most effective screening technique to detect the most common cancer among women.
“I think if a woman from the age of 50 has a mammogram every year, or every two years, she’s going to get breast cancer as a direct result from that."
Dr. Patrick Kingsley, Clinical Ecologist
This, despite the fact that the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently excluded mammography for women under 50 – based on scientific evidence of limited efficacy in reducing breast cancer mortality for women between 40 and 49 – the IARC working group further noted that early detection of breast cancer through mammography screening have important harmful outcomes such as false positive results, over-diagnosis, over-treatment and radiation-induced cancer.
In 2013, a review of 8 trials involving more than 600,000 women in the age range 39 to 74 years discovered no evidence to establish mammography screening is effective on overall mortality.
In 2014, a review of mammography screening by a team of medical professionals (including a medical ethicist, a clinical epidemiologist, a pharmacologist, an oncologic surgeon, a nurse scientist, a lawyer, and a health economist) from the Swiss Medical Board, the Swiss Medical Association, and the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences found no evidence to indicate that the benefits of mammography screening outweighed the harms.
“For every breast-cancer death prevented in U.S. women over a 10-year course of annual screening beginning at 50 years of age, 490 to 670 women are likely to have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination; 70 to 100, an unnecessary biopsy; and 3 to 14, an over-diagnosed breast cancer that would never have become clinically apparent.”
Radiologists of the 2014 Canadian National Breast Screening Study - conducted to compare breast cancer incidences and mortality up to 25 years in women aged 40-59 who did or did not undergo mammography screening - also concluded that “annual mammography in women aged 40-59 did not reduce mortality from breast cancer beyond that of physical examination or usual care when adjuvant therapy for breast cancer was freely available”.
A study published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine added to a growing body of evidence that for every woman helped by a mammogram screening for breast cancer, many more have been harmed.
“[Mammography] Screening did result in more cancers being detected, but the data suggests that only about 30 of the 162 additional small tumors per 100,000 women that screening mammograms found would ever have progressed to a dangerous stage. That means that 132, or 81 percent, of the 162 extra tumors detected represented “over-diagnosis” - the discovery and treatment of tumors that were never destined to harm.”
With a plethora of studies confirming that mammography has been oversold and has failed to protect women against breast cancer, will the medical community and women at large now question its efficacy?
Holocaust Study: The Medical Cartel Is Destroying America (And The West) + Government’s Real War On Natural Health February 12 2017 | From: JonRappoport / iHealthTube Various
Buckle up. I’ve been telling you about this for years. The following is US-centric but the same applies all across the West.
A message to “quack busters” who attack natural health behind a phony mask of “scientific skepticism”: put your own house in order - that’s where the real quacks and shameless killers are.
This story, nine months ago, surfaced and then dropped like a stone in a lake. Gone.
But I haven’t forgotten it. So here it is. Again: The structures of medical propaganda are cracking.
The Washington Post (May 3, 2016) reports on a new Johns Hopkins study. I’ll give you the Post’s explosive quotes and then analyze them.
“…a new study by patient safety researchers provides some context…Their analysis, published in the BMJ on Tuesday, shows that ‘medical errors’ in hospitals and other health care facilities are incredibly common and may now be the third leading cause of death in the United States - claiming 251,000 lives every year, more than respiratory disease, accidents, stroke and Alzheimer’s.”
“Martin Makary, a professor of surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who led the research, said in an interview that the category includes everything from bad doctors to more systemic issues such as communication breakdowns when patients are handed off from one department to another.”
“’It boils down to people dying from the care that they receive rather than the disease for which they are seeking care,’” Makary said.
“His calculation of 251,000 deaths [per year] equates to nearly 700 deaths a day - about 9.5 percent of all deaths annually in the United States.”
“Moreover, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t require reporting of errors in the data it collects about deaths through billing codes, making it hard to see what’s going on at the national level.”
“Frederick van Pelt, a doctor who works for The Chartis Group, a health care consultancy, said another element of harm that is often overlooked is the number of severe patient injuries resulting from medical error.”
“’Some estimates would put this number at 40 times the death rate,’ van Pelt said.”
There you have it. Now let’s dig in.
First of all, this study, as you can see, is focusing on medical errors in hospitals and “other health care facilities.” Did the researchers do much work looking for fatal errors that occur in average doctors’ offices? If not, the death numbers mentioned in this study are on the low side.
The CDC, which regularly reports mortality figures, doesn’t receive data, nor does it require data, from doctors, on errors which lead to patients’ deaths. So the CDC is completely in the dark on the third leading cause of death in the US. This, of course, is the same agency that assures the public that vaccines are wonderfully safe and effective.
Consider the final quotes above. The estimate that “severe patient injuries from medical errors” are 40 times the death figure would give us this: every year in the US, there are 10 million severe injuries as a result of medical errors.
For years, I’ve been hammering on another landmark study out of John Hopkins. It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Association: “Is US health really the best in the world?”
The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert. Starfield separated deaths from errors/mistreatment in hospitals, and deaths from medical drugs:
Yearly deaths from mistreatment and errors in hospitals: 119,000.
Yearly deaths from correctly prescribed medical drugs: 106,000.
The new study doesn’t specifically give a death-number for the medical-drug category.
So again, we can assume the new study is citing an overall death figure that is on the low side. So let’s just round off the new 250,000-death figure and call it 300,000 deaths in America per year as a direct result of the medical system.
That works out to 3 MILLION deaths per decade. And 120 MILLION severe patient injuries per decade.
This is the altruistic umbrella under which more Americans than ever will live and die, as a result of the glorious Obamacare insurance program (which, thankfully, Presdent Trump is now rectifying).
This is the foundation on which doctors and medical bureaucrats stand, when they make statements to the press about the unqualified success of modern medicine - for example, in the area of vaccines.
“I’m the expert here. I represent a system that kills 3 million Americans per decade and severely injures 120 million Americans, and therefore you can believe me when I say that vaccines are remarkably safe and effective.”
Who are the clueless? Who are the liars? Who are the people killing and maiming the people? Who are the lunatics?
The people who opt for natural health? I don’t think so.
No. The lunatics and their dupes and proxies are in plain view, every night, on your television screen.
There they are. Look at them. Understand what is going on. The full meaning of it. Finally.
How Big Pharma is Controlling Your Health Care
Dr. Michael Farley discusses what he calls his 'grave reservations' about big pharma's control when it comes to doctors and your healthcare. Find out what first hand things he's seen.
You'll be shocked at some of the things he's seen and how much control the FDA and pharmaceutical companies have in this country. You might be surprised at just how much big pharma is controlling your healthcare!
Government’s Real War On Natural Health
In 1994, after a lifelong aversion to politics, I ran for a seat in the US Congress out of the 29th District in Los Angeles. My platform was Health Freedom.
At the time, the FDA was raiding offices of natural practitioners, and threatening to cut off citizens’ access to a full range of nutritional supplements.
I watched a trial, if you can call it that, in downtown Los Angeles, in which the federal government was prosecuting a young man for selling, and making health claims about, a substance that occurs naturally in the body.
The defendant told the Judge he was prepared to present extensive evidence that the substance was safe and effective. The Judge refused, saying the only issue was: did the defendant violate an FDA rule?
If so, he was guilty. At that point, the trial was over, and indeed, the Judge soon pronounced a verdict and the young man was led away to serve a prison sentence in a federal lockup.
At that moment, I began to construct my case against the State, and consider what Health Freedom was all about.
Let’s start here. The FDA, the CDC, and several other federal agencies have blood on their hands. This blood doesn’t wash away. On July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, published a review in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”
Starfield concluded that that US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year. That would extrapolate to 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade. I subsequently interviewed Starfield (2009), and she told me the US government has never made a significant effort to end this ongoing holocaust.
So, when the government talks about FDA rules governing safety and efficacy of treatments, they should be referring to their own crimes, since, for example, FDA-approved medicines are responsible for roughly half the 2.25 million deaths per decade.
On the other hand, natural health treatments kill virtually no one.
And here is where the situation becomes basic. The decision by a responsible adult, to manage his own health, by his own measure, and to seek out any other person to help him in that regard, is not the business of the State.
The State can license anyone it chooses to, as a health practitioner. Who cares? But there is no exclusive monopoly on healing. There is no monopoly on recovery from illness. There is no monopoly on the quality of a life.
The legal aspect of this is clear: contracts vs. licenses. The State has no Constitutional right to turn its licensing procedures into monopolies. On the other hand, two consenting adults can designate each other “patient” and “healer,” accepting full responsibility, with no future liability attached, for the outcome of their treatment-arrangement (contract).
The State has no Constitutional right to stick its nose into this business.
The State needs to clean up its own act, which is a euphemistic way of saying the State needs to stop killing 2.25 million Americans per decade. Obviously, the government front of “we can’t let people try to heal themselves apart from licensed practitioners, we must protect the people” is a piece of phony propaganda.
The Revolving Door Between the FDA and Big Pharma
It’s a piece of Nanny-Mommy-Daddy State bullshit. This country wasn’t founded on the premise of the government protecting everyone everywhere all the time.
The State has no right to presume it knows, in advance, what will happen when two responsible citizens decide to engage in their own healing contract.
There’s more. If one state in the Union decided to allow this form of responsible contract in the field of healing, people from all over the country would move there - seeking freedom.
As a result, the economy of that State would bloom. Other States, seeing this, would follow suit. There would be a genuine Health Freedom revolution…
And the government of the country could focus on an effort to stop killing people through medical interventions. As for the people of America, their job is to stop giving in to a reflex-reaction of fear when they contemplate health freedom.
“Oh, we can’t just let people decide, on their terms, which health treatments to choose. That could lead to terrible consequences.”
The terrible consequences are right in front of your face. They’re already here. They stem from the federal government’s attempt to run a monopoly on healing, which turns out to be a killing field.
That’s the result of rules and regulations set by the experts.
People either have freedom to choose or they don’t. They have a right to be right or wrong in those choices, or they don’t.
There is no State Mommy or Daddy decreed by some higher power.
CDC “Spider” Scientists Attack The CDC, Blow The Lid Off & Robert F Kennedy Jr: CDC An “Edifice Of Faud” February 4 2017 | From: NoMoreFakeNews
They write a letter to the CDC chief of staff and I write a letter to them...
There is a group of anonymous scientists at the US Centers for Disease Control - they call themselves the Spider Group - Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research. They have penned a letter to the CDC’s chief of staff, Carmen S. Villar:
Here is the explosive accusation they make:
"We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests.
It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”
“Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right.”
“We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”
I have written at length about another whistleblower at the CDC, William Thompson, a long-time researcher who, in August of 2014, confessed in writing to massive fraud (archive here).
He admitted that, in a study on the safety of the MMR vaccine, he and his colleagues literally threw vital sheets of data into a garbage can. The study then gave a free pass to the vaccine, claiming it had no connection to autism - when in fact it did. Thompson is the subject of the film, Vaxxed.
Vaxxed From Cover Up to Catastrophe
Now with this letter, we see that other scientists at the CDC are blowing the lid off internal corruption at their Agency.
If, in fact, President Trump gives the green light for an independent investigation of the CDC, as press outlets are now reporting, and if he appoints Robert Kennedy Jr. to head up that panel, as Kennedy claims, we are going to see a large number of hidden facts emerge from the secretive halls of the CDC.
Because this Spider Group is anonymous, I wanted to make sure their letter is real. I contacted reporter Carey Gillam (twitter), who has been covering the story. I received this reply:
"I was able to authenticate the letter by contacting CDC’s public affairs office and asking them directly about it after I received it from internal CDC sources.”
And now I write a letter to them, so they can deepen their investigation.
Dear Spider Group: I commend you on making an important start. You’re on the right road. As a reporter who has covered the CDC for many years, I offer you three suggestions. This short list is by no means exhaustive. I’m just pointing to a few areas where your own research will yield very rich and fertile results.
1. Swine Flu Fraud
Let me take you back to the late summer of 2009, and the Swine Flu epidemic, which was hyped to the sky by the CDC. The Agency was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine. Remember?
The problem was, the CDC was concealing a scandal.
At the time, star CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, was working on a Swine Flu story. She discovered that the CDC had secretly stopped counting cases of the illness - while, of course, continuing to warn Americans about its unchecked spread.
The CDC’s main job is counting cases and reporting the numbers. What was the Agency up to?
Here is an excerpt from my 2014 interview with Sharyl Attkisson:
Rappoport: In 2009, you spearheaded coverage of the so-called Swine Flu pandemic. You discovered that, in the summer of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control, ignoring their federal mandate, [secretly] stopped counting Swine Flu cases in America.
Yet they continued to stir up fear about the “pandemic,” without having any real measure of its impact. Wasn’t that another investigation of yours that was shut down? Wasn’t there more to find out?
Attkisson: The implications of the story were even worse than that. We discovered through our FOI efforts that before the CDC mysteriously stopped counting Swine Flu cases, they had learned that almost none of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all!
The interest in the story from one [CBS] executive was very enthusiastic. He said it was “the most original story” he’d seen on the whole Swine Flu epidemic. But others pushed to stop it and, in the end, no broadcast wanted to touch it. We aired numerous stories pumping up the idea of an epidemic, but not the one that would shed original, new light on all the hype.
It was fair, accurate, legally approved and a heck of a story. With the CDC keeping the true Swine Flu stats secret, it meant that many in the public took and gave their children an experimental vaccine that may not have been necessary.
It was routine for doctors all over America to send blood samples from patients they’d diagnosed with Swine Flu, or the “most likely” Swine Flu patients, to labs for testing. And overwhelmingly, those samples were coming back with the result: not Swine Flu, not any kind of flu.
That was the big secret. That’s what the CDC was hiding. That’s why they stopped reporting Swine Flu case numbers. That’s what Attkisson had discovered. That’s why she was shut down.
But it gets even worse. Because about three weeks after Attkisson’s findings were published on the CBS News website, the CDC, obviously in a panic, decided to double down. If one lie is exposed, tell an even bigger one. A much bigger one.
Here, from a November 12, 2009, WebMD article is the CDC’s response:
“Shockingly, 14 million to 34 million U.S. residents - the CDC’s best guess is 22 million - came down with H1N1 swine flu by Oct. 17 .”
(“22 million cases of Swine Flu in US,” by Daniel J. DeNoon).
Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.
In the summer of 2009, the CDC secretly stops counting Swine Flu cases in America, because the overwhelming percentage of lab tests from likely Swine Flu patients shows no sign of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.
There is no Swine Flu epidemic.
Then, the CDC estimates there are 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US.
2. The CDC Buys Massive Amounts of Vaccinesand at the Same Time Heads Up Research on the Safety of Vaccines: Explosive Structural Conflict of Interest
If you wanted to buy a product, and the main source of research on the product was the company selling it, would you automatically assume the product was safe and effective?
But you see, that’s the just the beginning of the problem. Suppose the company’s research was cited thousands of times in the press, as the authoritative standard of proof - and anyone who disputed that research was labeled a conspiracy theorist and a quack and a danger to the community and an anti-science lunatic.
Do you think, under any circumstances, the CDC would publish data showing vaccines are ineffective and dangerous? They’d be cutting their own throats.
“Well, we spend $4 billion a year buying vaccines from drug companies, but guess what? These vaccines are often dangerous…”
Every time you read about a CDC study on vaccines, keep this obvious (and clearly illegal) conflict of interest in mind.
3. Massive Overestimate of Flu Deaths in the US, in Order to Push the Flu Vaccine
In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which created tremors through the halls of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.
Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):
“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001 - 61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”
Boom. You see, the CDC has created one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.
This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes. But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.
Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.
Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.
This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure. However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.
In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.
“Well, uh, we say that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop.
The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”
The CDC must turn out a steady stream of outrageous lies about the need for vaccines. If they didn’t, they’d have no way to justify the billions of dollars they spend every year buying the vaccines from drug companies.
So, Spider Group, don’t stop now. Deepen your probe. Become true heroes for honest research, expose the deep roots of corruption in your Agency, and do the right thing for the people you’re sworn to serve.
Robert F Kennedy Jr: CDC An “Edifice Of Faud”
Robert Kennedy, Jr. “All the things that I do are bent on forcing this [vaccine] debate out into the open - because once the science is in the open, the CDC’s position is so fragile, it’s an edifice of fraud, fraud stacked upon fraud, so high and so wobbly, that even a slight breeze of public scrutiny will topple it.”
Kennedy states that President Trump has appointed him to head up a task force investigating vaccine safety. The above quote indicates Kennedy, would, if given the green light, probe much more than the use of mercury in vaccines - his main topic of interest thus far.
This would be a very good thing. The CDC is most certainly an edifice of fraud. It has concealed many of its crimes over the years.
If he hasn’t already, Kennedy should make contact with an anonymous group of scientists at the CDC who call themselves ‘Spider’. They have written a letter to the CDC chief of staff accusing the agency of widespread “unethical practices…influenced and shaped by outside parties…[that] threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.” (More on Spider here.)
Swine Flu, a dud and phony “epidemic,” presented as a dire global threat requiring vaccination;
A structural conflict of interest, in which the CDC buys billions of dollars of vaccines and, at the same time, carries out many studies assessing vaccine safety - with this much money on the line, the Agency would never, under any circumstances, admit vaccines are dangerous;
A massive overestimation of annual flu deaths in the US, in order to push the necessity of the flu vaccine.
In this second memo, I present two more shocking areas which should receive the immediate attention of the dissident Spider scientists at the CDC, and Mr. Kennedy:
1: The Case of Julie Gerberding
On August 27, 2014, CDC scientist William Thompson came out of the shadows and revealed that he had participated in a major scientific fraud:
Ten years earlier, he and his co-authors had published a study claiming there was no MMR-vaccine connection to autism. They had omitted vital data which contradicted that finding.
The MMR vaccine was increasing the risk of autism. Thompson knew it. So did his co-authors. They buried that chilling fact.
Before their fake study was published, Thompson wrote to the head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, informing her that, at an upcoming conference, he would be:
“Presenting the summary of our results from the Metropolitan Atlanta Autism Case-Control Study [and]…I will have to present several problematic results relating to statistical associations between the receipt of MMR vaccine and autism.”
In other words, Thompson was ready to blow the whistle on the MMR vaccine-autism connection. He received no reply from CDC Director Gerberding, and his presentation at the conference was canceled.
Fast forward: in 2009, Gerberding left the CDC. She eventually went to work as the president of the vaccine division at Merck.
Merck. Manufactures. The. MMR. Vaccine. Get it? (full story here)
2: Overwhelmingly, Flu is Not the Flu. Therefore, Even People Who Believe in the Importance of the Flu Vaccine are Being Decieved
Peter Doshi, PhD, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals a monstrosity.
As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.
This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.
So they don’t have the flu. Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases.
The vaccine couldn’t possibly work. The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.
“…Even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza.
Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive."
“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”
Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.
So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off. The CDC is supposed to be doing an accurate count of case numbers of diseases in the US. They’re lying and covering up the facts.
Terrible logo, just lazy design. And who signed off on that font? Anyway - maybe they should start doing what is says on the tin...
Those of you in the Spider group of rebel scientists at the CDC, get busy. There are many more instances of massive corruption at your Agency. Dig in. Don’t let the American people down.
Go all the way. You, too, Mr. Kennedy. For Part-1, click here.
I propose that very sort of scientific mischief and outrageousness is going on within vested-interest microwave technology sciences so as to keep you, the gullible and enthralled technology ‘smart’ device consumer, confused into believing there are no adverse health effects from microwaves EXCEPT what’s acknowledged and called thermal radiation, which can heat skin.
If smart technology gadgets don’t heat your skin, then they are safe, which is the standard “tobacco science” pap disseminated by industrial professional societies such as IEEE, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the National Council of Radiation Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), who fund and/or perform the studies the World Health Organization and global government health agencies cite as ‘factual’ science.
Basically, microwave technology industrial professional societies state emphatically there is no such effect as non-thermal radiation adverse health effects, which contribute to and/or cause electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) or what physicians call idiopathic environmental intolerance (IEI) in sensitive people around the world.
However, here’s the unbelievable part: Non-Industry vs. Industry Funded Studies.
NON-Industry studies found 70% HARMFUL effects and 30% found no effects; whereas in INDUSTRY-studies, they found only 32% HARMFUL effects with 68% no effects. Those data were compiled by Dr. Henry Lai, University of Washington, Professor Emeritus - Department of Bioengineering.
Dr. Lai’s work included the “biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (from extremely-low frequency to radiofrequency) and their possible medical applications". Furthermore, Dr. Lai’s work included the development of Artemisinins (derived from extracts of sweet wormwood) for cancer treatment.
Here’s the truly ironic ‘scientific’ part about the above: Almost one-third (32%) of Industry studies found harmful health effects! How, then, can the microwave industry summarily deny such effects don’t exist plus cavalierly – and deliberately – mislead gullible but adoring technology-crazed consumers?
Even the U.S. Federal Communications Commission is hoodwinked!
The FCC does not have the expertise or the capabilities to determine the safety of electromagnetic fields. FCC stated “Because the Commission does not claim expertise as a de facto health agency, it necessarily considers the views of federal health and safety agencies and institutes that continue to address RF exposure issues in formulating such judgments” in the Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules. Basically, the FCC takes no responsibility for the science. There ought to be a law against that type of obfuscation on the part of a federal agency tasked with setting safety standards.
Microwave science is more than skewed; it’s downright misleading!
In the recently (December 2016) Reviews on Environmental Health - De Gruyter published the article “Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation,” authored by Sarah J. Starkey, Independent Neuroscience and Environmental Health Research, London, UK.
Starkey describes “incorrect and misleading statements from within the [AGNIR 2016] report, omissions and conflict of interests, which make it unsuitable for health risk assessment.
The executive summary and overall conclusions did not accurately reflect the scientific evidence available. Independence is needed from the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP), the group that set the exposure guidelines being assessed.”
In the Introduction, Starkey states:
“The latest AGNIR review has also been relied upon by health protection agencies around the world, including the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and Health Canada.
The majority of the global population absorb RF radiation on a daily basis from smartphones, tablet computers, body-worn devices, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth transmitters, cordless phones, base stations, wireless utility meters [aka Smart Meters/AMI Smart Meters] and other transmitters." (Pg. 493)
Under Conflicts of interest, Starkey points out:
“At the time of writing the report, the chairman of AGNIR was also chair of the ICNIRP standing committee on epidemiology. Currently, six members of AGNIR and three members of PHE [Public Health England] or its parent organisation, the Department of Health (DH), are or have been part of ICNIRP.” [….]
“How can AGNIR report that the scientific literature contains evidence of harmful effects below the current guidelines when several of them are responsible for those guidelines?
PHE provide the official advice on the safety of wireless signals within the UK, but having members in ICNIRP introduces a conflict of interest which could prevent them from acknowledging adverse effects below ICNIRP guidelines." (Pp. 493-94)
“(a) Studies were omitted, included in other sections but without any conclusions, or conclusions left out; (b) evidence was dismissed and ignored in conclusions; (c) there were incorrect statements. Terms such as ‘convincing’ or ‘consistent’ were used to imply that there was no evidence." (Pg. 494)
Under “Studies omitted, included in other sections but without any conclusions, or conclusions left out” and referring to ROS [reactive oxygen species]:
“By only including a few of the available studies, not referring to many scattered throughout the report and not mentioning ROS or oxidative stress in any conclusions or the executive summary, this important area of research was misrepresented.
Oxidative stress is a toxic state which can lead to cellular DNA, RNA, protein or lipid damage (7,8) is a major cause of cancer (7), as well as being implicated in many reproductive, central nervous system, cardiovascular, immune and metabolic disorders." (Pg. 495)
However and here’s the BIG however, “ICNIRP only accept thermal effects of RF fields and focus on average energy absorbed,” (Pg. 495) even though 32% of Industry studies found non-thermal effects!
ICNIRP has stated its members are independent of vested and commercial interests. However, several ICNIRP members, e.g., Dr. Alexander Lerchl, have been accused of conflicts of interests, the most famous being Anders Ahlborn, Professor of Epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute and former consultant to the tobacco industry.
Professor Ahlborn was forced to resign as a member of the WHO’s IARC working group on radiofrequencies. Ahlborn was ‘outed’ that he was the director of the consulting firm Gunnar Ahlborn AB, founded by his brother. That consulting firm served telecom businesses and industry.
Starkey goes on to say:
“Many of the longer-term observational studies described significant associations of RF exposures with symptoms, albeit with limitations in study designs: ‘while some, though by no means all, of the studies reviewed above appear to suggest an association between mobile phone use and symptoms…’, [page 245 (2)] followed by ‘almost all of the studies share a fundamental methodological problem which makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions from them: these studies relied upon the participants’ own descriptions of their mobile phone usage as the exposure variable for their analysis and on self-description of symptoms while knowing exposure status'(2).
Longer-term studies on symptoms were omitted from the executive summary. (Pg. 496)
No mention was made of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of RF fields as a possible human carcinogen in 2011, which was based on limited evidence supporting carcinogenicity below ICNIRP guideline values.(32) (Pg. 496)
By the end of the report, the conclusions on cellular studies had incorrectly become ‘There are now several hundred studies in the published literature that have looked for effects on isolated cells or their components when exposed to RF fields. None has provided robust evidence for and effect.’ "[page 318 (2) (Pg. 497)
The microwave industry considers “cancer” a four-letter-word and does everything within its financial and political prowess to disassociate anyone from proving or even associating cancer etiologies with microwave EMFs/RFs/ELFs, thermal and non-thermal wave radiation.
“Conclusions for further examples:
The denial of the existence of adverse effects of RF fields below ICNIRP guidelines in the AGNIR report conclusions is not supported by the scientific evidence. [….]
The involvement of ICNIRP scientists in the misleading report calls into question the basis and validity of the international exposure guidelines. To protect public health, we need accurate official assessments of whether there are adverse effects of RF signals below current international ICNIRP guidelines, independent of the group who set the guidelines.
The anticipated WHO Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on Radiofrequency Fields, due in 2017, is being prepared by a core group and additional experts with 50% of those named, being, or having been, members of AGNIR or ICNIRP. (Table2) [….]
Independence from ICNIRP is necessary to remove the conflict of interest when effects below ICNIRP exposure guidelines are being assessed. [….]
Individuals and organisations who/that have made decisions about the often compulsory exposures of others to wireless RF communication signals may be unaware of the physical harm that they may have caused, and may still be causing, because they have not been accurately informed of the risks.” [….]
“To prevent further possible harm, restrictions on exposures are required, particularly for children, pregnant women and individuals with medical conditions. (Pg. 499)
PHE and AGNIR had a responsibility to provide accurate information about the safety of RF fields. Unfortunately, the report suffered from an incorrect and misleading executive summary and overall conclusions, inaccurate statements, omissions and conflict of interest.
Public health and the well-being of other species in the natural world cannot be protected when evidence of harm, no matter how inconvenient, is covered up.” (Pp. 499- 500)
Ironically, the above-cited Starkey paper has 99 References, some of which were included to show corrupted science articles which appear in the published scientific literature. [CJF emphasis added]
The above paper by Sarah J. Starkey is only one intelligently explained example of what’s really going on with microwave ‘science’ to keep consumers enthralled about and with ‘smart’ devices and denied microwave technology health hazards.
There are so many more studies I can cite, but I think readers ought to be getting the picture of what’s not being told to them so that the marketing plans for smart appliances and gadgets can rule consumers’ lives - everything from a ‘smart’ phone, appliances and Wi-Fi to the coveted G5, global Wi-Fi in the sky. Fried brains, anyone?
Electrosensitivity, also known as ems, es, electrical oversensitivity / hypersensitivity is a state where the body becomes so sensitive to electrical fields that simple, moder, every-day tasks such as using the phone, driving a car, or working on a computer can have unbearable physical consequences for the sufferer.
Symptoms can vary from mild to severe headaches, nausea, insomnia, eye irritations, dizziness, skin rashes, facial swelling, fatigue, joint pains, buzzing/ringing in the ears, abdominal pain, breathing difficulties, irregular heart beat, depression, balance problems, paralysis, poor memory/concentration, seizures.
People aren't born with this condition it develops after a prologued period of exposure after which the body seems to reach a point of critical mass and tips over the edge into electrosensitivity. Electrosensitivity can also be triggered by exposure to a new electronic device.
Electrosensitivity sufferers face denial from the medical establishment and find themselves fobbed off with antidepressants or other non-effective drugs and left to suffer without support. It is only Sweden that officially recognizes electrosensitivity as a medical condition even though it is now a worldwide rapidly growing phenomenon.
One such electrosensitivity sufferer is U.K sculptor Margaret Lovell. The BBC did a 10 minute segment on her for a local television show and we found her through the associated web site. Margaret accepted our offer to trial both a Nu-Me pendant and a p.e.bal to see how they could help with her condition. The following video summarizes her experience.
Penny is a horse-trainer whose animals, farm and livelihood were systematically destroyed by the presence of a major radio transmission tower on the edge of her property on the outskirts of Christchurch NZ.
For over a decade she has been researching the effects and technologies of electro-magnetic radiation and has become an expert in this area, not academic but experiential.
She was close friends with the late Dr. Neil Cherry, an outspoken critic of EMR and the telecommunications industry. Her information, her experience, her plight, her message are an urgent warning for almost all of humanity who are currently bathed in a carcinogenic sea of weaponized electro-magnetic radiation.
Top 7 Causes Of Cancer And Smart Alternatives For Prevention And Healing January 28 2017 | From: NaturalNews
If you had been walking on sharp rocks and jagged shells all day, and a doctor told you to take some aspirin for the pain, would you go out the next day, and the day after that, and the day after that, and walk on those same rocks and shells, expecting the aspirin to “do the trick” every time, for weeks, months and even years?
Wouldn’t you expect that you would get such a horrible infection that you might lose your foot, your leg or even your life?
That’s exactly what people do with toxic junk food – they eat it at every meal, every day for years, and then take antacids, IBS medicine, aspirin, ibuprofen, diet pills and prescription medicines for everything from inflammation to depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia … you name it.
Then, after years of abuse, these same people think that some oncologist is just going to magically cut out the damage, the polyp or the tumor, and they’ll be just fine. It rarely ever works out. Why?
Cancer is the uncontrolled multiplication of mutated cells that thrive off chemicals, and the more toxic food you eat, the worse it gets. It’s like walking on sharp rocks and jagged shells for years and expecting the doctors to just patch you up and send you home. Well, you can forget about it.
Click on the image above to view a larger version in a new window
You need drastic, major lifestyle changes to prevent and/or beat cancer. Sounds difficult, but if you know what to cut out first, it’s actually pretty easy. Here we go.
These top seven causes of cancer are some of the most popular foods, beverages and even medicines known to Americans. Doctors, dentists and dermatologists refrain from telling their patients the truth, or they may lose all their “clients for life.”
Top Seven Causes of Cancer, and Great Alternatives for Prevention and Healing
#1.Fluoridated water: Want some insecticide in your tap water? You’re in luck! It’s already in there. Municipal tap water often contains toxic sodium fluoride imported from China.
It causes cancer, brittle bones and a lowered IQ. The solution? Get a Big Berkey water filtration system for your home. It’s the best filter on the planet, and even removes other people’s medications, heavy metal toxins, bleach, artificial sweeteners and more.
#2. Artificial sweeteners: They should be called the sweet devils, because aspartame, sorbitol and sucralose trick your body into thinking it’s getting something sweet, increasing cravings for sugar and carbs and contributing to weight gain.
And, because they’re synthetic and carcinogenic, they warp your cells and lead to cancer of the breasts, prostate, bladder and more. Look into safe alternatives like stevia or xylitol, or just moderate your sugar intake using organic sugar in the raw, or better yet, organic honey.
#3. Nitrites and nitrates in meat: Meat spoils easily, so manufacturers use extra strong preservatives – highly concentrated salts – to preserve them. This goes for nearly all deli meat, barbecued meat, spicy meat, hot dogs, most Chinese food, jerky treats, sausages, and of course, meat in soups.
Watch out for monosodium glutamate (MSG), a genetically modified preservative used to add flavoring back into meat products that have been processed with ammonia and bleach to kill the E.coli and salmonella. These salts cause migraines, severe dehydration, and yes, cancer. Want safe alternatives? Use organic sea salt, organic garlic salt and organic jalapeño peppers.
#4. Vaccines: Contained in the infamous polio vaccine were nearly 100 million doses of SV40 – a cancer-causing virus that is now believed to be responsible for causing millions of cancer cases in America, according to the CDC.
The information was posted on an official CDC fact sheet entitled Cancer, Simian Virus 40 (SV40) and Polio Vaccine. Though the CDC removed it from their site, RealFarmacy.com archived the damning page before the CDC pulled it. Check it out yourself here.
#5. Chemotherapy: Most MDs and oncologists would never take chemotherapy themselves or recommend it for their relatives, knowing as do that it only has a 3 percent chance of success and totally wipes out the human immune system, while flooding the whole body with chemicals that cause new cancers to develop.
#6. Pharmaceuticals (prescription medications): The number one cause of cancer is consuming chemicals, so why would you ever take prescription medications that are all made in laboratories using chemicals?
#7. Conventional gluten: Also known as “food glue,” most gluten is processed with bleach and toxic dough conditioners, and it all sticks in your digestive tract for days, rotting everything that comes in behind it and fueling chronic inflammation, IBS, dehydration, polyps, and eventually, cancer.
Eugenics And Population Control To Save The Planet, Says Berkeley Professor January 26 2017 | From: WakingTimes
Malcolm Potts is a Malthusian figure with deep roots in the history of eugenics. He’s not hiding in the shadows, but in the open as a professor at one of the most prestigious academic institutions in America, one that has been espousing eugenic philosophy for almost a century: University of California, Berkeley.
"It would be a service to mankind if the pill were available in slot machines and the cigarette were placed on prescription." - Malcolm Potts
Malcolm Potts has been a rabid advocate of population reduction for almost 50 years, and was the first physician to promote the main modern method of abortion today, uterine manual vacuum aspiration, and in 1968 became the first Medical Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, not many years after Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was openly calling for the extermination of black people.
To this day, he teaches classes at Berkeley about how badly the population needs to be culled, under the guise of “family planning” and other benign, less-descriptive phrases.
He spreads fear about overpopulation, never focusing on the underlying problem of wealth disparity and hegemony, but claiming the innocent men born at the bottom of the bottom class are a threat because they are inherently going to become terrorists.
The term “Malthusian” refers to the philosophy of Thomas Malthus, a “chicken little” of overpopulation fear mongering who openly advocated for spreading disease to kill the poor. Malthus famously encouraged giving disease, famine, and increased mortality rates to the poor, in “An Essay on the Principle of Population, 1826”:
"Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.
In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations.*12
But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.
If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased from 1 in 36 or 40, to 1 in 18 or 20, we might probably every one of us marry at the age of puberty, and yet few be absolutely starved.”
A 2013 paper co-authored by Malcolm Potts plots how to “reduce fertility” in poor populations, encouraging abortions and whatever means necessary to reduce family size, reduce fertility, and reduce population. Read close and make no mistake, this is not speaking in favor of birth control: it is about reducing fertility. It references Darwinian eugenics ideas right off the bat, like this affectionate publication about Thomas Malthus also from UC Berkeley.
Advocating not for freedom, it is titled: “The impact of freedom on fertility decline.” Reading from that paper:
"All societies use a combination of contraception and abortion to limit family size.49–53 In 1975, Tietze and Bongaarts 49 observed that “levels of fertility required for population stabilization cannot be easily obtained without induced abortion”.
Conversely, we cannot find a country with replacement level fertility that does not have access to safe abortion, either de jure, as in much of Europe, or de facto as in the Republic of Ireland where women go to England to obtain safe abortions.
When safe abortion is accessible in a country, the total fertility rate (TFR) is likely to be one child lower than if abortion is not accessible.54 55 Forty-five years ago demographer Kingsley Davis observed: “Induced abortion … is one of the surest means of controlling reproduction, and one that has been proved capable of reducing birth rates rapidly ….
Yet this method is rejected by nearly all national and international … programmes”.56 Today, in spite of powerful evidence of the safety of misoprostol for medical abortion,57 especially in low-resource settings,58 this tablet has not been approved for use by women at home for this purpose.”
“We contend that wherever women have access to a range of contraceptive methods with correct information and backed up by safe abortion, fertility will fall. This is the basis of our ‘opportunity model’.
Conversely, as long as the international community fails to focus on family planning, the barriers to family planning are allowed to stay in place, and the shortfall in money and commodities persists, there will be further stalls in fertility decline (or an actual rise in family size), particularly among the poorest economic quintiles in low-income countries.”
Malcolm Potts has a feverish obsession with reducing the world’s population of poor people, working veraciously for almost half a century to do so with a tenacity only perhaps rivaling Margaret Sanger herself.
He claims men born into impoverished areas (citing Gaza) are inherently a threat to world stability, essentially saying they are bound to become terrorists, so they should never have been born.
Reading from an article titled: “U.C. Berkeley’s Malcolm Potts’ Ugly New Eugenics Blames Dark-Skinned Teenagers for War and Terrorism”:
"The Bixby Center for Population, Health, and Sustainability at the University of California, Berkeley, features webpages stuffed with noble principles affirming women’s right to family planning access, global population stability, universal justice, and environmental sustainability.
Unfortunately, Bixby’s chair, obstetrician and reproductive scientist Malcolm Potts,’ chief tactic to advance these liberal goals is with ugly appeals to 19th century racism and emotional fears toward young, poor people.
In its May-June cover story, Miller-McCune - a new magazine that boasts of “smart journalism” that “draws on academic research and other definitive sources to provide reasoned policy options and solutions for today’s pressing issues” but then delivers the same old anti-youth prejudices long moldering in mainstream media - Potts and Stanford University Earth Sciences lecturer Thomas Hayden push the absurdly bigoted notion that “young men are the true engines of war.”
Tossing out the usual half-baked bio-cliches on “testosterone” and “aggression,” they argue that “careful statistical studies show that the probability of violent conflict increases as the ratio of young men in a society rises above that of older men.” (Yes, and statistically, the limited notions of “conflict” Potts and Hayden single out also increase along with the proportion of dark-skinned and poor people of all ages.)
Therefore, they argue, any excess of young men in a society must be the major cause of war, violence, and terrorism.”
While they wail about overpopulation as the main threat to the future of our planet, they purposefully ignore those responsible for creating war and poverty in the first place: the wealthiest on this planet.
Overpopulation fear-mongerers often belong to the privileged, wealthy class of people, some of which are the very people starting wars of aggression in the Middle East, who fund the terrorists they claim are being created by overpopulation.
They aren’t suggesting their class of people be culled: only the poor.
The forces who keep people in a state of poverty are ignored, and instead the victims are identified as the causes of poverty and suffering, by Malthusian academics hungry for the extermination of poor people.
The truth is, the Earth can support many more human beings, if the land and resources were not hoarded by a very small number of extremely wealthy individuals.
It would also help if the wealthy would cease to influence the poisoning of our land with pesticides and toxic chemicals.
These people hungering for reduced population are not hidden, but operating in plain sight in the most prestigious academic institutions in the West, just as they did a century ago when the Ivy League institutions pioneered eugenics.
If you’d like to understand the insidiousness of Malcolm Potts’ presentation style, take a look at his talk here, where he discusses how poor people reproducing is responsible for climate change.
Malcolm Potts: Avoiding the Next Great Humanitarian Crisis
To learn more about the myth of overpopulation, this video is helpful:
Roundup Now Proven To Cause Liver Disease, And It’s In Your Food January 25 2017 | From: WakingTimes
In addition to the other documented risks of Monsanto’s Roundup, a cutting-edge study using molecular profiling reveals that it also causes liver disease, even at doses currently approved by regulators.
Researchers at King’s College London have discovered that the popular weedkiller Roundup causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The two-year study performed on rats tested the effect of real-world glyphosate doses currently permitted by regulators.
This is the first time that science has shown a direct causal link between the consumption of an extremely low dose of Roundup and a serious disease.
The study, conducted by Dr. Michael Antoniou et.al. and published in Scientific Reports, states:
"Overall, metabolome and proteome disturbances showed a substantial overlap with biomarkers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and its progression to steatohepatosis and thus confirm liver functional dysfunction resulting from chronic ultra-low dose glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) exposure."
Regulators commonly accept toxicity studies in rats as indicators of risks affecting human health, thus, the results of this latest report have grave implications for human health.
The proliferation of glyphosate use in big agriculture has had many environmental ramifications, and the quality of soil is being impacted globally. Farmers now face hundreds of glyphosate-resistant superweeds, increasing their costs and requiring use of many more herbicides.
Roundup has been found in rain and air samples, and glyphosate residues have been found in human breast milk and urine, as well as tap water and all types of food, including milk, eggs and baby food. A recent FDA study even found high levels in many popular foods.
"New testing conducted by an FDA-registered food safety lab found alarming levels of the chemical glyphosate (known as Monsanto’s Roundup weed-killer) in several very common foods.
This independent research reveals that many popular foods have over 1000 times the glyphosate levels that have been established to be harmful.”
Many scientific studies have shown that exposure to GBHs such as Roundup can lead to serious health problems, such as cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, kidney disease, and Celiac disease. This newest study showing a causal link between Roundup and liver disease is one of the most compelling due to extremely low doses being tested.
Very Low Doses of Roundup Cause Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
The research conducted at King’s College London by Dr. Antoniou and his team was one of the first to take into consideration the effects of exposure to glyphosate amounts currently permitted by regulators.
The researchers were concerned that results from other glyphosate toxicity studies “were obtained at doses far greater than general human population exposure.
"Doses tested were typically over the glyphosate acceptable daily intake (ADI), which is currently set at 0.3 mg/kg bw/day within the European Union (1.75 mg/kg bw/day in the USA) based on hepatorenal toxicity measurements after chronic exposure in rats.”
To address this problem, the team administered Roundup via drinking water at a concentration of 0.1 parts per billion (ppb), or 0.05 microgram/Liter (μg/L). This equals a daily intake of 4 ng/kg bw/day, much lower than the acceptable daily intake in Europe and the USA.
Regardless of the extremely low Roundup concentration, which was thousands of times below what is permitted by regulators, the researchers found the following:
"The results showed that Roundup caused an increased incidence in signs of anatomical pathologies, as well as changes in urine and blood biochemical parameters suggestive of liver and kidney functional insufficiency."
Dr. Antoniou adds:
"Our results also suggest that regulators should reconsider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides.”
Based on this latest study, one would think it obligatory for regulators to reconsider the acceptable daily intake levels for glyphosate-based herbicides. Are these findings sufficient to set in motion even bigger changes?
The new study highlights the question of whether Roundup is an unrecognized risk factor leading to an increase in NAFLD, which affects about 25% of the population in the USA. It is just as common throughout Europe.
NAFLD symptoms include fatigue, weight loss, nausea, abdominal pain, jaundice, itching of the eyes, spider-like blood vessels, and swelling in the legs and abdomen. Over time, NAFLD can progress to more serious conditions such as non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, where the liver can swell and become damaged, as well as the irreversible liver cirrhosis.
Considering the high levels of glyphosate contamination of our food and water supply, it seems wise to take proactive action in keeping the liver healthy. Some ways to reduce the risk of NAFLD and even heal a fatty liver are offered by Dr. Mark Hyman.
New Zealand Fluoridation Legislation: Take Action Now! January 20 2017 | From: Uncensored / Various Legislation was introduced to Parliament on the 17th November 2016. This Legislation will shift responsibility from the local councils and give it to the District Health Boards. It is designed to make it virtually impossible to stop fluoridation in currently fluoridated areas, or to keep it out of places that do not have it – even if they have said “no” to it in the past.
Local Councils will be required to do as the DHB dictates or face a fine of $200,000 and a further $10,000 per day of non-compliance.
Related: Fluoride Action Network: A Report From New Zealand This Legislation does not allow for DHBs to consult with the community and it only allows a very narrow range for the DHBs to evaluate the subject as they will only be allowed to consider dental health in the community against the cost of fluoridation.
They are being steered to only consider the 2009 Oral Health Survey rather than much more comprehensive data.
They are not given any leeway to consider overall health effects.
Submissions Close 2nd of February
As you will see from the transcript and related documents and the video footage of the MPs that spoke at the first Reading (5th of December 2016) – National, Labour and the Greens support the Bill. The Labour Party even want to strengthen the legislation by making it mandated by Central Government just in case a DHB tries to wriggle out of it.
You will also see that none of the speakers know very much about the subject. Health Select Committee Chair Simon O’Connor mistakenly credits his good teeth on taking fluoride tablets as a child.
Unbeknownst to him, the Ministry of Health no longer recommends fluoride tablets because we now know fluoride doesn’t work by swallowing and fluoride tablets cause dental fluorosis!
Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne, who introduced the Bill, has called us “tin-foil hat wearing, UFO-abducted pseudo-scientists.” He mustn’t realise that he is insulting around half of the NZ population.
Results from all referenda held in NZ show that people tend to vote status quo. As only half of the country is fluoridated (23 councils out of 67, not “27 councils have rejected fluoridation” as Peter Dunne incorrectly stated) which means that roughly half the population is opposed to fluoridation (or maybe more than half) and if a nationwide referendum was held tomorrow, we would have a good chance of winning.
The NZ First Party thinks the issue should be decided by local referendum. The Greens supported the Bill “at first Reading stage” as they, too, have concerns about local decision-making – but the Greens as a party do think fluoridation is safe and effective. It shows that most of them must only have read the Ministry of Health propaganda.
How to Stop the Legislation
The Government is now giving until the 2nd of February for us to send in written feedback on the issue. The law allows everyone who gives feedback to have 10 minutes speaking time for individuals, and 15 minutes for organisations.
At the Hamilton Tribunal in 2013, 1557 people put in a submission, 1385 opposed fluoridation and 130 people spoke at the hearing to support their submission. That required the councillors to sit through 3.5 days of oral submissions and the result was a 7 to 1 vote to stop fluoridation.
Unfortunately, some Hamilton councillors who had excused themselves from the Tribunal Hearing because of a conflict of interest, and did not bother to attend the Hearing as part of the audience, subsequently worked to overthrow that decision. (See Hamilton page if you would like more information on that).
Therefore, we urge everyone to give written feedback, and do their utmost to speak to that submission in person. We have been advised that It is best to keep feedback to a page or two with around half a dozen really salient points. The Hearing will be in Wellington, which is likely to be in February or perhaps March next year..
Ways to Give Feedback:
Use this Online Form If you don’t know what to say, a personal testimony is good, or attach an article already written (suggestions here) or list a few points as suggested above. Send hard copy to Health Select Committee, Parliament Buildings, Wellington. It is really good if you can also say you will speak to your submission. This can be done by Skype if you cannot make it to Wellington.
Fluoride Free New Zealand will be providing a comprehensive written submission where we will explain the ineffectiveness and dangers of fluoridation and details of public dental health programmes operating overseas that actually do reduce dental decay.
Please encourage your friends and family to help us now by sending feedback to the Committee and by informing everyone they know on the facts about fluoridation. The number of people that do this makes a difference!
You can also help by posting respectful and informative comments on Facebook, liking posts and comments and joining the discussions, particularly on the Facebook pages of the Health Select Committee Members. See the list below.
Remember, this is election year. We need to let politicians know we will not vote for them if they introduce this draconian legislation.
Big Pharma Suffers Another Major Blow As Study Debunks High Cholesterol Myths, Admitting Statins Are Totally Worthless + Statins Kill, Cholesterol Does Not - The Real Effects Of Statin Drugs January 18 2017 | From: NaturalNews / PreventDisease It's been a tough few weeks for Big Pharma, as three major studies have now completely disproved the effectiveness of its most profitable drugs.
Out of 14 antidepressants, only one was shown to improve depression better than the placebo.
Now, scientists are reporting that cholesterol drugs, which 15 million Americans are prescribed, are also completely worthless. A group of international researchers published a study in the BMJ Open journal that found no link between what's known as "bad" cholesterol and death as a result of heart disease in individuals over 60 years of age.
In fact, the results found that 92 percent of people with high cholesterol actually lived longer. The best way to achieve and maintain good heart health is not through medications but through healthy lifestyle habits.
"Lowering cholesterol with medications for primary cardiovascular prevention in those aged over 60 is a total waste of time and resources, whereas altering your lifestyle is the single most important way to achieve a good quality of life," said vascular and endovascular surgery expert Professor Sherif Sultan from the University of Ireland.
'Lowering Cholesterol With Medications is a Total Waste of Time'
Study co-author Dr. Malcolm Kendrick said their findings show "that older people with high LDL (low-density lipoprotein) levels, the so-called 'bad' cholesterol, lived longer and had less heart disease."
The revelations are sure to have huge implications for the pharmaceutical industry, as the cholesterol drug Lipitor is the most profitable medication of all time – raking in more than $140 billion in sales, according to Health Impact News.
The guidelines for preventing heart disease and the buildup of plaque in the arteries need to be re-evaluated, said the study authors, adding that "the benefits from statin treatment have been exaggerated."
But the truth is that the benefits of statins haven't just been exaggerated, but 100 percent fabricated, as well as the "research" supporting other drugs such as antidepressants and vaccines.
Natural Newsreported in 2013 that the push to get even more U.S. adults on statins was facilitated by doctors tied to the industry. Physicians with the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology issued new guidelines three years ago calling for one-third of all adults to consider taking statins – a push proven to be extremely lucrative for Big Pharma.
When questioned about the conflict of interest, the response was: "Ties between heart doctors and Big Pharma are so extensive that it is almost impossible to find a large group of doctors who have no industry ties."
New Study Says Multiple Vaccines at Once Not Safe for Kids
The third major study in a matter of days to discredit the pharmaceutical industry, comes from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, which found that giving children multiple vaccines at once is unsafe – a complete contradiction to the vaccine narrative shoved down everyone's throats by government, drug companies and the media for decades.
"Although CDC recommends polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and pneumococcal vaccines for two-, four-, and six-month-old infants, this combination of eight vaccines administered during a single physician visit was never tested for safety in clinical trials," wrote medical researcher Neil Z. Miller.
"This is at odds with a CDC report which found that mixed exposures to chemical substances and other stress factors, including prescribed pharmaceuticals, may produce 'increased or unexpected deleterious health effects.'"
So there you have it. The pharmaceutical industry, as well the government mandated policies that support it, have absolutely no credibility, and therefore should not be trusted by anyone.
The best way to maintain good health is to practice healthy lifestyle habits including eating a balanced diet, exercising and taking time to quiet the mind.
Statins Kill, Cholesterol Does Not - The Real Effects Of Statin Drugs
The truth about statin drugs is finally getting attention in scientific journals, and it's the same truth we've been telling customers for years: statins are cellular poison. They accelerate aging and cause diabetes, heart attacks, muscle fatigue and memory loss.
The findings were published in the American Journal of Physiology.
Lead author and stem cell biologist Professor Reza Izadpanah stated;
“People who use statins as a preventative medicine for health should think again as our research shows they may have general unwanted effects on the body which could include muscle pain, nerve problems and joint problems."
In fact, after only a few weeks of use, the study revealed that statins;
“Prevented stem cells from performing their main functions, to reproduce and replicate other cells in the body to carry out repairs...[statins also] prevented stem cells from generating new bone and cartilage...[and] increased ageing."
Recently, a customer who had been on statin drugs and Metformin for several years reported having all of these symptoms: he recently had a heart attack, he has diabetes sores on his toes, loss of memory, and muscle pain.
Though these findings are getting public attention, they are hardly the first. Even in a 2003 article published in the journal Pharmacotherapy,researchers noted that cognitive impairment and dementia were associated with statin therapy.
Natural alternatives have shown they can fill the role of statins without side effects. In fact, a study in BioFactors found that when usage is discontinued, CoQ10 can reverse statin damage. Another natural remedy is Nattokinase, a natural enzyme that breaks down blood clots and acts as a blood thinner. However, it and others are now removed as being NHP by Health Canada.
Life Choice products can be beneficial, too. Consider products like Neurotransmitter Support, SAM-e, L-Arginine, and L-Taurine. It is important that people know there are natural alternatives to statins, but they must be sought out.
I would encourage those on statins to re-evaluate if they are truly needed, and under the care of their health care provider, get off statin drugs and on to natural remedies.
Murray said many pellets landed in the river and some landed on him and his American clients who were appalled by the operation.
“[My client] talked about whether it was even worth coming back to NZ. He said he thought this was clean, green NZ. The rest of the world is shocked at the fact we use this bloody crap basically. It makes me quite angry just thinking about it.”
The aerial drop was carried out by contractors completing pest control work for the Department of Conservation’s Battle for our Birds programme and primary industries organisation Ospri’s TBfree programme.
In a statement Ospri said details of the incident were unclear as no report had been received. It said all 1080 application operations were clearly regulated under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act and consents were issued by appropriate authorities including the Ministry of Health.
No breaches of consents in the Mokihinui operation had been recorded.
Ospri said the timing and location of aerial operations was notified to all land users and operators in the region, and was publicly available. Factsheets containing maps detailing the location and boundaries of the operation, which covered 46,000 hecatres, were published, and there were also public notices.
Ospri said tourism concessionaires were provided with operational maps and details on the planned timeframes, including contact details for the contractor.
For the Mokihinui operation, concessionaires were notified on three separate occasions. The operation was completed on December 2.
Murray, co-owner of Murchison’s River Haven Lodge, said he had been notified that a 1080 drop would take place in the Mokihinui catchment, but were also told that the operators would be careful to avoid the waterways.
He said the drops continued throughout the day, and with a strong north-westerly wind blowing, there was no way to control the spread of pellets.
During a break for lunch, he fished out about nine pellets from the river, and saw others in deeper water, but gave up because there were too many.
“All I want to do is get the word out there that people think this 1080 thing is carefully placed and dropping it from the air into the bush. They’re not. New Zealand really needs to wake up, it’s an absolute abomination, it really is.”
“Word’s getting around that the NZ green image is getting tarnished. It’s not good for tourism.”
In 2014, two fishing guides caught up in a 1080 drop on the Mokihinui complained that they had not been notified of the operation despite holding permits requiring them be told.
Outspoken Vaccine Skeptic, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. To Head Federal ‘Vaccine Commission’ January 13 2017 | From: TheFreeThoughtProject / Various President-elect Donald Trump has undoubtedly ruffled feathers in staffing his administration, but the choice of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. - known for his skepticism on the safety of vaccines - to chair a commission tasked with studying the efficacy of and issues concerning vaccinations, will undoubtedly raise eyebrows from both sides of the issue.
Kennedy, according toUSA Today, will chair the presidential commission “to make sure we have scientific integrity in the vaccine process for efficacy and safety effects,” the environmental activist and politician told reporters after meeting with Trump on Tuesday.
Kennedy noted the incoming president requested the meeting, as he “has some doubts about the current vaccine policies and he has questions about it. His opinion doesn’t matter, but the science does matter and we ought to be reading the science and we ought to be debating the science.”
While advocates of the heavy vaccination schedule might find the choice of Kennedy - who has been castigated as an anti-vaxxer - quite startling, he insisted Trump remains “very pro-vaccine, as am I,” and only seeks to ensure “they’re as safe as they can possibly be.”
Corporate media hastily attacked the appointment of a skeptic to such an important commission; however, Kennedy insisted in the press conference public health and safety remains the topic of concern.
“President-elect Trump has some doubts about the current vaccine policies and he has questions about it,” Kennedy said, as reported by NBC News. “He says his opinion doesn’t matter … but the science does matter, and we ought to be reading the science and we ought to be debating the science.”
Vaccination has frequently been a topic of bitter public dispute over the last few years, as parents of autistic children have pegged the ingredient thimerosal - which, in part, contains notoriously toxic mercury - as the culprit for the affliction.
President-elect Trump has, himself, spoken out about blindly supporting a medical practice without thorough and long-term investigation, as he stated in 2015 during a Republican primary debate;
“I am totally in favor of vaccines. But I want smaller doses over a longer period of time. Same exact amount, but you take this little beautiful baby, and you pump - I mean, it looks just like it’s meant for a horse, not for a child, and we’ve had so many instances, people that work for me. … [in which] a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back and a week later had a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.”
Countless anecdotal cases of the onset of autism coincidentally following a certain round of vaccinations have left a growing population of parents excoriating the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for failing to diligently investigate effects of contents of certain vaccines.
For its part, the CDC scoffs at such comparisons and has painted the anti-vaxx movement - and anyone daring to question vaccination - under the broad brush of hysterics.
“Research does not show any link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder,” the CDC’s website advises - and the conglomerate agency has ostensibly ‘debunked’ the autism link numerous times.
A vocal movement of parents whose children’s autism abruptly took hold after immunization, however, find grave fault with the CDC’s failure to at least address their concerns.
Autism Speaks, an advocacy organization for individuals with autism, which aligns with the CDC, toldNBC News in a statement, “Over the last two decades, extensive research has asked whether there is any link between childhood vaccinations and autism. The results of this research are clear: Vaccines do not cause autism.”
Kennedy stated about vaccines at a documentary screening on the subject in 2015;
“They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone. This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country.”
Coming under intense backlash for the capricious use of that term, Kennedy later apologized, stating,
“I employed the term during an impromptu speech as I struggled to find an expression to convey the catastrophic tragedy of autism which has now destroyed the lives of over 20 million children and shattered their families.”
Indeed, with the growing pandemic of autism - and the increased number of immunizations deemed necessary through childhood - it would seem the appointment of someone who finds safety and study relevant would be crucial to the interest of public health.
Kennedy is not, as the mainstream portrays, an unabashed anti-vaxxer - rather, he would like further study to prove or disprove either side in the issue.
After all, as the new chair of the presidential commission to study vaccines, Kennedy said in 2015;
“They can put anything they want in that vaccine and they have no accountability for it.”
Perhaps more imperative than sounding alarms over skepticism, it would behoove the public to give Kennedy’s commission a chance to either prove vaccinations safe and viable - or deleterious to the children they’re supposed to immunize from disease.
Pharmaceutical Company Misleads Consumers, Caught In Painkiller Scam + Painkiller Drugs More Fatal Than Heroin Or Cocaine January 10 2017 | From: NaturalSociety / AustralianNationalReview Drug giant Reckitt Benckiser was ordered by the Australian Federal Court to pull its so-called “targeted” ibuprofen products off the shelves after the company admitted that these were identical to the standard tablets.
Marketed under the name Nurofen, all products contained 200mg of ibuprofen, whether they were labelled as “standard,” “migraine,” “period pain,” or “back pain.”
The specific products are about double the price of standard Nurofen. Fortunately, the court ordered that the “specific” tablets be removed from Australian shops within 3 months, with a subsequent hearing planned to decide on a possible fine. This ruling followed legal action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in a rare victory over the pharmaceutical industry.
The Nurofen line is also sold in the UK and New Zealand, but the British government’s MHRA said there was no concern, as it is not involved in the control over pricing. The company has also been ordered to pay the ACCC’s legal costs, explain itself to the public, and implement a consumer protection compliance program.
5 Alternative Pain Solutions
But what are some natural alternatives to ibuprofen?
In one clinical trial involving 150 female students, different groups were prescribed either 250mg of ginger powder, 250g of mefenamic acid, or 400mg of ibuprofen, 4 times daily for the first 3 days of their menstrual period. Check out other health benefits of ginger here.
The severity of their pain decreased in all groups, and there was no difference between the three groups in severity, pain relief, or satisfaction with the treatment. Ginger is an anti-inflammatory as well as a circulatory stimulant, and has not been associated with the side effects caused by ibuprofen.
Another study involving 204 patients with osteoarthritis compared the benefits of arnica (one of 5 natural pain relievers we mentioned before) and ibuprofen, both as gel preparations, prescribed for 21 days.
In terms of pain and hand function, there were no differences between the two treatment groups, but there were slightly less adverse effects reported by the arnica group, at 5 patients instead of 6.
Additionally, fish oil can be an alternative to pharmaceutical painkillers. Over three months, 250 patients with osteoarthritis took either 1200mg (78% of participants) or 2400mg (22%) of the omega-3 fatty acids found in fish (EPA and DHA).
Fifty-nine percent of all patients stopped taking their prescription NSAID drugs for pain, while 60% said their overall pain improved, and 60% again said their joint pain improved.
Eighty percent said they were satisfied with their improvement and 88% stated they would keep taking the fish oil. No significant side effects were reported from the fish oil either.
While still illegal in most areas, cannabis is an increasingly popular natural alternative to pain of all levels of severity. In fact, standardized extracts of cannabinoids such as Sativex have been approved in some regions for pain conditions including neuropathic pain from multiple sclerosis and intractable cancer pain.
THC, which is responsible for the “high” of cannabis, has many anti-inflammatory mechanisms of action which contribute to pain relief, including PGE-2 inhibition and decreased platelet aggregation.
It has 20x the anti-inflammatory potency of aspirin, and twice that of the steroid hydrocortisone, but without the horrible, disfiguring side effects. CBD, which is antipsychotic and gives no high, relieves pain by the same mechanism as capsaicin, as well as being anti-inflammatory by inhibiting TNF-alpha and by its antioxidant abilities.
Other cannabinoids, such as CBG and CBC, have their own painkilling properties.
With all of these alternatives and others, why support a dishonest corporation and aid them in paying for their well-deserved legal costs?
Painkiller Drugs More Fatal Than Heroin Or Cocaine A research conducted by a reputed pathologist has revealed that a prescription painkiller is taking more lives than Class A narcotics like Heroin and Cocaine.
Prof Jack Crane of Ireland has said that the Tramadol painkiller is killing more people than any other drug and will therefore be included in the Class A category.
The UK has Tramadol listed in Class C drugs, which are considered the least harmful. If Tramadol is taken with alcohol or other drugs, it can have life threatening effects. Tramadol is prescribed for medium to severe pain for patients.
Crane emphasises on the risks of Tramadol and suggests that it needs strict regulation. While many people in the UK are illegally trying to acquire the drug, Crane feels that if Governments and law enforcement do not actively try to regulate illegal Tramadol sales, it could cost many lives.
The report by Crane is revealed in opportune time with cannabis activists trying to legalise medicinal cannabis use and growth under license.
A West Briton report revealed that Tramadol had claimed 20 lives in the UK in 2014.
In the USA, many patients have opioid addictions. A recent report by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administrations revealed that a large number of Americans abused prescription painkillers.
1 out of 20 Americans above the age of 12 used psychotherapy drugs at some point. Many people blame Obamacare policies for such drug and opium usage. The laws of Obamacare reimburse the fees of the patients depending on the satisfaction the patient had during his or her stay at the hospital.
It is a rather tough choice for doctors and hospitals where on the one hand your reimbursement is on the line and on the other hand you are fuelling psychotherapeutic drug addiction among your patients.
The Top 10 Most Outrageous Science Hoaxes Of 2016 January 2 2017 | From: NaturalNews
Science hoaxes were running rampant throughout 2016, pushed by the fakestream media (CNN, WashPost, NYT, etc.) alongside complicit government organizations working in collusion with dishonest corporations steeped in scientific fraud (Monsanto, Big Pharma, etc.).
2016 saw more science hoaxes than a typical year, with the media placing special emphasis on the Zika virus terror campaign (rooted in total scientific hucksterism) and more climate change propaganda (all based on fraudulently altered data).
In every case, those pushing the science frauds claimed to have a divine monopoly on “science” while declaring all opposing views to be “unscientific.”
In this way, much of the “science” in today’s corrupt society has really become nothing more than a cult of scientism, complete with “faith” in the correctness of socially-reinforced beliefs while exercising instant rejection of evidence that contradicts the fairy tale narratives of the science elite.
Sadly, “science” in 2016 functioned more like a priesthood of dogmatists fervently demanding the obedient worship of their unassailable assumptions. On every issue that matters, data were thrown out the window and replaced with fraud.
To drive home the fraud, the scientifically illiterate lamestream media catapulted the propaganda to new heights, even while remaining completely oblivious to the laughably false “science” they were promoting.
Here, I offer a summary of the most outrageous science hoaxes of 2016, along with a few links where you can explore more. By the way, the video on the “Cicret bracelet” invention that claims to turn your arm into a mobile device touchscreen is also a complete fraudulent hoax that has fooled millions of people, and I cover that in detail at the bottom of this article.
My primary message for 2017 is to stop believing in all the fake science being pushed by media, governments, academia and corporate liars.
Science Hoax #1: “Scientific” Political Polling
Through the entire year, we were all subjected to an endless onslaught of so-called “scientific” political polls that almost universally showed Hillary Clinton would win the election.
All the “scientific” polls were wrong, it turns out. (And yes, I called all this well before the election, on the record.)
What we now know is that the word “scientific” was slapped onto these fraudulent polls to try to give them an aura of credibility when, in reality, they were all fabricated or distorted to give Hillary Clinton the appearance of certain victory.
But guess what? All the experts were wrong. But how is that possible if all these polls were “scientific” as claimed? Are the pollsters now telling us that science is broken?
Or maybe, just maybe, they were making s##t up all along and there wasn’t any real “science” behind the “scientific” claim in the first place.
Science Hoax #2: The Zika Virus Terror Campaign
2016 saw the rolling out of an elaborate media-fronted Zika terror campaign designed to scare the entire country into ridiculously believing that mosquito bites would cause millions of women in America to give birth to babies with shrunken heads.
Yeah, I know, it sounds like something a Batman villain would threaten to unleash in Gotham City. “Pay me one million dollars or all your babies will be born with shrunken heads! Mwuah hah hah!”
But, alas, the American sheeple bought the medical science hoax hook, line and sinker. Belief in the Zika virus microcephaly hoax was so deeply embedded in the psyche of the nation that even when the Washington Post published a storyadmitting there was no link after all, the vast majority of so-called “scientists” and doctors still believe the hoax!
So, for the record, I’ll say it again in the hopes of educating all the scientifically illiterate “scientists” who still don’t understand actual facts: The original wave of shrunken heads in Brazil was caused by a larvacide chemical that was dumped into the water supply, not by the Zika virus alone.
The “Zika apocalypse” predicted by all the doctors, scientists and TV talking heads simply did not materialize. And when evidence contradicts your theory, you have to start questioning your theory. Otherwise, you aren’t a scientist. You’re just a petty fool.
Science Hoax #3: The Flint Michigan Lead Poisoning Cover-Up
In order to poison a million black children with brain-damaging lead, the U.S. EPA masterminded a large-scale science fraud that deliberately altered heavy metals testing results for the Flint, Michigan water supply.
Eventually, a few of the science scapegoats were charged with felony crimes for engaging in a conspiracy to alter water quality test data, but no one from the EPA was ever charged or prosecuted for their role in the scheme. (This also proves, by the way, that conspiracies are quite real and very much alive in our society right now.)
The result of all this was the mass poisoning of mostly African-American children with a toxic heavy metal that’s well known to damage cognitive function and impede learning.What a great way to raise more democrats!
It’s all part of the new “science” of keeping the sheeple dumbed down so they will keep voting for corrupt criminals like Hillary Clinton.
Instead of “let them eat cake,” the new progressive Jon Podesta version is, “Let them drink lead!”
Science Hoax #4: The Banning of GMO Labeling Nationwide by Scientifically Illiterate Republicans
This was all accomplished via an unholy alliance among biotech corporate giants (like Monsanto) and right-leaning lawmakers, most of whom have never met a toxic chemical they didn’t absolutely love.
Notably, while Democrats are passing local laws that criminalize Big Gulp sodas, Republicans are blocking labeling laws as a way to say, “If you don’t SEE the poison on the label, it doesn’t actually count!”
Keeping consumers in the dark is now the official science policy of the federal government.
How’s that for transparency?
Science Hoax #5: Climate Change Data Fraud
Democrats have their own science fraud, of course, and there’s no better example than global warming / climate change.
To the great frustration of celebritards like Matt Damon, the data don’t show any warming at all unless you “cook” the numbers first.
This means “climate change science” is actually more like climate change alchemy, which isn’t science at all. It’s more like Tarot cards mixed with voodoo blended with AlGoratotalitaritopian idiocy.
Note to intelligent people: If the world were really warming, they wouldn’t have to alter the temperature data, would they?
Science Hoax #6: Abortion Organ Harvesting for “Scientific Research”
According to leftists, chopping up living human babies who have just been forcibly “birthed” in order to harvest their organs and brains isn’t unethical at all. Nope, it’s a tremendous advancement for scientific research, you see.
Organ harvesting isn’t just limited to places like Communist China and North Korea: The practice is alive and well in America, too. But in the U.S., it takes on a genocidal milestone because most abortions are carried out on black babies… yep, the very same black babies that were also intentionally poisoned by the EPA in Flint, Michigan (see above).
Hmmm… there seems to be a pattern in all this, but I can’t quite put my finger on it… but it definitely seems to have something to do with killing as many black babies as possible while labeling it all “science.”
It’s noteworthy to remember that Adolf Hitler’s eugenics programs were also conducted under the umbrella of “science.”
It seems not that much has changed in almost 80 years… except that instead of Jews being exterminated by the millions, it’s now black babies being exterminated by the millions while democrats demand an open borders human blitzkrieg to replace them all with socialist-leaning illegal aliens who are uninformed enough to vote for leftists.
Science Hoax #7: The California Vaccine Mandate
Another large-scale science hoax that also happens to place a disproportionate burden on African-American babies is the California “medical police state” vaccine mandate pushed by California’s own “Mercury Joker” Dr. Richard Pan.
After receiving bribes from vaccine makers, the “medical child molesting” California state senator Richard Pan took part in a media-backed medical terrorism campaign against California’s citizens, attempting to scare everyone into falsely believing that the best way to protect the health of children is to inject them with mercury (instead of, I don’t know, maybe feeding them nutritious foods and vitamin D).
The entire vaccine mandate was founded on blatantly fraudulent quack science claims fronted by the child-murdering vaccine industry, which continues to absurdly insist that vaccines pose zero risk to children (i.e. claiming they do not harm a single child…ever). The claim is, of course, rooted in sheer delusion. But that’s also what passes for “legislation” in California.
We can only hope California’s #Calexit effort succeeds soon, so we can build a wall around California and stop the contagious epidemic of lunacy from spreading Eastward.
No summary of science quackery would be complete without bringing in the subject of “economics.” Yes, it qualifies as a science… at least if you ask the economists. (If you ask non-economists, it qualifies mostly as voodoo.)
Nevertheless, according to Janet Yellen and the decrepit “wizards of collapse” who are currently steering the global debt Titanic directly into an array of large shards of icebergs, the best way to keep a global economy in balance is to create endless new money until the whole thing explodes, at which point the system collapses to “equilibrium” where everybody starves roughly the same amount (i.e. Venezuela).
To demonstrate this brilliant hypothesis, Yellen and her crotchety academic cohorts have been busy pumping trillions of fiat currency dollars into the pockets of their bankster pals while raising interest rates to accelerate the debt avalanche apocalypse timetable.
As a cherry on top, Obama also doubled the national debt in just eight years, all while handing Iran a path to nuclear weapons, dissing Israel, subverting American culture, gutting the U.S. military and secretly telling his Russian counterparts he would drastically reduce U.S. nuclear capabilities.
Yes indeed, the “dream team” of Obama, Clinton and Yellen has pulled off what America’s worst enemies could not: The near-complete financial paralysis of the U.S. economy all while claiming “Everything is awesome!”
Thank God all the pensions across the country are fully funded, huh? Or that would be a real disaster.
Science Hoax #9: Transgenderism and the Lunatic Liberal “Theory of Spontaneous Genetic Transmutation”
2016 also saw many gullible people being convinced to believe that a biological man can instantly transform himself into a biological woman by declaring himself to be a woman.
At least one “journalist” even claimed that a transgendered man could become pregnant after declaring himself to be a woman. Yes, science education in America has utterly collapsed at this point, replaced with liberal P.C. insanity and delusional college lesson plans rooted in “feelings” rather than physical reality.
Across most of today’s gender-confused college-educated youth, belief in the laws of genetic expression have been replaced by belief that a person’s sex is a “choice.” It’s no longer permutations, phenotypes and genotypes… it’s now metrosexual, generation snowflake, pu##ified blathering idiocy with a diploma, “safe space” cry rooms and $100K in student debt.
Sorry to burst their bubble of stupid, but sex classification isn’t a personal choice. A simple genetic test shows you either have XY chromosomes, XX chromosomes, or the far more rare extra-X-or-Y chromosome defect which typically leads to serious physical and mental defects (including infertility).
According to today’s college snowflakes, the National Human Genome Research Institute is a “purveyor of HATE” because their fact sheet page says all these mean things about chromosomal defects:
“Inheriting too many or not enough copies of sex chromosomes can lead to serious problems. For example, females who have extra copies of the X chromosome are usually taller than average and some have mental retardation.
Males with more than one X chromosome have Klinefelter syndrome, which is a condition characterized by tall stature and, often, impaired fertility. Another syndrome caused by imbalance in the number of sex chromosomes is Turner syndrome. Women with Turner have one X chromosome only. They are very short, usually do not undergo puberty and some may have kidney or heart problems.”
Thus, there are only two sexes in the biology of all mammals: Male and female. And no, you don’t get to change them up just because you think it’s trendy to be a gender-confused metrosexual snowflake.
This doesn’t mean you can’t be gay, by the way. Gay men still realize they’re men. They just choose male partners instead of female partners. On the spectrum of personal freedom, I say people should be able to partner with whomever they want.
Gay or straight, it’s all a personal choice as far as I’m concerned, because it’s none of my business… and stop shoving your sexual preferences in my face, all you militant gay mafia activists.
Just be gay and be done with it. The “gay rights” war is over, and you already won it. Stop being bullies and thinking you’re still oppressed victims.
Marry whomever you want, but just #STFU about it already. Obama already lit up the White House with rainbows, for God’s sake.
But to say that yesterday you were a male, but today you’re a female… now that’s just technically bonkers. You’re not really a female. You’re a male impersonating a female and that’s it. Bruce Jenner, take note: You are not a woman, no matter how much you want to impersonate one.
And that’s celebrated by the women? Yeah, it’s insane. And all these same “progressive” women also insist that pervs with dongs should be able to invade women’s restrooms, too, because that’s “embracing gender identity and inclusiveness” blabbity blah blah.
Get a grip, people. Check your drawers and briefly fondle your hardware. If it’s junk, you’re a dude, and stop playing with it already. If it isn’t, you’re a woman. If you have both, go ask a doctor to run a genetic test and find out if you have ovaries.
Science Hoax #10: Every Science “Journalist” Working for the Fakestream Media
This is more of a collection of hoaxes rather than a single hoax. It all centers around the hilarious fact that most science “journalists” are scientifically illiterate morons who only think they understand science.
I remember reading a science column in a major U.S. publication that claimed cell phones could run on water. (Yeah, I know. I tried that by dropping my cell phone into a glass of water, but it turned off all the power for some strange reason. Maybe I need “special” water?)
There has also been a wave of hilariously stupid media coverage for this bracelet computing project called “Cicret” that ridiculously claims to “turn your arm into a touchscreen.”
The entire video promoting this “Cicret” bracelet is a complete fraud. Racking up almost 25 million views on Youtube, the video shown here is accomplished purely with special effects overlays. The bracelet does not exist and cannot exist as depicted in the video for the simple reason that light cannot bend around the curvature of your arm.
Incredibly, countless “journalists” across the mainstream media fell for this total hoax, stupidly believing that a hi-res touchscreen rendition can be projected onto your skin from a bracelet that barely sits just a few millimeters above your skin in the first place.
Question for brain dead “science” journalists: Do you really believe light rays from the Cicret can bend around your wrist and then magically bounce off skin that isn’t in a direct line of sight with the bracelet projector?
Seriously, you have to be incredibly stupid (or scientifically illiterate) to think the Cicret bracelet, as depicted in the videos, can actually function. But that sure didn’t stop publications from all across the world pushing the hype and convincing their readers that this “cool tech” was real.
And yes, the younger people are on social media these days, the more gullible they are, too. So special effects “viral videos” can be very successful at raising millions of dollars in “Kickstarter” funds for devices that cannot ever exist because they violate the laws of physics.
It’s a whole new kind of financial scam that’s legal because it only extracts money from people who are too stupid enough to believe the viral videos. In summary, “Kickstarter” viral videos are a tax on stupid progressives the same way that the lotto is a tax on stupid conservatives.
And now that I’ve thoroughly offended everyone, let’s wrap all this up…
2016 Was a Bad Year For the Credibility of Real Science… Let’s Hope 2017 is Better
In summary, 2016 saw the pushing of numerous science hoaxes by the fakestream media, governments, academic institutions and corporate propaganda whores like Forbes.com. (Oh, and we can’t leave out the actual whores running SNOPES, who were exposed as prostitutes and fetish bloggers.)
So how do we rescue science in 2017? It’s simple: We start using science to tell the truth instead of allowing governments and corporations to use science to lie.
A few fundamental scientific truths I’d like to see finally embraced in 2017 would include:
Yes, there is extraterrestrial intelligence in the universe.
Yes, there is (or was) microbial life on Mars.
Yes, human consciousness is non-material and not located in the physical brain.
Yes, vaccines cause autism.
Yes, flu shots still contain mercury.
Yes, there are many anti-cancer foods that can help prevent cancer.
Yes, transgenderism is a mental disorder, not a “choice.”
Yes, glyphosate causes cancer.
Yes, DEET is toxic to human neurology.
Yes, genetically engineered crops seeds are a genuine threat to the environment and the food supply.
Yes, water can retain non-physical properties that subtly alter its interactions with living systems.
No, carbon dioxide is not the enemy of mankind.
No, chemotherapy does not “cure” cancer. It often makes it worse.
No, harvesting organs from living human babies is not “ethical science.”
No, science journals are not unbiased, objective arbiters of truth.
No, “scientific” political polls are not reliable. They are bunk.
No, the “experts” are not as smart as they think they are. Mostly, they’re idiots who have attained high positions of “persistent idiocy” in academia or government, and their job is to protect the idiocy for as long as possible, making sure no one overthrows idiocy with intelligence.
Why Are Public Officials Protecting GMO And The Pesticides Industry? Digging Down Into The Cesspool Of Corruption December 29 2016 | From: GlobalResearch
It is based on a cesspool of corruption that is most probably responsible for more death and disease than the combined efforts of the tobacco companies ever were. It is sheer criminality that hides behind corporate public relations, media misrepresentations and the subversion of respectable-sounding agencies which masquerade as public institutions.
From CEOs and scientists to public officials and media/PR spin doctors, specific individuals can be identified and at some stage should be hauled into court for what amounts to ‘crimes against humanity’.
In her numerous documents, Dr Rosemary Mason has described the devastating effects of agrochemicals and has singled out certain individuals who, in a different world, would probably be standing in the dock to answer for their roles they have played in poisoning the environment and damaging public health.
Mason has supplied ample, strong evidence to highlight how agrochemicals are killing us and how public institutions and governments collude with the industry to frame legislation and polices to ensure it’s ‘business as usual’.
However, individuals act within circumstances not of their choosing; capitalism corrupts and it is not the concern of the managers of private corporations to look after the interests of the public at large. A CEO’s obligation is to maximise profit, capture markets and defeat the competition.
The naive hope by many is that ‘corporate social responsibility’ and consumers’ perception of a company will oblige corporations to act in a manner that in some way serves the wider public interest. The other hope is that public officials and institutions will safeguard this interest by holding private interests to account.
But in the cold, cynical world of ‘free’ market capitalism, an interlocking directorate of state-corporate interests have for a long time ensured that state institutions in ‘liberal democracies’ are shaped and manipulated to facilitate the interests of private capital.
The ‘free’ market only exists in the warped delusions of those who churn out clichés about its sanctity. We need look no further than the billions of taxpayer dollars that prop up US agriculture and agribusiness profits, for example, or, more generally, how the state facilitates taxpayer-funded corporate welfare across the board.
The bottom line is to maximise profit for private corporations – and, in Monsanto’s case, by all means possible, including the unflinching defence of the health- and environment-damaging (but massively profitable) product glyphosate. Through political influence and co-option, policies are put in place on Monsanto’s behalf, and the public is expected to sit back and take the poison.
Within the cesspool created, corporations bank on their political influence, media hacks, bogus science, lobbyists and public relations departments and firms to churn out the message that they are serving the public interest, while clearly acting against it.
And this leads us back to Dr Rosemary Mason and her new open letter to the European Chemicals Agency. As with her many other open letters to officialdom, Mason takes us on a journey by naming names and shedding light on how corporate power works to encourage scientific fraud and subvert public watchdogs and policy-making institutions with the aim of getting toxic agrochemicals, especially glyphosate, onto the market and ensuring they remain there.
She addresses the letter directly to European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Executive Director Geert Dancet.
1. Scientific fraud and glyphosate. The German government has accused the German Rapporteur Member State Federal Institute of Risk Assessment (BfR) and the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) of scientific fraud for using Glyphosate Task Force (GTF) statistics that for some considerable time claimed them to be BfR’s own work.
Mason demands that the ECHA must act to ban glyphosate immediately and asserts that human health and the environment are being totally destroyed by it as well as the hundreds of other chemicals that have been registered illegally.
“The current EU legislation was originally set up to protect the pesticides industry. Monsanto and other agrochemical corporations helped the EU to design the regulatory systems for their own products and chose which country should be appointed as Rapporteur Member State.
Regulation 1107/2009, Article 63 specified that: “All confidential data …shall be deleted or redacted.” Much of the industry data submitted to the German RMS was redacted.”
2. Glyphosate, conflicts of interest and PR masquerading as science. By naming names (Alan Boobis, Angelo Moretti, Chris Wolf, Michael Pragnell and others), Mason notes how key positions are held by individuals with proven links to the agrochemicals industry. As a result, crucial decisions and documents are slanted accordingly.
Mason mentions Critical Reviews in Toxicology and how, in 2016 Volume 46, Monsanto commissioned five reviews published in a supplement to Critical Reviews in Toxicology. Monsanto also funded them. The whole point was to raise serious doubts about the adverse effects of glyphosate by using junk science and to confuse the whole issue. Mason says that this is what Monsanto paid the scientists for.
3. The ECHA might be preparing itself to support EFSA, the European Commissioners and the Glyphosate Task Force (GTF) to re-license glyphosate in 2017. This is despite the fact that, of the 293 responses to ECHA’s consultation, an overwhelming majority supported the International Agency for Research into Cancer (IARC) position that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic for humans.
4. The German government summoned Prof Dr Andreas Hensel before the Committee on Agriculture and Food where he accused BfR of scientific fraud. BfR stands accused of endangering the population and of intentional falsification of the content of scientific studies. In addition, Prof Dr Eberhard Greiser, a retired epidemiologist at the University of Bremen, says of BfR’s actions, “I’d say this is an intentional falsification of the content of scientific studies.”
5. Evidence given to the International Monsanto Tribunal. Toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing:
“Ample evidence has been provided above showing that European Authorities twisted or ignored scientific facts and distorted the truth to enable the conclusion that glyphosate is not to be considered a carcinogen, thereby accepting and reinforcing the false conclusion proposed by the Monsanto-led GTF.
The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) committed scientific fraud.”
In his evidence to the tribunal, Clausing systematically demolished arguments that the EU authorities used to dismiss the significant findings of glyphosate-induced malignant lymphoma in mouse carcinogenicity studies.
Mason then goes on to discuss the wide-ranging evidence presented to the tribunal, including Lawyer Koffi Dogbevi’s discussion of Monsanto and ecocide (destruction of the environment), which is a crime against humanity that is likely to be subject to prosecution in the International Criminal Court.
She notes the vicious media campaign mounted against Professor Seralini and his team that was instigated by ‘interested circles’ from the chemical industry as well as the industry-financed British Science Media Centre.
6. Industry pressure on the EPA. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), having concluded that glyphosate is not a carcinogen, invited public comments.
Public comments were invited on 16/09/2016 to the Scientific Advisory Panel of FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) on US EPA Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential. However, only four days before the meeting it was suddenly delayed.
Why did US EPA delay the FIFRA SAP meeting at such short notice? Mason provides compelling evidence indicating the industry’s hand in trying to remove certain scientists from being included on the panel. The suggestion is that the EPA bowed to intense industry lobbying from CropLife America (a US trade association representing the major manufacturers, formulators and distributors of crop protection and pest control products).
7. EPA collusion with Monsanto. In 1991, an archival document showed that the US EPA Health Effects Division colluded with Monsanto: glyphosate was to be changed from a Group C carcinogen to Group E (evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans).
Members of US EPA’s Toxicology Branch of the Hazard Evaluation Division Committee, in a consensus review on March 4 1985, had classified glyphosate as a Group C carcinogen, based on the incidence in rats/mice of renal tumours, thyroid C-cell adenomas and carcinomas, pancreatic islet cell adenomas, hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas in males, but on June 26 1991 the Health Effects Division Carcinogenicity Peer Review Committee met to discuss and evaluate the weight of evidence on glyphosate with particular emphasis on its carcinogenic potential.
In a review of the data the committee concluded that glyphosate should be classified as Group E (evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans). However, three of the Committee refused to sign and wrote: DO NOT CONCUR.
8. Monsanto’s sealed secret studies from the US EPA obtained under Freedom of Information. US Scientist Anthony Samsel analysed Monsanto’s sealed secret long-term studies (15,000-20,000 pages) from the US EPA (on mice, rats, rabbit and beagles) and showed that Monsanto knew that glyphosate was carcinogenic from the 1970s.
9. Glyphosate causes cataracts and interstitial damage and a range of diseases. Among Monsanto’s long term studies, an unpublished study on albino rats in 1990 showed that glyphosate entered the eye and caused cataracts and tissue damage.
The rate of cataract surgery in England “increased very substantially” between 1989 and 2004 from 173 (1989) to 637 (2004) episodes per 100,000 population.
A 2016 study by the WHO also confirmed that the incidence of cataracts had greatly increased: ‘A global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks.’ says that cataracts are the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Globally, cataracts are responsible for 51% of blindness – an estimated 20 million individuals suffer from this degenerative eye disease. In the US, between 2000 and 2010 the number of cases of cataract rose by 20% from 20.5 million to 24.4 million.
It is projected that by 2050, the number of people with cataracts will have doubled to 50 million.
Mason then goes on to describe in some detail how the municipality’s spraying of glyphosate effectively destroyed her nature reserve near Swansea, Wales, and is “responsible for cancers, neurological diseases and cataracts, just as Monsanto found in long-term studies before it gained illegal registration with the US EPA.”
10. The UK State of Nature Report 2016. One of the report’s authors, Mark Eaton, says:
“The report includes a new “biodiversity intactness index”, which analyses the loss of species over centuries. The UK has lost significantly more nature over the long term than the global average with the UK the 29th lowest out of 218 countries.
It is quite shocking where we stand compared to the rest of the world, even compared to other western European countries: France and Germany are quite a way above us in the rankings. The index gives an idea of where we have got to over the centuries, and we are pretty knackered.”
Mason provides a great deal of statistical evidence to highlight the massive increase (by crop type) in use of pesticides over the years, not least glyphosate.
And she also provides a great deal of shocking data that highlights the increase in major diseases and the loss of biodiversity, as set out in the State of Nature Report.
In finishing her open letter, Mason asks the various agencies responsible for protecting health and the environment:
“Why are you all protecting the pesticides industry?”
Then she adds:
“Monsanto has been lying to you for the sake of money. They wanted to control the food… CEO Hugh Grant and the US EPA knew that glyphosate caused all of these problems. The corporation concealed the carcinogenic effects of PCBs on humans and animals for seven years.
They have no plans to protect you and your families from the tsunami of sickness that is affecting us all in the UK and the US.”
Exxon Mobil Is Fighting To Keep It's Dangerous Chemicals In Children’s Toys December 26 2016 | From: TheIntercept
Most of us know Exxon Mobil Corp. as an energy giant, which makes sense given that it is the world’s largest publicly held oil and gas company.
Rex Tillerson, the company’s CEO, has spent his entire professional life prioritizing Exxon Mobil’s corporate interests over human rights, the environment, and the diplomatic interests of the U.S., all of which has prompted many journalists and commentators to point out that his appointment as secretary of state is not just a terrible idea but a joke seemingly ripped from the pages of a Marxist comic book.[Comment: Blah blah blah, if you aren't properly informed neither will your judgements be from afar].
What’s less well known is that Exxon Mobil is also one of the world’s biggest chemical companies, and that its chemical interests also sometimes run counter to those of people in the U.S. and beyond.
Petrochemicals accounted for more than a quarter of Exxon Mobil’s $16 billion in net profits last year and wound up in wide range of consumer products such as plastics, tires, batteries, detergents, adhesives, synthetic fibers, and household detergents.
Among Exxon Mobil’s chemical products are phthalates, a family of chemicals widely used to make plastic pliable. Phthalates are in everything from food containers and plastic wrap to rattles, pacifiers, bottle nipples, and teething toys for babies. More than 75 percent of Americans have at least five of the chemicals in their body, according to a 2000 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Exxon Mobil insists its products pose no harm. In response to inquiries for this story, the company emailed a statement to The Intercept saying that:
“Exxon Mobil phthalates have been thoroughly tested, and evaluations by multiple government agencies in the U.S., EU, and Australia show they are safe in their current applications.”
(The email also included a link to the company’s webpage on the health and environmental impacts of phthalates.)
But numerous independent studies have linked the chemicals to health problems, including cancer, neurodevelopmental effects, endocrine disruption, and adverse harm to the male reproductive system.
Given the risks, Congress permanently banned several phthalates in 2008, temporarily banned a few others, and directed the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) to study whether several other phthalates should also be removed from kids’ products. The law required the CPSC to act within 180 days of its final decision.
An expert committee appointed by the CPSC came out with its final report on phthalates in 2014. After years of meetings, public comments, and peer review, the panel of scientists decided that eight phthalates should be banned from use in children’s toys.
The report cited studies showing that babies who were exposed to higher levels of some phthalates in utero tended to have smaller “anogenital distances” and other reproductive tract problems, effects that were also seen in animals exposed to phthalates.
Despite the clear directive of the scientific experts and the Congress-mandated timeframe, the CPSC has yet to finalize its ban. During the almost two years since the deadline passed, Exxon Mobil has been working hard to slow and reverse the commission’s decision, drafting at least one legislative rider designed to keep some of their phthalates on the market and submitting lengthy comments and objections to the ban.
“Exxon has been sending letters, having meetings, they’re just constantly in CPSC’s face in a way designed to suggest that, if you go the wrong way on this, we’re going to sue you,” said Eve Gartner, an attorney with Earthjustice.
Gartner and a few other environmental advocates try to attend these meetings whenever possible, but they describe being outgunned by the big company’s lobbying efforts.
“I don’t have the time to attend all Exxon’s meetings, but they have the time to attend all of ours,” said Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at Natural Resources Defense Council. “There’s a lot more of them and they have a lot more resources.”
As a political force, kids are no match for one of the world’s biggest chemical companies, and they’ll suffer for the lack of clout. While the CPSC fails to finalize its own rule, more and more kids are exposed to phthalates.
The inaction “speaks to the power of Exxon to frighten federal agencies away from doing their jobs,” as Earthjustice’s Gartner put it. And that was before the company’s CEO had a top government job.
Top Doctors Reveal Vaccines Turn Our Immune System Against Us + Study Pulled From Publication After Proving Truth Of Vaccinated Versus Unvaccinated Children December 24 2016 | From: NaturalBlaze/ NaturalNews
The research is hard to ignore, vaccines can trigger autoimmunity with a laundry list of diseases to follow. With harmful and toxic metals as some vaccine ingredients, who is susceptible and which individuals are more at risk?
No one would accuse Yehuda Shoenfeld of being a quack. The Israeli clinician has spent more than three decades studying the human immune system and is at the pinnacle of his profession.
You might say he is more foundation than fringe in his specialty; he wrote the textbooks. The Mosaic of Autoimmunity, Autoantibodies, Diagnostic Criteria in Autoimmune Diseases, Infection and Autoimmunity, Cancer and Autoimmunity – the list is 25 titles long and some of them are cornerstones of clinical practice.
Hardly surprising that Shoenfeld has been called the “Godfather of Autoimmunology” – the study of the immune system turned on itself in a wide array of diseases from type 1 diabetes to ulcerative colitis and multiple sclerosis.
But something strange is happening in the world of immunology lately and a small evidence of it is that the Godfather of Autoimmunology is pointing to vaccines - specifically, some of their ingredients including the toxic metal aluminum – as a significant contributor to the growing global epidemic of autoimmune diseases.
The bigger evidence is a huge body of research that’s poured in in the past 15 years, and particularly in the past five years. Take for example, a recent article published in the journal Pharmacological Research in which Shoenfeld and colleagues issue unprecedented guidelines naming four categories of people who are most at risk for vaccine-induced autoimmunity.
“On one hand,” vaccines prevent infections which can trigger autoimmunity, say the paper’s authors, Alessandra Soriano, of the Department of Clinical Medicine and Rheumatology at the Campus Bio-Medico University in Rome, Gideon Nesher, of the Hebrew University Medical School in Jerusalem and Shoenfeld, founder and head of the Zabludowicz Center of Autoimmune Diseases in the Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer.
He is also editor of three medical journals and author of more than 1,500 research papers across the spectrum of medical journalism and founder of the International Congress on Autoimmunology.
Defined autoimmune diseases that may occur following vaccinations include arthritis, lupus (systemic lupus erythematosus, SLE) diabetes mellitus, thrombocytopenia, vasculitis, dermatomyosiositis, Guillain-Barre syndrome and demyelinating disorders. Almost all types of vaccines have been reported to be associated with the onset of ASIA.”
ASIA – or Autoimmune/inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (also known as Shoenfeld’s syndrome) - first appeared in the Journal of Autoimmunology four years ago.
It is an umbrella term for a collection of similar symptoms, including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, that result after exposure to an adjuvant – an environmental agent including common vaccine ingredients that stimulate the immune system.
Since then an enormous body of research, using ASIA as a paradigm, has begun to unravel the mystery of how environmental toxins, particularly the metal aluminum used in vaccines, can trigger an immune system chain reaction in susceptible individuals and may lead to overt autoimmune disease.
Autoimmune disease results when the body’s system meant to attack foreign invaders turns instead to attack part of the body it belongs to (auto is Greek for self). If the immune system is like a national defence system, antibodies are like drones programmed to recognize a certain type of invader (a bacteria say) and to destroy them or mark them for destruction by other special forces.
Autoantibodies are like drones that are misidentifying a component of the human body and have launched a sustained attack on it. If they mistakenly target a component of the conductive sheath around neurons, for example, nerve impulses stop conducting properly, muscles go into spasm and coordination fails; multiple sclerosis results.
If autoantibodies erroneously focus on joint tissue; rheumatoid arthritis results. If they target the islets of Langerhans in the pancreas, Type 1 diabetes, and so on
“Throughout our lifetime the normal immune system walks a fine line between preserving normal immune reactions and developing autoimmune diseases,” says the paper.
“The healthy immune system is tolerant to self-antigens. When self-tolerance is disturbed, dysregulation of the immune system follows, resulting in emergence of an autoimmune disease. Vaccination is one of the conditions that may disturb this homeostasis in susceptible individuals, resulting in autoimmune phenomena and ASIA.”
Who is “susceptible” is the subject of the paper entitled, “Predicting post-vaccination autoimmunity: Who might be at risk?” It lists four categories of people:
1. Those who have had a previous autoimmune reaction to a vaccine
2. Anyone with a medical history of autoimmunity
3. Patients with a history of allergic reactions
4. Anyone at high risk of developing autoimmune disease including anyone with a family history of autoimmunity, presence of autoantibodies which are detectable by blood tests and other factors including low vitamin D and smoking.
Regarding those who have had a previous adverse reaction to vaccines, the paper cites five relevant studies including the case of a death of a teenage girl six months following her third Gardasil injection against HPV virus.
She had experienced a range of symptoms shortly after her first dose, including dizziness, numbness and tingling in her hands, and memory lapses. After her second injection, she developed “intermittent arm weakness, frequent tiredness requiring daytime naps,” worse tingling, night sweats, chest pain and palpitations.
A full autopsy was unrevealing but blood and spleen tissue analysis revealed HPV-16 L1 gene DNA fragments - matching the DNA found in vials of the Gardasil vaccine against cervical cancer - “thus implicating the vaccine as a causal factor.”
The DNA fragments had also been found to be “complexed with the aluminum adjuvant” which, according to the report, have been shown to persist for up to 8 to 10 years causing chronic immune system stimulation.
“Although data is limited,” Shoenfeld and his colleagues concluded, “it seems preferable that individuals with prior autoimmune or autoimmune-like reactions to vaccinations, should not be immunized, at least not with the same type of vaccine.”
Established Autoimmune Condition
The second group which the paper cites for vaccine exemption is patients with “established autoimmune conditions.” Vaccines don’t work so well in them, say Shoenfeld and his colleagues, and they are at “risk for flares following vaccination.”
Inoculations that contain live viruses including chickenpox, yellow fever and the measles, mumps and rubella triple vaccine (MMR) are “generally contraindicated” for people with autoimmune conditions because of the risk of “uncontrolled viral replication.” But inactivated vaccines are not such a good idea either because they usually contain the added ingredient aluminum, linked to autoimmunity.
The immunologists describe recent studies in which patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease given the influenza vaccine (without aluminum) suffered more joint pain and fever than controls and whose levels of autoantibodies (the drones that attack self) increased after receiving the flu vaccine.
What’s more, they developed new types of autoantibodies that weren’t present before the vaccines, and those persisted. As the presence of autoantibodies can be predictive of developing autoimmune disease in patients without symptoms, even years ahead of disease onset, this is troubling to those who understand immunology.
A number of studies claim vaccines are safe for the “overwhelming majority of patients with established autoimmune diseases,” the study allows, but they only looked at rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and not at severe and active cases so “the potential benefit of vaccination should be weighed against its potential risk,” they cautioned.
Patients With a History of Allergy
Vaccine trials have usually excluded “vulnerable” individuals - only extremely healthy individuals with no allergies are recruited. It’s a “selection bias,” say Soriano and Shoenfeld, and has likely resulted in serious adverse events being “considerably underestimated” in “real life where vaccines are mandated to all individuals regardless of their susceptibility.”
The true incidence of allergic reactions to vaccines, normally estimated at between one in 50,000 to one in a million doses, is probably much higher and particularly where gelatin or egg proteins are on the ingredients list, they say.
There’s a long list of vaccine ingredients that are potential allergens: besides the infectious agents themselves, there are those from hen’s egg, horse serum, baker’s yeast, numerous antibiotics, formaldehyde and lactose, as well “inadvertent” ingredients such as latex.
People’s allergic histories have to be taken before vaccination say the researchers. But some signs of reaction don’t show up until after the shot.
The public health nurse or GP might tell patients that a long-lasting swelling around the injection site after a vaccine is a normal reaction, for example. But that is not what the immunologists say. “[A]luminum sensitization manifests as nodules [hard lumps] at the injection site that often regress after weeks or months, but may persist for years.” In such cases, they say, a patch test can be done to confirm sensitivity and to avoid vaccination.
According to a growing body of research, though, allergy may be only the beginning of many dangerous aluminum-induced phenomena.
The Trouble With Aluminium
Aluminum has been added to vaccines since about 1926 when Alexander Glenny and colleagues noticed it would produce better antibody responses in vaccines than the antigen alone. Glenny figured the alum was inducing what he called a “depot effect” – slowing the release of the antigen and heightening the immune response.
For 60 years his theory was accepted dogma. And over the same time, the vaccine schedule grew decade on decade, but few ever questioned the effects of injecting aluminum into the body, which is strange considering its known toxicity.
A PubMed search on aluminum and “toxicity” turns up 4,258 entries. Its neurotoxicity is well documented. It affects memory, cognition, psychomotor control; it damages the blood brain barrier, activates brain inflammation, depresses mitochondrial function and plenty of research suggests it is a key player in the formation of the amyloid “plaques” and tangles in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients.
When kidney dialysis patients were accidentally infused with aluminum, the “dialysis-induced encephalopathy” (DAE) they developed neurological symptoms: speech abnormalities, tremors, memory loss, impaired concentration and behavioural changes. Many of the patients eventually went into comas and died. The lucky ones survived: when the source of toxicity, aluminum, was removed from their dialysis they recovered rapidly.
With these new observations, researchers began investigating the adjuvant effects of aluminum and in the past decade there has been a flurry of research. Far from being a sandbag that holds the antigen for a while and then gets excreted, it turns out that aluminum salts trigger a storm of defence action.
Vaccines: A Violation of Human Rights
The video below is a rational discussion about vaccines with Christina Hildebrand, President of A Voice For Choice, Inc. where she explains why mandatory vaccines are a violation of your human rights and how they are potentially dangerous to you or your child's health.
Christina is passionate about ensuring people know what they are putting into their bodies - be it food, air, water or medications. For the past 12 years, Christina has spent many thousands of hours researching and sharing her knowledge within her local community.
However, with the growth of the Big Ag and Big pHARMa's influences on US politics, Christina realized that she needed to take this to a different level and educate the masses on their right to informed choice and transparency of what goes into their bodies.
Within hours of injection of the same aluminum oxyhydroxide in vaccines into mice, for example, armies of specialized immune cells are on the move, calling in grid coordinates for more specialist assault forces. Within a day, a whole host of immune system commandos are in play - neutrophils, eosinophils, inflammatory monocytes, myeloid and dendritic cells, activating lymphocytes and secreting proteins called cytokines.
The cytokines themselves cause collateral damage but they send out signals, directing cell-to-cell communication and recruiting other cells into action. If the next phase of the attack is launched: fibroblast growth factor, interferons, interleukins, platelet derived growth factor, transforming growth factor and tumour necrosis factor might all be engaged.
There’s evidence that poorly understood and pesky inflammasomes, (currently a topic of cutting- edge cancer causation research) such as the Nod-like receptor 3( NLRP) are activated too, but it’s all still too early to say exactly what they’re doing.
New research emerging from University of British Columbia has found that aluminum adjuvant injected into mice can alter the expression of genes associated with autoimmunity.
And in their recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, immunologists at the University of Colorado found that even host DNA is recruited into the aluminum assault, that it rapidly coats injected alum, triggering effects that scientists have barely scratched the surface of understanding.
The Significance of Macrophagic Myofasciitis
This mobility or “translocation” of aluminum in the body is perhaps the most disturbing of the mounting evidence in current aluminum research. In 1998, French researcher Romain Gherardi and his colleagues observed an emerging condition of unknown origin which presented in patients post-vaccination with Chronic Fatigue like symptoms including swollen lymph nodes, joint and muscle pain and exhaustion.
Tissue biopsies of the patients’ deltoid revealed lesions up to 1 cm in diameter and unique from similar lesions of other diseases. They went to the lab for analysis and to Gherardi’s astonishment, they mainly consisted of macrophages – large white blood cells in the immune system whose job is to swallow up foreign invaders in the body. Enclosed in the cellular fluid of these phagocytes were agglomerates of nanocrystals of aluminum.
Gherardi and his colleagues began injecting mice with aluminum to see what happened. Their research published in 2013 revealed that the metal particles were engulfed by macrophages and formed MMF-like granulomas that dispersed — to distant lymph nodes, spleen, liver and eventually brain.
“This strongly suggests that long-term adjuvant biopersistence within phagocytic cells is a prerequisite of slow brain translocation and delayed neurotoxicity,” writes Gherardi in his February 2015 review of the relevant research in Frontiers in Neurology.
A more frightening animal study of aluminum is that of Spanish veterinary researcher Lluis Lujan’s study of ovine ASIA.
After huge numbers of sheep in Spain died in 2008 in the wake of a compulsory multiple vaccine campaign against bluetongue in Spain in 2008, Lujan set out to find out what killed them – and he began by inoculating them with aluminum.
His 2013 study found that only 0.5% of sheep inoculated with aluminum vaccines showed immediate reactions of lethargy, transient blindness, stupor, prostration and seizures –
“Characterized by a severe meningoencephalitis, similar to postvaccine reactions seen in humans.”
Most of them recovered, temporarily, but postmortem exams of the ones who didn’t revealed acute brain inflammation.
The delayed onset “chronic” phase of the disease affected far more of the sheep - 50-70% of flocks and sometimes virtually 100% of animals within a given flock, usually including all of those who had previously recovered.
The reaction was frequently triggered by exposure to cold and began with restlessness and compulsive wool-biting, then progressed to acute redness of the skin, generalized weakness, extreme weight loss and muscle tremors, and finally, entered the terminal phase where the animals went down on their front quarters, became comatose and died.
Post-mortem examinations revealed “severe neuron necrosis” and aluminum in the nerve tissue.
The immune system’s reaction to aluminum “represents a major health challenge,” Gerhardi declares in his recent review, and he adds that;
“Attempts to seriously examine safety concerns raised by the bio-persistent character and brain accumulation of alum particles have not been made… A lot must be done to understand how, in certain individuals, alum-containing vaccines may become insidiously unsafe.”
Back to the problem of which “certain individuals” should avoid vaccination to avoid autoimmune disease.
People Prone to Develop Autoimmunity
Soriano and Shoenfeld’s identify a final category: anyone at risk of developing autoimmune disease. Since a number of them have been shown to have genetic factors that would include anyone with a family history of autoimmune disease.
It also includes anyone who has tested positive for autoantibodies which can indicate disease years before symptoms show up. Vaccinations, the doctors say, “may trigger or worsen the disease.”
Smokers too, have an exceptionally high risk of developing an autoimmune disease, says the report. The American Cancer Society estimates that about 18% of Americans smoke. That means about 42 million Americans have an elevated risk of developing an autoimmune disease and they’re stacking the odds with every vaccine.
And finally, factors that Shoenfeld and Soriano associate with high risk of developing autoimmunity are high estrogen and low vitamin D - which means anyone taking birth control or hormone replacement therapy and, according to one 2009 study of vitamin D status, about three quarters of American teens and adults should be wary of vaccines.
Shoenfeld doesn’t seem to mean to exclude all of these people from immunization, however. The paper concludes that “for the overwhelming majority of individuals, vaccines carry no risk of systemic autoimmune disease and should be administered according to current recommendations.”
Which is in stark contrast to the body of the paper. The final word is cautionary about weighing the “potential benefit of vaccination…against its potential risk.”
It’s exemplary of a strange sort of schizophrenia in a wide range of recent immunology papers. The doctors seem to be trying to reconcile a century of “safe and effective” vaccine dogma with the last decade’s worth of terrifying research findings. There’s a lot of “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” in them.
The new research seems about to gain the upper hand, however. A 2013 overview of ASIA by six immunologists including Shoenfeld, for example, is a catalogue of vaccine side effects from Gardasil deaths, narcolepsy epidemics, infertility, chronic fatigue, dead sheep and aluminum-addled brains. It is rife with statements that would have been virtually unheard of inside mainstream medicine a decade ago. Like this shocker:
“Perhaps, in twenty years, physicians will be dueling with better characterized particles of autoimmunity, and the vaccines may become fully safe as well as effective.
Nonetheless the recognition of ASIA has initiated the change to put more efforts in identifying the good, the bad and the ugly of vaccines and in particular of adjuvants as triggers of autoimmunity.”
Bad and ugly of vaccines? What’s wrong with the adjuvants? That’s not in the CDC hand-out.
Or How About This One:
“Despite the huge amount of money invested in studying vaccines, there are few observational studies and virtually no randomized clinical trials documenting the effect on mortality of any of the existing vaccines.
One recent paper found an increased hospitalization rate with the increase of the number of vaccine doses and a mortality rate ratio for 5-8 vaccine doses to 1-4 doses of 1.5, indicating a statistically significant increase of deaths associated with higher vaccine doses.
Since vaccines are given to millions of infants annually, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines…”
That could be any anti-vaxxer jabbering on…but it’s not.
But Here is the Topper:
“The US Supreme Court ruled that vaccines makers are immune from lawsuits charging that the design of the vaccine is defective. Thus there is need for innovative clinical trial design and the vaccines themselves should be redesigned.”
Immunologists including the world’s leading authority on autoimmunity are saying it is time to take vaccines back to the drawing board.
The American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association estimates that 50 million Americans suffer from one of 88 autoimmune diseases - from type 1 diabetes to systemic lupus erythematosus - and some research puts the figure at one in five globally.
At least 40 more diseases are suspected to be immune-mediated. Most of them are devastating - frequently crippling, expensive to treat and incurable. And they are increasing at an astonishing pace.
At this stage, it looks like the more the research pours in, the harder it is going to get for pro-vaccine immunologists to keep multiple personality disorder – or complete nervous breakdown - at bay. Ten years of cutting edge research into aluminum’s effects on the immune system has revealed primarily how wrong they were.
And how little they know. If, after 90 years, doctors finally have begun to seriously examine the mechanism and question the merits of injecting metal toxins into newborn babies, what have they yet to discover? ASIA sounds awful. (Too bad for all the people whose kids suffered through chronic fatigue when it was just a Freudian yearning to sleep with their mother.)
But what if, like Lujan’s sheep, the “negligible” minority that has been paying the price for the good of humanity is actually only the tip of the iceberg? What if some people with no apparent adverse immune reactions still have nanocrystals of aluminum silently depositing in their brains? What if ASIA really includes Alzheimer’s? ALS, autism? ADD? And that’s just the A’s.
Even if immunologists keep wearing their rose coloured glasses, and vaccine ingredients are only responsible for a tiny fraction of the exploding autoimmunity, the “ugly” in vaccines will still get harder and harder to ignore.
When everyone on the planet is getting injected, 20 years is a long time for disabled people to stack up while scientists “duel with the characterized particles of autoimmunity.”
In the fury over the Disneyland measles outbreak that is gripping the world’s vaccine promoters, time is running out for doctors and researchers who see the “bad and ugly” side of vaccines and their adjuvants to do something about it.
There’s slim chance of a vaccine redesign in the absence of a profit incentive and a strong chance of universal vaccine mandates for one and all - previous anaphylactic shock reaction or not.
Study Pulled From Publication After Proving Truth Of Vaccinated Versus Unvaccinated Children
The censorship of science is nothing new. In Canada, for instance, there were serious concerns about the federal government’s increasingly strict regulations that prevented scientists from sharing their findings with the public.
Censorship, on the whole, is a persistently under-acknowledged problem in our society. The election of Donald Trump certainly showcased the fact that the mainstream media only portrays the narratives they want us to see.
In the latest instance of scientific censorship, an article from a scientific journal was “unpublished,” but only after vaccine enthusiasts proclaimed that it needed to be removed. The study, you see, examined the differences in health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
The study’s results indicated that:
“Vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDDs (defined as Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and/or a learning disability).”
From the mothers’ reports, the researchers found that vaccinated children were more likely to have allergies and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs). The team noted that even after controlling for other factors, vaccination remained significantly associated with the presence of an NDD.
VaxXed Stories: Social Engineering of Medical Professionals
Dr. Suzanne Humphries attends a meeting called "Confronting Vaccine Resistance: Strategies For Success" at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York, New York on November 21, 2016.
This meetings speakers were Senator Richard Pan, Dr. Paul Offit and Dorit Rubenstein Reiss. Afterwards she comes out to the VaxXed Bus to share what happened. Camera and editing by Joshua Coleman.
Indeed, those that were vaccinated were three times more likely to be diagnosed with an NDD such as autism. The combination of preterm birth and vaccination produced an even higher risk of NDD, increasing the chances of it by more than six-fold.
In the abstract, the researchers wrote in their conclusion;
“In this study based on mothers’ reports, the vaccinated had a higher rate of allergies and NDD than the unvaccinated. Vaccination, but not preterm birth, remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors.
However, preterm birth combined with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. Further research involving larger, independent samples is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health.”
Baxter Dmitry from Investment Watch Blog notes that the study was “unpublished” from the journal Frontiers In Public Health. Normally, one can still view the cached version in internet archives.
But Baxter says this too was removed, noting that “a cached version available on internet archives has also been removed, suggesting there is a serious campaign to stop members of the public from viewing the study.”
Fortunately, a screenshot of the study was saved before the whole thing was scrubbed off the internet for good.
Prior to being removed from the internet, the study was subjected to massive amounts of scrutiny; apparently in this instance, the use of surveys – which are widely used for data gathering – somehow invites “bias.”
Some of the colorful public comments included;
“This study is of poor design, though not impossible results. Study relies of self-report of moms, inducing bias,” and, “Another garbage vaccine study in Frontiers journal. Scientists, stop reviewing/publishing there.”
This, of course, is not the first time that a study that showcased the potential ill effects of vaccines has been pulled from the internet. In February, the journal Vaccine temporarily removed, and eventually retracted, a study that linked the HPV vaccine to behavioral issues in mice.
Publishing research that contains information that conflicts with the mainstream narrative continues to prove to be a quick and easy way to find yourself blacklisted and censored by conventional media. This just underscores the importance of independent research and alternative media outlets.
Fluoride Action Network: A Report From New Zealand December 23 2016 | From: FluorideAlert
Two weeks ago legislation was introduced into the NZ Parliament in an attempt to force fluoridation on the whole country. Currently, only half of New Zealand’s population is on fluoridated water. The decision-making for fluoridation had been held by local councils since it was introduced starting in the 1960s.
The proposed new legislation has only had its first reading at Parliament and must go through two more readings before it becomes law. The next step is for this drafted legislation to go before the Health Select Committee and this is where citizens can help make changes.
TV advert produced for Fluoride Free New Zealand. Shows that New Zealand is one of the few countries that still has fluoridation and that other countries, without fluoridation, have just as good, if not better, teeth.
It also shows that there are public dental health policies that really work that could be implemented in NZ.
Legislation is often amended once the Committee involved has heard feedback from a wide range of people. So it is possible that a strategic amendment might nullify the proposed legislation.
Interview With Dr. John Colquhoun, 1998
The legislation attempts to shift responsibility from the local councils to the District Health Boards (DHBs), but the DHBs are a branch of the Ministry of Health in the Central Government, and are contractually obligated to do what the Ministry instructs. The DHBs will only have a limited window with which to view the issue: they will only be allowed to consider dental health and weigh that up against the costs of fluoridation.
Their purview will not include considering:
Current fluoride exposure
lternatives to fluoridation, like the Childsmile program in Scotland
ill not include consultation with the community
As far as dental health is concerned, the DHBs are being steered to a single survey carried out in 2009 that found a 40% difference in dental decay rates. However, this survey was only a snapshot in time and did not take into consideration life time residence.
The two studies published prior to this survey (that did look at life time residence), and a study published this year as well as the New Zealand School Dental statistics (published every year) did not find any difference in decay rates. The only differences that can be found in the School Dental statistics is for Maori children.
This fact distorts the picture because the non-fluoridated total includes the poorest area, with a high population of Maori children, while the fluoridated total includes the wealthiest area. The sad irony in all this is that Maori children had perfect teeth before the advent of western diets.
The Health Select Committee is inviting feedback from the public until the 2nd of February and will allow people to also speak in person and by Skype to the Committee. The Hearing is likely to be February or March next year. This Committee is made up of representatives from the top four political parties with the National Party (the current Government) making up the majority.
The aim of Fluoride Free NZ (FFNZ) is to educate the Health Select Committee members in the hope that they will agree to amendments to the legislation. We also aim to educate other Members of Parliament who are not on the Select Committee, so that they are supportive of their members on the Select Committee making changes to the legislation.
Only 23 of the 67 NZ local councils still have any fluoridation, because FFNZ has managed to convince several councils to stop over the past decade.
We also plan to put out as much publicity as our budget allows especially on health effects and the potential for fluoride to damage to the brain – so the general public become more informed and advise political parties and individual MPs that they won’t get their vote unless they change their stance.
As you will see from the Transcript and the video footage of the MPs that spoke at the first Parliamentary Reading of the Bill - none of the MPs that spoke know very much about the subject.
Health Select Committee Chair Simon O’Connor mistakenly credits his good teeth on taking fluoride tablets as a child.
Unbeknownst to him, the NZ Ministry of Health no longer recommends fluoride tablets because we now know fluoride doesn’t work by swallowing and fluoride tablets cause dental fluorosis!
Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne, who introduced the Bill, but fortunately is not on the Health Select Committee, has called opponents of fluoridation “tin-foil hat wearing, UFO-abducted pseudo-scientists.”
He mustn’t realise that he is insulting around half of the NZ population. Results from all referenda held in NZ show that people tend to vote status quo. If a nationwide referendum was held tomorrow, we would have a good chance of winning.
Charges of “anti-science” are sounding rather ridiculous for those who have actually read the literature and even taken a cursory look at the science presented by Michael Connett in the TSCA petition to the US EPA.
However, the ill-informed NZ media do not challenge these inaccurate and insulting attacks on fluoridation opponents, that’s why our advertising campaign is so important.
This really is crunch time for us in New Zealand. If we do not get changes to this draconian legislation, it will be nigh on impossible to get it stopped where it has started and very, very difficult to resist its introduction to areas that don’t have it, even if the vast majority of the community, including local councillors, don’t want it.
On the other hand, if we do get changes we could see an end to fluoridation completely in NZ and the fluoridated world would get even smaller.
As many of your supporters know, when Prof Paul Connett was over here in New Zealand earlier in the year, we were able to persuade a TV station in Auckland to host a 30-minute debate with a well-known NZ scientist, Prof Mike Berridge. We were excited about this because Paul had been trying to get such a debate in NZ with someone who was pro-fluoridation for 12 years.
I think we can safely assume that our side won that debate because the proponents don’t promote or mention this debate and anyone who watched it can see that Paul won this debate. That is why during our campaign we are paying for this debate to be aired again on NZ television – 8 times on FACE SKY Channel 083.
*If you have family or friends in NZ please send them this bulletin and encourage them to tell everyone they know that NZ is under threat of mandatory fluoridation – this includes Christchurch which has some of the most beautiful water in the world.
At Least 6 Dead, Hundreds Sickened In Australia Asthma Attacks *Triggered By Thunderstorm* + Something Very Strange Is Going On In The Pacific - A 'Perfect Cocktail' Of 'Toxic Death Dumps' December 18 2016 | From: HealthNutNews/ AllNewsPipeline / Various
A recent thunderstorm during southeastern Australia’s humid November spring, triggered a rash of asthma attacks across Melbourne last Monday, leaving families grieving in its wake.
At least four people died: 20-year-old law student Hope Carnevali died waiting for responders from Ambulance Victoria to arrive, paramedics also struggled to resuscitate 35-year-old Apollo Papadopoulos, who eventually succumbed to the respiratory attack.
Omar Majoulled, 18, died two days before what would have been his high school graduation. And Clarence Leo reportedly died early Wednesday. Several more remained in Melbourne intensive care units.
Thunderstorm Asthma Hits Kuwait 10 Days After Melbourne
Only 10 days after Melbourne was attacked with Thunderstorm Asthma we have the same occurrence of this VERY RARE PHENOMENON happening across the world in Kuwait. This is not a coincidence. Both places don't have similar pollen problems.
This is BIO WARFARE. This is as a result of Geoengineering (CHEMTRAILS) which have taken place for many years now. The consequences are now being exposed.
We tried to warn everyone over 5 years ago but as always people turn a blind eye to anything that resembles the truth.
Is it too late? We shall see in the coming months and years.
Between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. on Monday, Ambulance Victoria took about 1,900 calls, which is nearly six times the usual volume- that works out to about a day’s work in five hours. In fact, at their peak, 200 calls came within a span of 15 minutes.
From the article:
“Since the first such events were recognized in the 1980s, there have been scattered reports of asthma attack outbreaks during thunderstorms around the globe, including Napoli, Italy and Atlanta. The largest confirmed episode to date was in London in June 1994.
Six hundred-forty Londoners visited emergency departments with complaints of asthma or respiratory problems, of which more than a hundred were hospitalized, according to a 2016 review published in the journal Clinical & Experimental Allergy.”
Allergy experts posit that during the spring season, storms increase pollen’s ability to penetrate deep into the lungs. Because the storms concentrate pollen grains near the ground, the grains swell with so much water that they rupture into tinier pieces.
Once dispersed into the air, the particles basically form a fine allergenic mist that if inhaled, winds up in bronchial crevasses normally too small for unbroken grains to enter.
As "changes in climate" brings about more severe weather, respiratory disease scientists predict these types of “thunderstorm asthma outbreaks” to happen with increased frequency. We’re not sure we agree with these scientists and know some others who disagree.
Hope Carnaveli’s relatives said they waited for more than a half an hour for an ambulance to arrive and would have taken her straight to the emergency room had they known. Our hearts go out to all the grieving families.
Something Very Strange Is Going On In The Pacific - A 'Perfect Cocktail' Of 'Toxic Death Dumps'
Were Nearly 10,000 Hospitalized In Australia Victims Of A Bio-Weapon Attack?
As Samantha tells us, she is very concerned that a possible bioweapon attack had been carried out upon Australia and while ANP is unable to confirm her theory at this time, we will outline some very strong evidence below that proves something very, very strange indeed is going on in Australia and throughout large parts of the Pacific .
“When we've had people calling for ambulances - one call every four-and-a-half seconds at the peak - it was like having 150 bombs going off right across a particular part of metropolitan Melbourne," she said.
"That's something we've never planned for and we need to do that better."
And while most Americans and people across the entire world now know that we'll never get the truth about real issues from the rapidly dying mainstream media, as we do our own research, there is plenty of evidence to indicate that 'weather modification' is now taking place across Australia as well.
As this Thursday story from The Watchers tells us, a spell of very unusual weather has been reported across Australia over the last few days with widespread snow falling in Tasmania on November 24th of 2016, only days before the arrival of their summer.
As we learned from the recent SQnote which linked to this story from Strange Sounds telling us Tokyo had seen their first November snow storm in more than 50 years, this indicates weather warfare manipulation was secondary to the earthquake generation.
Is it just a coincidence that a hurricane and earthquake also hit just off of the Pacific coast of Central America as shared in this linked Yahoo news story and seen in the Drudge Report.
Was what happened in Australia some kind of a 'dry run' for additional weather warfare attacks in the future, possibly upon much larger populations?
Imagine such a situation happening where you live - suddenly and out of the blue, a massive thunderstorm hits with howling winds and heavy rainfall, stirring up all of the poisons that have been delivered by chemtrails sprayed upon us, sending thousands to the hospitals unable to breath and dying.
We can hear TPTB right now:
“Just blame it on the weather... 'thunderstorm asthma'...yeah, that's it."
Well, ANP reader Samantha in Australia isn't buying it and, very few others are buying the official explanation either.
From theories of a perfect cocktail of poisons being sprayed upon them to 'toxic death dumps', we also see that people from other parts of the world are also reporting death being sprayed upon them from above as well.
The Question That Fluoridation Promoters Can’t Answer December 17 2016 | From: FluorideAlert
During 2016, I asked this question to many fluoridation promoters and have yet to receive an adequate scientific answer.
I asked it in several audiences in New Zealand and also to promoters at a council hearing in Naples, Florida and most recently at a debate in Cortland, New York with Johnny Johnson and Steve Slott. Neither Johnson nor Slott, otherwise very vocal on promoting fluoridation, had an answer.
“What primary scientific studies (not bogus reviews conducted by pro-fluoridation agencies) can you cite that gives you the confidence to ignore or dismiss the evidence that fluoride damages the brain as documented in over 300 animal and human studies (including 50 IQ studies).”
If proponents cannot provide an adequate scientific answer to this question: fluoridation should be halted immediately.
On Nov 22, 2016, Michael Connett, JD, asked this question to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on behalf of FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, and several individual mothers, in a petition calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The EPA has 90 days to reply, and if they fail to provide a satisfactory reply then they can be taken to Federal Court.
How you can take this further?
We are requesting that each one of you to ask this question of any promoter of fluoridation – and keep asking it throughout 2017 until you can get an answer. Send that answer to us.
Based on responses we have seen so far we anticipate that there will be no satisfactory answers. In our view, there is no scientific evidence that could justify ignoring the large number of scientific studies that fluoride damages the brain and thus no justification for continuing this unethical and reckless practice of deliberately adding fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water.
This in essence will be our 2017 campaign. Very simple, very direct and very important. We hope that you will support this in two ways: a) ask this showstopper question in as many creative ways as you can and as many times as you can, and b) support FAN financially.
Five More Ways to Take Action:
1. Send a letter-to-the-editor to your local newspapers
Marks told me a CIA representative informed him that the continuation of MKULTRA, after 1962, was carried out with a greater degree of secrecy, and he, Marks, would never see a scrap of paper about it.
I’m printing below, the list of the 1955 intentions of the CIA regarding their own drug research. The range of those intentions is stunning.
Some of my comments gleaned from studying the list: The CIA wanted to find substances which would “promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness.” Serious consideration should be given to the idea that psychiatric medications, food additives, herbicides, and industrial chemicals (like fluorides) would eventually satisfy that requirement.
The CIA wanted to find chemicals that “would produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way.” This suggests many possibilities - among them the use of drugs to fabricate diseases and thereby give the false impression of germ-caused epidemics.
The CIA wanted to find drugs that would “produce amnesia.” Ideal for discrediting whistleblowers, dissidents, certain political candidates, and other investigators. (Scopolamine, for example.)
The CIA wanted to discover drugs which would produce “paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.” A way to make people decline in health as if from diseases.
The CIA wanted to develop drugs that would “alter personality structure” and thus induce a person’s dependence on another person. How about dependence in general? For instance, dependence on institutions, governments?
The CIA wanted to discover chemicals that would “lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men.” Sounds like a general description of the devolution of society.
As you read the list yourself, you’ll see more implications/possibilities.
Here, from 1955, are the types of drugs the MKULTRA men at the CIA were looking for. The following statements are direct CIA quotes:
A portion of the Research and Development Program of TSS/Chemical Division is devoted to the discovery of the following materials and methods:
1. Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public.
2. Substances which increase the efficiency of mentation and perception.
3. Materials which will prevent or counteract the intoxicating effect of alcohol.
4. Materials which will promote the intoxicating effect of alcohol.
5. Materials which will produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way so that they may be used for malingering, etc.
6. Materials which will render the induction of hypnosis easier or otherwise enhance its usefulness.
7. Substances which will enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation and so-called “brain-washing”.
8. Materials and physical methods which will produce amnesia for events preceding and during their use.
9. Physical methods of producing shock and confusion over extended periods of time and capable of surreptitious use.
10. Substances which produce physical disablement such as paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.
11. Substances which will produce “pure” euphoria with no subsequent let-down.
12. Substances which alter personality structure in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced.
13. A material which will cause mental confusion of such a type that the individual under its influence will find it difficult to maintain a fabrication under questioning.
14. Substances which will lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men when administered in undetectable amounts.
15. Substances which promote weakness or distortion of the eyesight or hearing faculties, preferably without permanent effects.
16. A knockout pill which can surreptitiously be administered in drinks, food, cigarettes, as an aerosol, etc., which will be safe to use, provide a maximum of amnesia, and be suitable for use by agent types on an ad hoc basis.
17. A material which can be surreptitiously administered by the above routes and which in very small amounts will make it impossible for a man to perform any physical activity whatsoever.
At the end of this 1955 CIA document, the author [unnamed] makes these remarks:
“In practice, it has been possible to use outside cleared contractors for the preliminary phases of this [research] work. However, that part which involves human testing at effective dose levels presents security problems which cannot be handled by the ordinary contactors.
The proposed [human testing] facility [deletion] offers a unique opportunity for the secure handling of such clinical testing in addition to the many advantages outlined in the project proposal.
The security problems mentioned above are eliminated by the fact that the responsibility for the testing will rest completely upon the physician and the hospital. [one line deleted] will allow [CIA] TSS/CD personnel to supervise the work very closely to make sure that all tests are conducted according to the recognized practices and embody adequate safeguards.”
In other words, this was to be ultra-secret. No outside contractors at universities for the core of the experiments, which by the way could be carried forward for decades.A secret in-house facility. Over the years, more facilities could be created.
If you examine the full range of psychiatric drugs developed since 1955, you’ll see that a number of them fit the CIA’s agenda. Speed-type chemicals to addle the brain over the long term, to treat so-called ADHD.
Anti-psychotic drugs, AKA “major tranquilizers,” to render patients more and more dependent on others (and government) as they sink into profound disability and incur motor brain damage.
Climate Intervention: A Government Cover-Up Of Epic Proportions December 3 2016 | From: WND
I recently addressed how CIA Director John Brennan gave a historic speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, confessing something few thought they would ever hear: the federal government’s explicit and intentional climate intervention via operations like stratospheric aerosol spraying or injections, or SAI.
What I didn’t explain is that SAI is a ginormous federal geo-engineering cover up that is now being exposed, and yet not a single mainstream media outlet has reported on it. Let me explain.
“Albedo modification would work by lacing the atmosphere with tiny particles or aerosols that would reflect sunlight and mimic natural processes.
For example, in 1991 the volcano Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, which spans altitudes from 10 to 50 kilometers.
There, the sulfur dioxide produced aerosols that reflected enough sunlight to reduce global temperature by an estimated 0.3°C for 3 years.
Albedo modification might also work by using aerosols to seed cloud formation in a lower atmospheric layer called the troposphere.”
The U.S. Senate pushed the DOE to pursue albedo modification action a couple months before CIA Director Brennan gave his blessing to stratospheric spraying as a government operation that “potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change.”
What’s crazy about all that government endorsement is that the February 2015 NAS report, on which the feds base their entire toxic rain operation;
“Warned explicitly that albedo modification shouldn’t be deployed now because the risks and benefits were far too uncertain.”
What are those risks? Here are just three grave consequences that we know about:
Drought: The team under Chien Wang, a co-author of the NAS study and a senior research scientist at MIT’s Center for Global Change Science and the Department of Earth, concluded that albedo modification would lead;
“To dangerous changes in global weather: Precipitation would also decline worldwide, and some parts of the world would be worse off. Europe, the Horn of Africa, and Pakistan may receive less rainfall than they have historically.”
Loss of blue sky: According to a report by the New Scientist, Ben Kravitz of the Carnegie Institution for Science explained, “Releasing sulphate aerosols high in the atmosphere should in theory reduce global temperatures by reflecting a small percentage of the incoming sunlight away from the Earth.
However, the extra particles would also scatter more of the remaining light into the atmosphere. This would reduce by 20 per cent the amount of sunlight that takes a direct route to the ground, and it would increase levels of softer, diffuse scattered light,” making the sky appear hazier.
The U.S. government’s own National Center for Biotechnology Information, or NCBI, released a report in January 2016, the goal of which was “Assessing the direct occupational and public health impacts of solar radiation management with stratospheric aerosols.” The NCBI concluded:
“Our analysis suggests that adverse public health impacts may reasonably be expected from SRM via deployment of stratospheric aerosols.
Little is known about the toxicity of some likely candidate aerosols, and there is no consensus regarding acceptable levels for public exposure to these materials.
There is also little infrastructure in place to evaluate potential public health impacts in the event that stratospheric aerosols are deployed for solar radiation management.”
No wonder the co-author of the study on “Climate Intervention,” Dr. James Fleming, called geo-engineering like SAI: “untested and untestable, and dangerous beyond belief.”
Another colleague and co-author, Dr. Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, the Louis Block professor in geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago, and Sweden’s King Carl XVI Gustafn, chairman in environmental science at Stockholm’s Universitet, took it one step further. He warned;
“The nearly two years’ worth of reading and animated discussions that went into this study have convinced me more than ever that the idea of ‘fixing’ the climate by hacking the Earth’s reflection of sunlight is wildly, utterly, howlingly barking mad.”
(That is why Dr. Pierrehumbert prefers to call albedo modification by the name “albedo hacking.”)
Dr. Pierrehumber added: “The report describes albedo modification frankly as involving large and partly unknown risks. It states outright that albedo modification ‘should not be deployed.'”
So, why are the U.S. Senate and CIA director disregarding the dire and passionate warnings of scientists like Dr. Pierrehumbert and Dr. Fleming by demanding that the Department of Energy proceed with trials on geo-engineering? In the words of Dr. Pierrehumber, are they “wildly, utterly, howlingly barking mad”? Answer: Yes!
Is it a mere coincidence that the very government agencies that are spraying our stratosphere with toxic chemicals were the actual sponsors of the NAS report? The NAS itself confessed:
“The study was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. intelligence community, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Department of Energy” (italics mine).
Isn’t that like your right hand quoting your left hand so that your right hand can grab what it’s already holding? Is the NAS report another government push and ploy to collaborate and cite “scientific proof” to justify its clandestine climate agenda?
Why else would the CIA and U.S. Senate be proceeding in climate aerosol spraying when the very scientists preparing the study warned, “Stop! Don’t do it! It’s crazy and dangerous!”
The most colossal and tragic of all government cover-ups is the fact that the feds have been waging climate warfare for more than 30 years, lacing our clouds and stratosphere with dangerous nano-particles, including environmental sulfates, black carbon, metallic aluminum and aluminum oxide aerosols.
The truth is, for decades, the feds have been covertly and overtly running sky criminal operations behind (above!) our backs, leaving humans and the rest of the planet life as lab rats of their toxic cocktail fallout.
Geoengineeringwatch.org reported that a 1978 750-page congressional report was recently discovered with a mountain of information going back decades that “confirms the ongoing extensive involvement of our government in climate modification/weather warfare.
This document also confirms the involvement of foreign governments around the globe, even governments that would otherwise have been considered ‘hostile to US interests.'”
Why hasn’t a single mainstream media outlet reported on the CIA and DOE’s march forward with SAI when the scientific community has explicitly and repeatedly warned against it?
And why in hell are watchdogs on both the left and right dodging the feds’ intentional and hazardous climate intervention, when they seek to uncover government cover-ups and conspiracies with the most scant of evidence?
Dane Wigington, the lead researcher for GeoengineeringWatch.org and a fierce fighter for government geoengineering transparency, was absolutely right when he wrote: “How big does the climate engineering elephant in the room need to be before it can no longer be hidden in plain site?
How much more historical proof do we need of the ongoing climate engineering/weather warfare before the denial of the masses crumbles? When will populations around the globe bring to justice all those responsible for the ongoing and rapidly worsening worldwide weather warfare assault?”
Is it a mere coincidence that, in October 2015, the feds put a universal “gag order” on agency employees in “The National Weather Service,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration” and the “U.S. Dept. of Commerce”?
Is it a mere coincidence that the Obama administration has spent more taxpayer monies for legal prosecutions of government whistleblowers than all other U.S. presidents combined, resulting in 31 times the jail sentences?
It’s time to blow the lid off the government’s climate cover-up!
That is why my wife, Gena, and I encourage citizens everywhere to do their own research on geo-engineering and then write their government representatives to demand action. We also encourage the support of the Legal Alliance of pro-bono lawyers now amassed as a united front to fight the geo-engineering government cover-up in court.
To read or learn more immediately, I highly recommend the work and website of Dane Wigington. GeoEngineeringWatch.org is loaded with great research on the many facets of climate intervention.
Is Psychiatry Bullshit? + Fourteen Lies That Our Psychiatry Professors Taught Us In Medical School November 26 2016 | From: Sott / GlobalResearch Some Psychiatrists View The Chemical-Imbalance Theory As A Well-Meaning Lie.
In the current issue of the journal Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, Australian dissident psychiatrist Niall McLaren titles his article, "Psychiatry as Bullshit" and makes a case for just that.
In 2011, Ronald Pies, editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, stated;
“In truth, the 'chemical imbalance' notion was always a kind of urban legend - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists."
And in 2013, Thomas Insel, then director of the National Institute of Mental Health, offered a harsh rebuke of the DSM, announcing that because the DSM diagnostic system lacks validity, the: "NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories."
So, the great controversy today has now become just how psychiatry can be most fairly characterized given its record of being proven wrong about virtually all of its assertions, most notably its classifications of behaviors, theories of "mental illness" and treatment effectiveness/adverse effects.
Among critics, one of the gentlest characterizations of psychiatry is a "false narrative," the phrase used by investigative reporter Robert Whitaker (who won the 2010 Investigative Reporters and Editors Book Award for Anatomy of an Epidemic) to describe the story told by the psychiatrists' guild American Psychiatric Association.
In "Psychiatry as Bullshit," McLaren begins by considering several different categories of "nonscience with scientific pretensions," such as "pseudoscience" and "scientific fraud."
"Pseudoscience" is commonly defined as a collection of beliefs and practices promulgated as scientific but in reality mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. The NIMH director ultimately rejected the DSM because of its lack of validity, which is crucial to the scientific method.
The criteria for DSM illness are not objective biological ones but non-scientific subjective ones (which is why homosexuality was a DSM mental illness until the early 1970s).
Besides lack of scientific validity, the DSM lacks scientific reliability, as clinicians routinely disagree on diagnoses because patients act differently in different circumstances and because of the subjective nature of the criteria.
"Fraud" is a misrepresentation, a deception intended for personal gain, and implies an intention to deceive others of the truth - or "lying." Drug companies, including those that manufacture psychiatric drugs, have been convicted of fraud, as have high-profile psychiatrists (as well as other doctors).
Human rights activist and attorney Jim Gottstein offers an argument as to why the APA is a "fraudulent enterprise"; however, the APA has not been legally convicted of fraud.
To best characterize psychiatry, McLaren considers the category of "bullshit," invoking philosopher Harry Frankfurt's 1986 journal article "On Bullshit" (which became a New York Times bestselling book in 2005).
What is the essence of bullshit? For Frankfurt, "This lack of connection to a concern with truth - this indifference to how things really are - that I regard as of the essence of bullshit."
Frankfurt devotes a good deal of On Bullshit to differentiating between a liar and a bullshitter. Both the liar and the bullshitter misrepresent themselves, representing themselves as attempting to be honest and truthful. But there is a difference between the liar and the bullshitter.
The liar knows the truth, and the liar's goal is to conceal it.
The goal of bullshitters is not necessarily to lie about the truth but to persuade their audience of a specific impression so as to advance their agenda. So, bullshitters are committed to neither truths nor untruths, uncommitted to neither facts nor fiction. It's actually not in bullshitters' interest to know what is true and what is false, as that knowledge can hinder their capacity to bullshit.
Frankfurt tells us that liar the hides that he or she is "attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality." In contrast, the bullshitter hides that "the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him."
“In truth, the 'chemical imbalance' notion was always a kind of urban legend - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists."
What Pies omits is the reality that the vast majority of psychiatrists have been promulgating this theory. Were they liars or simply not well-informed? And if not well-informed, were they purposely not well-informed?
If one wants to bullshit oneself and the general public that psychiatry is a genuinely scientific medical specialty, there's a great incentive to be unconcerned with the truth or falseness of the chemical imbalance theory of depression.
Bullshitters immediately recognize how powerful this chemical imbalance notion is in gaining prestige for their profession and themselves as well as making their job both more lucrative and easier, increasing patient volume by turning virtually all patient visits into quick prescribing ones.
Prior to the chemical imbalance bullshit campaign, most Americans were reluctant to take antidepressants - or to give them to their children.
But the idea that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance that can be corrected with Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants sounded like taking insulin for diabetes.
Correcting a chemical imbalance seemed like a reasonable thing to do, and so the use of SSRI antidepressants skyrocketed.
In 2012, National Public Radio correspondent Alix Spiegel began her piece about the disproven chemical imbalance theory with the following personal story about being prescribed Prozac when she was a depressed teenager:
“My parents took me to a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital. She did an evaluation and then told me this story: "The problem with you," she explained, "is that you have a chemical imbalance. It's biological, just like diabetes, but it's in your brain.
This chemical in your brain called serotonin is too, too low. There's not enough of it, and that's what's causing the chemical imbalance. We need to give you medication to correct that." Then she handed my mother a prescription for Prozac. "
When Spiegel discovered that the chemical imbalance theory was untrue, she sought to discover why this truth had been covered up, and so she interviewed researchers who knew the truth.
Alan Frazer, professor of pharmacology and psychiatry and chairman of the pharmacology department at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center, told Spiegel that by framing depression as a deficiency - something that needed to be returned to normal - patients felt more comfortable taking antidepressants.
“If there was this biological reason for them being depressed, some deficiency that the drug was correcting, then taking a drug was OK."
For Frazer, the story that depressed people have a chemical imbalance enabled many people to come out of the closet about being depressed.
Frazer's rationale reminds us of Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent, the title deriving from presidential adviser and journalist Walter Lippmann's phrase "the manufacture of consent" - a necessity for Lippmann, who believed that the general public is incompetent in discerning what's truly best for them, and so their opinion must be molded by a benevolent elite who does know what's best for them.
There are some psychiatrists who view the chemical imbalance theory as a well-meaning lie by a benevolent elite to ensure resistant patients do what is best for them, but my experience is that there are actually extremely few such "well-meaning liars." Most simply don't know the truth because they have put little effort in discerning it.
I believe McLaren is correct in concluding that the vast majority of psychiatrists are bullshitters, uncommitted to either facts or fiction. Most psychiatrists would certainly have been happy if the chemical-imbalance theory was true but obviously have not needed it to be true in order to promulgate it.
For truth seekers, the falseness of the chemical imbalance theory has been easily available, but most psychiatrists have not been truth seekers.
It is not in the bullshitters' interest to know what is true and what is false, as that knowledge of what is a fact and what is fiction hinders the capacity to use any and all powerful persuasion. Simply put, a commitment to the truth hinders the capacity to bullshit.
Fourteen Lies That Our Psychiatry Professors Taught Us In Medical School.
Myth # 1:
“The FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) tests all new psychiatric drugs”
False. Actually the FDA only reviews studies that were designed, administered, secretly performed and paid for by the multinational profit-driven drug companies.
The studies are frequently farmed out by the pharmaceutical companies by well-paid research firms, in whose interest it is to find positive results for their corporate employers. Unsurprisingly, such research policies virtually guarantee fraudulent results.
Myth # 2:
“FDA approval means that a psychotropic drug is effective long-term”
False. Actually, FDA approval doesn’t even mean that psychiatric drugs have been proven to be safe – either short-term or long-term! The notion that FDA approval means that a psych drug has been proven to be effective is also a false one, for most such drugs are never tested – prior to marketing – for longer than a few months (and most psych patients take their drugs for years).
The pharmaceutical industry pays many psychiatric “researchers” – often academic psychiatrists (with east access to compliant, chronic, already drugged-up patients) who have financial or professional conflicts of interest – some of them even sitting on FDA advisory committees who attempt to “fast track” psych drugs through the approval process.
For each new drug application, the FDA only receives 1 or 2 of the “best” studies (out of many) that purport to show short-term effectiveness. The negative studies are shelved and not revealed to the FDA. In the case of the SSRI drugs, animal lab studies typically lasted only hours, days or weeks and the human clinical studies only lasted, on average, 4- 6 weeks, far too short to draw any valid conclusions about long-term effectiveness or safety!
Hence the FDA, prescribing physicians and patient-victims should not have been “surprised” by the resulting epidemic of SSRI drug-induced adverse reactions that are silently plaguing the people.
Indeed, many SSRI trials have shown that those drugs are barely more effective than placebo (albeit statistically significant!) with unaffordable economic costs and serious health risks, some of which are life-threatening and known to be capable of causing brain damage.
Myth # 3:
“FDA approval means that a psychotropic drug is safe long-term”
False. Actually, the SSRIs and the “anti-psychotic” drugs are usually tested in human trials for only a couple of months before being granted marketing approval by the FDA. And the drug companies are only required to report 1 or 2 studies (even if many other studies on the same drug showed negative, even disastrous, results).
Drug companies obviously prefer that the black box and fine print warnings associated with their drugs are ignored by both consumers and prescribers. One only has to note how small the print is on the commercials.
In our fast-paced shop-until-you-drop consumer society, we super-busy prescribing physicians and physician assistants have never been fully aware of the multitude of dangerous, potentially fatal adverse psych drug effects that include addiction, mania, psychosis, suicidality, worsening depression, worsening anxiety, insomnia, akathisia, brain damage, dementia, homicidality, violence, etc, etc.
But when was the last time anybody heard the FDA or Big Pharma apologize for the damage they did in the past?
And when was the last time there were significant punishments (other than writs slaps and “chump change” multimillion dollar fines) or prison time for the CEOs of the guilty multibillion dollar drug companies?
Myth # 4:
“Mental ‘illnesses’ are caused by ‘brain chemistry imbalances’”
False. In actuality, brain chemical/neurotransmitter imbalances have never been proven to exist (except for cases of neurotransmitter depletions caused by psych drugs) despite vigorous examinations of lab animal or autopsied human brains and brain slices by neuroscientist s who were employed by well-funded drug companies.
Knowing that there are over 100 known neurotransmitter systems in the human brain, proposing a theoretical chemical ”imbalance” is laughable and flies in the face of science.
Not only that, but if there was an imbalance between any two of the 100 potential systems (impossible to prove), a drug – that has never been tested on more than a handful of them – could never be expected to re-balance it!
Such simplistic theories have been perpetrated by Big Pharma upon a gullible public and a gullible psychiatric industry because corporations that want to sell the public on their unnecessary products know that they have to resort to 20 second sound bite-type propaganda to convince patients and prescribing practitioners why they should be taking or prescribing synthetic, brain-altering drugs that haven’t been adequately tested.
Myth # 5:
“Antidepressant drugs work like insulin for diabetics”
False. This laughingly simplistic – and very anti-scientific – explanation for the use of dangerous and addictive synthetic drugs is patently absurd and physicians and patients who believe it should be ashamed of themselves for falling for it.
There is such a thing as an insulin deficiency (but only in type 1 diabetes) but there is no such thing as a Prozac deficiency.
SSRIs (so-called Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors – an intentional mis-representation because those drugs are NOT selective!) do not raise total brain serotonin.
Rather, SSRIs actually deplete serotonin long-term while only “goosing” serotonin release at the synapse level while at the same time interfere with the storage, reuse and re-cycling of serotonin (by its “serotonin reuptake inhibition” function).
(Parenthetically, the distorted “illogic” of the insulin/diabetes comparison above could legitimately be made in the case of the amino acid brain nutrient tryptophan, which is the precursor molecule of the important natural neurotransmitter serotonin.
If a serotonin deficiency or “imbalance” could be proven, the only logical treatment approach would be to supplement the diet with the serotonin precursor tryptophan rather than inflict upon the brain a brain-altering synthetic chemical that actually depletes serotonin long-term!
Myth # 6:
“SSRI ‘discontinuation syndromes’ are different than ‘withdrawal syndromes’”
False. The SSRI “antidepressant” drugs are indeed dependency-inducing/addictive and the neurological and psychological symptoms that occur when these drugs are stopped or tapered down are not “relapses” into a previous ”mental disorder” - as has been commonly asserted - but are actually new drug withdrawal symptoms that are different from those that prompted the original diagnosis
The term “discontinuation syndrome” is part of a cunningly-designed conspiracy that was plotted in secret by members of the psychopharmaceutical industryin order to deceive physicians into thinking that these drugs are not addictive.
The deception has been shamelessly promoted to distract attention from the proven fact that most psych drugs are dependency-inducing and are therefore likely to cause “discontinuation/withdrawal symptoms” when they are stopped.
The drug industry knows that most people do not want to swallow dependency-inducing drugs that are likely to cause painful, even lethal withdrawal symptoms when they cut down the dose of the drug.
Myth # 7:
“Ritalin is safe for children (or adults)”
False. In actuality, methylphenidate (= Ritalin, Concerta, Daytrana, Metadate and Methylin; aka “kiddie cocaine”), a dopamine reuptake inhibitor drug, works exactly like cocaine on dopamine synapses, except that orally-dosed methylphenidate reaches the brain more slowly than snortable or smoked cocaine does.
Therefore the oral form has less of an orgasmic “high” than cocaine.
Cocaine addicts actually prefer Ritalin if they can get it in a relatively pure powder form.
When snorted, the synthetic Ritalin (as opposed to the naturally-occurring, and therefore more easily metabolically-degraded cocaine) has the same onset of action but, predictably, has a longer lasting “high” and is thus preferred among addicted individuals.
The molecular structures of Ritalin and cocaine both have amphetamine base structures with ring-shaped side chains which, when examined side by side, are remarkably similar. The dopamine synaptic organelles in the brain (and heart, blood vessels, lungs and guts) are unlikely to sense any difference between the two drugs.
Myth # 8:
“Psychoactive drugs are totally safe for humans”
False. See Myth # 3 above. Actually all five classes of psychotropic drugs have, with long-term use, been found to be neurotoxic (ie, known to destroy or otherwise alter the physiology, chemistry, anatomy and viability of vital energy-producing mitochondria in every brain cell and nerve). They are therefore all capable of contributing to dementia when used long-term.
Any synthetic chemical that is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier into the brain can alter and disable the brain. Synthetic chemical drugs are NOT capable of healing brain dysfunction, curing malnutrition or reversing brain damage.
Rather than curing anything, psychiatric drugs are only capable of masking symptoms while the abnormal emotional, neurological or malnutritional processes that mimic “mental illnesses” continue unabated.
Myth # 9:
“Mental ‘illnesses’ have no known cause”
False. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM, published by the American Psychiatric Association, is pejoratively called “the psychiatric bible and billing book” for psychiatrists.
Despite its name, it actually has no statistics in it, and, of the 374 psychiatric diagnoses in the DSM-IV (there is now a 5th edition) there seem to be only two that emphasize known root causes.
Those two diagnoses are Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder. The DSM-V has been roundly condemned as being just another book that laughingly pathologizes a few more normal human emotions and behaviors.
In my decade of work as an independent holistic mental health care practitioner, I was virtually always able to detect many of the multiple root causes and contributing factors that easily explained the signs, symptoms and behaviors that had resulted in a perplexing number of false diagnoses of “mental illness of unknown origin”.
Many of my patients had been made worse by being hastily diagnosed, hastily drugged, bullied, demeaned, malnourished, incarcerated, electroshocked (often against their wills and/or without fully informed consent).
My patients had been frequently rendered unemployable or even permanently disabled as a result – all because temporary, potentially reversible, and therefore emotional stressors had not been recognized at the onset.
Because of the reliance on drugs, many of my patients had been made incurable by not having been referred to compassionate practitioners who practiced high quality, non-drug-based, potentially curable psychotherapy.
The root causes of my patient’s understandable emotional distress were typically multiple, although sometimes a single trauma, such as a rape, violent assault or a psychological trauma in the military would cause an otherwise normally-developing individual to decompensate.
But the vast majority of my patients had experienced easily identifiable chronic sexual, physical, psychological, emotional and/or spiritual traumas as root causes – often accompanied by hopelessness, sleep deprivation, serious emotional or physical neglect and brain nutrient deficiencies as well.
The only way that I could obtain this critically important information was through the use of thorough, compassionate (and, unfortunately, time-consuming) investigation into the patient’s complete history, starting with prenatal, maternal, infant and childhood exposures to toxins (including vaccines) and continuing into the vitally important adolescent medical history (all periods when the patient’s brain was rapidly developing).
My clinical experience proved to me that if enough high quality time was spent with the patient and if enough hard work was exerted looking for root causes, the patient’s predicament could usually be clarified and the erroneous past labels (of “mental illnesses of unknown origin”) could be thrown out.
Such efforts were often tremendously therapeutic for my patients, who up to that time had been made to feel guilty, ashamed or hopeless by previous therapists.
In my experience, most mental ill health syndromes represented identifiable, albeit serious emotional de-compensation due to temporarily overwhelming crisis situations linked to traumatic, frightening, torturous, neglectful and soul-destroying life experiences.
My practice consisted mostly of patients who knew for certain that they were being sickened by months or years of swallowing one or more brain-altering, addictive prescription drugs that they couldn’t get off of by themselves.
I discovered that many of them could have been cured early on in their lives if they only had access – and could afford – compassionate psychoeducational psychotherapy, proper brain nutrition and help with addressing issues of deprivation, parental neglect/abuse, poverty and other destructive psychosocial situations.
I came to the sobering realization that many of my patients could have been cured years earlier if it hadn’t been for the disabling effects of psychiatric drug regimens, isolation, loneliness, punitive incarcerations, solitary confinement, discrimination, malnutrition, and/or electroshock.
The neurotoxic and brain-disabling drugs, vaccines and frankenfoods that most of my patients had been given early on had started them on the road to chronicity and disability.
Myth # 10:
“Psychotropic drugs have nothing to do with the huge increase in disabled and unemployable American psychiatric patients”
False. See Myths # 2 and # 3 above. In actuality recent studies have shown that the major cause of permanent disability in the “mentally ill” is the long-term, high dosage and/or use of multiple neurotoxic psych drugs – any combination of which, as noted above, has never been adequately tested for safety even in animal labs.
Many commonly-prescribed drugs are fully capable of causing brain-damage long-term, especially the anti-psychotics (aka, “major tranquilizers”) like Thorazine, Haldol, Prolixin, Clozapine, Abilify, Clozapine, Fanapt, Geodon, Invega, Risperdal, Saphris, Seroquel and Zyprexa, all of which can cause brain shrinkage that is commonly seen on the MRI scans of anti-psychotic drug-treated, so-called schizophrenics – commonly pointed out as “proof” that schizophrenia is an anatomic brain disorder that causes the brain to shrink! (Incidentally, patients who had been on antipsychotic drugs – for whatever reason – have been known to experience withdrawal hallucinations and acute psychotic symptoms even if they had never experienced such symptoms previously.)
Of course, highly addictive “minor” tranquilizers like the benzodiazepines (Valium, Ativan, Klonopin, Librium, Tranxene, Xanax) can cause the same withdrawal syndromes. They are all dangerous and very difficult to withdraw from (withdrawal results in difficult-to-treat rebound insomnia, panic attacks, and seriously increased anxiety), and, when used long-term, they can all cause memory loss/dementia, the loss of IQ points and the high likelihood of being mis-diagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease (of unknown etiology).
Myth # 11:
“So-called bipolar disorder can mysteriously ‘emerge’ in patients who have been taking stimulating antidepressants like the SSRIs”
False. In actuality, crazy-making behaviors like mania, agitation and aggression are commonly caused by the SSRIs. That list includes a syndrome called akathisia, a severe, sometimes suicide-inducing internal restlessness – like having restless legs syndrome over one’s entire body and brain.
Akathisia was once understood to only occur as a long-term adverse effect of antipsychotic drugs (See Myth # 10). So it was a shock to many psychiatrists (after Prozac came to market in 1987) to have to admit that SSRIs could also cause that deadly problem.
It has long been my considered opinion that SSRIs should more accurately be called “agitation-inducing” drugs rather than “anti-depressant” drugs.
The important point to make is that SSRI-induced psychosis, mania, agitation, aggression and akathisia is NOT bipolar disorder nor is it schizophrenia!
Myth # 12:
“Antidepressant drugs can prevent suicides”
False. In actuality, there is no psychiatric drug that is FDA-approved for the treatment of suicidality because these drugs, especially the so-called antidepressants, actually INCREASE the incidence of suicidal thinking, suicide attempts and completed suicides.
Drug companies have spent billions of dollars futilely trying to prove the effectiveness of various psychiatric drugs in suicide prevention.
Even the most corrupted drug company trials have failed! Indeed what has been discovered is that all the so-called “antidepressants” actually increase the incidence of suicidality.
The FDA has required black box warning labels about drug-induced suicidality on all SSRI marketing materials, but that was only accomplished after over-coming vigorous opposition from the drug-makers and marketers of the offending drugs, who feared that such truth-telling would hurt their profits (it hasn’t).
What can and does avert suicidality, of course, are not drugs, but rather interventions by caring, compassionate and thorough teams of care-givers that include family, faith communities and friends as well as psychologists, counselors, social workers, relatives (especially wise grandmas!), and, obviously, the limited involvement of drug prescribers.
Myth # 13:
“America’s school shooters and other mass shooters are ‘untreated’ schizophrenics who should have been taking psych drugs”
False. In actuality, 90% or more of the infamous homicidal – and usually suicidal – school shooters have already been under the “care” of psychiatrists (or other psych drug prescribers) and therefore have typically been taking (or withdrawing from) one or more psychiatric drugs.
SSRIs (such as Prozac) and psychostimulants (such as Ritalin) have been the most common classes of drugs involved. Antipsychotics are too sedating, although an angry teen who is withdrawing from antipsychotics could easily become a school shooter if given access to lethal weapons. (See www.ssristudies.net).
The 10% of school shooters whose drug history is not known, have typically had their medical files sealed by the authorities – probably to protect authorities such as the drug companies and/or the medical professionals who supplied the drugs from suffering liability or embarrassment.
Important Comment:It should be noted that in most cases such 'False Flag' shooter events, that Mind-Controlled assets are used in order to carry out events pushing Cabal-driven agenda's such as gun control.
In virtually EVERY case the 'perpetrators' are on multiple prescription drugs for mental health issues.
This is not a comfortable subject but it is one that you will need to confront sooner or later, as the truth will become common knowledge at some point.
Interspersed with the rest of this section are details of the reality which hides behind the prescription drugs and their side effects -
The powerful drug industry and psychiatry lobby, with the willing help of the media that profits from being their handmaidens, repeatedly show us the photos of the shooters that look like zombies.
They have successfully gotten the viewing public to buy the notion that these adolescent, white male school shooters were mentally ill rather than under the influence of their crazy-making, brain-altering drugs or going through withdrawal.
Contrary to the claims of a recent 60 Minutes program segment about “untreated schizophrenics” being responsible for half of the mass shootings in America, the four mentioned in the segment were, in fact, almost certainly being already under the treatment with psych drugs – prior to the massacres – by psychiatrists who obviously are being protected from public identification and/or interrogation by the authorities as accomplices to the crimes or witnesses.
Because of this secrecy, the public is being kept in the dark about exactly what crazy-making, homicidality-inducing psychotropic drugs could have been involved.
The names of the drugs and the multinational corporations that have falsely marketed them as safe drugs are also being actively protected from scrutiny, and thus the chance of prevention of future drug-related shootings or suicides is being squandered.
Such decisions by America’s ruling elites represent public health policy at its worst and is a disservice to past and future shooting victims and their loved ones.
The four most notorious mass shooters that were highlighted in the aforementioned 60 Minutes segment included the Virginia Tech shooter, the Tucson shooter, the Aurora shooter and the Sandy Hook shooter whose wild-eyed (“drugged-up”) photos have been carefully chosen for their dramatic “zombie-look” effect, so that most frightened, paranoid Americans are convinced that it was a crazy “schizophrenic”, rather than a victim of psychoactive, brain-altering, crazy-making drugs that may have made him do it.
Parenthetically, it needs to be mentioned that many media outlets profit handsomely from the drug and medical industries.
Therefore those media outlets have an incentive to protect the names of the drugs, the names of the drug companies, the names of the prescribing MDs and the names of the clinics and hospitals that could, in a truly just and democratic world, otherwise be linked to the crimes.
Certainly if a methamphetamine-intoxicated person shot someone, the person who supplied the intoxicating drug would be considered an accomplice to the crime, just like the bartender who supplied the liquor to someone who later committed a violent crime would be held accountable.
A double standard obviously exists when it comes to powerful, respected and highly profitable corporations.
A thorough study of the scores of American school shooters, starting with the University of Texas tower shooter in 1966 and (temporarily) stopping at Sandy Hook, reveals that the overwhelming majority of them (if not all of them) were taking brain-altering, mesmerizing, impulse-destroying, “don’t give a damn” drugs that had been prescribed to them by well-meaning but too-busy psychiatrists, family physicians or physician assistants who somehow were unaware of or were misinformed about the homicidal and suicidal risks to their equally unsuspecting patients (and therefore they had failed to warn the patient and/or the patient’s loved ones about the potentially dire consequences).
Most practitioners who wrote the prescriptions for the mass shooters or for a patient who later suicided while under the influence of the drug, will probably(and legitimately so) defend themselves against the charge of being an accomplice to mass murder or suicide by saying that they were ignorant about the dangers of these cavalierly prescribed psych drugs because they had been deceived by the cunning drug companies that had convinced them of the benign nature of the drugs.
Myth # 14:
“If your patient hears voices it means he’s a schizophrenic”
False. Auditory hallucinations are known to occur in up to 10% of normal people; and up to 75% of normal people have had the experience of someone that isn’t there calling their name. (www.hearing-voices.org/voices-visions).
Nighttime dreams, nightmares and flashbacks probably have similar origins to daytime visual, auditory and olfactory hallucinations, but even psychiatrists don’t think that they represent mental illnesses.
Indeed, hallucinations are listed in the pharmaceutical literature as a potential side effect or withdrawal symptom of many drugs, especially psychiatric drugs.
These syndromes are called substance-induced psychotic disorders which are, by definition, neither mental illnesses nor schizophrenia.
Rather, substance-induced or withdrawal-induced psychotic disorders are temporary and directly caused by the intoxicating effects of malnutrition or brain-altering drugs such as alcohol, medications, hallucinogenic drugs and other toxins.
Psychotic symptoms, including hallucinations and delusions, can be caused by substances such as alcohol, marijuana, hallucinogens, sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics, inhalants, opioids, PCP, and the many of the amphetamine-like drugs (like Phen-Fen, [fenfluramine]), cocaine, methamphetamine, Ecstasy, and agitation-inducing, psycho-stimulating drugs like the SSRIs).
Psychotic symptoms can also result from sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation and the withdrawal from certain drugs like alcohol, sedatives, hypnotics, anxiolytics and especially the many dopamine-suppressing, dependency-inducing, sedating, and zombifying anti-psychotic drugs.
Examples of other medications that may induce hallucinations and delusions include anesthetics, analgesics, anticholinergic agents, anticonvulsants, antihistamines, antihypertensive and cardiovascular medications, some antimicrobial medications, anti-parkinsonian drugs, some chemotherapeutic agents, corticosteroids, some gastrointestinal medications, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and Antabuse.
The very sobering information revealed above should cause any thinking person, patient, thought-leader or politician to wonder:
“How many otherwise normal or potentially curable people over the last half century of psych drug propaganda have actually been mis-labeled as mentally ill (and then mis-treated) and sent down the convoluted path of therapeutic misadventures – heading toward oblivion?”
In my mental health care practice, I personally treated hundreds of patients who had been given a multitude of confusing and contradictory mental illness labels, many of which had been one of the new “diseases of the month” for which there was a new psych “drug of the month” that was being heavily marketed on TV.
Many of my patients had simply been victims of unpredictable drug-drug interactions (far too often drug-drug-drug-drug interactions) or simply adverse reactions to psych drugs which had been erroneously diagnosed as a new mental illness.
Extrapolating my 1,200 patient experience (in my little isolated section of the nation) to what surely must be happening in America boggles my mind.
There has been a massive epidemic going on right under our noses that has affected millions of suffering victims who could have been cured if not for the drugs.
The time to act on this knowledge is long overdue.
Seeding Doubt: How Self-Appointed Guardians Of “Sound Science” Tip The Scales Toward Industry November 23 2016 | From: TheIntercept
At a time when public mistrust of science runs high, and non-experts are hard-pressed to separate fact from industry-sponsored spin, Sense About Science, a charity based in London with an affiliate in New York, presents itself as a trustworthy arbiter.
The organization purports to help the misinformed public sift through alarmist claims about public health and the environment by directing journalists, policymakers, and others to vetted sources who can explain the evidence behind debates about controversial products like e-cigarettes and flame retardants.
One reason the public is so confused, suggested Tracey Brown, the group’s director, in a recent Guardian op-ed, is that the media feeds alarmism by focusing on who sponsors scientific studies, rather than asking more important questions about whether the research is sound.
Even when there is no evidence of bias, Brown contended, journalists attack industry-funded research, running exposés on subjects such as fracking, genetically modified plants, and sugar. Brown lamented that what she called “the ‘who funded it?’ question” is too often asked by “people with axes to grind.”
Brown’s downplaying of concerns about such research invites skepticism. Since the mid-1990s, numerous studies have shown that industry-funded research tends to favor its sponsors’ products. This effect has been documented in research financed by chemical, pharmaceutical, surgical, food, tobacco, and, we have learned most recently, sugar companies.
In the 1960s, the sugar industry secretly paid scientists to minimize the role sugar plays in causing heart disease and blame saturated fat instead, according to a study published in the September issue of JAMA Internal Medicine.
Journalists in pursuit of transparency have good reason to ask, “Who funded it?”
Sense About Science claims to champion transparency. The organization has campaigned to see the evidence behind policy decisions and asked for pharmaceutical companies to release all the results of clinical trials, not just the positive ones.
Nearly 700 organizations have signed on to the clinical trials initiative since it began last year. These are salutary efforts, and Brown points out that with the exception of one program funded by publishers, none of the group’s projects are underwritten by companies. But this sidesteps a larger issue.
Sense About Science does not always disclose when its sources on controversial matters are scientists with ties to the industries under examination. And the group is known to take positions that buck scientific consensus or dismiss emerging evidence of harm.
When journalists rightly ask who sponsors research into the risks of, say, asbestos, or synthetic chemicals, they’d be well advised to question the evidence Sense About Science presents in these debates as well.
A man holds a tobacco sample at the Seita-Imperial tobacco research center on May 29, 2012, in Fleury-les-Aubrais, France
In 2002, Dick Teverne, an English politician and business consultant, founded Sense About Science “to expose bogus science,” he explains in his memoir, “Against the Tide.”
Through his consulting work, Taverne had cultivated relationships with energy, communications, food, and pharmaceutical companies. Sense About Science’s early sponsors included some of Taverne’s former clients and companies in which he owned stock.
Taverne must have known the power of media narratives about science firsthand, because he had experience with the tobacco industry, which labored mightily to change the conversation about its product in the face of evidence that cigarettes were lethal.
The idea for a “sound science” group, made up of a network of scientists who would speak out against regulations that industrial spokespeople lacked the credibility to challenge, was a pitch Burson-Marsteller made to Philip Morris in a 1994 memorandum.
It’s not hard to identify traces of this approach in Taverne’s later work. Writing in his 2005 book, “The March of Unreason,” Taverne complained that “eco-fundamentalists” and fearmongers had fomented a backlash against science and technology, which had in turn produced a “multiplication of health and safety regulations.”
That year British Petroleum donated 15,000 pounds to Sense About Science, and Taverne argued in the House of Lords that as much as 80 percent of global warming might be attributable to solar activity, even though that theory had been discredited two years earlier. Taverne, who stepped down as chairman of Sense About Science in 2012, did not respond to The Intercept’s requests for comment.
Sense About Science established an American affiliate in 2014, under the direction of a Brooklyn-based journalist named Trevor Butterworth. In financial documents, Sense About Science claims Sense About Science USA as a sister organization “with close ties and similar aims.”
From 2003 to 2014, Butterworth contributed to the website of an organization called STATS, a nonprofit that promoted statistical literacy. STATS had its own connections to the tobacco industry, in this case through founder Robert Lichter, a conservative political scientist and now a communications professor at George Mason University.
Lichter also co-founded and continues to run the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which Philip Morris hired in 1994 to survey news reports about tobacco as part of its strategy, outlined in a memo from March of that year, to counter “personal and public bias” in stories about cigarettes’ health risks.
Lichter, like Sense About Science’s Tracey Brown, has argued that industry money doesn’t necessarily taint the science it supports.
In 2003, a congressional report charged the George W. Bush administration with stacking a government committee on childhood lead poisoning with industry scientists.
“Studies have found that scientists who have consulted for industry do not differ in their assessment of risks, of health risks, from scientists who have not consulted for industry.”
Lichter did not respond to The Intercept’s requests for comment or citations to these studies.
Before STATS was dissolved in 2014, and its web site adopted by Sense About Science USA, it received regular grants from free-market sources. Between 1998 and 2014, STATS received $4.5 million, 81 percent of its donations, from the Searle Freedom Trust, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, Donors Trust (a fund largely sustained by Charles Koch), and other right-wing foundations.
Searle, which describes its mission as promoting “economic liberties,” gave STATS $959,000 between 2010 and 2014.
Anti-regulatory foundations, including these, spent over half a billion dollars between 2003 and 2010 to;
“Manipulate and mislead the public over the nature of climate science and the threat posed by climate change,” according to a 2013 study by Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle.
A worker sprays foam before removing asbestos from a ceiling at Jussieu University in Paris, France, on March 25, 1999
With these roots Sense About Science should not surprise anyone when it promotes anti-regulatory voices on issues like asbestos. In a 2006 brochure called “Science for Celebrities” and purporting to correct misperceptions about synthetic chemicals, Sense About Science offers John Hoskins, a toxicologist formerly of the Medical Research Council Toxicology Unit at the University of Leicester.
Under the rubric “Toxic effects depend on dose,” Hoskins reassures us:
“Away from the high doses of occupational exposure a whole host of unwanted chemicals finds their way into our bodies. Most leave quickly but some stay: asbestos and silica in our lungs, dioxins in our blood. Do they matter? No!”
Since then, as countries continue to mine asbestos, industry groups have argued that certain varieties, including chrysotile and crocidolite, are not so toxic.
In response, several groups, including the Collegium Ramazzini, an international body of occupational and environmental health experts, have issued consensus statements warning that no form of asbestos is safe at any dose.
In calling for a universal ban on all forms of asbestos in 2010, the Collegium Ramazzini observed that the asbestos industry’s attacks on evidence that “irrefutably” links its product to cancer “closely resemble those used by the tobacco industry.”
Brown maintains that Sense About Science has not disagreed with the scientific consensus on asbestos, and she notes that dose and type of exposure are the issue. But when I asked Hoskins why his position differed from the scientific consensus, he shrugged over email, “Once upon a time the consensus was that the earth is flat.”
Hoskins further replied;
“Unfortunately, to say that within a population low-level exposure of many chemicals must be dangerous is not borne out by reality, much to the chagrin of those who live in the fantasy world of ‘chemical-free.’ ”
Hoskins’s résumé states that he has represented the Chrysotile Institute in “discussion with the governments of several countries.” But he did not disclose this relationship to the Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Public Health journal when he co-authored two scientific papers disputing claims that chrysotile or crocidolite caused a rare cancer in exposed populations.
When his industry ties came to light, the journal issued errata for bothpapers to disclose this competing interest.
(Hoskins denies any conflict of interest, insisting that his role in authoring the papers was confined to providing information the other authors requested. Yet all but one of the other authors had also failed to disclose their asbestos interests, which now appear in the errata.)
Soon after the first paper appeared, eight public health researchers wrote a letter to the editors of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Public Health expressing outrage that the journal would publish a paper with “gross mistakes” and “no scientific content.”
But the journal’s editors declined to retract the papers, which remain in the technical literature, casting doubt on the scientific consensus that all forms of asbestos are hazardous to human health.
Flames threaten to jump a ridge that firefighting aircraft have painted red with fire retardant above Cajon Boulevard at the Blue Cut Fire on Aug. 18, 2016, near Wrightwood, California
It's hard to make a case for the safety of a substance like asbestos, which most people know causes cancer. Other commercial products are easier to defend, not because they are less hazardous, but because consumers are not as familiar with the evidence questioning their safety and utility.
Scientists have known since 1997 that flame retardants, for example, can cause cancer.
These brominated and chlorinated chemicals are used in a wide range of consumer products, including nursing pads and car seats. For more than three decades, studies in animals and humans have linked them to cancer, developmental delays, and other serious health problems.
By 2010, the evidence was so persuasive that nearly 150 scientists from 22 countries signed a statement warning that flame retardants “are a concern for persistence, bioaccumulation, long-range transport, and toxicity.” Flame retardants’ fire safety benefit not only remains unproven, the scientists asserted, but the chemicals form highly toxic byproducts when burned.
Sense About Science has long relied on dubious numbers to insist on the efficacy of these chemicals.
A European Commission press officer told me she knows of no such report.
“The reference to the 20 percent reduction in fire deaths is repeatedly quoted in papers and publications from flame retardant industries and associations, and they always refer to ‘Flame Retardants, DG Environment Video 2000,’ which we cannot find.”
On the contrary, she told me, it is simply “not possible to correlate fire deaths to non-flammability requirements.”
The same year, Sense About Science again called on John Hoskins, identified as an independent toxicologist, this time to fact-check a study that found potentially carcinogenic flame retardants in sofas. In his response, Hoskins wrote: “The bottom line is that danger of fire is many, many times greater than any imagined danger from chemicals used to prevent it.”
“Everything I wrote about flame retardants was taken from published works,” Hoskins told me.
“Reviewers at the time found nothing to criticize and I have had no comment from the thousands of people who must have read the pieces.”
Sense About Science reprinted its guide on chemicals in 2014. “The trade-off between fire risk and toxicology is changing, and we represented that newer precautionary thinking in our most recent publications,” Brown, the group’s director, told The Intercept in an email.
The new guide acknowledged “allegations of side effects” from flame retardants, including persistence in the environment and toxicity to humans and animals.
But it also retained the unsupported claim that regulations requiring the chemicals saved lives.
The guide even retained the text that countered concerns about traces of flame retardants found in children’s bodies by asserting that because the chemicals protected children from death or injury from fire;
“To fail to expose them to such chemicals could be regarded as negligent.”
Scientists who reviewed human studies had come to a different conclusion the year before. They warned that although such links were impossible to prove conclusively, the evidence suggested that children’s exposure to flame retardants could have serious health consequences, including neurobehavioral and developmental problems. The scientists called for regulatory oversight.
A scientist holds a flask containing bisphenol A, a chemical used to make plastics that numerous scientific studies have linked to developmental and reproductive disorders
Of all the controversial chemicals in the public eye, the one Trevor Butterworth, Sense About Science USA’s director, has most fervently defended is bisphenol A, a compound used to make plastics. BPA is found in hard plastics, the lining of canned drinks and foods, thermal receipts, and other consumer and industrial products, including cigarette filters.
Leading reproductive biologists released a consensus statement in 2007 warning that “the wide range of adverse effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals exposed both during development and in adulthood is a great cause for concern with regard to the potential for similar adverse effects in humans.”
Two years later, while working for STATS, Butterworth published a 27,000-word investigation sharply questioning the validity of the scientific studies and news reports about BPA’s health effects.
Butterworth’s central claim was that a handful of scientists, journalists, and environmental activist groups had ignored good science in a crusade to paint BPA as “the biological equivalent of global warming.”
These reporters, he claimed, relied on flawed studies by independent researchers and unfairly dismissed the industry-funded studies that found no harm.
But the independent studies were not, in fact, flawed. Regulators just didn’t consider them useful, because, like many such academic studies, they didn’t measure toxicity but tested hypotheses about how BPA could alter living systems.
BPA trade groups have long insisted that the substance is metabolized too quickly to cause harm.
Butterworth cites a 2009 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that measured BPA concentrations in newborns to make the same case. The study, he argues, “provides important evidence that infants - even those born prematurely - are able to detoxify BPA in the same way as adults.”
The CDC study he cited was designed to gauge exposure, not metabolism. BPA has been detected in the urine of nearly every American tested. Premature babies’ fragile systems make them particularly vulnerable to environmental contaminants.
The researchers suspected that the use of plastic medical devices in neonatal intensive care units might expose premature infants to higher than average levels of BPA. And that’s exactly what they found: Average BPA concentrations in hospitalized premature babies were about 10 times higher than those measured in adults.
The authors noted that although premature babies appear to have some ability to metabolize BPA, their detoxification pathways “are not expected to be functional at adult rates until months after birth.”
Butterworth ended his critique of what he called “the BPA is dangerous thesis” by suggesting that banning the chemical could result in greater harm:
“What if some parents who turned to glass bottles for fear of … ‘leaching’ BPA drop and break them, causing injury to their babies?”
Reached by email for comment, Butterworth did not account for his questionable characterization of the CDC study. He said that his critique relied on the work of scientists from regulatory agencies involved in risk assessment, and that these scientists had criticized smaller studies that claimed adverse effects.
He maintained that studies assessing the effects of low doses of BPA are inconsistent and unlikely to capture significant results because of methodological and statistical problems.
The year after Butterworth’s 2009 investigation, the anti-regulatory Donors Trust awarded STATS $86,000 for its “research efforts,” and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which belongs to the BPA Joint Trade Association, gave Lichter’s Center for Media and Public Affairs $10,000 for “research support.”
That year Coca-Cola gave more than $30,000 to Butterworth’s future partner, Sense About Science, which hosted a BPA forum the next year. (Since then, Sense About Science has not received corporate donations, which “represented less than 3 percent of our income,” Brown wrote in an email.)
In the forum, a Q&A on social media, Sense About Science put forward a representative of the British Plastics Federation and a toxicologist whose longstanding ties to the chemical industry the organization did not disclose. Participants were assured that BPA posed no risk to human health.
Sales staff exhale vapor while demonstrating their electronic cigarette products at the Vape China Expo at the China International Exhibition Center in Beijing on July 23, 2015
The tobacco industry pioneered tactics to fight regulations by manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that cigarettes kill. So it should be no surprise to encounter a strategy among defenders of the e-cigarette that also centers around doubt. If we don’t know for certain that a product is safe, we might urge caution.
Sense About Science has argued the opposite: so long as we don’t know the product is unsafe, medical professionals have no business urging regulation.
E-cigarettes turn chemical solutions into a nicotine-filled mist, which consumers ingest without the added harm of tobacco tar.
E-cigarettes are too new for scientists to have assessed their long-term health risks. British and American scientific bodies have reacted to this paucity of evidence with different views of the relative dangers.
Last year, Public Health England joined other British public health organizations in encouraging smokers to use e-cigarettes as an aid in quitting tobacco. The Royal College of Physicians effectively endorsed this view in April, when it argued against regulating a product that could help smokers quit.
But American public health officials worry that nicotine, which is as addictive as heroin and cocaine, will hook young smokers and cause lasting harm to their still-developing brains. Nicotine is linked to immunosuppression as well as cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal disorders.
There is evidence that it interferes with chemotherapies and may even play a role in cancer. Researchers are just beginning to study whether the more than 7,000 flavoring chemicals, which typically aren’t disclosed on e-cigarettes, are safe when inhaled.
“Ensure their use does not undermine smoking prevention and cessation by reinforcing the normalcy of cigarette use.”
BMA reaffirmed this judgment as recently as this past June, despite the opposing position of the Royal College of Physicians. Sense About Science reacted to BMA’s call for a ban by asking the association to produce evidence that e-cigarettes caused harm.
“This move towards heavy regulation appears to be driven by the fear that e-cigs might be harmful or act as a gateway to conventional tobacco - despite little or no evidence for either claim,” the organization argued on its website in 2013, two years before Public Health England endorsed e-cigarettes as a tool to quit smoking.
Such regulations, Sense About Science stated, could do more harm than good by inhibiting access to products that may help reduce harm from smoking tobacco cigarettes.
Although Sense About Science has demanded evidence that e-cigarettes cause harm, it seems poised to cast doubt on the evidence when it turns up. In August, the organization challenged the relevance of research presented that month at a cardiology conference showing that nicotine in e-cigarettes can stiffen arteries, an early indication of heart disease.
Sense About Science’s expert dismissively compared the effects of nicotine documented in the research to those of “watching a thriller or a football match.”
In the United States, just this past May, the Food and Drug Administration moved to regulate e-cigarettes, including banning sales to those 18 and under. The CDC, too, takes the health risks of nicotine seriously. Last fall, the centers called for strategies to reduce the use of all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes.
“The potential long-term benefits and risks associated with e-cigarette use are not currently known,” the CDC reported. “What is known is that nicotine exposure at a young age may cause lasting harm to brain development, promote nicotine addiction, and lead to sustained tobacco use.”
David Koch, executive vice president of chemical technology for Koch Industries, listens as U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, not pictured, speaks to the Economic Club of New York on Nov. 20, 2012
Having established itself as a credible voice in debates about science and industrial regulation in the United States and Britain, Sense About Science has set out for what may prove to be its most challenging assignment.
In July, following Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, Sense About Science established an EU branch in Brussels, the headquarters of the European Commission, which has placed tighter restrictions on e-cigarettes, chemicals, and other potentially risky consumer goods than the United States has mustered.
Both Sense About Science and Sense About Science USA undertake some initiatives that serve the public interest. But the founder of the British organization worked with the architects of the tobacco industry’s disinformation strategy, and both groups have been known to promote science that favors private interests over public health.
When an organization claims to serve as a neutral arbiter in high-stakes debates about science, it pays to do what Sense About Science does: ask for the evidence.
Do You Really Understand The Health Risks From Microwave Technology? + The Health Effects Of Microwave Radiation Spelled Out November 19 2016 | From: ActivistPost / EnergyFanatics / Various
One of the most definitive, expansive and inclusive peer-reviewed papers I’ve ever read on any subject was published July 25, 2016 online at Electronic Physician as an “open access article” that I sincerely hope everyone in the media and healthcare industries will take extremely seriously.
Especially those who are promoting more and more ‘smart’ appliances and devices that transmit electromagnetic frequencies and radiofrequencies - microwaves, which damage human health more than we are being told by government health agencies at all levels (local, state and national), manufacturers, employers and school districts that even mandate their uses as “new technologies” to learn and to implement.
New technologies are fine IF and WHEN they take into consideration and implement safeguards for human health, which is not the case with microwave technology, but has been the "dream warfare" technology for the United States military and other governments, so anything goes, including our being bombarded with so much microwaves, we now are experiencing more adverse health effects attributed to what's scientifically termed "Non-thermal Adverse Health Effects."
The U.S. military has had a GREAT interest in keeping microwave safety standards higher than they should be and not as applicable as the science demands.
Dr Magda Havas, PhD, Environmental & Resource Studies, 1600 West Bank Drive, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada, K9J 7B8 on her website published the following incriminating unclassified U.S. Army documents information as to why microwaves are not safe, nor made safer, due to U.S. military involvement with its electronic warfare techniques, which harm everything.
There are two disturbing paragraphs in the document "Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (Radiowaves and Microwaves) - Eurasian Communist Countries (U)". Prepared by U.S. Army Medical Intelligence and Information Agency Office of the Surgeon General and released by the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Adams, R.L. and R.A. Williams. 1976. 34 pp. Unclassified, which clearly indicate the U.S. military's perspective opposing more stringent guidelines for microwave radiation.
No. 1:"If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military function.
The Eurasian Communist countries could, on the other hand, give lip service to strict standards, but allow their military to operate without restriction and thereby gain the advantage in electronic warfare techniques and the development of antipersonnel applications." [Page vii]
No. 2:"Should subsequent research result in adoption of the Soviet standard by other countries, industries whose practices are based on less stringent safety regulations, could be required to make costly modifications in order to protect workers.
Recognition of the 0.01 mW/cm2 standard could also limit the application of new technology by making the commercial exploitation of some products unattractive because of increased cost, imposed by the need for additional safeguards." [Page 24]
Below is the copy and paste job of the Introduction from A review on Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and the reproductive system, which I hope my readers will take seriously and also take necessary steps to protect yourselves, your children, your pets and your home environment.
This is SERIOUS stuff no one is taking as seriously as we ALL should. Those ‘smart’ gadgets’ just may be making you more sick than you can imagine. With 61 References, I think the Electronic Physician article needs to be taken seriously with revisions made to EMF/RF standards by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reflect them.
"People in the modern world frequently are exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Human exposure to EMFs comes from many sources, and situations are different in people's everyday lives.
EMFs emanate from power lines, computer devices, televisions, radios, and telephones. There are many factors that influence the degree to which people may be affected by EMFs. For example, body weight, body-mass index, bone density, and the levels of water and electrolytes can alter the conductivity of and biological reactivity to EMFs (1, 2).
Therefore, the effects of this environmental pollution can depend on gender, tissue density of the body, the period of life, and the exposure levels to EMFs.
Beginning in 1960 when the biological hazards caused by EMFs first were studied, human health became an important focus in the workplace and at home (3).
Although, the biological effects of EMFs are still controversial, in general, the negative effects should not be ignored.
Currently, people are exposed to various types of EMFs, which are non-ionic radiation that cannot release electrons.
They are energy in the form of oscillating electric and magnetic fields that are transformed from one point to another. Many forms of physical energy, such as X-rays, UV light, and sunlight produce EMFs (4).
There are several references that classify EMFs, but, in general, they can be considered to consist of four different types. The first type of EMFs refers to extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs, which are EMFs that are below 300 HZ, and they are produced by military equipment and railroads.
The second type, known as intermediate frequency (IF) EMFs, have frequencies in the range of 300 Hz to 10 MHZ, and they are produced by industrial cables and electrical equipment in homes, such as televisions and computer monitors.
The third type is hyper frequency (HF) EMFs that have frequencies in the range of 10 MHz to 3000 GHz and are produced by mobile phones and radio broadcasting. Radio frequencies (RFs) also are a part of this category, which has frequencies up to 100 MHz (4).
There are also static EMFs that are produced by MRI and geomagnetism and have specified with zero frequency (3).
In 1979, Wertheimer and Looper showed that there is a direct relationship between EMFs and the increased incidence of leukemia in infants (5).
If the body's biological system is exposed to EMFs, which produce electric currents and fields, which, in fact, deal with the current and voltage, the normal physiological balance is upset.
If the density of the electric current increases to the stimulation threshold, membrane depolarization of the nerves and muscles may result. Electric and magnetic fields at environmental levels may extend the lifetime of free radicals and result in damage to people's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) (6).
Some epidemiological studies have been done in various populations, but most have been done in laboratory animals and cell lines (4).
The biological effects of EMFs generally can be divided into thermal and non-thermal effects (7). Thermal effects are defined as the heat generated by EMFs in a specific area.
The non-thermal effects depend on the absorption of energy and changes in the behavior of tissues without producing heat. EMFs have high penetration power, and they are capable of moving charged particles, such as the electrons and ions of large macromolecules and polymers (7).
So EMFs can have devastating effects on tissue with high concentrations of electrons and ions.
EMFs that cause changes in the behavior of cells (8) and tissues alter the function of the cardiovascular system (9) and bone marrow (7).
Electromagnetic fields can have several different effects on cellular components (10), including disorders of cell proliferation and differentiation (10), damaged DNA in cells, chromosomal abnormalities (11), blood disorders (9), birth defects (12), and various mutations, including those associated with long-term exposure to EMFs.
Under the influence of these fields, the balance of the CNS and the hormonal and respiratory systems become weak, resulting in decreased activity of the mentioned organs (13, 14).
Research on the effects of EMFs on the endocrine system has focused mostly on melatonin and the derived tryptophan produced by the pineal gland (15).
Most of the harmful effects of EMFs act through the protein synthesis process (16, 17). In this regard, enzymes, due to their combination of amino acids, are affected, and their catalytic activity is decreased (4).
Studies concerning the cytotoxicicity and genotoxicity effects of EMFs mostly have focused on fibroblasts, melanocytes, lymphocytes, monocytes, and muscular cells in people and on the granolosa cells of rats (18).
A declassified 1976 Defense Intelligence Agency report showed that military personnel exposed to non-thermal microwave radiation experienced "headaches, fatigue, dizziness, irritability, sleeplessness, depression, anxiety, forgetfulness, and a lack of concentration (19).
A 2015 study showed that 2.4 GHz WiFi may be one of the major risk factors for brain tumors and other neurodegenerative diseases (20). Another 2015 paper showed that polarized EMF (man-made) was much more active biologically than non-polarized EMF (21).
Another paper showed that rabbits experienced heart arrhythmia and increased blood pressure when exposed to 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi (22). A long-term study conducted by Lennart Hardell, a Swedish scientist, on glioma and acoustic neuroma brain tumors showed that RF is carcinogenic.
The scientist called for RF to be labeled an IARC Class 1 Carcinogen and recommended urgent revision to safety guidelines (23). A 2011 study by Nora Volkow showed that radiation from cell phones, in areas next to the antenna, increased the metabolism of glucose in the brain.
Increased metabolism of glucose is associated with cancer. The study showed that biological changes occur at levels lower than the current FCC guidelines (24)."
The Health Effects Of Microwave Radiation Spelled Out
On 14 July 2016 the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) of the USA made space available in the radio spectrum for consumer devices to operate within the 25 GHz to 100 GHz of the electromagnetic spectrum. It went on to say:
"The Commission has struck a balance between new wireless services, current and future fixed satellite service operations, and federal uses. The item adopts effective sharing schemes to ensure that diverse users – including federal and non-federal, satellite and terrestrial, and fixed and mobile – can co-exist and expand.”
Nowhere in its document is mention made of consumer safety or well-being. I guess that is fair of the FCC because historically, it is not interested in matters of microwave radiation and consequent thermal and non-thermal effects on the population. Let’s face it, and most people find this hard to believe, the FCC works purely on behalf of the telecoms industries in granting them access to the airwaves, no more and no less.
Industry was very happy to hear the FCC announcement on granting access of large portions of the radio spectrum for yet more of its toys and other consumer devices.
Qualcomm for example talks much about ‘the massive internet of things’, yet nowhere on its 5G musings is mention made of consumer safety or well-being.
That ‘pink elephant’ in the living room regarding safety brings me to the point of this article. The FCC and the telecomms industry rub their hands with glee because lots of money is going to be made as 5G devices rollout yet no recent safety studies have been carried out on consumer safety.
No doubt both the FCC and industry will point regulators to the old, out-dated and one-dimensional so-called ‘safety studies’ (thermal effects) produced by the ICNIRP.
This private organisation is comprised of people and individuals who work in the telecommunications industries with no background in epidemiology, toxicology, radio frequency safety or medical practice.
The implications of 5G on consumer well-being and safety do not look good for one reason: devices that will operate within the 5G electromagnetic spectrum will use antennas that are physically small i.e. from a few millimetres to a centimetre in length.
This means that industry will produce a variety of different antenna systems to do different things.
The weird fact of operating within this very high frequency range is that signals are mostly line of sight or they are easily reflected, refracted or ‘lost’ within the differing build composition of urban environment structures.
In other words, without careful antenna design and recognition of many of the pitfalls trying to propagate microwave signals within urban environments, the signal can be easily degraded or completely lost.
In response to these challenges, the advantages in using very small physical size antennas in the millimetre wavelength is you can feed many antennas in various configuration arrays e.g. vertical or horizontal arays, waveguide, coned or highly directional beam type designs.
These types of antenna designs focus most of the transmitted power into specified directions.
This is bad news for consumers because these very small physical size antennas will pack a mighty punch to our biological systems if we step into them.
Getting back to consumer safety and well-being and all things microwave, it is clear that the latency period for adverse biological effects from devices using microwave frequencies from say 1 GHz to 5 Ghz is approximately 10 – 20 years.
In 2016 there are now many thousands of peer-reviewed medical and epidemiological studies that show, illustrate or correlate, adverse biological effects with use of mobile phone technology or WIFI.
Using frequencies even higher than 5 GHz (and up to 100 GHz) will compress the timeframe in which cancers and other biological effects show themselves within society.
It is anyone’s guess on what might happen in terms of biological safety yet it is clear to see that the pulsed nature of these high frequency, high signal intensity signals do not harbour good news for humanity, particularly in relation to the functioning of our DNA.
Nowadays, exposure to microwave radiation or frequencies used by WIFI, mobile phones, smart phones, smart meters, WIFI-enabled audio devices, WIFI-enabled fridges, most baby monitors and a whole host of other ‘esoteric’ electrical devices were recently classed as Class 2B carcinogens.
Point of sale literature excludes this fact on any advertising blurb and it is also fascinating that the small print embedded deep within mobile phone product literature say that you should not put these devices directly to your skin, body or face. If you do, you exceed the so-called ‘safe’ exposure thresholds put in place for these devices.
Getting back to the very small physical length of the antennas that will be used for 5G devices, it is very clear to surmise that if these devices talk to each other using highly efficient, directional antennas, the ERP (effective radiated power) will be huge.
If you happen to walk into this intensely focused beam of microwave radiation, what will this level of signal intensity do to your biology?
Yet again, time will tell unless we get our arses into gear and demand proper safety studies from industry and independent academia that focus on thermal and non-thermal effects on our biology.
Just like the advent of modern mobile phone technology, it is us, the consumers, who provide the guinea pig role in terms of safety.
Sufferers of EHS (electro-hyper-sensitivity) will need to be aware of any 5G device simply because the electron volt assault on their compromised bodies will be easily and instantly felt.
It is they who will suffer first and in time, everyone will be affected because one other fact the telecoms industries have not mentioned is that in order to develop an efficient network of signals within an urban environment, many thousands of new transmitter sites will need to be installed.
The physical small size of these antennas means they can be covertly installed into all sorts of urban structures which suggest that for urban dwellers at least, there will be no escape from exposure to these highly damaging microwave frequencies.
I also feel that when these antennas are in place, it will be relatively easy to alter and manipulate brain wave function of its users and others close by.
The amount of ancillary information that can be piped or attached to the main carrier frequency of such a telecommunications network system is potentially, huge. Police forces the world over use ‘Tetra’ as a systems of communication.
This system also includes a sub-carrier frequency of about 16 Hz which is very close to our natural brainwave patterns.
Could this 16 Hz ancillary pulsed ELF (extremely low-frequency) be responsible for instilling aggressive behaviours in our police force personnel?
The ‘zombie apocalypse’ might just be around the corner unless of course, we refuse to comply. That is our choice.
$340 Billion Per Year In US Healthcare Costs Linked To Chemicals Found In Plastic, Detergents, Cosmetics And Toys November 12 2016 | From: NaturalNews
A newly released report, published in the The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology has revealed that exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals is attributed to $340 billion in health costs each year in the United States.
Some of the problems related to exposure to EDCs include neurological damage and behavioral problems such as attention deficit/hyperactivty disorder (ADHD), autism and loss of IQ. The report suggests that these issues make up about 80 percent of the problems caused by EDC exposure.
Of course, these are not the only health issues that are caused by EDCs. These chemicals, which are basically toxins, have also been attributed to obesity, diabetes, cancer, male infertility, and endometriosis – a painful condition characterized by abnormal tissue growth outside of the uterus.
The economic impact of the harm caused by EDCs is also quite important. These costs add up to about two percent of the United States' gross domestic product (GDP) each year – a huge financial wound.
The study's lead investigator Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City, said;
“Our research adds to the growing evidence on the tremendous economic as well as human health costs of endocrine-disrupting chemicals."
Trasande also commented that this issue has the potential to become a much more prominent health and economic problem if no policy action is taken.
Endocrine tissue is essential to many of the body's functions. It produces many of the body's hormones that regulate energy levels, reproduction, growth and development. The endocrine system also modulates our response to stress and injury; like every other part of the body, it's clearly important.
What EDCs do is mimic natural hormones produced by the body, such as estrogen and androgen, and then lock onto the receptors for those hormones within cells. This prevents the body's own hormones from binding to reception sites, and in turn, creates a number of different potential health problems.
Even the Environmental Protection Agency has recently come forward to admit that recent research has been raising a few red flags about environmental contaminants, such as their potential to "disrupt the endocrine system leading to adverse-health consequences."
Some of the most dangerous chemicals prevailing in the US are PBDEs, which are found in flame retardants. This class of man-made substances is suspected of being one of the largest culprits behind human hormone interference. Flame retardants and pesticides have both been associated with a loss in IQ points and are known to affect developing brains.
Bisphenol A, or BPA, which is found in plastic bottles, can linings and other products, has been subject to a lot of public scrutiny – and for good reason. Countless studies have linked it to a myriad of health problems, including changes in metabolism and disruption of the reproductive and nervous systems.
Phthalates are another ingredient of concern; these are often seen in plastics and other consumer goods, like cosmetics. They make plastic more flexible and can also be used as suspension or stabilizing agent in solutions (like your lip gloss). These are also attributed to a number of health problems, including reproductive issues.
Together, BPA and phthalates have racked up about $50 billion in health damages. Estimates suggest that the amount of these chemicals circulating in the blood of an average American would be among the top 5 percent in Europeans.
These chemicals are not safe, and should be avoided – even if our government won't do anything about them.
In order to support this contention, which may be seen as alarming and extreme, one must look at the rates of cancer among the general population and compare these to the rates of cancer deaths among world leaders.
And the latter is almost non-existent.
In the US, cancer is the second leading cause of death, exceeded only by heart disease. According to recently breaking news, Australia now lists cancer as its leading cause of death. In the rest of the developed world, cancer is near the top of the list.
Indeed, the list of the fifty countries with the highest cancer rates might lead one to believe that cancer is a disease of prosperity. Conspicuously absent from the list are countries in the Third World - in particular Africa.
Cancer will fell approximately ¼ of all those living in the developed world. However, this particular manifestation of the Grim Reaper gives world leaders a wide berth.
Since 1980, when the exiled Shah of Iran succumbed to lymphatic cancer in Egypt, the deaths by cancer of those leading their nations can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And what is most telling about those on this short list is where they stood on the political spectrum.
Hugo Chavez, the colorful and controversial President of Venezuela between 1999-2013, was a Socialist and prominent adversary of US foreign policy and neo-liberalism. Before succumbing to cancer in 2013, Chavez made a much publicized radio announcement in which he speculated that the US government gave him cancer.
Chavez has been quoted as saying, “Would it be so strange that they’ve invented the technology to spread cancer and we won’t know about it for 50 years?” He is also quoted as saying:
“Fidel [Castro] always told me, ‘Chávez take care. These people have developed technology. You are very careless. Take care what you eat, what they give you to eat... a little needle and they inject you with I don’t know what.’ ”
Since his death Venezuela has crumbled into economic chaos.
Vaclav Havel, who was the last president of Czechoslovakia and the first President of the Czech Republic, is somewhat of a more ambiguous character.
While he is seen as being a pivotal player in breaking up the Soviet bloc, and therefore bringing what is popularly termed “democracy” to a formerly Communist country, he may have also been serving US and CIA interests, either unintentionally or otherwise.
In his period of political dissidence, prior to ascending to power, Havel was imprisoned a number of times, the longest incarceration being four years. As President, Havel was instrumental in dismantling the Warsaw Pact and expanding NATO into Eastern European countries. Havel died of lung cancer in 2011 at the age of 75.
The NDP occupies the furthest left of Canada’s political spectrum. Indeed, there has never been an NDP head of state in Canada.
So when the NDP swept the national parliamentary elections in 2011, winning 103 seats, the NDP became Canada’s Official Opposition. Layton’s tenancy as head of the opposition was short lived, however. Layton succumbed to cancer less than four months later, passing on in August of 2011.
He had been committed to ousting the conservative Harper government. Following Layton’s death, the NDP tumbled from its position and currently occupies third place in Canada’s parliament.
As Prime Minister of the tiny island of Barbados, David Thompson could only marginally have been considered a world leader. The population of Barbados is less than 300,000, mostly black. Barbados, also known as “Little England,” is an independent state with the British monarch as hereditary head of state.
Thompson was in office from 2008 until October of 2010, when he passed away from pancreatic cancer, one of the most deadly forms of the Big C.
Statistically, since cancer is listed as cause of death in roughly ¼ of all deaths, one might logically expect that one quarter of the US Presidents and one quarter of the US Vice Presidents, to pick one example, would have cancer listed as cause of death.
With 44 Presidents and 47 Vice Presidents, one might think that somewhere in the realm of 24 or so might have succumbed to cancer.
However, there are none. Zero. Zilch. A search for cancer as a cause of death for German, French or British leaders in the past forty years produces only one name, that of former French President Francois Mitterrand, who succumbed to prostate cancer in 1996 at the age of 80.
Mitterrand was the first French President who was a Socialist and he led the nation for fourteen years, as its longest serving President.
Since the 1972 throat cancer death of Edward VIII - who abdicated the throne in 1936 - no members of British royalty have died of cancer.
In October of this year, the World Cancer Leaders’ Summit will be convening in Paris, France. The announcement for this Summit states that “The World Cancer Leaders’ Summit brings together global decision makers who can shape the way our generation addresses the task of eliminating cancer as a life threatening disease for future generations.”
Their announcement also states:
“The Summit plays a pivotal role in this portfolio of global events by ensuring that the 2020 targets detailed in the World Cancer Declaration are appropriately recognised and addressed at the highest political levels.”
However, those at the “highest political levels” are often seen as escaping repercussions for criminal behavior and worse. The idea of the “Teflon-coated” political elite is an idea that has now gained general - albeit grim - acceptance.
Given the probability that the cure may already exist, in light of the unusual lack of incidence of fatal cancers afflicting the powerful, one might want to ask the Summit if the world leaders might be willing to share... please?
The researchers have found that most of the previous studies into the sweeteners touting their alleged “health advantages” over using sugar as a sweetener, were written or sponsored by the companies that produce the products.
"A trio of researchers from John Hopkins University in Maryland, the University of California San Francisco, and Australia’s University of Sydney took an extensive look at 31 past reviews on the potential weight loss effects of artificial sweeteners.
They found that studies directly funded by sweetener companies or published in industry-funded journals were more likely to find positive health benefits compared to reviews funded independently or by the competing sugar industry.
Similarly, reviews authored by scientists who had a relevant financial conflict of interest were also less likely to shine a harsh light on sweeteners, either directly via positive results or by putting a positive spin on negative results when discussing their conclusions."
"In the 1950s, studies showing a link between coronary heart disease (CHD) and sugar intake started to emerge.
When the sugar industry (which many not-so-affectionately call “Big Sugar”) got wind of this not-so-sweet news, they paid scientists to downplay the link and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, a new study has revealed.
The research, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, was based on thousands of pages of Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) documents, reports, and statements that Cristin E. Kearns, a postdoctoral fellow at UCSF, discovered in the basement at Harvard University.
The SRF (known today as The Sugar Association) sponsored its first CHD “research project” in 1965 – a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The review’s objective was established by SRF, and the group contributed articles for inclusion and received drafts. The SRF’s funding and role was not disclosed.
Why is this a big deal?
Big Sugar paid Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to influence the review, and subsequently spent $600, 000 ($5.3 million in 2016 dollars) to teach “people who had never had a course in biochemistry… that sugar is what keeps every human being alive and with energy to face our daily problems.”
For years many industries have delayed the publication of research that may put their products in a bad light, others have simply paid off researchers to point the finger of blame at other products, as did the Sugar Association in 1967.
The revelations over sweeteners come as no surprise, but they should remind us that we need to do our own research rather than taking something at face value just because there was a “study.”
This isn’t new. The FDA upholds these studies all the time, and products that could literally kill us end up on the store shelves marked as safe, false nutritional information that supports the sugar lobby and the grain lobby is touted as the truth, and Americans get sicker and fatter as a result.
Industries and individual companies have paid researchers to lie or distort the truth on their behalf in order to sell more of their products. Not only is this shameful behavior from the companies, but also from the researchers that compromised their science to accommodate them.
The results of such spurious research have an even further effect. Fewer people start to trust medical and scientific research - including well-executed and honest research.
The answer as always it to look behind the headlines, find the counter arguments, track down the source of the funding, and make your decisions accordingly.
PS: The best quality low-carb sweetener we’ve gotten our hands on is Agave 5 – you can find it here.
Like Tobacco And Big Pharma, The Sugar Industry Has Manipulated Research For 50 Years
Don’t you love people who cling to scientific research without ever questioning who sponsored that research? Using archival documents, a new report published by JAMA Internal Medicine examines the sugar industry’s role in heart disease research.
The study suggests that the sugar industry sponsored research to influence the scientific debate to cast doubt on the hazards of sugar and to promote dietary fat as the culprit in heart disease. Governments worldwide agreed just like they did with the tobacco industry and big pharma.
The sugar industry was instrumental in influencing the prevailing thinking about fat, obesity and related diseases holding that quantifying calories should be a principal concern and target for intervention.
Part of this thinking is that consumed calories - regardless of their sources - are equivalent; i.e. ‘a calorie is a calorie’. There needs to be a greater qualitative focus on the sources of calories consumed (i.e. a greater focus on types of foods) and on the metabolic changes that result from consuming foods of different types.
Calorie-focused thinking is inherently biased against high-fat foods, many of which may be protective against obesity and related diseases, and supportive of starchy and sugary replacements, which are likely detrimental.
The intake of dietary fructose increased significantly from 1970 to 2000. There has been a 25% increase in available “added sugars” during this period. The average person has a daily added sugar intake of 79 g (equivalent to 15% of energy intake), approximately half of which was fructose.
A report - authored by Cristin E. Kearns, Laura A. Schmidt, and Stanton A. Glantz of the University of California, San Francisco - examined internal documents from the Sugar Research Foundation (which later evolved into the Sugar Association).
The Sugar Research Foundation started doing research on coronary heart disease research in 1965; its first project was a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967.
The review focused on fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of coronary heart disease, downplaying sugar consumption as a risk factor.
UCSF researchers have recently claimed sugar should be controlled like alcohol and tobacco to protect public health since it is fueling a global obesity pandemic, contributing to 35 million deaths annually worldwide from non-communicable diseases like diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
While the Sugar Research Foundation’s funding and role were not disclosed, internal documents reveal that the organization set the review’s objective, contributed articles to be included, and received drafts - a “smoking gun” linking the industry’s influence over the research it paid for, writes Marion Nestle in a related commentary, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
“This 50-year-old incident may seem like ancient history, but it is quite relevant, not least because it answers some questions germane to our current era. Is it really true that food companies deliberately set out to manipulate research in their favor?
Yes, it is, and the practice continues,” writes Nestle, the Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU Steinhardt."
“Industry-sponsored nutrition research, like that of research sponsored by the tobacco, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries, almost invariably produces results that confirm the benefits or lack of harm of the sponsor’s products, even when independently sponsored research comes to opposite conclusions,” Nestle adds.
Nestle says the report should serve as a warning to policymakers, researchers, clinicians, and journalists in carefully interpreting studies funded by food companies with vested interests in the results, and highlights the need to find better ways to fund studies and to prevent and disclose conflicts of interest.
WHO Publishes Strategies For EU Healthcare Professionals To Convince Vaccine Deniers Vaccines Are Safe + News On Vaccine Safety Reveals Rampant Corruption October 14 2016 | From: NaturalBlaze / AustralianNationalReview Vaccines are taking a big hit on the refusal side from more and more people doing their due diligence and becoming more fully engaged in knowing what supposedly ‘safe’ vaccines really are about: Fraud and deceit on the part of the U.S. CDC and FDA, plus vested-interest ‘tobacco science’ from Big Pharma and vaccine manufacturers publishing falsified research and data, who ‘export’ their brand of pseudoscience.
Nothing confirms that more than the documentary movie VAXXED currently making the rounds in local movie theaters and on the Internet.
In view of the all the developing negative vaccine research and adverse health issues, the World Health Organization (WHO) apparently is trying to come to vaccines’ rescue by publishing the 44 page 2016 document, “How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public”.
What I found most amazing and ironically ‘curious’, if not pathetic, is the information on page 34 in Chapter 6 “How to Protect Yourself,” referring to the healthcare professional who is encouraged to go out and spread the vaccine ‘gospel’. Paradoxically, the WHO makes the following statement:
You have the right to say ‘No’. Your personal safety comes first. Consider the context and time of the discussion, and weigh up whether it is safe for you to take part.
Your mind stores thousands of pieces of information which it uses to warn you that something is wrong. Trust your instincts when you feel uncomfortable, get away from whatever situation you are in. You will only know if you were wrong if you ignore your instincts – is it worth the risk?"
Apparently, WHO believe doctors have the right of personal safety first, but what are the rights of innocent infants, toddlers, teens and adults from being forced to be vaccinated immediately after birth and into adulthood with Big Pharma’s “poison needles”?
“Trust your instincts when you feel uncomfortable, get away from whatever situation you are in,” is excellent advice to parents when being badgered about vaccines, I offer.
However, the WHO thinks that only applies to medical proselytizers and not those who are bullied into taking vaccines or else suffer untold consequences like your families are discharged from their medical practices! Or, how about having Child Protective Services showing up at a refuser’s front door?
The WHO apparently has concerns about security threats to healthcare professionals from vaccine refusers. I wonder why, especially when children have been damaged for life and parents are getting extremely fed up with how they are treated by the medical and legal professions, healthcare regulatory bodies especially in the USA, e.g., CDC, FDA, state and local health agencies and even school districts.
On page 6 of that report, we see the Goal stated as:
"Make the public audience more resilient against anti-vaccine statements and stories; support the vaccine hesitants in their vaccine acceptance decision."
Readers need to read page 9: how the WHO defines various members of the anti-vaccine movement. However, the WHO does not say anything about all the fines and ethical problems leveled against the pharmaceutical industry because of its inherent bad business practices that have evolved into class action lawsuits and billion-dollar fines from the U.S. CDC / FDA!
What is it that the WHO doesn’t seem to be getting about the problems with the pharmaceutical industry for which it apparently is one of its key promoters?
Personally, I just love this remark on page 15:
"Remember, you are presenting the scientific consensus."
And that sad statement is KEY, since the REAL science is totally different than consensus science!
Consensus science is that which researchers agree to lie about or withhold data about or even discard data into a trash can about, e.g., MMR vaccine-Autism connection and CDC whistleblower William Thompson, PhD, admission or perform incorrect vaccine trials, e.g., placing aluminum adjuvant into control subjects’ vaccines, when those vaccines should be adjuvant-free!
That’s consensus science!
Scientific consensus ignores scientific studies, especially when it comes to vaccine ingredients, or so it really seems. My book Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccinesdiscusses most of the toxic ingredients in vaccines from what scientific studies have found those ingredients are capable of doing as published in peer review literature.
It’s not what I have made up; it’s what published scientific journal articles say about neurotoxins, aluminum in as many as four formulations, ethylmercury (Thimerosal) that’s still found in trace amounts in many vaccines given to infants (YES, that’s a real FACT), formaldehyde / Formalin, dangerous polysorbate 80 that’s been shown to cause infertility in animal studies plus other problems, sodium borate plus a “shopping list” of ingredients such as foreign DNA from animals like monkeys-mouse brain-cattle-insects, including human diploid cells (a line of aborted fetal cells).
Let me not forget to mention mycoplasmas and genetically modified organisms. How can all that ‘scientific’ crap be injected into a less than 25 pound infant and no health damages occur, especially to their not-fully-developed immune system?
Something is terribly wrong with consensus science when it has to bully others into taking harmful products! The WHO apparently recognizes that and is trying to do ‘damage control’ for the next pandemic that probably is in the wings. Here’s a hint: Zika. Or, the refugee crisis in the EU.
On page 22 we read the admonition to;
"Emphasize high safety instead of low risk."
How ridiculous a mantra, when each vaccine package insert  recites contraindications and adverse events, including Guillain-Barré syndrome. But then, it’s consensus science not to tell patients that information as their right under fully informed consent.
On page 23, proselytizers are cautioned about telling the truth. However, the WHO does not tell them how to keep their noses from growing two feet long or what’s called the Pinocchio syndrome.
On page 24, WHO reiterates the sorry mantra about consensus science:
"11. Underline scientific consensus
Research in the area of climate change shows that the belief in a scientific fact increases when consensus is highlighted . However, identifying a scientific consensus requires a thorough understanding of the specific area of interest and a layperson will not gain that knowledge all by himself .
Therefore, highlighting the scientific consensus in public is a powerful tool to transfer essential scientific knowledge and increase belief in a scientific fact, especially when presented in a simple and short message ."
Underline scientific consensus with regard to vaccine safety and efficacy.
Boy, has WHO really placed itself precariously out on the credibility limb it’s sawing off when it includes climate change as scientific fact.
With weather geoengineering, Solar Radiation Management, “chemtrails,” HAARPs around the globe and the information about “smart clouds” I discussed that’s in the U.S. Air Force report about owning the weather by 2025 in my article “What’s Up With the Newest Presidential Executive Order?”, WHO ought to be embarrassed beyond embarrassment, plus be regarded as the Illuminati’s toady it apparently is.
WHO wants proselytizers to “Emphasize social benefits of vaccines.” Does that mean that ‘herd immunity’ is not discussed for what it really is - treating humans like cattle? What are the social benefits of vaccines when lives and families are damaged?
When there is total denial by doctors and others with almost no recourse at law in the USA because the U.S. Congress disenfranchised healthcare consumers’ rights by giving vaccine manufacturers a “get out of jail free” card from any legal and financial liability for product damage from vaccines?
But things are different in the European Union where lawsuits are being filed against vaccine manufacturers, and thus one of the probable reasons for WHO’s “How to respond…” report.
How about the “Algorithm of how to respond” on page 29! Studying that algorithm should give everyone some clever hints on how to respond to the proselytizers, I think.
The WHO’s bibliography of References ought to be studied as a strategy ‘play book’ to use in beating them at their own game regarding vaccine consensus science, I offer. There are 51 member states in the European Union. The recent manufactured refugee crisis in the EU probably is of much concern to WHO, since many refugees obviously will need to be convinced to take those poison needles.
News On Vaccine Safety Reveals Rampant Corruption
When people hear about life threatening conditions such as seizure, cardiovascular ailments and encephalitis, the first thing that comes to their minds is viruses. These are the harmful side effects of Gardasil, an HPV vaccine that are given to 9-year-old children.
There are many more vaccines that pose similar health dangers that are being given to children.
NaturalNews Talk Hour reveals the harmful side effects of vaccination with PhD scholars Judy Mikovits and Jonathan Landsman that our government doesn’t want you to know.
Dr Mikovits feels that the possibility of latent viruses released into the system in the form of vaccines can be unleashed due to the response of dendritic cells in our body, which release inflammatory messages to cytokines, triggering inflammation. She terms this response as ‘cytokine storm’.
The Shocking Truth About Mandatory Vaccines Revealed
This response of the body could lead to permanent damage to the body’s immune system, which would ultimately lead to a lifetime of diseases.
The body can have very severe effects from vaccination, a phenomenon known as ‘vaccine injuries’. Diseases like myalgic encephalomyelitis, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, autism and polycystic ovarian syndrome can also be caused by vaccine injuries.
The government has always hidden the harmful effects of vaccination on the grounds of coincidence or no specific reason. Some members of the health administration have even gone as far as saying that the after effects of vaccination are actually psychogenic in nature.
Dr Mikovits’ new publication, ‘Plague’, draws to the many responses that the government have, or have had for vaccine side effects.
The side effects aren’t just caused by the antigens present in the vaccines. The additives used in most vaccines to trigger immune response are also very toxic in nature and are equally harmful to our system, if not more.
The alternative media is flooded with the singular admission of a whistleblower at the CDC that lab results were faked. The alternative media is flooded with 127 papers on the connection of thimerosal with autism.
Borax, a sodium compound present in vaccines, depletes important micronutrients from the body such as zinc, magnesium and calcium. Dr Mikovits also reveals that vaccinations should not be given to children under 3 years, as it affects brain development.
Dr Mikovits is a pioneer in the field of immunology and a PhD scholar from George Washington University.
The Flawed Germ Theory; Unfortunately The Basis Of Modern Medicine
October 8 2016 | From: Tbyil Ever wonder why modern medicine is not helping the populations of the western world to become healthier? Maybe the foundation for health is wrong.
Pasteur's germ theory of disease has helped forward the one germ for one disease concept that has raised Big Pharma to the wealthy business of developing drugs for one germ to purportedly cure one disease while causing autoimmune and chronic diseases to flourish from destroyed immune systems.
Germ phobia, here comes the flu, get your flu shots or you may wind up as one of the 36,000 who manage to die from it each year according to the CDC. It's never more, never less - 36,000 deaths each flu season. Isn't there something fishy about that?
Then get out the antibiotics for every case of the sniffles. Don't forget the pharmaceutical antiviral Tamiflu, expensive, not so effective, and dangerous. The germ theory has turned out to be great for the pharmaceutical business model.
Now we have those nasty mosquitoes carrying the Zika virus, which has no real history of being problematic. So spray everything and everyone with toxic chemicals that do cause disease. And let's not forget those new vaccines. Over a billion dollars of government money has been recently set aside for Zika virus research and vaccines.
Why the Germ Theory is Flawed
The following quote is used by Dr. Robert O. Young in his book Sick and Tired?: Reclaim Your Inner Terrain:
“If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat - diseased tissue - rather than being the cause of the diseased tissue; e.g., mosquitoes seek the stagnant water, but do not cause the pool to become stagnant.”
- Dr. Rudolph Virchow (Father of Pathology 1821 - 1902)
Pasteur was the original scammer of the germ theory, not considered a worthy scientist by his peers. But he had good press. Media bias and corruption are nothing new.
Other scientists, especially Claude Bernard, claimed the inner terrain, which includes overall and organ specific pH levels and all facets of the immune system countered Pasteur's one germ for one disease theory with claims of pleomorphism within damaged or diseased tissue, which the Medical Mafia and Big Pharma refused to acknowledge.
Pleomorphism was proven when Royal Raymond Rife's universal microscope in the late 1930s revealed structural changes in microbes, up to 16, according their host's environment. Microbes can start out as benign then alter themselves to survive if one's inner terrain is unhealthy.
In other words, inflammation and tissue degeneration with acidic pH levels attract pathogenic microbes or encourage existing ones into morphing as pathogenic microbes if already present and harmless or even beneficial. The germ theory hoax is the basis of modern pharmaceutical medicine and killing good food with pasteurization and irradiation.
Not only do our highly acidic junk and processed foods with add sugars promote acidic pH levels under 7.3, so do overworking, stress, and anger. The combination of our environmental toxic load and inadequate nutrition lead to the stagnant pools within our tissues that become the breeding grounds for existing or new pathogenic microbes to thrive.
Detoxing and seeking fresh whole foods with the proper supplements offer more disease protection from germs than all the vaccines in the world.
Vaccinations offer the following tradeoffs for thwarting germs: Death, lifelong disability, or most commonly autoimmune disease vulnerability.
Haven't you noticed? Autoimmune diseases and allergies have risen with the rise in vaccination schedules.
There have been studies in the USA among Amish children and in Europe among those raised on small dairy farms that demonstrate how being exposed to germs at an early age exercises the immune system and make it stronger, thus rendering natural immunization.
This is where rude, crude, over the top and hilarious George Carlin comes in:
Another Reason to Not Trust the CDC's Fear Mongering
Sharyl Attkinson was the news producer for CBS's Washington Bureau. During the Swine Flu “pandemic” of 2008-9, she was intent at getting to the truth of just how much of an epidemic it really was. Sharyl, who is now independent with her own website and her book Stonewalled in circulation, questioned the authenticity of the CDC's reportage on incidents of Swine Flu.
After being stonewalled by the CDC with her Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for detailed statistics on the Swine Flu, she and her CBS Washington Bureau news staff did an end around – they went directly to state health departments and discovered only a very few flu cases, mostly single digit numbers, tested positive for Swine Flu.
Those numbers were not nearly enough to justify claims of a level 6 pandemic, considered the most severe and dangerous international pandemic level.
Then the CDC attempted damage control by announcing they had stopped counting because there were millions of Swine Flu cases and they couldn't keep up with it.
Wow, if the first lie doesn't work then tell a bigger one, even if it doesn't make any sense at all. This incident forced Sharyl out of mainstream news. Can't question the CDC on mainstream TV.
You're better off sticking with alternative media and holistic health approaches for establishing a stronger immune system by lessening your toxic chemical load and increasing your nutritional level with organic foods and supplements.
Red Cross Built Exactly 6 Homes For Haiti With Nearly Half A Billion Dollars In Donations
October 1 2016 | From: Propublica / Various
The neighborhood of Campeche sprawls up a steep hillside in Haiti’s capital city, Port-au-Prince. Goats rustle in trash that goes forever uncollected. Children kick a deflated volleyball in a dusty lot below a wall with a hand-painted logo of the American Red Cross.
In late 2011, the Red Cross launched a multimillion-dollar project to transform the desperately poor area, which was hit hard by the earthquake that struck Haiti the year before. The main focus of the project — called LAMIKA, an acronym in Creole for “A Better Life in My Neighborhood” — was building hundreds of permanent homes.
Today, not one home has been built in Campeche. Many residents live in shacks made of rusty sheet metal, without access to drinkable water, electricity or basic sanitation. When it rains, their homes flood and residents bail out mud and water.
The Red Cross received an outpouring of donations after the quake, nearly half a billion dollars.
The group has publicly celebrated its work. But in fact, the Red Cross has repeatedly failed on the ground in Haiti. Confidential memos, emails from worried top officers, and accounts of a dozen frustrated and disappointed insiders show the charity has broken promises, squandered donations, and made dubious claims of success.
The Red Cross says it has provided homes to more than 130,000 people. But the actual number of permanent homes the group has built in all of Haiti: six.
After the earthquake, Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern unveiled ambitious plans to “develop brand-new communities.” None has ever been built.
Haitians outside a Red Cross field hospital in Carrefour, Haiti, on Dec. 14, 2010, 11 months after a magnitude 7.0 earthquake hit the country's capital, Port-au-Prince
Aid organizations from around the world have struggled after the earthquake in Haiti, the Western Hemisphere’s poorest country. But ProPublica and NPR’s investigation shows that many of the Red Cross’s failings in Haiti are of its own making.
They are also part of a larger pattern in which the organization has botched delivery of aid after disasters such as Superstorm Sandy. Despite its difficulties, the Red Cross remains the charityof choice for ordinary Americans and corporations alike after natural disasters.
One issue that has hindered the Red Cross’ work in Haiti is an overreliance on foreigners who could not speak French or Creole, current and former employees say.
In a blistering 2011 memo, the then-director of the Haiti program, Judith St. Fort, wrote that the group was failing in Haiti and that senior managers had made “very disturbing” remarks disparaging Haitian employees. St. Fort, who is Haitian American, wrote that the comments included, “he is the only hard working one among them” and “the ones that we have hired are not strong so we probably should not pay close attention to Haitian CVs.”
The Red Cross won’t disclose details of how it has spent the hundreds of millions of dollars donated for Haiti. But our reporting shows that less money reached those in need than the Red Cross has said.
Where did the half billion raised for Haiti go? The Red Cross won’t say.
Lacking the expertise to mount its own projects, the Red Cross ended up giving much of the money to other groups to do the work. Those groups took out a piece of every dollar to cover overhead and management. Even on the projects done by others, the Red Cross had its own significant expenses – in one case, adding up to a third of the project’s budget.
In statements, the Red Cross cited the challenges all groups have faced in post-quake Haiti, including the country’s dysfunctional land title system.
“Like many humanitarian organizations responding in Haiti, the American Red Cross met complications in relation to government coordination delays, disputes over land ownership, delays at Haitian customs, challenges finding qualified staff who were in short supply and high demand, and the cholera outbreak, among other challenges,” the charity said.
The group said it responded quickly to internal concerns, including hiring an expert to train staff on cultural competency after St. Fort’s memo.
Minouche Lamour, a member of the Community Platform for Development in Campeche, says she doesn't see how millions of dollars from the Red Cross could have been spent in her neighborhood
While the group won’t provide a breakdown of its projects, the Red Cross said it has done more than 100. The projects include repairing 4,000 homes, giving several thousand families temporary shelters, donating $44 million for food after the earthquake, and helping fund the construction of a hospital.
"Millions of Haitians are safer, healthier, more resilient, and better prepared for future disasters thanks to generous donations to the American Red Cross,” McGovern wrote in a recent report marking the fifth anniversary of the earthquake."
In other promotional materials, the Red Cross said it has helped “more than 4.5 million” individual Haitians “get back on their feet.”
Oops. Busted - The Order of St. John; a secret society under deep cover - hidden in plain sight, a classic esoteric 'laughing at the goyim who are too stupid to see' hallmark. Compare the St. John logo with the flag above. St. John is admittedly run by The Knights of Malta. Similarly, Red Cross has it's origins in the esoteric and was influenced by John D Rockefe;ler. While the Freemasons are lees inclined to admit their stewardship directly. Charities? Throw your money away if you like. It is quite well known nowadays that most of the money given to charity organisations never get's to where it was intended. Those pulling the strings simply play on peoples good nature
It has not provided details to back up the claim. And Jean-Max Bellerive, Haiti’s prime minister at the time of the earthquake, doubts the figure, pointing out the country’s entire population is only about 10 million.
"No, no,” Bellerive said of the Red Cross’ claim, “it’s not possible.”
When the earthquake struck Haiti in January 2010, the Red Cross was facing a crisis of its own. McGovern had become chief executive just 18 months earlier, inheriting a deficit and an organization that had faced scandals after 9/11 and Katrina.
Inside the Red Cross, the Haiti disaster was seen as “a spectacular fundraising opportunity,” recalled one former official who helped organize the effort. Michelle Obama, the NFL and a long list of celebrities appealed for donations to the group.
The Red Cross kept soliciting money well after it had enough for the emergency relief that is the group’s stock in trade. Doctors Without Borders, in contrast, stopped fundraising off the earthquake after it decided it had enough money. The donations to the Red Cross helped the group erase its more-than $100 million deficit.
The Red Cross ultimately raised far more than any other charity.
A year after the quake, McGovern announced that the Red Cross would use the donations to make a lasting impact in Haiti.
We asked the Red Cross to show us around its projects in Haiti so we could see the results of its work. It declined. So earlier this year we went to Campeche to see one of the group’s signature projects for ourselves.
Street vendors in the dusty neighborhood immediately pointed us to Jean Jean Flaubert, the head of a community group that the Red Cross set up as a local sounding board.
Sitting with us in their sparse one-room office, Flaubert and his colleagues grew angry talking about the Red Cross. They pointed to the lack of progress in the neighborhood and the healthy salaries paid to expatriate aid workers.
"What the Red Cross told us is that they are coming here to change Campeche. Totally change it,” said Flaubert.
“Now I do not understand the change that they are talking about. I think the Red Cross is working for themselves.”
The Red Cross’ initial plan said the focus would be building homes — an internal proposal put the number at 700. Each would have finished floors, toilets, showers, even rainwater collection systems. The houses were supposed to be finished in January 2013.
The Red Cross promised to build hundreds of new homes in Campeche but none have been built. Many residents still live in crude shacks. (Marie Arago, special to ProPublica)
None of that ever happened. Carline Noailles, who was the project’s manager in Washington, said it was endlessly delayed because the Red Cross “didn’t have the know-how.”
Another former official who worked on the Campeche project said, “Everything takes four times as long because it would be micromanaged from DC, and they had no development experience.”
Shown an English-language press release from the Red Cross website, Flaubert was stunned to learn of the project’s $24 million budget — and that it is due to end next year.
"Not only is [the Red Cross] not doing it,” Flaubert said, “now I’m learning that the Red Cross is leaving next year. I don’t understand that.”
(The Red Cross says it did tell community leaders about the end date. It also accused us of “creating ill will in the community which may give rise to a security incident.”)
The project has since been reshaped and downscaled. A road is being built. Some existing homes have received earthquake reinforcement and a few schools are being repaired. Some solar street lights have been installed, though many broke and residents say others are unreliable.
The group’s most recent press release on the project cites achievements such as training school children in disaster response.
The Red Cross said it has to scale back its housing plans because it couldn’t acquire the rights to land. No homes will be built.
Other Red Cross infrastructure projects also fizzled.
In January 2011, McGovern announced a $30 million partnership with the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID. The agency would build roads and other infrastructure in at least two locations where the Red Cross would build new homes.
But it took more than two and a half years, until August 2013, for the Red Cross just to sign an agreement with USAID on the program, and even that was for only one site. The program was ultimately canceled because of a land dispute.
A Government Accountability Office report attributed the severe delays to problems “in securing land title and because of turnover in Red Cross leadership” in its Haiti program.
Other groups also ran into trouble with land titles and other issues. But they also ultimately built 9,000 homes compared to the Red Cross’ six.
Asked about the Red Cross’ housing projects in Haiti, David Meltzer, the group’s general counsel and chief international officer, said changing conditions forced changes in plans. “If we had said, ‘All we’re going to do is build new homes,’ we’d still be looking for land,” he said.
The USAID project’s collapse left the Red Cross grasping for ways to spend money earmarked for it.
“Can we fund Conrad’s hospital? Or more to PiH[Partners in Health]? Any more shelter projects?”
Jean Jean Flaubert says the Red Cross promised to transform his neighborhood. “Now I do not understand the change that they are talking about,” he said. (Marie Arago, special to ProPublica)
It’s not clear what helicopter idea McGovern was referring to or if it was ever carried out. The Red Cross would say only that her comments were “grounded in the American Red Cross’ strategy and priorities, which focus on health and housing.”
Another signature project, known in Creole as “A More Resilient Great North,” is supposed to rehabilitate roads in poor, rural communities and to help them get clean water and sanitation.
But two years after it started, the $13 million effort has been faltering badly. An internal evaluation from March found residents were upset because nothing had been done to improve water access or infrastructure or to make “contributions of any sort to the well being of households,” the report said.
The Red Cross says 91% of donations went to help Haitians. That’s not true.
Instead of making concrete improvements to living conditions, the Red Cross has launched hand-washing education campaigns. The internal evaluation noted that these were “not effective when people had no access to water and no soap.” (The Red Cross declined to comment on the project.)
The group’s failures went beyond just infrastructure.
When a cholera epidemic raged through Haiti nine months after the quake, the biggest part of the Red Cross’ response — a plan to distribute soap and oral rehydration salts — was crippled by “internal issues that go unaddressed,” wrote the director of the Haiti program in her May 2011 memo.
Throughout that year, cholera was a steady killer. By September 2011, when the death toll had surpassed 6,000, the project was still listed as “very behind schedule” according to another internal document.
The Red Cross said in a statement that its cholera response, including a vaccination campaign, has continued for years and helped millions of Haitians.
But while other groups also struggled early responding to cholera, some performed well.
"None of these people had to die. That’s what upsets me,” said Paul Christian Namphy, a Haitian water and sanitation official who helped lead the effort to fight cholera. He says early failures by the Red Cross and other NGOs had a devastating impact.
“These numbers should have been zero.”
So why did the Red Cross’ efforts fall so short? It wasn’t just that Haiti is a hard place to work.
"They collected nearly half a billion dollars,” said a congressional staffer who helped oversee Haiti reconstruction.
“But they had a problem. And the problem was that they had absolutely no expertise.”
Lee Malany was in charge of the Red Cross’ shelter program in Haiti starting in 2010.
He remembers a meeting in Washington that fall where officials did not seem to have any idea how to spend millions of dollars set aside for housing. Malany says the officials wanted to know which projects would generate good publicity, not which projects would provide the most homes.
"When I walked out of that meeting I looked at the people that I was working with and said, ‘You know this is very disconcerting, this is depressing,’” he recalled.
The Red Cross said in a statement its Haiti program has never put publicity over delivering aid.
Malany resigned the next year from his job in Haiti.
"I said there’s no reason for me to stay here. I got on the plane and left.”
Transitional shelters like these on the outskirts of Port-Au-Prince, paid for by the Red Cross, typically last three to five years.
Sometimes it wasn’t a matter of expertise, but whether anybody was filling key jobs. An April 2012 organizational chart obtained by ProPublica and NPR lists 9 of 30 leadership positions in Haiti as vacant, including slots for experts on health and shelter.
The Red Cross said vacancies and turnover were inevitable because of “the security situation, separation from family for international staff, and the demanding nature of the work.”
The constant upheaval took a toll. Internal documents refer to repeated attempts over years to “finalize” and “complete” a strategic plan for the Haiti program, efforts that were delayed by changes in senior management. As late as March 2014, more than four years into a six-year program, an internal update cites a “revised strategy” still awaiting “final sign-off.”
The Red Cross says it provided homes to more than 130,000 Haitians. But they didn’t.
The Red Cross said settling on a plan early would have been a mistake. “It would be hard to create the perfect plan from the beginning in a complicated place like Haiti,” it said. “But we also need to begin, so we create plans that are continually revised.”
Those plans were further undermined by the Red Cross’ reliance on expats. Noailles, the Haitian development professional who worked for the Red Cross on the Campeche project, said expat staffers struggled in meetings with local officials.
"Going to meetings with the community when you don’t speak the language is not productive,” she said. "Sometimes, she recalled, expat staffers would skip such meetings altogether.
The Red Cross said it has “made it a priority to hire Haitians” despite lots of competition for local professionals, and that over 90 percent of its staff is Haitian. The charity said it used a local human resources firm to help.
Yet very few Haitians have made it into the group’s top echelons in Haiti, according to five current and former Red Cross staffers as well as staff lists obtained by ProPublica and NPR.
That not only affected the group’s ability to work in Haiti, it was also expensive.
According to an internal Red Cross budgeting document for the project in Campeche, the project manager – a position reserved for an expatriate – was entitled to allowances for housing, food and other expenses, home leave trips, R&R four times a year, and relocation expenses. In all, it added up to $140,000.
Compensation for a senior Haitian engineer — the top local position — was less than one-third of that, $42,000 a year.
Shelim Dorval, a Haitian administrator who worked for the Red Cross coordinating travel and housing for expatriate staffers, recalled thinking it was a waste to spend so much to bring in people with little knowledge of Haiti when locals were available.
"For each one of those expats, they were having high salaries, staying in a fancy house, and getting vacation trips back to their countries,” Dorval said.
“A lot of money was spent on those people who were not Haitian, who had nothing to do with Haiti. The money was just going back to the United States.”
Soon after the earthquake, McGovern, the Red Cross CEO, said the group would make sure donors knew exactly what happened to their money.
The Red Cross would “lead the effort in transparency,” she pledged. “We are happy to share the way we are spending our dollars.”
That hasn’t happened. The Red Cross’ public reports offer only broad categories about where $488 million in donations has gone. The biggest category is shelter, at about $170 million. The others include health, emergency relief and disaster preparedness.
After the earthquake, Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern unveiled plans to “develop brand-new communities.” None has ever been built.
It has declined repeated requests to disclose the specific projects, to explain how much money went to each or to say what the results of each project were.There is reason to doubt the Red Cross’ claims that it helped 4.5 million Haitians.
In other cases, the figures were low, and in others double-counting went uncorrected.
In describing its work, the Red Cross also conflates different types of aid, making it more difficult to assess the charity’s efforts in Haiti.
For example, while the Red Cross says it provided more than 130,000 people with homes, that includes thousands of people who were not actually given homes, but rather were “trained in proper construction techniques.” (That was first reported by the Haiti blog of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.)
The figure includes people who got short-term rental assistance or were housed in several thousand “transitional shelters,” which are temporary structures that can get eaten up by termites or tip over in storms.
It also includes modest improvements on 5,000 temporary shelters.The Red Cross also won’t break down what portion of donations went to overhead.
McGovern told CBS News a few months after the quake, “Minus the 9 cents overhead, 91 cents on the dollar will be going to Haiti.
And I give you my word and my commitment, I’m banking my integrity, my own personal sense of integrity on that statement.”
But the reality is that less money went to Haiti than 91 percent.
That’s because in addition to the Red Cross’ 9 percent
overhead, the other groups that got grants from the Red Cross also have their own overhead.
In one case, the Red Cross sent $6 million to the International Federation of the Red Cross for rental subsidies to help Haitians leave tent camps.
The IFRC then took out 26 percent for overhead and what the IFRC described as program-related “administration, finance, human resources” and similar costs.
Beyond all that, the Red Cross also spends another piece of each dollar for what it describes as “program costs incurred by the American Red Cross in managing” the projects done by other groups.
The American Red Cross’ management and other costs consumed an additional 24 percent of the money on one project, according to the group’s statements and internal documents. The actual work, upgrading shelters, was done by the Swiss and Spanish Red Cross societies.
"It’s a cycle of overhead,” said Jonathan Katz, the Associated Press reporter in Haiti at the time of the earthquake who tracked post-disaster spending for his book, The Big Truck That Went By.
“It was always going to be the American Red Cross taking a 9 percent cut, re-granting to another group, which would take out their cut.”
Given the results produced by the Red Cross’ projects in Haiti, Bellerive, the former prime minister, said he has a hard time fathoming what’s happened to donors’ money.
"Five hundred million dollars in Haiti is a lot of money,” he said. “I’m not a big mathematician, but I can make some additions. I know more or less the cost of things. Unless you don’t pay for the gasoline the same price I was paying, unless you pay people 20 times what I was paying them, unless the cost of the house you built was five times the cost I was paying, it doesn’t add up for me.”
A resident in a Port-Au-Prince transitional shelter paid for by the Red Cross.
This story was co-published with NPR. Mitzy-Lynn Hyacinthe contributed reporting. Design direction by David Sleight, production by Hannah Birch.
If you have information about the Red Cross or about other international aid projects, please email email@example.com.
Dangerous Products That We’re Unknowingly Using In Our Day-To-Day Life
+ The Cancer Risk To People Who Drink Chlorinated Water Is 93% Higher Than Those Who Don’t September 30 2016 | From: NewEasternOutlook / EnvirowatchRangitikei / Varous
In today’s highly controversial and aggressive world, virtually anything can present a threat to the life of a human being, not just wars, climate change, or short-sighted and often criminal actions of certain politicians.
As it has been shown by a number of scientific studies, the activities of a number of American corporations present a very real threat the well-being of the population mainly due to the use of genetically modified substances in their products while manufacturing substandard health and beauty aids.
The truth is that it’s the people of developing countries that are being affected by these fraudulent business practices the most, since Western corporations try to suppress any information about the health effects of their products to obtain maximum profit.
At the end of the twentieth century British scientists have come to a sensational conclusion that parabens are capable of penetrating the skin barrier and are being accumulated in the tissues of the body, causing cancer, hormone system failures, endocrine system suppression, and skin diseases.
Research made this finding while studying malignant tumors in breast tissue, all of which contained parabens, Later on, these findings were confirmed by Canadian and French scientists.
Parabens are artificial preservatives that are often used in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industry by a number of Western corporations.
Even though they are effectively increasing the shelf life of a product, while remaining relatively cheap to use, parabens pose a serious threat to human health and well-being.
From time to time one can come across articles on the harmful effects of parabens in Europe and the United States, forcing certain companies to replace parabens with less harmful preservatives. However, the markets of developing countries, especially those with hot and humid climates, are flooded with Western cosmetic products that contain the dangerous substance.
In order to attract international attention to this danger, the French Le Monde went as far as to publish a list of the 400 Western pharmaceutical products containing parabens and that are, therefore, dangerous for use or consumption.
In this list one may find the baby cream Biafine, such cough medicines as Clarix, Codotussyl, Drill, Hexapneumine, Humex, Pectosan, and Rhinathiol, stomach relief medicine such as Maalox, Gaviscon, Josacine, and antibiotic Zinnat, along with a list of other drugs produced by Western corporations and actively advertised for mass consumption.
As it has been pointed out by French journalists, numerous studies have shown that drugs from this list compromise the functioning of the hormone system, especially the reproductive ability of men and women, and may result in cancer.
At the same time, scientists are stressing the danger of hydro-alcoholic gels which were brought to the market in the wake of the artificially created hysteria around the “danger” of the so-called “bird flu,” the H1N1. These gels are advertised as the ultimate solution for sanitizing hands and body in the absence of soap.
A study carried out by the University of Missouri and published in the Plos ONE journal shows that hydro-alcoholic gels make a person more susceptible to Bisphénol-A.
In 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officially recognized that Bisphénol-A is harmful to human health due to the negative effect it has on brain functions and the reproductive system. It also causes a number of cancers (in both women and men) – in particular, prostate cancer, breast cancer as well as autism, depression, reproductive and endocrine systems failure, delays in brain development, diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.
Yet another study conducted in Argentina showed that 85% of the women’s hygienic pads presented a serious threat to women since they contain the chemically hazardous substance known as glyphosate.
This fact was revealed by researchers of the National Argentine University of La Plata at a recent congress of physicians in Buenos Aires, upon examining sanitary towels and sanitary pads produced with the use of genetically-modified cotton that was grown using Roundup herbicide of the American company Monsanto-Bayer.
As we learn from this study,after the use of this herbicide, all cotton products contain this carcinogenic substance. For this reason, there’s been a massive movement in many countries through the collection of signatures to force such producers as Tampax or Always to state the composition of their products.
The Cancer Risk To People Who Drink Chlorinated Water Is 93% Higher Than Those Who Don’t
This information is from well known Dr Mercola. If you go to the link you can download his free ebook, an excellent resource that will show you how to protect yourself and your loved ones from health risks by choosing the best water to drink and bathe in.
Need I repeat? We need to be vigilant in what we expose ourselves to today because corporate interests are such that they will focus on profits not on your health. Be vigilant and be informed.
What if that clear, clean-looking liquid you use every day – to quench your thirst, to bathe and shower in, and to wash your dishes and laundry in contributed to dozens of everyday ailments, including…heart attacks, tiredness, sinus problems, sperm count, risk of miscarriage, a weakened immune system and many more.
Truth is, the water we use in and around our homes is far from the fresh, pure resource you might assume. And the worst part is…
Americans are ingesting from 300 to 600 times what the Environmental Protection Agency considers a “safe” amount while chlorine itself is relatively benign, and was created to help keep us free from infectious diarrheas, it reacts with organic materials which already dissolve in water, forming chemicals (known as DBP’s) that are over 100 times more toxic than chlorine…
According to the U.S. Council of Environmental Quality, the cancer risk to people who drink chlorinated water is 93 percent higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine.
The residents of a small town in Pennsylvania who ate diets rich in saturated animal fats and milk had no heart attacks – until they switched from mountain spring water to fluoridated water.
Research from the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands discovered that people who swam in chlorinated pools or polluted waters as children had 2.2 to 2.4 times the risk of developing melanoma compared to those who did not swim in chlorinated waters.
Male smokers who drank chlorinated tap water for more than 40 years had double the risk of bladder cancer as smoking males who drank non-chlorinated water.
Is October Breast Cancer "Awareness" Or "Industry" Month?
September 29 2016 | From: DrMcDougall
October is commonly known as "Breast Cancer Awareness Month." This is an annual, international campaign organized by major charities to increase the awareness of breast cancer and to raise funds for research.
"A lot of awareness has been created, but unfortunately there has been no useful progress made in finding the cause, or for effectively preventing, treating, or curing breast cancer."- HORSESHIT
Comment: In 100 years of 'modern medicine' research not ONE cure for ANY DISEASE has ever been allowed to emerge through the medical establishment - because the upper echelons of the establishment are not interested in cures or addressing causes - only in addressing symptoms - for profit.
Slowly people are waking up to this, especially with the news of natural cures being so successful, remedies that the pharmaceutical industry CANNOT PATENT and therefore cannot CONTROL not PROFIT from. And so they lobby to have real, natural remedies SLANDERED and OUTLAWED.
So, put your coins in the buckets but know that you are further funding the medical establishment that will NEVER RELEASE A CURE FOR CANCER if they have their way.
We do not have a Healthcare System - that label is a farce. We have
a Sickness Industry. Driven by the mandates and objectives of the 'elite' at the top. They have no interest in wellness nor cures.
They wish to keep you as sick as they can for as long as they can whilst extracting as much money from you as they can in the process. This is not just about money, but consolidation of power and population control, otherwise known as Eugenics.
The campaign's efforts have, however, increased the number of women diagnosed with breast cancer, primarily by encouraging mammograms, and the use of powerful treatments, such as surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.
The conflicts of interest between businesses sponsoring breast cancer awareness campaigns while at the same time profiting from breast cancer diagnosis and treatment have resulted in October also being known as "Breast Cancer Industry Month."
The same year that the Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaign was founded (1985) as a team effort between the American Cancer Society and a pharmaceutical company (AstraZeneca), I wrote McDougall's Medicine: A Challenging Second Opinion.
This book includes a comprehensive chapter on the testing and treatment of breast cancer. After reading this scientifically backed material (click the link over the book cover) you will be shocked to learn that medical doctors and scientists have known for more than 30 years about the harms that are still being done to women.
Countless women have been subjected to life-damaging fear, testing, biopsies, radiation, breast amputations, drugs, and death, with little, if any, improvement in the quality or quantity of their lives.
The reason this inhumanity continues is that the business of diagnosing and treating breast cancer generates a great deal of money for medical practices, far more than would be generated through alleviating women's suffering.
Three major articles that made worldwide headlines were published this year (2015) during Breast Cancer Awareness Month (October), proving that the ineffective ways women have been cared for is widely known. McDougall's Medicine: A Challenging Second Opinion shows you that this is old news.
The first article was published in JAMA Oncology and was a 20-year study of more than 108,000 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)* patients who had undergone treatment.
The headline-grabbing news was the finding that there was no significant difference in survival among women who had a mastectomy, a lumpectomy, or a lumpectomy followed by radiation. Surgery and/or radiation do not save lives (not even for women with invasive cancer).
This organization now recommends that most women should start annual screenings at age 45 rather than at 40, and also advises switching screening to every other year at 55. This update also recommends no routine physical breast exams to be performed by doctors, concluding that there is no evidence that these exams save lives.
The third study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and found the rate of cancers that have spread beyond the breast when detected has stayed stable since 1975, meaning that mammograms are not preventing the most deadly (metastatic) forms of breast cancer.
McDougall's Medicine: A Challenging Second Opinion can be ordered as a PDF and found in libraries and secondhand bookstores. However, you can read this chapter on breast cancer now by clicking on the book cover above.
*DCIS refers to the formal name, ductal carcinoma in situ. This condition is also referred to as stage 0 breast cancer. The implication is that the abnormal "cancer appearing" cells remain in the milk ducts and show no evidence of spread to other parts of the body. Because the cells have not spread, DCIS is really not cancer.
Many doctors and scientists are calling for a new name for this condition in an effort to reduce the fear and over-treatment caused by the word "cancer."
Modern Life Is Killing Our Children: UK Cancer Rate In Young People Up 40% In 16 Years + 12 Things A Cancer Doctor Should Never Say
September 25 2016 | From: TheTelegraph / TheTruthAboutCancer / Various
Modern life is killing children with the number of youngsters diagnosed with cancer rising 40 per cent in the past 16 years because of air pollution, pesticides, poor diets and radiation, scientists have warned. These two articles include a massive dump on cancer topics both causes and solutions.
New analysis of government statistics by researchers at the charity Children with Cancer UK found that there are now 1,300 more cancer cases a year compared with 1998, the first time all data sets were published.
Note: As this first article is from the controlled mainstream it makes ridiculous statements like the causes of cancer not being known. Interspresed are links to various other articles and resources.
Dr Denis Henshaw, Professor of Human Radiation Effects at Bristol University, the scientific adviser for Children with Cancer UK, said air pollution was by far the biggest culprit, accounting for around 40 per cent of the rise, but other elements of modern lifestyles are also to blame.
Among these are obesity, pesticides and solvents inhaled during pregnancy, circadian rhythm disruption through too much bright light at night, radiation from x-rays and CT scans, smoking during and after pregnancy, magnetic fields from power lines, gadgets in homes, and potentially, radiation from mobile phones.
Children are surrounded by electrical fields, warn scientists
"When you look at cancers such as childhood leukaemia there is no doubt that environmental factors are playing a big role,” said Dr Henshaw. “We were shocked to see the figures, and it’s modern lifestyle I’m afraid."
“Many items on the list of environmental causes are now known to be carcinogenic, such as air pollution and pesticides and solvents. There has been good research to suggest a mother's diet can damage DNA in cord blood. Light at night we know is very disruptive for the body, which is why shift workers have such bad health.
Burnt barbecues, the electric fields of power lines, the electricity supply in your home. Hairdryers. It’s all of these things coming together, and it seems to be teenagers and young people that are most affected.
What’s worrying is it is very hard to avoid a lot of these things. How can you avoid air pollution? It sometimes feels like we are fighting a losing battle.”
Diagnoses of colon cancer among children and young people has risen 200 per cent since 1998, while thyroid cancer has doubled. Ovarian and cervical cancers have also risen by 70 per cent and 50 per cent respectively.
The charity estimates that the rise in cases now costs the NHS an extra £130 million a year compared with 16 years ago.
But experts believe many cancers could be prevented with lifestyle changes such as allowing children to attend nursery to boost their immune system, not painting children’s rooms with oil-based paints, avoiding night shift work and processed meats in pregnancy.
The figures were released ahead of the Children with Cancer UK conference which is taking place in London this week.
Other cancer experts said they had also noticed a rise in cancer diagnoses but warned it was too early to draw firm conclusions on the causes.
Nicola Smith, Cancer Research UK’s senior health information officer, said: [Bollocks mainly]
“Any rise in childhood cancers is worrying but it’s important to remember that less than one per cent of cancer cases in the UK occur in children.
It’s not yet clear exactly what causes cancer in childhood and research has not shown a link with environmental factors like air pollution and diet during pregnancy.
There are some factors which can increase the risk of childhood cancer like inherited genetic conditions and exposure to radiation – but these are usually not avoidable and no one should feel blamed for a child getting cancer.
Evidence has shown that there are lots of things adults can do to reduce cancer risk and it’s always a good idea to set up healthy habits as a family, like eating healthily, being active and enjoying the sun safely.”
Kate Lee, chief executive of children’s cancer charity CLIC Sargent, said that a child cancer diagnosis places a huge emotional and financial burden on the whole family.
"Over the last year CLIC Sargent provided support for more than 7,100 families, more than ever before, but we know that we can still only reach two out of three of those children and young people diagnosed with cancer,” she added.
“As more young cancer patients are diagnosed every year, we know each of those families will need support and are working hard to one day be able to provide those services for every young patient.”
Despite the increase, around 80 per cent of child cancer patients now survive for at least five years. But the aggressive treatments they have as children can have a major impact on their future health, even if they survive.
Tomorrow, Children with Cancer UK launches a five-point plan calling on the Government and the science and medical community to ensure that all children diagnosed with cancer in the UK have access to precision medicine by 2020.
We can all agree that proper communication skills are essential for the best cancer care. While some patients appreciate a direct approach, others need a bit of hand-holding. Some cancer doctors have good “bedside” manners, displaying genuine empathy for their patients. Others can be considered bullies in white coats. But it all comes down to this… what a cancer doctor says or doesn’t say can make all the difference in your outcome.
Doctors frequently take an overly dominant role. Proactive patients are often treated with sarcasm or arrogance. The patient who comes armed with research might be told “I see you have spent some time on Google. I think it is best if you let me diagnose you and tell you the treatment that is most suitable for you.”
As a cancer strategist I hear of all kinds of terrible comments made by oncologists to their patients. Even those patients who intend to comply with the recommendations of their oncologist hear words that should never be spoken. Often times I am sure that these comments are not meant to be callous, but are just spoken in ignorance.
Here are 12 things you should never hear from your cancer doctor. Be on the lookout for doctors who say any of these. It could be a sign that they need an attitude adjustment… and that you need a new doctor:
#1. I’m afraid I have bad news. If you didn’t already suspect you had a problem to deal with, you would not be sitting in the doctor’s office. This statement brings on fear. Doctors do this so that you will comply with their orders. Skip the drama doc.
#2. You have three months to live. It is rarely helpful to have a doctor pretend he has a crystal ball. While from experience they might have an idea how long the average patient lives given a particular diagnosis, we are all individuals and YOU ARE NOT AVERAGE. Despite what the doctor says, there is always hope. There is always a way to extend life or even reverse the dis-ease.
Just like “bad news,” a prognosis brings on fear and the need to comply − albeit in a different way. Studies show that people are told they have three months to live dutifully fulfill that directive from their doctor. Even worse, a poor prognosis takes away the will to live and ability to think outside the box and to change the direction of the dis-ease.
There are innumerable remissions of advanced and late stage cancers. There are countless stories of patients who were offered little chance of survival or a cure, yet who are here years later to tell their tale. A quick perusal through the articles on The Truth About Cancer website will bring you valuable information on surviving the odds.
Hope gives us the opportunity to do what we must do to heal from cancer. Even in the face of the most advanced of cancers, there is usually room for some words of encouragement and support. This can make all the difference in the patient’s attitude towards their disease and their treatment. While there is hope, there is life.
#3. If you don’t do “X” you will die. For some bizarre reason, cancer doctors think they know everything. Yes, I know that they went to medical school, but there was competent and effective medicine well before Big Pharma taught these doctors. Know that there are many, many options when it comes to managing cancer − don’t let your doctor bully you. In fact, you might point out to your doctor that you are more likely to die if you follow one of the standard protocols instead of opting for a less toxic treatment plan.
#4. You have no choice. Sorry, doctor, yes, you do. They might also say you have no other options. While it is always a good idea to get a second, third, or even fourth opinion, be sure to get at least one from an alternative or holistic doctor.
The award-wnning documentary The Idiot Cycle (2009) about the companies involved in producing toxic chemicals, cancer treatments and genetically modified crops
Otherwise, you are still limiting your options and overlooking key lifelines to survival.
#5. Calm Down. Given the situation at hand, it is understandable that a patient might be upset. Telling a patient they need to calm down or speaking to him or her in a dominant tone of voice clearly shows a lack of empathy and offers no chance of a partnership.
#6. This treatment will not harm you. Be sure you are clear on what “harm” means to your cancer doctor. Chemotherapy, radiation, hormone therapies, and even surgery harm the body and increase your risk of more cancer. Be aware of the life-threatening and quality of life-threatening side effects, and do not believe that they are always “worth it.” Studies and case studies have not provided evidence of efficacy.
#7. Here are the statistics. You are a person, not a statistic. You have your own unique set of circumstances; your own history. Statistics are helpful for doctors who use a checklist to make treatment recommendations. As an empowered person who is committed to make lifestyle changes that can affect your health and outcome, statistics do not apply.
Further, statistics are typically skewed in favor of treatment recommendations. For example, a patient might hear that by taking hormone therapy they will reduce their risk of recurrence by almost 50%. Sounds great, right? However in actuality, it may be the case that the risk without the therapy was only 2% and with the drugs 1%. That 50% reduction doesn’t really mean much, does it?
Or in the case of chemotherapy, a patient might hear that the therapy will decrease risk by 30%. But if the risk of dying was only 10% to begin with, the survival benefit on an absolute basis is only 3%. Considering the downsides of these therapies, one must extrapolate the true benefit and compare this to the possible harm they deliver.
#8. This treatment will cure you. This is a bold statement for sure. If your doctor is not addressing the cause of your cancer, the treatment is not a cure. Cancer is complicated, but most often the root cause can be determined and resolved. Only then can any treatment be considered “curative.”
I have never met anyone who was Tamoxifen- or chemotherapy-deficient, for example, so there is no reason to believe that taking either will resolve the reason for your cancer.
#9. You are wasting your time with nutritional supplements. While there is no one magic bullet, no one cure for cancer, lifestyle factors such as taking supplements can make a difference. There is too much evidence on how nutritional factors influence genetic expression for anyone to ignore the power of food and supplements.
What we eat makes a powerful difference. A mostly plant based, whole foods diet and taking nutritional supplements can have a substantial impact. That said, in these days of nutrient-depleted soil conditions and over-farming, food just does not have the nutrient content of years past. Plus, busy lives do not always allow for “perfect” meals. Hence, supplements are a necessary part of an anticancer protocol.
#10. Cancer Just Happens: It’s a Matter of bad luck. This is so ridiculous I just had to include it. Cancer develops for a reason. It is a signal, a cry for help that tells us something or many things are not right within the body. Overexposure to toxins, the genetic inability to manage toxins, and the entire issue of unresolved emotional traumas are some of the biggest triggers of cancer.
Although nutritional deficiencies are not likely the cause of one’s cancer, they do allow it to develop and grow.
Don’t accept that blanket statement from your doctor. Whether they are saying this out of ignorance or for your emotional protection, it is not helpful when it comes to your healing and survival.
#11. Alternative doctors are quacks. What mainstream cancer doctors consider to be “alternative” was once medicine. Sadly, modern medicine focuses on drug therapies and fails to acknowledge the reasons that cancer has become rampant. We are not sick because we have cancer… we have cancer because we are sick. If we do not correct what created the dis-ease, we cannot cure it. Alternative doctors consider the whole person. They believe that making a person well is just as important or even more important than targeting the symptoms of cancer (such as a tumor).
While every alternative treatment works for someone, not every treatment works for everyone. Part of this is, again, because we all have our own unique circumstances for having cancer. Be sure you work with a qualified practitioner and coach to optimize the healing of your body and your cancer.
And last but not least…
#12. Estrogen causes breast cancer. This is simply not accurate. Estrogen has 400 essential functions in a woman’s body. While estrogen dominance and hormonal imbalance can allow breast cancer to develop and grow, estrogen does not cause breast cancer. More precisely, estrogen can turn on cancer genes, but only if not opposed by progesterone. So blaming estrogen for cancer is a bit like saying that matches cause fires. You have to light the match, right?
Progesterone acts as an antagonist to estrogen. While estrogen is associated with breast and other cancers, progesterone has anti-cancer effects.
When the opposing force of progesterone is increased, the toxic effect of estrogen is decreased. So while estrogen can turn on cancer genes, progesterone turns on genes that can prevent breast cancer from occurring. Instead of blocking or eliminating estrogen, you may want to concentrate on increasing progesterone so the fire is not ignited by the match.
A note on receptors: when activated by progesterone, the progesterone receptors attach themselves to the estrogen receptors. Once this happens, the estrogen receptors stop turning on genes that promote the growth of the cancer cells. Instead, they turn on genes that promote the death of cancer cells (known as apoptosis) and the growth of healthy, normal cells.
Hormone receptors are dependent on iodine, which increases the sensitivity of the receptor to the hormone it was designed. So rather than block your receptors, it would be prudent to ensure you have sufficient iodine in your diet so that the receptors can work most efficiently.
Bayer's Monsanto Deal To Be Closely Watched By New Zealand Farmers As Agri-Chemical Players Dwindle
September 22 2016 | From: NationalBusinessReview Bayer's US$66 billion acquisition of Monsanto, creating the world's biggest supplier of seeds and agri-chemicals to farmers, will be closely watched by New Zealand's rural sector as the latest in a series of deals that has shrunk the number of competitors in the market.
Bayer and Monsanto are two of the big seven companies selling agricultural chemicals in New Zealand.
Of the other five, Dow Chemical is in the process of a global merger with DuPont and Swiss seed giant Syngenta is close to being acquired by China National Chemical Corp, which already owns Adama.
Of the others, ASX-listed Nufarm had a distribution agreement with Monsanto for its Roundup glyphosphate products up until 2013, while Bayer rival BASF reportedly held inconclusive talks with Monsanto earlier this year
Bayer chief executive Werner Baumann has indicated the companies would need to file for clearance in about 30 jurisdictions for the deal and get antitrust approval in the US, Canada, Brazil and the EU, the Financial Times reports. The deal has stoked concern among US farmer groups that they may face price increases for agricultural products.
Federated Farmers arable farming chair Guy Wigley called it:
"A significant development for New Zealand farming. It's a very finely tuned marketplace and farmers are highly sensitive to pricing," he said. "The costs and benefits of using all their products are keenly understood."
Wigley likened agri-chemicals to the pharmaceuticals industry, where there was plenty of competition for older products that had come off patent while companies sought a premium to cover research and development costs for new products.
The Commerce Commission said it is unable to comment on whether the transaction would require its scrutiny. However, John Hampton, professor of seed technology and director of the Lincoln University Seed Research Centre, said it may require antitrust approval.
While Monsanto is the world's largest seed company, its GM crops such as Roundup-ready Canola, soybean and maize aren't sold in New Zealand and its local sales in that market are confined to vegetable seeds produced by its Seminis and De Ruiter units.
Bayer has a smaller seeds business but is mainly in the pest and disease product side of the agri-chemical market, including seed treatments, while Monsanto's chemicals were more in the herbicide and weed control side of the market.
All up there were about half a dozen major companies in the seed sector, "so I can't see there would be a major impact in what's happening in seeds in New Zealand," Hampton said, adding that he speculated that Monsanto's GM technology was a major driver for Bayer's takeover offer.
Globally, there was no new herbicide chemistry emerging and increased resistance and regulatory hurdles for some existing ones. At the same time growing demand "for more sustainable methods of weed and pest control," he said.
“Chemicals aren't the future. Now the industry is looking at interactions between microbes and plants - biocontrols," he said.
The past five years have been marked by a number of acquisitions of small biocontrol companies by big agri-chemical producers "being astute and looking to the future". Research was now focussed in two main areas - GM technology and the use of bacteria and fungi to control pests and diseases and to promote plant growth, he said.
Industry group Agcarm, which represents about 85 percent of the New Zealand agri-chemicals market, has 14 members listed as crop protection companies. It estimates the New Zealand market is worth $250 million to $300 million.
Bayer's offer for Monsanto of US$128 a share in cash is about 20 percent more than the last trading price of US$106.76. Bayer said the deal would create "significant value" with annual synergies of about US$1.5 billion after three years "plus additional synergies from integrated solutions in future years".
What Do Smart Meters And Vaccinations Have In Common? + Another Vaccine Dump
September 20 2016 | From: NaturalBlaze / Various Jerry Day of Freedom Taker.com has produced an exceptional new video wherein he explains in detail what Smart Meters and Vaccinations have in common.
It’s called “Conditional Acceptance,” a term and a legal tactic whereby you can refuse anyone who pressures you to sign either an “opt-out” agreement for a Smart Meter or demands you to accept a vaccination.
Opt-out contracts are ones big corporations give you when you refuse corporate offers. Jerry explains what he calls “highway robbery” in this video.
Listen carefully to what Jerry explains, plus take notes, because his logic may be one that you can utilize under “Right of Contract.” Jerry says;
“Always remember that you have Right of Contract. That is the legal term used to describe the fact that on any contract or agreement your signature must be fully voluntary and not coerced in any way. If you’re pressured into signing or agreeing, your signature and agreement technically have no authority or effect."
And legally, there is no contract or agreement if you can show there was coercion or pressure causing you to sign that contract. So your Right of Contract means that you – and only you – may decide whether you sign something or not. And you may not be penalized in any way for refusing to sign anything.”
“They [utilities and governments] are criminally violating utility customers – and they know it. So when they refuse to insure the damage, their equipment will cause to you, you have every right to refuse that equipment.
“If the equipment they are installing was really not harmful and did not violate your rights, the insurance would cost almost nothing. But electronic utility meters are known to be hazardous and harmful – so much so that no insurance company will provide insurance for any price [more about insurance here], because they know that advanced utility metering is a ticking time bomb of damages and litigation. Vaccinations represent a very similar situation to utility metering.”
Listen intently to what Jerry says about “Conditional Acceptance” because that’s the bargaining chip in the ‘song and dance’ you will have to engage in to protect yourself and your family from AMI Smart Meter RFs/EMFs, dirty electricity they produce , plus possible fire loss to your home from Smart Meters proclivity to malfunction.
The same logic regarding “Right of Contract” and “Conditional Acceptance” applies with regard to vaccinations. Jerry delves into vaccinations like you may not have heard before.
Homeowners insurance and health insurance do not cover you for losses from AMI Smart Meters or injured health from receiving a vaccine! The unfair fact about bullying and harassment from utilities and the medical profession has to be understood fully for what it is: You are liable for all damages unless you are prepared not to be left helpless and demand your legal rights by taking Jerry’s advice into consideration.
After listening to the above video, please be certain to check out thedownloadable documents A-2 and A-4 regarding Smart Meters. There’s also a Vaccination Notice Jerry talks about. All are offered as templates at www.FreedomTaker.com.
Yes, they just keep coming - the evidence is in the order of a flood of biblical proportions for this with the eyes to see:
Shocking Research Confirms Vaccines Are Contaminated With Monsanto's RoundUp Herbicide
Folks, I have written about the problems with vaccines in previous blog posts. Now, a new serious contamination problem with our vaccines has been identified.
Researcher Anthony Samsel has published five peer-reviewed articles on the herbicide Glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup). A yet-to-be published sixth paper found various commonly-used vaccines contaminated with the herbicide glyphosate.
Yes, you read that correctly: Our vaccines are contaminated with an herbicide that the World Health Organization characterized as"probably carcinogenic to humans."
How can this happen? That answer is easy.
Many vaccines contain animal byproducts such as gelatin, bovine casein, bovine serum, bovine calf serum, or chicken egg protein. The animals from which these products come from are fed grains sprayed with glyphosate. It does not take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that these animals, fed glyphosate in their diet, would contain glyphosate in their byproducts.
Samsel sent a letter to Congress that stated:
“I have run numerous groups of vaccines and identified several vectors of contamination. These include the excipient gelatins, egg protein and or similar substrates used to grow vaccines.
I have found gelatins and egg proteins contaminated with Glyphosate-based herbicides from animals fed a glyphosate contaminated diet.
This contamination carries into thousands of consumer products i.e. vitamins, protein powders, wine, beer and other consumables which use gelatins as part of the product or in fining and processing."
What did Samsel hear back?
He heard nothing.
In other words, our do-nothing Congress, so far, has failed to respond. In his letter to Congress, Samsel also stated that Glyphosate is a synthetic amino acid. It bioaccumulates and is found in all tissue types, particularly the bone and marrow of animals fed a diet contaminated with Glyphosate residues.
The following vaccines were found to be contaminated with the herbicide glyphosate:
2. Varicella (chicken pox)
3. Zostavax (shingles)
4. Proquad (MMR, rubella, varicella)
5. Fluzone Quad (flu vaccine)
6. Hepatitis B (B Energix-B)
Multiple vaccines from different manufactures were found to be contaminated. Folks, this is a big deal. Injecting a vaccine contaminated with a known herbicide that is "probably carcinogenic to humans" should be prohibited. We need a Congressional investigation into our vaccines.
We keep hearing the mantra that vaccines are safe. Injecting a vaccine containing an herbicide is safe? Give me a break!
It is time to call your political representatives and tell them to investigate this matter. I can assure you that it is not safe to inject a known neurotoxin such as mercury or aluminum. Nor is it safe to inject a known carcinogen such as formaldehyde.
Guess what? It is not safe to inject an herbicide that is a probable human carcinogen.
Follow Dr. Brownstein's blog for more great articles by clicking here.
Anthony Samsel on Vaccines contaminated with Glyphosate
Scientists Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff have just gotten the fifth peer reviewed paper on Glyphosate published. Its named "Glyphosate pathways to modern diseases V: Amino acid analogue of glycine in diverse proteins".
In this regard Tony Mitra interviewed Anthony Samsel, to cover the newly emerging scientific findings on Glyphosate and how it can and does hurt creatures including humans.
In the course of the interview, Anthony Samsel mentioned the issues being covered in their next paper, the 6th one. This covers a number of vaccines that use animal byproducts such as egg protein and gelatine. He suspected these products might be contaminated with Glyphosate, if the vaccine makers were using factory farmed animals fed with Glyphosate laced GMO feed.
To verify, he got a large number of vaccines that do use egg proteins and gelatine and got them analyzed in multiple labs. The results confirmed his doubt. The vaccines themselves are largely contaminated with Glyphosate and pose serious hazard to those that are and will be vaccinated using these products.
5G Telecomm Radiation The Perfect Tool To Mass Modify Human Brain Waves + More Studies Reveal Dangers
September 16 2016 | From: WakingTimes / Mobilize On 14 July 2016 the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) of the USA made space available in the radio spectrum for consumer devices to operate within the 25 GHz to 100 GHz of the electromagnetic spectrum.
It went on to say: “The Commission has struck a balance between new wireless services, current and future fixed satellite service operations, and federal uses. The item adopts effective sharing schemes to ensure that diverse users – including federal and non-federal, satellite and terrestrial, and fixed and mobile – can co-exist and expand.”
Nowhere in its document is mention made of consumer safety or well-being. I guess that is fair of the FCC because historically, it is not interested in matters of microwave radiation and consequent thermal and non-thermal effects on the population.
Let’s face it, and most people find this hard to believe, the FCC works purely on behalf of the telecoms industries in granting them access to the airwaves, no more and no less.
Industry was very happy to hear the FCC announcement on granting access of large portions of the radio spectrum for yet more of its toys and other consumer devices. Qualcomm for example talks much about ‘the massive internet of things’, yet nowhere on its 5G musings is mention made of consumer safety or well-being.
That ‘pink elephant’ in the living room regarding safety brings me to the point of this article. The FCC and the telecomms industry rub their hands with glee because lots of money is going to be made as 5G devices rollout yet no recent safety studies have been carried out on consumer safety.
No doubt both the FCC and industry will point regulators to the old, out-dated and one-dimensional so-called ‘safety studies’ (thermal effects) produced by the ICNIRP. This private organisation is comprised of people and individuals who work in the telecommunications industries with no background in epidemiology, toxicology, radio frequency safety or medical practice.
The implications of 5G on consumer well-being and safety do not look good for one reason: devices that will operate within the 5G electromagnetic spectrum will use antennas that are physically small i.e. from a few millimetres to a centimetre in length.
This means that industry will produce a variety of different antenna systems to do different things.
Qualcomm’s 5G Vision
“5G is much more than higher peak rates - it needs to enable new classes of services, connect new devices and industries, and empower new user experiences while fully leveraging 4G investments. The envisioned unified platform needs to support all spectrum, below 6 GHz as well as above 6 GHz and mmWave."
Everything is awesome!
The weird fact of operating within this very high frequency range is that signals are mostly line of sight or they are easily reflected, refracted or ‘lost’ within the differing build composition of urban environment structures.
In other words, without careful antenna design and recognition of many of the pitfalls trying to propagate microwave signals within urban environments, the signal can be easily degraded or completely lost. In response to these challenges, the advantages in using very small physical size antennas in the millimetre wavelength is you can feed many antennas in various configuration arrays e.g. vertical or horizontal arays, waveguide, coned or highly directional beam type designs.
These types of antenna designs focus most of the transmitted power into specified directions. This is bad news for consumers because these very small physical size antennas will pack a mighty punch to our biological systems if we step into them.
Getting back to consumer safety and well-being and all things microwave, it is clear that the latency period for adverse biological effects from devices using microwave frequencies from say 1 GHz to 5 Ghz is approximately 10 - 20 years.
In 2016 there are now many thousands of peer-reviewed medical and epidemiological studies that show, illustrate or correlate, adverse biological effects with use of mobile phone technology or WIFI.
Using frequencies even higher than 5 GHz (and up to 100 GHz) will compress the timeframe in which cancers and other biological effects show themselves within society.
It is anyone’s guess on what might happen in terms of biological safety yet it is clear to see that the pulsed nature of these high frequency, high signal intensity signals do not harbour good news for humanity, particularly in relation to the functioning of our DNA.
Nowadays, exposure to microwave radiation or frequencies used by WIFI, mobile phones, smart phones, smart meters, WIFI-enabled audio devices, WIFI-enabled fridges, most baby monitors and a whole host of other ‘esoteric’ electrical devices were recently classed as Class 2B carcinogens.
Point of sale literature excludes this fact on any advertising blurb and it is also fascinating that the small print embedded deep within mobile phone product literature say that you should not put these devices directly to your skin, body or face.
If you do, you exceed the so-called ‘safe’ exposure thresholds put in place for these devices.
Getting back to the very small physical length of the antennas that will be used for 5G devices, it is very clear to surmise that if these devices talk to each other using highly efficient, directional antennas, the ERP (effective radiated power) will be huge.
If you happen to walk into this intensely focused beam of microwave radiation, what will this level of signal intensity do to your biology?
Yet again, time will tell unless we get our arses into gear and demand proper safety studies from industry and independent academia that focus on thermal and non-thermal effects on our biology.
Just like the advent of modern mobile phone technology, it is us, the consumers, who provide the guinea pig role in terms of safety.
Sufferers of EHS (electro-hyper-sensitivity) will need to be aware of any 5G device simply because the electron volt assault on their compromised bodies will be easily and instantly felt.
It is they who will suffer first and in time, everyone will be affected because one other fact the telecoms industries have not mentioned is that in order to develop an efficient network of signals within an urban environment, many thousands of new transmitter sites will need to be installed.
The physical small size of these antennas means they can be covertly installed into all sorts of urban structures which suggest that for urban dwellers at least, there will be no escape from exposure to these highly damaging microwave frequencies. I also feel that when these antennas are in place, it will be relatively easy to alter and manipulate brain wave function of its users and others close by.
The amount of ancillary information that can be piped or attached to the main carrier frequency of such a telecommunications network system is potentially, huge.
Police forces the world over use ‘Tetra’ as a systems of communication. This system also includes a sub-carrier frequency of about 16 Hz which is very close to our natural brainwave patterns.
Could this 16 Hz ancillary pulsed ELF (extremely low-frequency) be responsible for instilling aggressive behaviours in our police force personnel?
The ‘zombie apocalypse’ might just be around the corner unless of course, we refuse to comply. That is our choice.
Mobilize is an investigative documentary that explores the long-term health effects of cell phone radiation, including cancer and infertility.
Clear Light Ventures is sponsoring free viewing of Mobilize from September 15 to October 16, 2016 - enter promo code "ClearLight".
In 2011 the World Health Organization stated, “The electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as possibly carcinogenic to humans.” The cell phone industry has vigorously disputed these findings.
Mobilize is an explosive investigative documentary that explores the potential long-term health effects from cell phone radiation, including brain cancer and infertility.
The politically charged film examines the most recent scientific research and the harsh challenges politicians face trying to pass precautionary legislation. Featuring interviews with expert researchers, mobile phone industry representatives, and prominent politicians, MOBILIZE illuminates how industry’s economic and political influence can corrupt public health.
Featuring Gavin Newsom Lt. Governor of California, Lawrence Lessig, Esq., Steve Wozniak, Richard Branson, Devra Davis, PhD, MPH and many more.
How Much Of This Junk Are You Exposed To?
September 16 2016 | From: Inquisitr / Sott / NaturalNews / GreenMedInfo We all know about toxins and poisons in the environment - the slow kill. Keep the populace sick while the globalist corporatocracy bleeds us dry of money for power whilst they get off on their depopulation Eugenics agenda.
Awareness of 'environmental toxins' that are literally all around us helps you keep some of the crap out of your system...
Antibacterial Soap Banned By FDA, Commonly Used Chemicals May Do More Harm Than Good
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has banned antibacterial soap sales in the United States, and the reason why is incredibly disturbing.
Many people have turned to antibacterial soap for years, believing them to be a safe and effective way to remove dirt and germs from the body and hands, and more effective than traditional soap and water. However, when the FDA banned the popular soaps, they informed the public that they might not be so effective after all.
What’s more and infinitely more disturbing, according to the FDA, the chemicals most commonly used in antibacterial soaps may not even be safe.
A total of 19 chemicals often used in antibacterial soaps have been targeted by the FDA, and the agency has given manufacturers only a year to remove them all from the products they are selling (and marketing as safe and effective) to the public.
As The New York Times reports, while nearly 20 chemicals were involved in the decision that led to the antibacterial soap being banned by the FDA, two are the primary culprits. Triclosan and triclocarban are used in both bar and liquid antibacterial soap, and they are almost everywhere.
When the FDA banned antibacterial soap this week based on the risks of using the product often outweighing the benefits, they didn’t ban the questionable chemicals from all products.
Reportedly, at least one toothpaste uses a now-banned chemical, but according to the FDA, in that product it’s risks are less than the benefits it provides to consumers.
While the news that antibacterial soap has been banned by the FDA may be shocking and sudden to some, the truth of the matter is that there have been questions about its safety for years and years.
As Smithsonian Magazine reports, the FDA has been threatening to ban antibacterial soap for years. In the article, published in 2014, cited questions that the FDA had about the safety and effectiveness of antibacterial soap.
Even then, the FDA warned that antibacterial soap would be banned if manufacturers didn’t prove that it was both safe and more effective than using soap and water.
Apparently, the industry was unable to prove that antibacterial soap is safe or provides a public benefit that outweighs the potential risk of exposure of the chemicals used in the product.
At the time of the Smithsonian Magazine article, triclosan (with is banned as part of the FDA’s sweeping decision on antibacterial soap) was used in roughly 30 percent of all bar soap and 75 percent of liquid antibacterial soap. In 2014, the antibacterial soap industry, now banned by the FDA, was worth about $1 billion.
In 2014, the antibacterial soap industry was put on notice by the FDA. They were told to prove the safety of their product by 2016 or see their product banned. Despite the fact that manufacturers had turned antibacterial soap into a $1 billion industry and were given two years, they chose not to put together the required proof that they were selling a product that is safe and effective.
And plenty of people are speculating that the reason that the antibacterial soap industry didn’t prove to the FDA that their product is safe is that they know that it isn’t.
But rather than simply removing it from the market themselves (or demonstrate its safety), the antibacterial soap industry continued to use the questionable chemicals and sell personal hygiene products that may not be safe until the FDA announced that the products were banned.
Even now, antibacterial soap can be legally sold, despite questions about its safety.
In the aftermath of the announcement that the FDA had banned antibacterial soap, public health professionals have overwhelmingly supported the decision, adding that the chemicals in antibacterial soap can alter the hormones of children and even contribute to the problem of antibiotic-resistant superbugs.
“It has boggled my mind why we were clinging to these compounds, and now that they are gone I feel liberated They had absolutely no benefit but we kept them buzzing around us everywhere. They are in breast milk, in urine, in blood, in babies just born, in dust, in water.”
Recent studies into the chemicals found in antibacterial soap products have resulted in some very disturbing discoveries regarding the harm they can do to animals and likely to humans, too.
Among the problems caused by the now-banned products include severe abnormalities having to do with metabolism and reproduction. According to the CDC, the chemicals found in FDA banned antibacterial soap have been found in the bodily waste of 75 percent of U.S. residents.
Kinder and Lindt Chocolate Bars Revealed to Contain Cancer-Causing Carcinogens
Tests carried out by a German watchdog revealed Kinder chocolate bars and two other brands tested positive for a hazardous cancer-causing substance.
Foodwatchcalled for Ferrero's Kinder Riegel, Lindt's Fioretto Nougat Minis, and Sun Rice Classic Schokohappen by Rübezahl to be taken off the shelves on Monday after tests found "possible carcinogens."
The sweet treats had been contaminated with "so-called aromatic mineral oils (MOAH)," says Foodwatch, but the manufacturers are allegedly reluctant to recall their products.
"The manufacturer is guilty of gross negligence. Instead of clearing the dangerous candy from the shelves and alerting consumers, they [postulate]... that everything was undertaken legally," said Foodwatch's John Heeg.
Foodwatch tested more than 20 different kinds of potato chips and chocolate snacks and found saturated mineral oils (MOSH) which it warned can "accumulate in the human body and [cause] long term damage to organs" with children particularly at risk.
"There is no acceptable levels of mineral oils in food for consumption," Heeg told the German edition of The Local, citing the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) who he says considers MOAHs "likely carcinogenic and mutagenic."
"You can't see it, you can't taste it, but it's in there," warned Hegg. "We recommend not purchasing these products because the levels are simply unacceptable for consumption."
Kinder Riegel, "one of the best-selling chocolate bars in Germany," had the worst MOSH and MOAH values. The chemicals are usually transferred to foods through recycled packaging that previously had been printed with inks which may contain oils.
Foodwatch is calling for strict limits on saturated mineral oils (MOSH) in food and a zero tolerance for aromatic mineral oils (MOAH).
Brain Damaging Heavy Metal Mercury Found in Grocery Products Made With High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)
HFCS is ubiquitous in the modern processed food supply. It's added to pizza sauce, salad dressings, ketchup and "whole wheat" breads. Did you know it's often contaminated with the toxic heavy metal mercury?
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a highly processed sweetener made primarily from corn and found in a plethora of food and beverages on grocery store shelves.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service estimated in 2011 that the average consumer per capita consumes nearly 42 pounds of high fructose corn syrup per year. Not one, but two studies in 2009 found that HFCS commercially produced in America and American-bought HFCS products were tainted with mercury.
The first study published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health found that, of twenty samples collected and analyzed from three different manufacturers, nine, or 45 percent, came back tainted with mercury.
The second study by watchdog group Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) purchased fifty-five food items from popular brands off grocery store shelves in the fall of 2008 -- items in which HFCS was the first or second principal ingredient -- and detected mercury in nearly a third of them.
The contamination may have been due to the fact that mercury cells are still used in the production of caustic soda, an ingredient used to make HFCS.
The HFCS mercury plot thickens, however. Online news outlet Grist reported that the lead researcher in the Environmental Health study, Renee Dufault, previously worked as an FDA researcher.
Dufault had apparently turned over the information contained in her HFCS mercury study to the agency back in 2005, but the FDA reportedly sat on it and did nothing, so Dufault went public with it after she retired in 2008.
How Big Food Cornered the Market with a Liquid Sweetener
Initial attempts to get corn syrup widely dispersed into the U.S. food supply in the 1970s didn't really take off because sugar was so cheap and abundant at the time. However, this changed, as U.S.- imposed tariffs decreased sugar imports throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, making sugar significantly more expensive in America than in other parts of the world.
The surface explanation for these tariffs was to protect American sugar farmers; behind the scenes, however, Big Agra interests had lobbied for the policy to promote what would become a new source of sugar - derived from corn - which soon emerged as a popular commodity that was sold at a price significantly cheaper than cane sugar or beet sugar.
Archer Daniels Midland opened the first large-scale plant in 1978 (before they acquired the Clinton Corn Processing Company) to produce 90 percent HFCS and 55 percent HFCS. By January 1980, Coca-Cola began allowing high fructose corn syrup to be used as a sweetener at 50 percent levels with regular sugar; Pepsi Cola followed suit by 1983.
By November 1984, both major soft drink brands had approved full sweetening with HFCS, and HFCS quickly captured 42 percent of the sweetener market. The rising dominance of HFCS allowed it to maintain commercial prices similar to sugar until the 1990s.
Government Money Subsidizing Corn Syrup
For the past several decades, the U.S. government has paid subsidies to American farmers to grow tons of corn (much of which -- nearly 90 percent -- is genetically modified) and shifted domestic agricultural policy to maximize corn crops. This made high-fructose corn syrup and other corn-derived processed ingredients much cheaper for industrial food manufacturers to use.
Today, HFCS is nearly ubiquitous on American grocery store shelves. It can be found in a wide range of items, including candy, ice cream, bread, chips, snacks, soups, soft drinks, fruit drinks and other beverages, condiments, jellies, deli meats, and much, much more.
Overall, Americans consume about fifty to sixty pounds of high fructose corn syrup per capita – an insane amount. HFCS has been linked in scientific research to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, fatty liver and other contributors of bad health and early death.
As the biggest dietary source of fructose, HFCS also promotes insulin resistance and increasing uric acid levels, which contribute to metabolic dysfunction and type 2 diabetes. Further, researchers in 2008 found a correlation between high fructose consumption and liver scarring in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which is present in nearly a third of American adults.
Corn Refiners Association Attempts to Hoodwink Consumers
On top of lobbying efforts, the Corn Refiners Association, an industry organization of which Archer Daniels Midland a is a key member, launched the website sweetsurprise.com as a media relations ploy to debunk "myths" about HFCS and clarify "The Facts about High Fructose Corn Syrup."
It also ran well-funded TV advertising starting in 2008 sticking up for the industry's favorite sweetener and asserting that "sugar is sugar," which prompted a lawsuit by sugar producers claiming false advertising in 2011. The FDA also demanded the corn industry stop using the term "corn sugar" without approval.
In 2012, the FDA rejected a petition filed by the Corn Refiners Association in 2010 to change the name of high-fructose corn syrup to "corn sugar" for the purposes of food labeling and advertising. The Corn Refiners Association claims that it wanted the name change to "educate consumers," the majority of whom are "confused about HFCS."
To keep reading, get my new book Food Forensics, available now for pre-order everywhere books are sold.
How Sucralose (Splenda) Affects Health [Artificial Sweeteners in General]
The emergence of sucralose came from the fight against obesity, but did we trade one problem for another?
This video was originally published on NutritionFacts.org and republished with permission.
In the United States, sucralose (the sweet tasting chemical in Splenda brand artificial sweeteners) was approved for use by the FDA in 1998. It was deemed safe, but we no have over a decade’s worth of research to prove that sucralose affects health in a very negative and very unique way.
The only effect they thought it would have on health was that it could potentially trigger migraines in a small percentage of people.
This, they decided, was a small enough issue that the FDA allowed the substance into the marketplace, citing obesity as a more pressing issue. They could not have been more wrong.
One of the major complications that can come from obesity is diabetes, where the body no longer responds to insulin properly. Originally meant to combat issues like obesity-caused diabetes, lab tests show that insulin resistance increases by as much as 20% after ingesting the sugar substitute.
The cause can be traced back to gut bacteria and how sucralose and other artificial sweeteners can alter their environments. For example; Aspartame is another type of artificial sweetener which studies have shown is metabolized in the body as formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.
Furthermore, alterations in gut bacteria are also very likely the culprit behind the rise in inflammatory bowel diseases like Crohn’s disease.
In every part of the world where sucralose has been approved, inflammatory bowel disease has increased. Clearly, there is a causal link between this substance and the health of our gut.
Though the alternative to sugar was created in an effort to combat obesity, with all of the complications and damage it can cause, it’s clear that how sucralose affects health – negatively. This just further proves that we can all do ourselves a service by sticking to natural foods whose benefits don’t have to be decided on by a committee.
1080: NZ Animals Killed For No Reason In $80m Yearly 1080 Drops September 6 2016 | From: Various
Over 80 million dollars, including farmers hard earned cash, is spent every year eradicating a disease, that by World standards, doesn't exist...
“The Agency considered that acute exposures to 1080 in humans and animals may give rise to irreversible adverse, target organ [heart and brain] effects. These effects are severe.”
"The recent post about 89 dead Kiwis that DOC didn’t bother to test for 1080 poisoning relates to this report of birds that actually were tested. Thanks to the person with a conscience who let the public know what is going on!"
More 1080 videos + If you have your pets, farm stock, deer, trout or eels, native wildlife (including birds), poisoned on or near your property or have any information to share with regard to aerial 1080 poison drops taking place near you, please let us know
Monsanto Promoting Worldwide Infertility? + Academic GMO Shills Exposed: Fraud And Collusion With Monsanto September 6 2016 | From: Sott / NaturalNews
Monsanto has a long and infamous history of manufacturing and bringing to market such chemicals as DDT, Agent Orange, aspartame, Roundup and dioxin - chemical compounds from which society continues to feel the effects.
In an effort to distance the current corporation from past deeds, Monsanto refers to the company prior to 2002 as "the former Monsanto" in their news releases. However, nothing has really changed aside from their PR machine.
While Monsanto has branched into genetic engineering (GE) of plants, the sale of patented GE seeds simply feeds the need for the company's pesticides. Monsanto is STILL primarily a purveyor of toxins, not life.
Monsanto began forging a unique and financially advantageous relationship with the U.S. government starting with the company's involvement in the Manhattan Project that produced the first nuclear weapons during World War II. During the Vietnam War they were the leading producer of Agent Orange.
The specialization in the production and distribution of toxic chemicals continues today.
Their influence over government runs so deep that despite the fact 64 other countries have been labeling genetically engineered (GE) foods for years, the U.S. now has the distinction of being the first country to un-label GE foods at the urging of a company producing mass amounts of GE seeds.
Monsanto and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
In the latter part of the 1920s, Monsanto was the largest producer of PCBs. This chemical was used in lubricant for electric motors, hydraulic fluids and to insulate electrical equipment. Old fluorescent light fixtures and electrical appliances with PCB capacitors may still contain the chemical.
During the years PCB was manufactured and used, there were no controls placed on disposal. Since PCBs don't break down under many conditions, they are now widely distributed through the environment and have made the journey up the food chain.
Between the inception and distribution of the product and its subsequent ban in the late 1970s, an estimated 1.5 billion pounds were distributed in products around the world.
Monsanto was the primary manufacturer of PCBs in the U.S. under the trade name Aroclor. Health problems associated with exposure to the chemical were noted as early as 1933 when 23 of 24 workers at the production plant developed pustules, loss of energy and appetite, loss of libido and other skin disturbances.
According to Monsanto's public timeline, it was in 1966 that "Monsanto and others began to study PCB persistence in the environment." However, seven years earlier, Monsanto's assistant director of their Medical Department wrote:
“... [S]ufficient exposure, whether by inhalation of vapors or skin contact, can result in chloracne which I think we must assume could be an indication of a more systemic injury if the exposure were allowed to continue."
In 1967, Shell Oil called to inform Monsanto of press reports from Sweden, noting that PCBs were accumulating in mammals further up the food chain. Shell asked for PCB samples to perform their own analytical studies.
With full knowledge of the devastation expected to the environment and humanity, it wasn't until 11 years later, in 1977, that Monsanto reportedly pulled production on PCB.
PCBs Are Probable Human Carcinogens
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Toxicology Program, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIEHS) have identified PCBs as either probable, potential or reasonably likely to cause cancer in humans.
If it seems like these agencies are couching their words, they are. Human studies have noted increased rates of liver cancer, gall bladder cancer, melanomas, gastrointestinal cancer, biliary tract cancer, brain cancer and breast cancer when individuals had higher levels of PCB chemicals in their blood and tissue.
However, the EPA limits the ability of researchers to link a chemical as a carcinogen unless there is conclusive proof. While this proof is evident in animal studies, you can't feed these chemicals to humans and record the results. Thus PCBs are a "probable" carcinogen in humans.
Other health effects from PCBs include:
Babies born with neurological and motor control delays including lower IQ, poor short-term memory and poor performance on standardized behavioral assessment tests
Disrupted sex hormones including shortened menstrual cycles, reduced sperm count and premature puberty
Imbalanced thyroid hormone affecting growth, intellectual and behavioral development
Immune effects, including children with more ear infections and chickenpox
Once PCBs are absorbed in the body they deposit in the fat tissue. They are not broken down or excreted. This means the number of PCBs build over time and move up the food chain. Smaller fish are eaten by larger ones and eventually land on your dinner table.
Chemical Poisoning Begins Before Birth
A recent study at the University of California demonstrated that PCBs are found in the blood of pregnant women. Before birth, the umbilical cord delivers approximately 300 quarts of blood to your baby every day.
Not long ago, researchers believed the placenta would shield your developing baby from most pollutants and chemicals. Now we know it does not.
The umbilical cord is a lifeline between mother and child, sustaining life and propelling growth. However, in recent research cord blood contained between 200 and 280 different chemicals; 180 were known carcinogens and 217 were toxic to the baby's developing nervous system.
The deposits of chemicals in your body or the body of your developing baby are called your "body burden" of chemicals and pollution.
A steady stream of chemicals from the environment during a critical time of organ and system development has a significant impact on the health of your child, both in infancy and as the child grows to adulthood.
Tracey Woodruff, Ph.D., director of the University of California San Francisco Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, was quoted in a press release, saying:
“It was surprising and concerning to find so many chemicals in pregnant women without fully knowing the implications for pregnancy. Several of these chemicals in pregnant women were at the same concentrations that have been associated with negative effects in children from other studies.
In addition, exposure to multiple chemicals that can increase the risk of the same adverse health outcome can have a greater impact than exposure to just one chemical."
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate - Another Monsanto Product
Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), also manufactured by Monsanto, was recently implicated in cell fat storage. This specific phthalate was found in human fluids and had an effect on the accumulation of fat inside cells.
BBP is used in the manufacture of vinyl tile, as a plas