I spoke to a patient the other day who was seeing a doctor, one who is not enemies with natural medicine, who recommended antibiotics to a 69-year-old patient with multiple complaints including kidney infection. The patient instantly discontinued treatments with this antibiotic recommending doctor.

I did not have to break my arm to stick a pH strip in the patient`s mouth and to count how many breaths she was taking in a minute’s time. Her breathing rate was 30 (amazing she already did not have cancer) and her saliva pH was 5.

Want to get ahead of your doctor and learn some of the iron rules of medicine?

Iron Rule Number 1 - Breathing and oxygen are the foundations for life and health. Oxygen is our most important nutrient and yet when prescribed in a hospital it is a drug. Most of us never thought that we also eat with our noses meaning the food/nutrient we need most comes in through our nasal passages.



Related: Iodine Supplement

What do we learn from these two simple tests mentioned above? What gets revealed is a person`s approximate oxygen levels, carbon dioxide levels, cellular energy levels (voltage) as well as pH (she was intensely acid.)

Doctors do not know that the faster a person breathes the lower their oxygen, CO2/bicarbonate levels, pH and voltage go. Fast breathing gets one nowhere except closer to chronic disease, cancer and earlier than wanted death.

How is an antibiotic going to help this 69-year-old woman recover from low energy, oxygen, CO2 and high acidity levels that provide excellent breeding grounds for microbes of all types. Understand that there are fundamental reasons we get infections.

Low oxygen, CO2, cellular energy and too high acidity are breeding grounds for infections. What is the point with antibiotics when they do not treat the underlying cause of infection?

Iron Rule Number 2: Do not poison the patient. People who resort to poison to help people are desperate, ignorant or arrogant.



Poisoning people should be against the law but it isn’t if you do it with a doctor’s prescription. Botox is an obvious example yet unfortunately every pharmaceutical, even aspirin, are toxic poisons that cause death in staggering numbers.

Iron Rule Number 3: Conflict and stress are common and real causes of disease including cancer. They have their correspondences in the brain and in all organ systems. Stress dominates both our breathing patterns and how our hearts beat - beat for beat - meaning stress lays itself out in what is called Heart Rate Variability (HRV).

The higher the stress the tighter the variability between in and every heartbeat. As we flatline, meaning each beat is the same, we flatline in life because of death threatening conflicts and stress. Vulnerable hearts are flexible dancing on each moment of life. Pathologies of the vagus nerve are measurable with HRV.

Dr. R. G. Hamer and his New Medicine spoke of an ‘Iron Rule of Cancer’ in 1981. He mistakenly perceived that every cancer or cancer-like disease originates with a Dirk Hamer Syndrome (‘DHS’) which is a very difficult highly acute, dramatic and isolating shock that affected the psyche,the brain and certain organs.



I say mistakenly because, though he might be correct in most or many cases of cancer it is certainly not the case in all cancers. High levels of radiation or of heavy metals like mercury can also bring on cancer with or without psychological damage and intense stress.

Chemotherapy and radiation therapy, as well as many other toxic shocks are also known to bring on cancer as are massive mineral deficiencies in the body.

It is true that in most cases symptoms of disease are expressions of psychological conflicts, and can only be healed when the patient is aware of what is behind the problem.

Iron Rule Number 4: Hydration levels are crucial for health for adults and children alike. Dehydration is one of the most overlooked and basic causes of disease. The minute hydration levels decline oxygen transport and utilization decline, cell voltage declines, the body becomes more acidic, and the more toxins build up because they cannot be eliminated from the body with efficiency.



All functions within the body require the presence of water. A well hydrated body enables these functions to occur quickly and efficiently.

Iron Rule Number 5: “It seems clear that light is the most important environmental input, after food, in controlling bodily function,” reported Richard J. Wurtman, a nutritionist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Without enough sun or administration of sufficient vitamin D we get sick, inflammation takes over our body, and eventually die.



One of the greatest triggers of influenza, the swine flu and deaths from pulmonary deficiency is vitamin D deficiency. One of the biggest reviews of the role of vitamin D in health found that people who took supplements of the vitamin for six years reduced their risk of dying from all causes.

Studies have already suggested that vitamin D played a key role in protecting against cancer, heart disease and diabetes - conditions that account for 60 to 70 per cent of all deaths in the West. Some researchers believe that up to 75% of the United States population may not be getting enough vitamin D. Sun exposure improves immune system function.

Iron Rule Number 6: Mineral deficiencies cause disease as well as cancer. Humans are very much like plants. We need light, water, oxygen, CO2 and minerals. Minerals are the building blocks of our bodies. They are required for body structure, fluid balance, protein structures and to produce hormones.

They are a key for the health of every body system and function. They act as co-factors, catalysts or inhibitors of all enzymes in the body.

In the absence of certain trace minerals, various heavy metals are more likely to accumulate. Minerals create safety buffers against toxic metals. Minerals provide the spark for many of the body’s cellular processes and keep them running efficiently. Without these finely-tuned chemical reactions no organism can function.

Radiation damages our bodies by breaking the chemical bonds in our cells. The amount of damage done depends not only on how much radiation we are exposed to but also very much on how mineral deficient we are. According to the National Foundation for Cancer Research the value of minerals as part of an anticancer diet is frequently overlooked.

Nature’s Prozac: Nutrition For Mental Health
March 29 2017 | From: NaturalBlaze

In a pill-popping world, the idea of simply providing your brain and body with what it needs for mental health is nothing short of revolutionary.




1 in 5 Westerners currently takes one or more psychiatric drugs on a daily basis.

Related: Doctor gets 18 years for helping people with plants while child-raping cop gets 3 years

“Psychiatric medications are among the most widely prescribed and biggest-selling class of drugs in the US. In 2010, Americans spent $16.1 billion on anti-psychotics to treat depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, $11.6 billion on antidepressants and $7.2 billion on treatment for ADHD, according to IMS Health, which tracks prescription drug sales.” - Source

Psychiatric drugs can cause many horrible side effects, some of which are worse than the original condition they were intended to treat. In fact, there is a very clear link between psychiatric medications and the violent actions of the “mass shooters” over the past few years. In many cases, these drugs are harmful and unnecessary.

Caveat lector: I’m not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV. The contents of this article are not meant to replace medical advice. The data presented is for informational purposes only.

There is a theory that most (and some say all) mental illnesses are caused by nutritional deficiencies. The brain is a miraculous creation that must be properly fueled in order to function correctly. Feeding your brain (and body) empty chemically created calories is akin to putting diesel fuel into a gasoline engine.

It sputters and grinds to a halt, and the contamination must be thoroughly flushed out of the system for it to work properly again. Vehicles come with differently shaped fuel-filler openings, to make it difficult to put in the wrong fuel. Human beings, unfortunately, are not equipped with this type of mechanism and can therefore stuff anything and everything into their mouths and hope their body recognizes it as fuel.

The brain uses 20-30% of a person’s daily caloric intake for the day. If you don’t consume enough calories, verbal fluency, problem solving ability and motivation are affected first. Then bodily functions are decreased in reverse order of necessity for life.

Your brain requires essential fatty acids to maintain proper function. This is one of the many reasons that extreme low-fat diets are not healthy. Fatty acids are required to maintain connections between neurons. A lack of N3 (aka Omega-3) fatty acids may cause learning and motor disabilities, and may damage the passage of dopamine and serotonin in the frontal cortex. The most vital EFAs are 3, 6, and 9.

Dopamine and serotonin are both crucial to mental health. Dopamine affects the brain processes that control voluntary movements, emotional responses, and the ability to register pleasure and pain. Serotonin is known as the feel-good neurotransmitter. This chemical is related to the ability to resist impulses.

Serotonin (or lack thereof) plays a major role in things like depression, suicide, impulsive behavior, mood control, and aggression. The basic premise is that if these chemicals are not being properly transported in your brain, your mental health could suffer.

A lack of Vitamin D has been linked to depression, schizophrenia, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease. Research has suggested that Vitamin D is in actuality a neuroactive steroid, a chemical that is targeted by certain SSRI antidepressants. A lack of Vitamin D can negatively affect the transport of Dopamine.

The best source of Vitamin D is sunlight absorbed through the skin. This may explain the prevalence of depression in the winter, particularly in regions that receive less direct sunlight.

Niacin (Vitamin B3) is an effective treatment for depression, anxiety, schizophrenia and insomnia. In the textbook Orthomolecular Psychiatry, David Hawkins, M.D. and Linus Pauling, Ph.D. outline the protocol for a niacin regimen for mental health. Although this particular book targets the treatment of schizophrenia, the niacin treatment is the same for other mental health issues.

The body cannot store niacin, so it’s important to take this supplement every day. A great resource for information about Niacin can be found here. Here’s how it works:

Instructions for finding the correct dosage of niacin can be found here.


Other Mental Health Aids

There are loads of mental health remedies out there. Some natural ones include HTTP-5, St. John’s Wort, valerian root and passionflower. Many people swear by the efficacy of these herbs, but few studies have been funded to confirm the validity of these claims.



(Think about it – it isn’t cost effective for the pharmaceutical companies because you can’t patent a plant! Supplements containing tyrosine and phenylalanine are said to help with the transport of serotonin and dopamine, as well.

Other vitamins and minerals that are important to mental health are: Vitamin E, Folate (another B vitamin), Magnesium, Calcium, Zinc, Chromium, B12 and B6.


Eating for Good Mental Health

The first line of defense against mental health issues should always be nutritional. Take a good look at your diet and contemplate the fuel you are putting into your body. Clean out the toxins, ditch the chemical “food-like substances” lurking in your home, and start with good solid nutrition from REAL sources.

Once you’ve made the required adjustments to your diet, start a food/mood journal. It’s very likely you will begin to see a link between certain foods and your state of mind. Around the holidays or when I’m on vacation, sometimes I’ve found myself in a funk; and, generally speaking, I’ve been eating things I don’t normally consume.

Certain foods seem to trigger this for me, particularly commercial bread products. You may discover that the issue is as much about what you avoid as it is about what you eat.

From a preparedness aspect, we know that if the SHTF, we will be undergoing a lot more stress than we do in our current day to day lives.

This tough time could be anything from a job loss to a natural disaster to an economic collapse. It’s vitally important to stock up on foods that promote good mental health, as well as stockpiling vitamins and supplements that can assist you nutritionally in dealing with stressful situations.

Following are some sources of the most important nutrients for good mental health. I take vitamins, but I take them as a SUPPLEMENT – meaning, I try very hard to meet my nutritional needs with food first and foremost.

The human body is a marvelous creation, and it works better when fueled with food and just “topped up” with vitamins. This list is not meant to be comprehensive – it’s just a starting point for your pantry and garden planning.

Chemicals Are Making Us Sterile And Dumb
March 26 2017 | From: Sott

Over the last seventy-five years, men have seen a sharp reduction in reproductive capacity, and evidence suggests that commonly found chemicals are to blame.



If that news isn't stark enough for the future of humankind, these chemicals are also making us dumber. A recent piece in the New York Times drew attention to an important issue: endocrine-disrupting chemicals in everyday consumer products are killing or disabling sperm and making men sterile.

The numbers are extremely troubling. Scientists say that approximately 90% of sperm in a typical young man are misshapen, meaning they are unable to swim correctly. Additionally, sperm counts have decreased sharply over the last seventy-five years. As one researcher bluntly stated, "Not everyone who wants to reproduce will be able to."

Our grandfathers may not have been able to understand our smart phones, but their ability to produce offspring vastly outpaced our own.

There's a great deal of evidence to suggest endocrine-disrupting chemicals are the major cause of this problem. They're found in plastics, pesticides, and many other products. Quite simply, these chemicals disrupt the proper functioning of hormones.



One study by Canadian scientists found that adding endocrine disruptors to Lake Ontario turned male fathead minnows into intersexual fish (fish with both male and female characteristics), which are unable to reproduce. Unfortunately, it is far from the only study positing a link between chemicals and infertility.

The mayhem caused by these chemicals appears to happen in utero, when endocrine disruptors mimic certain hormones and confuse the biological process that turns a fetus into a male.

Chemical exposure, unfortunately, affects far more than just reproductive health. A recent study discussed in The Atlantic details the damage that certain environmental contaminants - including endocrine disruptors, but also lead, ethanol, mercury, arsenic, and more - can have on the brain. These effects include lower IQs, ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, and more.

"Our very great concern," the authors of the new study write, "is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies."

The authors also note that genetic factors account for only 30 to 40% of all cases of brain development disorders. They suggest that environmental exposures to industrial chemicals are causing a "silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity."




Comment: Protecting children from the "global, silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity"

What are federal regulators doing to deal with the rise in infertility and this "silent pandemic" of brain disorders? Not much. Humans have made, found, or used over 50 million unique chemicals, yet federal regulators have tested only 200. And only five of those were deemed harmful enough to be subject to new regulations.

This isn't simply a case of federal agencies being asleep at the wheel. Sometimes it's plain old corruption, as we'll see in the next piece in this week's Pulse of Natural Health.


Related Articles:

Endocrine Disruptors: What are they & how you can avoid them

Hormone disruptors: Everyday poisons in everyday life

Men under threat from 'gender bending' chemicals

Common Plastic Chemicals Leading to Miscarriages, Infertility

A new study has found that pesticide exposure may lead to abnormal sperm development

Landmark study exposes the impact of hormone-disrupting chemicals on you, your family and the environment

Genetics Are The New Eugenics: How GMO’s Reduce The Human Population
& This Major Report On GMO Safety Has Just One Small Problem: Undisclosed Conflicts Of Interest
March 25 2017 | From: GlobalResearch / Sott

Last year, we had a series of mergers in the agribusiness’ GMO-corporations worldwide. This has created an alarming concentration of corporate power in the hands of basically three corporate groups.



The first one is Bayer AG of Germany, which made a friendly takeover of Monsanto. The reason for this was that Monsanto became identified in the public mind as pure evil and everything bad about GMO’s, which was accurate.

Related: Transgenic Wars - How GMOs Impact Livestock And Human Health Around The Globe

This became a burden on the whole GMO project. So, Bayer stepped in, which has a friendly image of an aspirin, harmless, nice company, but in fact is the company that invented heroin in the 1880’s and made gas for the ovens of Auschwitz during WWII.

It’s one of the dirtiest agribusiness companies in the world with a series of homicides and pesticides that killed off bee colonies and many other things that are essential to life and to nature.

ChemChina – China State Chemical giant – for some reason took over Swiss Syngenta, which makes weed-killers.

Then, Dow Chemicals and DuPont merged their GMO businesses together.

So, we have three gigantic corporate groups worldwide controlling the genetically-modified part of the human food chain.

As dangerous as the GMO crops are and the more they sell, it is becoming more and more obvious that they are the chemicals that by contract must be applied to those GMO seeds by the corporations.

They demand that if you buy roundup ready soybeans or corn, you must use Monsanto (now Bayer) roundup.

Therefore, this is giving more corporate power to the GMO industry than ever before and that’s an alarming trend. They are putting pressure on the bureaucracy in Brussels.

One example: there was a massive public campaign against the renewal of the license of the European Commission for Glyphosate. Glyphosate is the most widely used weed-killer in the world. Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Monsanto’s roundup. The other ingredients are Monsanto’s corporate secret, but the combination of them is one of the most deadly weed-killers.

The World Health Organization’s body responsible for assessing genetic dangers made a ruling the last year that Glyphosate was a probable cancer-causing agent.

The license came up for automatic renewal last year – a 15-year license. The EU commission for health was prepared to automatically renew it for 15 years. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which is responsible allegedly for the health and safety of European citizens, recommended approval based on a German study by the German Food Safety Agency that was simply lifted 100% from studies given by the private corporation Monsanto!

So, the whole chain was corrupt from the beginning and all the information was rigged. In reality tests have shown that in minuscule concentrations, lower than in recommended levels in Europe and in the US, Glyphosate causes kidney disease, liver disease, and other illnesses that are potentially fatal.

Now, Glyphosate has shown up in urine tests, in urban drinking water, in gardens, in ground water and so forth. And that gets into the system of childbearing women, for example, with embryo. It’s all in this!

The EU commission, despite a million petitions – this is a record setting – and despite recommendations from leading scientists around the world to not renew the license, made a compromise under huge industry pressure and renewed it for 18 months. Why did they renew it for that time?

Because at the end of 18 months, they were told by Bayer and Monsanto that the takeover of those two giant corporations will be completed and Bayer is going to replace Glyphosate with another, likely more deadly toxin, but not so well-known as Glyphosate. So, they simply bought time. And that is just one example.

This agenda of GMO is not about the health and safety; it’s not about increasing crop yields – that’s a lie that has been proven in repeated tests in North America and all around the world.

Crop yields for farmers, using GMO plants, may increase slightly for the first 1-2 harvest years, but ultimately decline after 3-4 years.



And not only that! We’ve been promised by Monsanto and other GMO giants that the use of chemicals will be less, because of these “wonderful” traits that GMO plants resist.

In fact, the weeds become resistant and you have super weeds, which are 5-6 feet in a height and choke out everything. It’s a catastrophe.

So, farmers end up using added weed killers to kill the super weeds. This whole mad playing around with the genetic makeup of nature is a disaster from the beginning.

The real agenda of GMO, which I have documented in great detail in my book “Seeds of Destruction”, comes from the Rockefeller Foundation.



It comes out of the 1920s-1930s Eugenics movement. The Rockefeller Foundation during the 1930’s, right up to the outbreak of World War II when it became politically embracing too, financed the Nazi Eugenics experiments of Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin and in Munich.

Why did they do this? Their goal was the elimination of what they called “undesirable eaters”. That is called population reduction.

After the war, the head of the American Eugenic Society, who was a good friend of John D. Rockefeller, at the annual conference of the American Eugenic Society said:

"From today, the new name of eugenics is genetics”.

Moreover, if you keep that in mind – genetic engineering, the Human Genome Project and so forth – they all are scientific frauds. Russian scientists have proven that the entire Genome Project utterly disregarded 98% of the scientifically valuable data in favor of 2%  that was completely nonsense and a waste of billions of dollars.

Therefore, they have been obsessed with the idea of how to reduce human population in a way that would not be so obvious as simply going out and carrying out mass-sterilization.

Actually, they have done that in Central America together with the World Health Organization by giving certain vaccines that they cooked-up to have abortive effects.



Therefore, the women of child-bearing age in Central America were given these vaccines against tetanus.

The organization of the Catholic Church became suspicious because the shots were given only to women, not to men. And they found that there was buried in the vaccine an abortive effect that made it impossible for women to conceive and bear children. This is all covert population reduction.

These are the Western patriarchs who believe they are the gods, sitting on the throne with great dignity, controlling mankind. I think they are a bunch of fools, but they have this agenda of genetic manipulation. It’s against nature, it’s chemically unstable.

And I have to congratulate the Russian Federation that they had the courage and the moral concern for their own population to ban GMO cultivation across Russia.

That was a step forward for mankind. I would hope that Russia will use its influence to get China to do the similar thing, because their agriculture is in dire need of some healthy Russian input. But this step by Russia to make a GMO-free agriculture is a great step for mankind.

Not surprisingly, the report did little to "end the highly polarized dispute over biotech crops," concluded New York Times reporter Andrew Martin in an article just after the report's release. He added that both sides of the debate "pointed approvingly to findings that buttressed their viewpoint and criticized those that did not."

And a new paper, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS-One, ups the temperature of that long-simmering debate.

The authors - Sheldon Krimsky, a professor in the Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts, and Tim Schwab, a researcher at Food & Water Watch - found that 6 of the 20 scientists who contribute to NASEM's GMO report had ties to the ag-biotech industry that weren't disclosed in the paper.



Five of them "had patents or industry research funding" while they served on the committee, and another one "reported receiving industry research funding" a few years before.

As Krimsky and Schwab note, the NASEM paper states that the GMO assessment, launched only after face-to-face conversations;

"Determined that no one with an avoidable conflict of interest is serving on the committee."

They also uncovered another undisclosed potential conflict: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, a nonprofit institution, has had substantial funding from the very companies whose products were assessed in the report:

"The organization's annual financial reports do not give exact figures but note that three leading agricultural biotechnology companies (Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow) have given up to $5 million dollars each to the NASEM."

The National Academies even hosted a 2015 workshop on communicating the science of GMO crops to the public, funded in part by Monsanto and DuPont.



The PLOS-One findings do not invalidate the findings of the GMO assessment, of course. Having a financial interest in an industry does not automatically make a scientist incapable of commenting honestly on that industry's products. Fred Gould, professor of entomology at North Carolina State University and the chair of the committee that wrote the report, defended it in an email.

"The one implicit rule on our committee was that if you wanted something to go into the report, you had to back it up with evidence that was acceptable to everyone on the committee," he wrote. "No one person could steer the committee with an opinion. I welcome people to scrutinize the accuracy of our report." (Gould was not one of the six committee members found by the PLOS authors to have industry ties.)

In a statement, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine denied that members of the committee violated conflict-of-interest disclosure norms. NASEM maintains a;

"Stringent, well-defined, and transparent conflict-of-interest policy, with which all members of this study committee complied," the statement reads. "It is unfair and disingenuous for the authors of the PLOS article to apply their own perception of conflict of interest to our committee in place of our tested and trusted conflict-of-interest policies."

However, NASEM's published policy on the topic mentions "patents, copyrights, and other intellectual property" and "research funding and other forms of research support" as potential conflicts of interest.



William Kearney, deputy executive director and director of media relations for NASEM, said the group sees such relationships as conflicts only when they're worth at least $10,000. By NASEM's reckoning, none of the committee members violated the group's disclosure policy.

All of that said, the undisclosed relationships uncovered by Krimsky and Schwab raise questions about the NASEM's ability to fulfill its mission of providing "nonpartisan, objective guidance for decision makers on pressing issues." And as Krimsky and Schwab also note, the National Academies' problem with conflicts of interest is long-standing.

Back in 2006, the Center for Science in the Public Interest issued a report finding that nearly a fifth of the scientists appointed to one of the group's panels over a three-year period had "direct financial ties to companies or industry groups with a direct stake in the outcome of that study."

The Drugs May Be The Problem - Inconvenient Truths About Big Pharma And The Psychiatric Industry + Psychologist Speaks Out: Psychiatry Is Misleading Public About Mental Disorders
March 25 2017 | From: NaturalBlaze / Sott / Various

I borrowed the title from psychiatrist Peter Breggin’s ground-breaking 1999 book Your Drug May Be Your Problem.



Thousands of Big Pharma whistle-blowers like me, along with millions of other skeptics concerning the alleged safety (now disproven) and alleged efficacy (now disproven) of Big Pharma’s often toxic and often addictive psych drugs, are justifiably concerned with the huge influence that the for-profit, essentially amoral, multinational pharmaceutical corporations have over the medical establishment, including the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health) and academic psychiatry.

Related: I Tried to Get Off Ativan

Many whistle-blowers that have been trying to expose the frailties and fraudulence of the psychiatric drug industry regard Dr Breggin as a mentor, and increasingly, many survivors of psychiatric drug addiction and neurotoxicity feel the same. His books occupy a significant section in my personal library.

I have spent many hours reading and studying Breggin’s books.

Over and over again, I have confirmed the veracity of his evidence and applied his insights in my past practice of holistic mental healthcare, where I saw hundreds of patients who had been seriously sickened by and addicted to irrational cocktails of psych drugs, which has been prescribed in trial-and-error experimental fashions.



Sometimes, when all the psych drugs and their combinations and dosages of drugs had been tried and failed (usually making the patient worse), brain-disabling and seizure-inducing electroshock, the ultimate psychiatric method of last resort, was added, with the predictable loss of employability, personality and memory – both short-term and long-term.

Sadly, because Breggin has been such a big threat to the profitability of Big Pharma and the practice of psychiatry, he has unfairly been regarded as a medical heretic, and therefore he, his courageous truth-telling and his books have been essentially black-balled by psychiatrists and the medical establishment.

Despite the fact that his ideas are considered heretical in mainstream psychiatry, his books continue to be inspirational and educational for psychiatric patients who know that they have been sickened and/or made worse by the use of brain-disabling drugs and electroshock.

Breggin is a giant among psychiatric whistle-blowers and a huge thorn in the side of the super-wealthy and obscenely profitable multinational psychopharmaceutical corporations (and much of academic psychiatry).

He has been influential with free-thinking physicians and feared by establishment types ever since his first ground-breaking book was published in 1991.

That book was titled Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock and Biochemical Theories of the ‘New Psychiatry’.

Last year was the 25th anniversary of Toxic Psychiatry’s publication and I dedicated a recent seminar that I did in St Paul, MN to him. It needs to be emphasized that Breggin’s books are virtually banned books in polite medical establishment circles. They are rarely found on mainstream book-seller’s store shelves, and they are absent from hospital libraries that are designed for physician education.

“We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth… For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” - Patrick Henry (1775) “It would be good for humankind and bad for the fishes if all the drugs were thrown into the sea.” - Dr. William Osler “One of the first duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take medicine…The good physician treats the disease; the great physician treats the patient who has the disease… The person who takes medicine must recover twice, once from the disease and once from the medicine.” - Dr. William Osler “Prozac and its successor antidepressants cause sexual dysfunction in as many as 70% of people taking them.” - Dr Loren Mosher

Among the approximately 2 dozen books Dr Breggin has written during his long career as author and practicing psychiatrist (he is still curing patients at age 80) is his Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry: Drugs, Electroshock and the Role of the FDA (1997, revised in 2008).

That book exposed the corrupted pseudoscience and out-and-out bribery that has enabled the psychopharmaceutical industry to convince the CDC, the FDA, the NIMH, and academic psychiatry (all of which have enormous power in essentially every medical school and major medical clinic in the nation), to thrive by foisting their potentially addictive, potentially brain-damaging and potentially dementia-inducing synthetic psych drugs (and their potentially brain-damaging electroshock “treatments”) onto an unsuspecting, indoctrinated and often naive healthcare industry (and the brain-washed populace).

Pharmaceutical money in the hundreds of millions are showered upon those supposedly independent groups every year.

Corporate, for-profit “science” has not been recognized as pseudoscience and therefore has been spreading, thanks to the propaganda that is repeated endlessly in the popular media that overwhelms the accurate, unbiased neuroscience research that is published (but not read by most physicians) in relatively obscure journals.

Non-corrupted “pure” science that doesn’t rely on Big Pharma money can only be done if the influence of big money isn’t a factor.

And the journal articles written about that science are being written by conscientious and under-funded research scientists who haven’t been bought or co-opted by the pharmaceutical corporations that are collectively known as Big Pharma.

The full title of Dr Breggin’s 1999 book, co-authored with Dr David Cohen, is Your Drug May Be Your Problem: How and Why to Stop Taking Psychiatric Medications.

Psychiatrist William Glasser wrote the following in the forward to the first edition:

"Nowhere does the false medical thinking (that there is a drug cure for almost all common diseases) do more harm than in the modern psychiatric argument that mental illness is easily diagnosed and then cured by a side-effect-free drug. Nowhere is the correct psychiatric thinking more evident than in the books by Peter Breggin. In them he explains clearly that patients with mental illnesses are in almost all instances suffering from their inability to connect with important people in their lives and need help in making these vital connections. He supports safe, drug-free counseling as a more effective way to help people, and I enthusiastically agree with this premise."

Psychiatrist Alberto Fergusson wrote:

"This book is one of the most important things that has happened to psychiatry and especially to so-called ‘psychiatric patients’ during this century. Having worked for more than 20 years with so-called schizophrenics – the main victims of the abuse by prescribed psychiatric drugs – I can say that Breggin and Cohen must be praised for the courage they have had to unmask many pseudo-scientific conclusions frequently present in supposedly scientific literature.”

Psychiatrist Douglas C. Smith endorsed the book with this:

"One hundred years from now, people will read current psychiatric textbooks with the same incredulity we have about blood-letting and snake oil. Your Drug May Be Your Problem will be remembered as the turning point and as the beacon that showed the way out of these dark days of widespread psychiatric drugging. Breggin and Cohen provide us with critical information we need to know in order to make informed decisions about psychiatric drugs, including when and how to stop taking them. They present it all within a coherent philosophy of life and health that makes the routing use of psychiatric drugs obsolete. If you have reached that inevitable point of being disillusioned with your psychiatric drug, this book will be your best friend and guide.”

In 2008, another of Breggin’s ground-breaking books was published. It was titled Medication Madness: A Psychiatrist Exposes the Dangers of Mood-altering Medications. The liner notes say:

"Medications for everything from depression and anxiety to (so-called) ADHD and insomnia are being prescribed in alarming numbers across the country, but the “cure” is often worse than the original problem. “Medication Madness” is a fascinating, frightening and dramatic look at the role that psychiatric medications have played in 50 case histories of suicide, murder, and other violent, criminal and bizarre behaviors… “Psychiatric drugs frequently cause individuals to lose their judgment and their ability to control their emotions and actions. The book raises and examines the issues surrounding personal responsibility when behavior seems driven by drug-induced adverse reactions and intoxication. “Many categories of psychiatric drugs can cause potentially horrendous reactions. Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Adderall, Ritalin, Concerta, Xanax, lithium, Zyprexa and other psychiatric medications may spellbind patients into believing they are improved when too often they are becoming worse. Psychiatric drugs drive some people into psychosis, mania, depression, suicide, agitation, compulsive violence and loss of self-control without the individuals realizing that their medications have deformed their way of thinking and feeling. The book documents how the FDA, the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical industry have oversold the value of psychiatric drugs. The book serves as a cautionary tale about our reliance on potentially dangerous psychoactive chemicals to relieve our emotional problems and provides a positive approach to taking personal charge of our lives.”

“Psychiatry has been almost completely bought out by the drug companies… We’re so busy with drugs that you can’t find a nickel being spent on [non-drug] research.” - Dr Loren Mosher

Psychiatrist Loren Mosher (who earned degrees from both Harvard and Stanford) was the highly esteemed founder of the experimental “Soteria Project: Community Alternatives for the Treatment of Schizophrenia” from 1971 to 1983.

Five years before his untimely death in 2004, Dr Mosher endorsed Breggin’s Your Drug May Be Your Problem. He wrote:

"Confronting current psychiatric drug prescribing practice head-on is a daunting task and we owe Drs Breggin and Cohen a vote of thanks for openly speaking the truth. Despite what the pharmaceutical companies would have us believe, we don’t need ‘a better life through chemistry.’ This book will help debunk this myth and provide practical advice on how to avoid psychiatric drugs and get off them.”

The Soteria Project proved that patients with first onset psychotic breaks could actually be cured without the need for coercive, in-patient psychiatry or the so-called “anti-psychotic/major tranquilizer” drug treatments that were considered the standard of care in all of America’s in-patient psychiatric facilities.

One only has to recall Jack Nicholson’s psych ward in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest where everybody was forced to take the authoritarian Nurse Ratched’s Thorazine at “Medication Time”.

Neither Nurse Ratched, the psychiatrists nor the treatment staff working on Randle McMurphy’s  ward had any idea that the antipsychotic drugs that were routinely administered commonly caused permanent iatrogenic brain damage, including tardive dyskinesia, tardive dementia, Parkinson’s disease, brain shrinkage and sexual dysfunction, not to mention a high incidence of the following antipsychotic drug-induced signs and symptoms: akathisia, depression, suicidality, homicidality, disability, unemployability, homelessness, loss of IQ points, chronic constipation, dry mouth, premature death, and general feelings of zombification.

Thorazine, and its sister “first generation” anti-psychotic drugs like Mellaril and Haldol, and every other so-called anti-psychotic drug ever made since then (including the second generation/“atypical” antipsychotics (and even the SSRIs) that wouldn’t come to market until the 1990s, have been found to cause diabetes, obesity, gynecomastia, pituitary dysfunction, cardiac rhythm disturbances, sudden death, etc.

Soteria’s lucky patients had been randomized into the Soteria Project and therefore most of them avoided being falsely labeled as life-long chronic schizophrenics.

Most importantly, most of them didn’t wind up as permanent patients on life-long psych drugs.

If it hadn’t been for the existence of the Soteria Project, they would have instead been sent to a typical coercive Southern California insane asylum, where they were told that they had a non-existent chemical brain imbalance and therefore had to be on dependency-inducing, brain-altering and brain-damaging psychiatric drugs for the rest of their lives.

Because of the luck of the draw many Soteria patients were cured of their temporary psychosis at far less costs of care and without the brain damage.

Some of the Soteria patients went on to lead normal lives following their discharge. In contrast, the vast majority of the patients who had been randomized into the “insane asylums”, wound up chronically drugged with dangerous, untested (for safety) cocktails of drugs, often for the rest of their lives (which were destined to be shortened by 25 years because of the drugs).

Tragically, especially for the millions of future mis-diagnosed (and therefore mis-treated) so-called “chronic schizophrenics” since then, the Soteria Project was sabotaged by Dr Mosher’s own National Institute of Mental Health.

The obviously unwelcome positive findings that were coming out of the Soteria Project were accurately seen by the establishment types in the NIMH, Big Pharma and Big Psychiatry as an economic threat to their industries, and they had to act to subvert the project. Scandalously, the project was defunded in 1983.


Psychology Professor Tells Truth About Psychiatry - "The Emperor Wears No Clothes"

In a posthumously published book (2004), Dr Mosher and his co-authors describe the highly successful innovative, non-drug therapeutic approach that was given to Soteria’s patients by the young, caring, altruistic, but non-professional staff.

The book was titled Soteria: From Madness to Deliverance. It told the story of the noble experiment that managed to alleviate the temporary mental suffering of some otherwise doomed fellow humans who would have been put at risk of permanent life-long drug-induced disabilities rather than given a chance at a cure.

A good description of the project can be read at Robert Whitaker’s Mad In America website.

"Soteria is the story of a special time, space, and place where young people diagnosed as ‘schizophrenic’ found a social environment where they were related to, listened to, and understood during their altered states of consciousness. Rarely, and only with consent, did these distressed and distressing persons take ’tranquilizers’. They lived in a home in a California suburb with nonmedical caregivers whose goal was not to ‘do to’ them but to ‘be with’ them. The place was called ‘Soteria’ (Greek for deliverance), and there, for not much money, most recovered. Although Soteria’s approach was swept away by conventional drug-oriented psychiatry, its humanistic orientation still has broad appeal to those who find the mental health mainstream limited in both theory and practice.”

One can appreciate the anguish that Mosher and all the committed and enthusiastic non-professional healers felt when the NIMH pulled the plug on the experiment. Mosher became disillusioned with the APA and eventually resigned.


Loren Mosher’s 1998 Letter of Resignation from the APA: “I want no part of it anymore.”

Here are excerpts from Mosher’s letter of resignation from the APA, a professional trade and lobbying organization to which he had been a long-time member. For good reason, he called the APA the American Psychopharmaceutical Association.

He unintentionally outlines in his resignation letter the well-known strategy of how dysfunctional organizations often try to get rid of their best people (especially the creative and talented ones who also happen to be a threat to the less competent and ingrained upper management types whose positions of power, influence and seniority may be at risk).

Making life miserable for promising up-and-coming employees is commonly orchestrated by threatened superiors by demoralizing the subordinates into quitting the organization.

Such cowardly attacks can avoid controversy and legal entanglements. Mosher felt the pressure and logically resigned, saying “I want no part of it anymore”. Here is some of Mosher’s resignation letter:

"The trouble began in the late 1970s when I conducted a controversial study: I opened a program — Soteria House - where newly diagnosed schizophrenic patients lived medication-free with a young, nonprofessional staff trained to listen to and understand them and provide companionship. The idea was that schizophrenia can often be overcome with the help of meaningful relationships, rather than with drugs, and that such treatment would eventually lead to unquestionably healthier lives. “The experiment worked better than expected. Over the initial six weeks, patients recovered as quickly as those treated with medication in hospitals. “The results of the study were published in scores of psychiatric journals, nursing journals and books, but the project lost its funding and the facility was closed. Amid the storm of controversy that followed, control of the research project was taken out of my hands. I also faced an investigation into my behavior as chief of the National Institute of Mental Health’s Center for Studies of Schizophrenia and was excluded from prestigious academic events. By 1980, I was removed from my post altogether. All of this occurred because of my strong stand against the overuse of medication and disregard for drug-free, psychological interventions to treat psychological disorders. “I soon found a less politically sensitive position at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland. Eight years later, I re-entered the political arena as the head of the public mental health system in Montgomery County, Md., but not without a fight from friends of the drug industry. The Maryland Psychiatric Society asked that a state pharmacy committee review my credentials and prescribing practices to make sure that Montgomery County patients would receive proper (read: drug) treatments. In addition, a pro-drug family advocacy organization arranged for more than 250 furious letters to be sent to the elected county executive who had hired me. Fortunately, my employers were not drug industry-dominated, so I kept my position. “Why does the world of psychiatry find me so threatening? Because drug companies pour millions of dollars into the pockets of psychiatrists around the country, making them reluctant to recognize that drugs may not always be in the best interest of their patients. They are too busy enjoying drug company perks: consultant gigs, research grants, fine wine and fancy meals “Pharmaceutical companies pay through the nose to get their message across to psychiatrists across the country. They finance symposia at the two predominant annual psychiatric conventions, offer yummy treats and music to conventioneers, and pay $1,000-$2,000 per speaker to hock their wares. It is estimated that, in total, drug companies spend an average of $10,000 per physician, per year, just on “education”. “And, of course, the doctors-for-hire tell only half the story. How widely is it known, for example, that Prozac and its successor antidepressants cause sexual dysfunction in as many as 70% of people taking them?… “Recently, it was dues-paying time for the American Psychiatric Association, and I sat there looking at the form. I thought about the unholy alliance between the APA and the drug industry. I thought about how consumers are being affected by this alliance, about the overuse of medication, about side effects and about alternative treatments. I thought about how irresponsibly some of my colleagues are acting toward the general public and the mentally ill. And I realized, I want no part of it anymore.”

The demise of the Soteria Project is just another of the multitude of daily examples of amoral, non-human, sociopathic corporations doing what is best for their bottom line and not what is best for the people that are targets of their dangerous products. We are all poorer for their actions.

He is an outspoken critic of psychiatric industry's claim that mental disorders are biological or medical conditions despite the fact there are no scientific or medical tests to back up this claim.

A Quick Review Of Fake Medical Diagnostic Tests + Author Exposes The “Vaccine Deep State”- A Massive Criminal Fraud And Embezzlement Ring Inside The CDC
March 23 2017 | From: JonRappoport / NaturalNews

Over the years, during my investigations of deep medical fraud, I’ve uncovered diagnostic tests that are wrong-headed, misleading, and fallacious.

1: Antibody test. This is given to detect the presence of a specific germ in a human. However, prior to 1985, a positive test was generally taken as a sign of good health: the patient’s immune system detected the germ and defeated it.

In fact, a vaccine purportedly produces antibodies and, therefore, is said to confer immunity - but the very same antibodies, generated naturally by the body, signal illness. This is absurd.

2: The PCR test. The Polymerase Chain Reaction tests for the presence of virus in a patient. It takes a tiny sample, which technicians assume is a genetic piece of a virus far too small to observe, and amplifies it many times, so it can be identified.



But in order to cause disease in a human, a huge quantity of virus (easily observed without the PCR) needs to be present. Therefore, a PCR test-result indicates nothing about disease - except that medical personnel couldn’t find enough virus in a person, to begin with, to assume the person was ill or would become ill.

3: MRI brain imaging. As I reported this morning, a significant bug in the software had been discovered in 2015. The software, not medical personnel, is responsible for creating the brain images. Therefore, 40,000 published papers relying on MRI results have been invalidated.

4: All tests resulting in a diagnosis of any of the 300 officially certified mental disorders. There are no definitive tests. No blood, saliva, hair tests. No genetic assays. No brain scans. All so-called mental disorders are diagnosed on the basis of consulting menus of behaviors. This is pseudoscience.

5: All tests designed to assess the effectiveness of vaccines. The only marker is: does the vaccine produce antibodies in a human. But antibodies are only one aspect of the immune system. They aren’t the whole picture. There are numerous studies that reveal vaccinated persons coming down with the disease against which they were supposedly protected.



Related: Doctors Who Discovered Cancer Enzymes In Vaccines All Found Murdered

Food for thought: “Publications by the World Health Organization show that diphtheria is steadily declining in most European countries, including those in which there has been no immunization. The decline began long before vaccination was developed.

There is certainly no guarantee that vaccination will protect a child against the disease; in fact, over 30,000 cases of diphtheria have been recorded in the United Kingdom in fully immunized children.” (Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 58.)”

6: Unsupported claims from public health officials. No tests at all. For example, at the height of the so-called Swine Flu epidemic, in the fall of 2009, the CDC secretly stopped counting cases in America.

Why? Because the overwhelming percentage of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients, sent to labs, were coming back with no trace of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu.



In other words, the epidemic was a dud and a hoax. Based on this vacuum of evidence, the CDC went on to estimate that, in America, there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu.

But don’t worry, be happy. Keep your mouth shut and obey all doctors’ orders.

The book is published by Skyhorse Publishing, which I consistently find to be the single most courageous publisher of truth books in America. Time and time again, so many of the best titles exposing fraud, corruption and criminality inside the “status quo” are published by Skyhorse.

Related: Australia Now Refuses To Treat Unvaccinated - Fast Tracking Fascism

The foreward for Master Manipulator is written by none other than Sharyl Attkisson, and the introduction is penned by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who states:

"This is a story of how CDC used a con man to gull the public and ended up getting conned itself! Poul Thorsen is a world-class villain whose manipulation of health data gave CDC and big pharma what they wanted: a report clearing thimerosal of any possible role in the autism crisis. His story merits a book length expose because the fraud he casually helped orchestrate has had a monumental impact on the health of millions of children globally."

Master Manipulator is a must-read for anyone hoping to be truly informed about the depths of criminality and fraud inside the CDC, “science” and the vaccine industry. One section in particular is especially noteworthy.

It’s called the “Vaccine Deep State.” I’m reprinting part of that section of the book below. Buy the book yourself at Barnes & Noble to read more. (RELATED: Follow more news about the deep state at DeepState.news.)


The Vaccine Deep State

The monolith of the CDC-FDA-NIH is supposed to be separated by a divide with the big pharma vaccine producers. But since the NIH rejected the Swedish scientist’s brief that all thimerosal should be removed from vaccines in 1992, there has been little to no separation of powers, policies, messaging, or enforcement between government oversight and industry manufacturers.



Related: “National Call-In Day” Announced for Vaccine Safety and Reform: March 30th

The separation of church and state doesn’t exist anymore in the vaccine industry, not with Vaccine Court squashing all comers, the Dick Armey “Lilly Rider” slipped into the 2002 Homeland Security Act, and the FDA’s approval to double the doses of aluminum adjuvants in several vaccines.

Vaccines today are part of a program rife with ROT and deception.

In a September 2007 hearing by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions for “Thimerosal and Autism Spectrum Disorders: Alleged Misconduct - this was a case of one hand washing the other.

It read: While the five studies in question may have varying connections to the CDC and/or vaccine manufacturers, their value to consideration of an alleged link between vaccines and autism is a matter for the experts of the ISR Committee, and not for Congress.

What the findings got wrong by one half of the government to keep Congress in its place, since they were not qualified to review scientific data, as good as the “experts” that false assertion was nothing more than a ruse, a smokescreen.



What Congress needs to do is evaluate the human side of this tragedy and ongoing fraud. It has nothing to do with science - no scientific expertise is required, just the nose to follow the money.

It has everything to do with corruption, cover-up, relentless greed, pulling the ripcords on golden parachutes, shielding vaccine makers from harm, all while exposing millions of babies, children, and people around the world to great harm.

Congress needs only to examine agendas, follow the email trails, and begin to pull the weeds that have infested the CDC, FDA, and NIH lawn, removing all of the ROT as they should have done in 1990 with the Agent Orange finding.

Had they done that, then maybe Coleen Boyle would have become a librarian instead of the director of NCBDDD, and Diana Schendel would have done good collaborative studies instead of the studies that had a fixed objective to show no association, and maybe Poul Thorsen wouldn’t have been invited to come to the CDC as a visiting professor or been able to secure funding for the cooperative agreements because the “hunt for good data” never would have taken place.

Why is it so hard for mainstream media, independent journalists, and government officials on both sides of the aisle to grasp the dangers of micro small toxins?



Related: Special Report: Mold and Fungus Biggest Hidden Health Threat: The Hidden Dangers of the Air Inside Your Home

If they believe that the unseen greenhouse gas particulates and molecules can superheat the world and change climate, why is it so hard to believe that traces of mercury and aluminum in vaccines have harmed so many once promising, healthy children for the past two decades?

If a grown man can die from a tiny amount of venom in a bee sting, then why is it so hard to believe that trace amounts of metals in babies who weight from seven to twenty-five pounds can have adverse reactions to being injected with toxins, especially when all of their bodies - from the central nervous and immune systems to the brain and lungs - are under development?

“Less is more” is a motto that our politicians need to take up with the Vaccine Deep State and rein it in. If they cannot do it, don’t have the will to do it, don’t have the balls to do it, or won’t expend the political capital to do it, a tipping point will soon one day force there hand.

When will that occur? When 1 in 40 babies are born on the spectrum? One in 25 babies born? How about 1 in 10?

Will the rate of autism incidence have to soar to that sky high number for our government to react and belatedly realize that the autism epidemic has been real all along, and its long-over due to do something about it?

The next generation, who will be born over the next decade, is awaiting your call to action. Will you act?

How LED Lighting May Compromise Your Health & Why Sunlight Deficiency Is As Deadly As Smoking
March 23 2017 | From: Mercola / GreenMedInfo / Various

Can light affect your health? In this interview, Dr. Alexander Wunsch, a world class expert on photobiology, shares the hidden dangers of light-emitting diode (LED) lighting that most people are completely unaware of.



In fact, this could potentially be one of the most important video interviews I've done, as it has enormous impacts - not only on preventing blindness as you age but it is also a pervasive hidden risk factor for sabotaging your health.

Related: These Light Bulbs Cause Anxiety, Migraines, And Even Cancer

Largely as a result of energy efficiency, there's been a major transition to using LED as a primary indoor light source. In this regard, it worked like a charm, reducing energy requirements by as much as 95 percent compared to incandescent thermal analog sources of lighting.

However, the heat generated by incandescent light bulbs, which is infrared radiation, is actually beneficial to your health, and hence worth the extra cost.

If you chose to ignore these new insights, it can have very serious long-term ramifications. It could lead to age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which is the leading cause of blindness in the United States and elsewhere.

Other health problems rooted in mitochondrial dysfunction may also be exacerbated, and these run the gamut from metabolic disorder to cancer.


What Is Light?

The definition of light, as applied to artificial light sources, is rather distinct. Visible light is only between 400 nanometers (nm) and 780 nm, but "light" is actually more than just what your eye can perceive. As explained by Wunsch:

"When we look at sunlight, we have a much broader spectral range, from somewhere around 300 nm up to 2,000 nm or so. For our energy efficiency calculation, it makes a big difference if we are talking about this broad natural range or if we are only talking about … vision performance [T]he definition that we are only looking at the visible part of the spectrum [given in the 1930s] … led to the development of energy-efficient light sources like the fluorescent lamps or what we have nowadays, the LED light sources, because they are only energy efficient as long as you take the visible part of the spectrum [into account] … [F]or example, [lamps providing] phototherapy with red light can be used in medical therapy to increase blood circulation, and this is a part we are taking away as long as we only look at the visible part. Physicists think that infrared radiation is just thermal waste. But from the viewpoint of a physician, this is absolutely not true; in the last 30 years there have been hundreds of scientific papers published on the beneficial aspects of a certain part in the spectrum, which is called near-infrared or infrared-A."

You cannot feel near-infrared as heat, and you cannot see it, but it has a major beneficial impact in terms of health. Near-infrared is what's missing in non-thermal artificial light sources like LED.

There's also a difference between analog and digital forms of light sources, and this difference is another part of the complexity. In essence, there are two separate but related issues: the analog versus digital light source problem, and the spectral wavelength differences.

Starting with the latter, when you look at the rainbow spectrum, the visible part of light ends in red. Infrared-A or near-infrared is the beginning of the invisible light spectrum following red. This in turn is followed by infrared-B (mid-infrared) and infrared-C (far-infrared).

While they cannot be seen, the mid- and far-infrared range can be felt as heat. This does not apply to infrared-A, however, which has a wavelength between 700 and 1,500 nm.

"Here you have only very low absorption by water molecules, and this is the reason why radiation has a very high transmittance," Wunsch says. "In other words, it penetrates very deeply into your tissue, so the energy distributes in a large tissue volume. This near-infrared A is not heating up the tissue so you will not feel directly any effect of heat. This significantly changes when we increase the wavelength, let's say, to 2,000 nm. Here we are in the infrared-B range and this already is felt as heat. And from 3,000 nm on to the longer wavelength, we have almost full absorption, mainly by the water molecule, and this is [felt as] heating."

The near-infrared range affects your health in a number of important ways. For example, it helps prime the cells in your retina for repair and regenerate.

Since LEDs have virtually no infrared and an excess of blue light that generates reactive oxygen species (ROS), this explains why LEDs are so harmful for your eyes and overall health.

Chromophores are molecules that absorb light. There's an optical tissue window that ranges from 600 to 1,400 nm, which means it is almost completely covered by the infrared-A part of the spectrum. This optical tissue window allows the radiation to penetrate several centimeters or at least an inch or more into the tissue.

Chromophores are found in your mitochondria and in activated water molecules. In your mitochondria, there's also a specific molecule called cytochrome c oxidase, which is involved in the energy production within the mitochondria. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) - cellular energy - is the end product.

ATP is the fuel your cells need for all of their varied functions, including ion transport, synthesizing and metabolism. Remarkably, your body produces your body weight in ATP every day. And, while you can survive for several minutes without oxygen, were all ATP production to suddenly stop, you'd die within 15 seconds.


Lighting Plays an Important Role in Biological Energy Production

This is why this issue of lighting is so important. Light is a sorely misunderstood and overlooked part of the equation for biological energy production, specifically at the mitochondrial ATP level. As further explained by Wunsch:

"The cytochrome c oxidase, which is this [light] absorbing molecule, is the last step before the ATP is finally produced in the mitochondria. Here we have this tipping point where light in a wavelength range between 570 nm and 850 nm is able to boost energy production, especially in cells when energy production is depleted … We know today that many signs of aging, for example, are the consequence of hampered mitochondrial functioning, and so we have a very interesting … tool to enhance the energy status in our cells, in the mitochondria in our cells, and not only on the surface but also in the depths … of the tissue. This is one important aspect and there are hundreds of papers published on these positive effects …

Infrared saunas are another magnificent way to nourish your body with near-infrared light. But not just ANY infrared sauna. Most offer only FAR-infrared and are not full spectrum. Most also emit dangerous non-native EMFs. So you need one that emits low or no non-native EMFs.

After searching for a long time I finally found a near perfect one and hope to have it made to my customized specs in a few months. And it should be significantly less than $1,000. So stay tuned for this exciting development.


Wound Healing and Anti-Aging Procedures Make Use of Near-Infrared

These beneficial effects can be seen in wound healing and anti-aging procedures where near-infrared is employed. Since the cytochrome c oxidase is responsible for an increased production of ATP, the cell has a better supply of energy, which allows it to perform better, and this is true no matter where the cell resides.

This means liver cells with more ATP will be able to detoxify your body more efficiently; fibroblasts in your skin will be able to synthesize more collagen fibers and so on, because ATP is crucial for all cellular functions. Wunsch expands on this even more in the lecture above.

According to Wunsch, as little as one-third of the energy your body requires for maintaining the thermal equilibrium comes from the food you eat.



The electrons transferred from the food, primarily the fats and the carbohydrates, are ultimately transferred to oxygen and generate ATP. The more near infrared you get, the less nutritional energy is required for maintaining thermal homeostasis.

That said, a differentiation is in order. Most of the METABOLICALLY USED energy does come from food. But there is a thermodynamic aspect to it as well.

Maintaining a normal body temperature (37 degrees C or 98.6 degrees F) involves two mechanisms: Energy production in your mitochondria from food, and photonic energy (near-infrared radiation from sunlight and incandescent light bulbs) that is able to penetrate deeply into your tissue, even through clothing.

"The radiation can enter your body and then be transformed into longer wavelengths in the infrared part. They are very important for supporting the temperature level, the thermal energy level, of our body which is … a very crucial aspect. A lot of energy comes in the form of radiation and this is supporting our thermal balance," Wunsch explains.

The key take-home message here is that your body's energy production involves not just food intake. You also need exposure to certain wavelengths of light in order for your metabolism to function optimally. This is yet another reason why sun exposure is so vitally important for optimal health.


Analogue Versus Digital Lighting

LED lamps are a form of digital non-thermal lighting whereas incandescent light bulbs and halogens are analog thermal light sources.

"For a color changing system you have three different LEDs, a red, a green and a blue LED, and the intensity of these three colored channels has to be changed in order to achieve different color use, which is perceived by the eye in the end. The control of the intensity output of an LED is realized in a digital manner because it's very difficult to have a low intensity in many different steps. The dimming of LEDs is realized by a so-called pulse-width modulation, which means the LEDs switch on to the full intensity and then they fully switch off, and then they switch on again. So we have the constant on and off in frequencies, which are higher than our eyes are able to discriminate. But on the cellular level, it is still perceivable for the cells … [T]his causes a flicker, which is not perceivable for let's say 90 percent of the population. But it's still biologically active. And flicker is something that is very harmful to your [biology]."

You've likely experienced this if you're old enough to recall the older TVs that had a very visible and intense flicker. Modern flat screens do not have this perceptible flicker, but they're still switching on and off.



Scientists are now trying to develop systems capable of transmitting information via high-frequency flicker in the LED lighting to replace the wireless LAN system. According to Wunsch, this is a very bad idea, from a health perspective.

"I call these LEDs Trojan horses because they appear so practical to us. They appear to have so many advantages. They save energy; are solid state and very robust,. So we invited them into our homes. But we are not aware that they have many stealth health-robbing properties, which are harmful to your biology, harmful to your mental health, harmful to your retinal health, and also harmful to your hormonal or endocrine health,"he says.

Unfortunately, the use of LEDs has been mandated by federal policy in both the U.S. and much of Europe, in an attempt to conserve energy.

While inarguably effective in that regard, the biological impact of these bulbs has been completely ignored, and by mandating them, options have been restricted.


Understanding the Dangers of LEDs

Understanding how LEDs can harm your health begins with the recognition that light emitted from an LED bulb is of a different quality than a natural light source. Normally, a natural light source is a black body radiator that gives off all kinds of wavelengths in a more or less continuous manner.

LEDs are fluorescent lamps, consisting of a blue LED, a driver LED, and a fluorescent sheet that covers the blue LED, transforming part of the blue light into longer wavelengths, thereby creating a yellowish light.

The yellowish light from the fluorescent layer combines together with the residual blue light to a kind of whitish light, a large portion of which is an aggressive blue light.

"Blue has the highest energy in the visible part of the spectrum and produces, infuses, the production of ROS, of oxidative stress," he says. "The blue light causes ROS in your tissue, and this stress needs to be balanced with near-infrared that is not present in LEDs. We need even more regeneration from blue light, but the regenerative part of the spectrum is not found in the blue, in the short wavelength, part. It's found in the long wavelength part, in the red and the near-infrared. So tissue regeneration and tissue repair results from the wavelengths that are not present in an LED spectrum. We have increased stress on the short wavelength part and we have reduced regeneration and repair on the long wavelength part. This is the primary problem … [W]e don't have this kind of light quality in nature. This has consequences. The stress has consequences in the retina; it has consequences in our endocrine system."

You probably know by now that blue light in the evening reduces melatonin production in your pineal gland. But you also have cells in your retina that are responsible for producing melatonin in order to regenerate the retina during the night.

If you use LED lights after sunset, you reduce the regenerative and restoring capacities of your eyes.

Needless to say, with less regeneration you end up with degeneration. In this case, the degeneration can lead to AMD, which is the primary cause of blindness among the elderly. However, and this is that most fail to appreciate, LED light exposure that is not balanced with full sunlight loaded with the red parts of the spectrum is always damaging to your biology. Just more so at night.

So, to summarize, the main problem with LEDs is the fact that they emit primarily blue wavelengths and lack the counterbalancing healing and regenerative near-infrared frequencies. They have very little red in them, and no infrared, which is the wavelength required for repair and regeneration.

When you use these aggressive lower frequencies - blue light - it creates ROS that, when generated in excess, causes damage. So when using LEDs, you end up with increased damage and decreased repair and regeneration.


Are There Any Healthy LEDs?

There's a wide range of LED lights on the market these days. Some are cool white, others are warm white, for example. The former emits higher amounts of harmful blue light.

The warm LEDs can be deceptive, as they give out a warm-appearing light but do not actually have the red wavelength.

The warmth comes from masking the blue with high amounts of yellow and orange.

There are also LEDs available with less blue, which are closer to the spectral distribution of incandescent lamps with regard to the blue part of the spectrum. Unfortunately, without tools to measure it, you won't know exactly what you're getting.

This is in sharp contrast to an incandescent light bulb, where you know exactly what kind of light spectrum you're getting.

"With LED, the layman is not able to tell if it's a tailored spectrum where you have the blue part only masked by excessive parts of other spectral regions," Wunsch says. "There are different technologies … Soraa, for example, have violet driver LED, not blue … By their technology, the red is a little bit more emphasized compared to the standard white light fluorescent LEDs. So there are in fact better and worse LED types around. But the spectral distribution is just one thing … We are interested in the R9, which represents the full reds. This information is sometimes given on the package. You have, for example, CRI, which is the color rendering index of 95 with an R9 of 97 or so. This is the only sign for the customer that you have a high level or a high index for the R9."

So, when buying LEDs, one way to get a healthier light is to look at the CRI. Sunlight is the gold standard and has a CRI of 100.

So do incandescent light bulbs and candles. What you're looking for is a light that has an R9 (full red spectrum) CRI of about 97, which is the closest you'll ever get to a natural light with an LED. Another factor to look at is the color temperature. There are two different kinds of color temperature:

1. Physical color temperature, which means the temperature of your light in degrees Kelvin (K). This applies to sunlight, candlelight, incandescent lamp light and halogens. What this means is that the source itself is as hot to the touch as the color temperature given.

The sun, for example, which has a color temperature of 5,500 K, has a temperature of 5,500 K at its surface, were you to actually touch the sun. Incandescent lamps have a maximum of 3,000 K, as the filament would melt if the temperature got any higher.

2. Correlated color temperature. This is a measurement that tells you how the light source appears to the human eye. In other words, it is a comparative measurement. A correlated color temperature of 2,700 K means it looks the same as a natural light source with a physical color temperature of 2,700 K.

The problem here is that while such a light LOOKS the same as a natural light, it does not actually have the same quality, and your body, on the cellular level, is not fooled by what your eye sees. On a cellular level, and on the level of the retina, the majority of the light is still cold, bluish white, despite its apparent, visible warmth.

Incandescent light bulbs have a color temperature of 2,700 K whereas LEDs can go up to 6,500 K - the really bright white LED. In this case, the closer you are to incandescent, the better. Lastly, there's the digital component, which is virtually unavoidable no matter what. To determine how good or bad a particular LED is:

"You would have to measure somehow if the LED produces flicker or not. Two, three years ago, it would have been much easier because the camera of an older smartphone was not as high-tech equipped as they are today. With an old smartphone camera, when you look into the light source, you can see these wandering lines, so you can detect if the light source is flickering," Wunsch explains.

A simpler way would be to purchase a flicker detector, which are available fairly inexpensively. Another way to determine the flicker rate would be to use the slow motion mode on your camera. Record the light source in slow motion mode and check it for visible flickering.

Unfortunately, it doesn't always work. Some newer cameras and smartphones have a built in algorithm that will detect the flicker frequency and change the shutter speed accordingly to improve the recording, thereby eliminating the interference. If your camera has this algorithm, it will not record a visible flicker even if it's there.


Healthier Solutions

I like being on the cutting edge of technology and I quickly switched out all my incandescent bulbs for LED lighting. I now realize the enormity of my mistake, but at the time - going back almost 10 years now - I was completely unaware that it could have health consequences. Before that, I used full-spectrum fluorescents, which is equally deceptive, as it is full spectrum in name only.

I'm now convinced LED light exposure is a very serious danger, especially if you are in a room without natural light.

The biological risks are somewhat mitigated if you have plenty of sunlight streaming through windows. At night, LEDs become a greater danger no matter whether you're in a windowless room or not, as there is no counterbalancing near-infrared light.

Personally, I've not swapped all my lights back to incandescent because they're such energy hogs. But all the lights I have on at night have been switched to clear incandescent bulbs without any coating that changes their beneficial wavelengths.



So the take-home message of this interview is to grab a supply of the old incandescents if you can and switch back to incandescent light bulbs.

Just remember to get incandescents that are crystal clear and not coated with white to give off a cool white light. You want a 2,700 K incandescent, thermal analog light source. Actually, fragrance-free candles would be even better. Be particularly mindful to only use this type of light at night. After sunset, I also use blue-blocking glasses.

"It is definitely a good idea to keep away the short wavelengths in the evening, so after sunset. It's also a good idea not to intoxicate your environment with too much light. We know that artificial light levels at night have reached insane intensity. The candle, the intensity of the candle for example, is absolutely sufficient for orientation. If you have to read in the evening or at night time, my personal favorite light source for reading tasks is a low-voltage incandescent halogen lamp, which is operated on a DC transformer. Direct current will eliminate all the dirty electricity and it will eliminate all the flicker. There are transformers available where you can adjust the output between 6 volts and 12 volts. As long as it's direct current, there is no flicker, there is no dirty electricity, and you are able to dim the halogen lamp into a color temperature that is comparable to candle light even. This is the softest, the healthiest electric light you can get at the moment," Wunsch notes.

Low-voltage halogen lights are also very energy efficient - up to 100 percent more energy efficient than the standard incandescent lamp. Just be sure to operate it on DC. Incandescent lights, including halogen, can be operated at both AC and DC, but when operating on AC, you end up generating dirty electricity, Wunsch explains.

On DC, you get no electrosmog with a low-voltage halogen.


Light Comparisons

The following graphic illustrates the differences in color spectrum between an incandescent light, which has very little blue, compared to fluorescent light and white LED.

This next graph illustrates the differences between daylight, incandescent, fluorescent, halogen, cool white LED and warm white LED.

As you can see, there's a tremendous difference between incandescent and warm LED. While they may look the same to the naked eye, there's no comparison when it comes to their actual light qualities.



Looking at the spectral differences between incandescent and halogen lamps, there seems to be no difference at all. In order to elucidate the disparity, Wunsch did some measurements of incandescent and halogen lamps using his UPRtek MK350S spectrometer. The differences are almost imperceptible, indeed.

Spectrum of a standard incandescent lamp: Correlated color temperature (CCT) = 2890 K.

Spectrum of a energy saving halogen lamp: Correlated color temperature (CCT) = 2842 K.


How to Make Digital Screens Healthier

When it comes to computer screens, Wunsch suggests reducing the correlated color temperature down to 2,700 K - even during the day, not just at night.

Many use f.lux to do this, but I have a great surprise for you as I have found a FAR better alternative that was created by Daniel, a 22 year old Bulgarian programmer that Ben Greenfield introduced to me.

He is one of the rare people that already knew most of the information in this article. So he was using f.lux but was very frustrated with the controls.



Related: Massive Government Study Concludes Cell Phone Radiation Causes Brain Cancer + The Effects Of Smartphone Light On Your Brain And Body

He attempted to contact them but they never got back to him. So he created a massively superior alternative called Iris. It is free, but you'll want to pay the $2 and reward Daniel with the donation. You can purchase the $2 Iris software here.

OLED screen technology is another development that may be better than conventional screens.

"[With] the OLEDs technology, I'm not sure if the color is really stable in every angle you can look at the display," Wunsch says. "But definitely, if you have the screen technology where black is really black, then you have less radiation coming into your eyes and the OLEDs technology is able to provide this. So the high contrasts between the black and white, all the black areas in the thin-film-transistor (TFT) screen or the standard screen are not really black. They are also emitting shortwave radiation. The OLED screen only emits where you see light, where there is black on the screen, there is no light. This might be preferable as long as you have no problems with the [viewing] angle."

Related: Companies Develop “Safe” Screens That Filter Blue Light Emitted By Electronic Devices

To Protect Your Health and Vision, Stick to Incandescent Lights

LEDs are a perfect example of how we're sabotaging our health with otherwise useful technology. However, with knowledge, we can proactively prevent the harm from occurring.

In summary, we really need to limit our exposure to blue light, both during the daytime and at night. So for nighttime use, swap out your LEDs for clear bulb incandescents, or low-voltage incandescent halogen lights that are run on DC power.

I also strongly recommend using blue-blocking glasses after sundown, even if you use incandescent light bulbs.

Without these modifications, the excessive blue light from LEDs and electronic screens will trigger your body to overproduce ROS and decrease production of melatonin, both in your pineal gland and your retina, the latter of which will prevent repair and regeneration, thereby speeding up the degeneration of your eyesight.

"One thing to emphasize again, it's not the blue light coming from the sun itself which we should be concerned about. It's the blue light, the singular high energy visual light (HEV), which comes from cold energy-efficient non-thermal light sources. This is what causes the problem, not the blue light which comes together with longer wavelengths in a kind of natural cocktail that has the beneficial near-infrared spectrum … The light surrogates from non-thermal light sources, these are [what cause] problems, and you have to be clever to avoid these Trojan horses. If you want to make it [safe], stay with the candles, stay with the incandescents," Wunsch says.

Another Healthy Light Alternative

Candles are even a better light source than incandescent bulbs, as there is no electricity involved and is the light that our ancestors have used for many millennia so our bodies are already adapted to it. The only problem is that you need to be very careful about using just any old candle as most are toxic.

As you may or may not know, many candles available today are riddled with toxins, especially paraffin candles. Did you know that paraffin is a petroleum by-product created when crude oil is refined into gasoline?

Further, a number of known carcinogens and toxins are added to the paraffin to increase burn stability, not including the potential for lead added to wicks, and soot invading your lungs.

To complicate matters, a lot of candles, both paraffin and soy, are corrupted with toxic dyes and fragrances; some soy candles are only partially soy with many other additives and/or use GMO soy. There seems to be a strange mind-set that exposure to small amounts of toxins is OK, even though the exposure is exponential over time!




Why Sunlight Deficiency Is As Deadly As Smoking

A groundbreaking new study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine has revealed something absolutely amazing about the role of the Sun in human health: a deficiency of sunlight could be as harmful to human health as smoking cigarettes.

The new study titled, "Avoidance of sun exposure as a risk factor for major causes of death: a competing risk analysis of the Melanoma in Southern Sweden cohort," was conducted by Swedish researchers on a population of almost 30,000 women.

They assessed the differences in sun exposure as a risk factor for all-cause mortality, within a prospective 20-year follow up of the Melanoma in Southern Sweden (MISS) cohort. The women were aged 25-64 years at the start of the study and recruited from 1990 to 1992. When their sun exposure habits were analyzed using modern survival statistics they discovered several things.

First:  

"Women with active sun exposure habits were mainly at a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and noncancer/non-CVD death as compared to those who avoided sun exposure."

Second:

"As a result of their increased survival, the relative contribution of cancer death increased in these women."

This finding may be a bit tricky to understand, so let's look at it a little closer.

Because cancer risk increases along with biological age, the longer you live, the higher your cancer risk will be. Therefore, because increased sunlight exposure actually increases your longevity, it will also appear to increase your risk of cancer. But this does not necessarily mean that sunlight is intrinsically "carcinogenic," which is commonly assumed. 

Related: Five Amazing Properties Of Sunlight You've Never Heard About

Because heart disease is #1 killer in the developed world, and since sunlight reduces this most common cause of premature death, even if it increases the risk of the #2 most common cause of death (cancer), the net effect of sunlight exposure is that you will still live longer, which helps to contextualize and neutralize the "increased cancer risk" often observed.

Keep in mind, as well, that a huge number of cancers are overdiagnosed and overtreated, without sufficient acknowledgement by the medical establishment, whose culpability is rarely addressed. These "cancers" greatly inflate the statistics.

With millions of so-called early stage cancers like these - especially breast, prostate, thyroid, lung, and ovarian -- being wrongly diagnosed and treated, the complexity of the topic makes determining the role of sunlight exposure and cancer risk all the more difficult to ascertain. 

Moving on, the point about the longevity promoting properties of sunlight are driven home strongly by the third major observation: 

"Nonsmokers who avoided sun exposure had a life expectancy similar to smokers in the highest sun exposure group, indicating that avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking."

This is a powerful finding with profound implications. To say that "avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking," is to point out that sunlight exposure, rather than being the constant lethal threat it is perceived to be, warranting the slathering on all over the body of synthetic sunscreens virtually guaranteed to cause harm from toxicant exposure, is essential to our health.



In fact, according to the CDC, smoking is responsible for 6 million unnecessary deaths a year, and the "overall mortality among both male and female smokers in the United States is about three times higher than that among similar people who never smoked." 

And so, sunlight exposure may be so powerful an essential and necessary ingredient in human health that it might be considered medically unethical not to provide access to it, or to advise more routine exposure to it.  

The fourth and final observation of the study was that: 

"Compared to the highest sun exposure group, life expectancy of avoiders of sun exposure was reduced by 0.6-2.1 years."

Sunlight Attains Its Former Status As An Indispensable Component of Health

While we can say that sunlight deficiency may contribute to lethal outcomes on par with smoking, we can rephrase the information positively by affirming that the Sun and its light may be as important to human health as is clean food or water.



In fact, compelling new research suggests that energy from the Sun drives the cellular bioenergetics of the biomachinery of our bodies through non-ATP dependent processes.

Consider the work of Gerald Pollack, PhD, author of the "The 4th Phase of Water" (see video below), who explains how infrared energy of the Sun charges up the water molecules within our body (99% of the molecules in our bodies in number are water) like trillions of molecular batteries. 


The Fourth Phase of Water: Dr. Gerald Pollack

When pertaining to cardiovascular health, sunlight energy in the form of infrared charged water molecules supports the heart's job of pumping the blood throughout the blood vessels by producing a form of highly structured and energized water known as Exclusion Zone water, or EZ water, and which may actually provide over 99.9% of the biomechanical energy needed to push the 1.2-1.5 gallons of blood in the average adult body through the literally thousands of miles of blood vessels.  

Provocative new research also suggests the body contains a variety of photoacceptors/chromophores (e.g. cytochrome C oxidase) capable of accepting and utilizing sunlight to generate so-called “extra synthesis” of ATP.





Additionally, melanin may absorb a wide range of the Sun’s electromagnetic spectrum, converting it into useful energy and perhaps also biologically important information, even perhaps taking harmful gamma radiation and turning it into biologically useful energy. 

Even something as commonplace in the human diet as chlorophyll has recently been found to act as a means to enhanced the light-harvesting properties of animal cells.

In fact, we reported recently on a study that found enhanced ATP production (without the expected concomitant uptick in reactive oxygen species production) through intermediary of chlorophyll metabolites that end up in the mitochondria of our cells following microbiome-mediated digestive processes.  

Natural health advocates have sung the praises of sunlight for health since time immemorial.

While in modern times, sunlight-phobia is omnipresent, with parents of especially lighter skinned ethnicities forcing their children to don space-suit level all body protective gear, along with spraying or slathering them with extremely toxic petrochemical derivatives and nanoparticle metals with potentially cancer-promoting properties, there is a growing appreciation that we need the Sun as both a form of food, energy and information. 

It’s, of course, not all about vitamin D. To reduce the perceived health benefits of sunlight to this hormone like compound is as reductionistic as saying a orange’s health benefits are solely dependent on and reducible to the molecular scaffolding of atoms that comprise the chemical skeleton of the ascorbic acid molecule.



We are beginning to learn that certain wavelengths of sunlight activate a wide range of ancient, hard-wired genetic and epigenetic programs, relevant to all of our body's systems.

The wavelengths of light that occur at sunset, for instance, may have been so important to our evolution as a species that our very hairlessness, and our massive brains may not have evolved without daily exposure to them, for hundreds of thousands and even millions of years.

This phenomena, also known as biophotomodulation, opens up a radically new perspective on the role of the sun in human health and disease.

If sunlight deficiency is really as deadly as actively smoking cigarettes, it could be said that those who do not experience regular natural light exposure are no longer truly human, or capable of experiencing the optimal expression of their biological, mental, and spiritual blueprint.



A fundamental right, and health practice, would be daily outdoors exposure. How many of us have considered the state of office workers, institutionalized educational systems without windows, night shift work, and prisons?

Sunlight depravation, in light of these new findings, could be considered a significant violation of human health rights. 

This new study my pave the way for a deeper understanding of what humans need to be truly healthy, with sunlight deficiency being a prime example of what is most wrong about our modern incarnation as a primarily indoors focused creature, leading to our physical and psychospiritual degeneration.

As new models of cellular bioenergetics emerge, taking into account the ability of the body to directly or indirectly harvest the various light wavelengths of the Sun, direct daily exposure to sunlight may be looked upon as at least as an important step as "taking your vitamins," or exercising, for maintaining our health.

Conversely, sunlight deficiency and / or depravation will be likely be viewed to be as dangerous or lethal as smoking.

Related: Matter Will Be Created From Light Within A Year, Claim Scientists

Peer Reviewed 'Science' Losing Credibility Due To Fraudulent Research & Manufacturing Consent In Science: The Diabolical Twist
March 19 2017 | From: CollectiveEvolution / JonRappoport

Science today, in all fields, is plagued by corruption. Yet, more often than not, attempts to create awareness about scientific fraud - an issue that few journalists have been willing to address - are met with the response, “Well, is it peer-reviewed?”

Although good science should always be reviewed, using this label as a form of credibility can be dangerous, causing people to dismiss new information and research instantaneously if it doesn’t have  it, particularly when that information counters long-held beliefs ingrained into human consciousness via mass marketing, education, and more.

Unfortunately, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that we are being lied to about the products and medicines we use on a daily basis.

Climate Science

Many people have spoken up against the corporatization and politicization of science.

For example, Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climatologist and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, has voiced his concern that some scientists are, according to an interview given to the Daily Mail, “mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist.”

He claims that there are multiple indicators for how “science is gradually being influenced by political views.” (Source)

Professor Joanna D. Haigh, a British physicist, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, and former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, has also spoken up about the politicization of climate science. (Source)



Related: Green Gestapo Says You're Mentally Ill If You Challenge Climate Change + Over 30,000 Scientists Say 'Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming' Is A Complete Hoax And Science Lie

The Australian prime minister’s chief business advisor has done the same, and so have other politicians, like Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. You can read more about that story here.

Unfortunately, the mainstream vilifies such people, and to great effect.

Below is an excellent snippet of a lecture given by Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change.

He knows that all climate science we receive is IPCC United Nations science. One of the scientists mentioned on the senator’s list, in this video, he talks about the politics of climate science and the manipulation of data - something that plagues all fields of science today.



Is Science Progressing?

Featuring Richard S. Lindzen, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute; Emeritus Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; moderated by Patrick Michaels, Director, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute.

For many fields of science, there is little doubt that the period 1830-1965 was a golden age. There is also little doubt that changes in the support structure for science since the late 60's have powerful elements that serve to inhibit major developments.



Related: Many Scientific “Truths” Are, In Fact, False + A Scientist Explains Why "Everything Is Fucked"

Dr. Lindzen will discuss these changes from the personal perspective of a climate scientist, and place them in the historical perspective of other areas of study.

Quantification of the effects of the support structure is complicated. There are a multiplicity of factors involved, including the existence of branches of science that are closely associated with political and social agendas.

Changes in the character of major research centers, including the federalization of major research universities, also plays a major role, independent of the particular area of science. Serious studies of marginal factors such as diminishing returns as funding increases are sorely lacking.

Medical Science / Health Science / Food

In the case of medicine, a lot of information has emerged showing just how much corruption really goes on. The Editors-in-Chiefs of several major medical journals have been quite blunt, with perhaps one of the best examples coming from Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, who says;

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” - Source

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), also considered one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, alongside The Lancet, has said that:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”   - Source

“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” which subsequently became the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS). - Source

Here is another great quote:

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” - Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal  - Source

As you can see, this has been a problem for quite some time.


A Couple of Examples:

GMOs

One of the best examples of political influence over scientific publication comes from an episode involving Genetically Modified Maize. Monsanto published a study a few years ago which purported to demonstrate the effects of GMO maize on rats over a 90 day period.



Related: GMO Science Deniers: Monsanto And The USDA

They reported no ill effects on the rodents from this diet. Given the fact that there are no long term studies examining the health risks associated with GMOs, independent researchers then decided to conduct the same study, with one difference:

Their study lasted over a year rather than a mere three months. Researchers found instances of severe liver and kidney damage, as well as hormonal disturbances, alongside the development of large tumours and mortality among the treatment groups.

The study was published in November of 2012, in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, and then instantly retracted. After hundreds of scientists condemned the retraction, the U.S. did not publish it. The study was then re-published in multiple peer-reviewed scientific journals (in Europe last year [2014]), like Environmental Sciences Europe.



Related: GAME OVER: GMO Science Fraud Shattered By Stunning Investigative Book Worthy Of Nobel Prize - Altered Genes, Twisted Truth

This is why it shouldn’t be a surprise that so many countries in Europe have  banned the growing of genetically modified crops. Many also have bans and/or severe restrictions on importing GM products, citing health and environmental concerns.

This fact was also made clear by WikiLeaks documents:

"Resistance to the advent of genetically modified foods has been pronounced across Europe. The continent features some of the strictest regulations governing the use and cultivation of GMO products, and public skepticism about biotech goods is quite high – a fact not lost on American diplomats. In a lengthy report dating from late 2007 , a cable issued by the State Department outlined its “Biotechnology Outreach Strategy, ‘which, among other things, recognized the European Union’s ‘negative views on biology’ and committed as a national priority to limiting them (O7STATE160639). Initial attention paid to the State Department’s part in pushing industrial manufactures on its allies obscured the even bigger role it played in assuring a place for genetically modified agricultural products (GMOs) in a region that largely wanted nothing to do with them. The American campaign promoting biotech products was a worldwide effort. In all, some 1,000 documents from the Cablegate cache address this effort, a significant number of which originate in Europe. U.S. diplomats on the continent gave considerable attention to insuring the interests of American biotech firms in Europe – Whether through “education” programs, government lobbying, or outright coercion – as well as stripping down European Union regulations designed to act as a bugger against them. Available cables published by WikiLeaks suggest that the United States invests considerable time, effort, and expense in its operations on behalf of the American biotech firms."

In 1996, Steven M. Druker, being a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance For Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods.

He’s recently published a book on the lawsuit that provides details of his experience. He has also released the documents on his website, showing the significant hazards of genetically engineering foods and the flaws in the FDA’s policy.

It’s called Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public.


Pharmaceutical Drugs

There are a number of examples to choose from here, but antidepressants make the top of the list. Irving Kirsch, a lecturer in medicine at Harvard Medical School, published a study pointing out how:

“Analyses of the published data and the unpublished data that were hidden by drug companies reveals that most (if not all) of the benefits are due to the placebo effect.” - Source

Another study published in the British Medical Journal by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen showed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials.



Related: Junk Science Week: Science Is On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown

Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported.

Tamang Sharma, a PhD student at Cochrane and lead author of the study, said:

“We found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested them. I’m actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation would be if we had the complete data.” - Source

Related: The Rise Of Scientific Fundamentalism

Another co-author of the study, Dr. Peter Gotzsche, who co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration (the world’s foremost body in assessing medical evidence), found in a separate analysis that 100,000 people in the United States die each year from the side effects of correctly used prescription drugs, noting that:

“It’s remarkable that nobody raises an eyebrow when we kill so many of our own citizens with drugs.”

He has published many papers arguing that our use of antidepressants is causing more harm than good, and taking into consideration the recent leaks regarding these drugs, it seems he is correct.

Below is a brief video of him elaborating on this problem -



Dr Peter Gøtzsche Exposes Big Pharma as Organized Crime

Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD is a Danish medical researcher, and leader of the Nordic Cochrane Center at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark. He has written numerous reviews within the Cochrane collaboration.

Dr.Gøtzsche has been critical of screening for breast cancer using mammography, arguing that it cannot be justified; His critique stems from a meta-analysis he did on mammography screening studies and published as is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable in The Lancet in 2000. In it he discarded 6 out of 8 studies arguing their randomization was inadequate.



Related: Crisis In Science Research: Over 70% Of Researchers Fail To Reproduce Another Scientist's Experiments

In 2006 a paper by Gøtzsche on mammography screening was electronically published in the European Journal of Cancer ahead of print.

The journal later removed the paper completely from the journal website without any formal retraction. The paper was later published in Danish Medical Bulletin with a short note from the editor, and Gøtzsche and his coauthors commented on the unilateral retraction that the authors were not involved in.

In 2012 his book Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy was published. In 2013 his book Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare was published. www.cochrane.org

Vaccines

Vaccines are getting more attention now than ever before. In fact, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman of the World Mercury Project (WMP), recently announced a $100,000 challenge aimed at putting an end to the inclusion of mercury, a neurotoxin that is 100 times more poisonous than lead, in vaccines administered in the U.S and globally.

It’s offered to anybody, including journalists and scientists, who can provide a study showing that it is safe to inject mercury into babies.



Related: The Cult Of 'Scientism' Explained: How Scientific Claims Behind Cancer, Vaccines, Psychiatric Drugs And GMOs Are Nothing More Than Corporate-Funded Science Fraud

This will be difficult, as hundreds of studies (that were also present at the press conference in print form) show it is absolutely unsafe, and can significantly increase the risk of developing neurodegenerative disorders.

You can read more about this here.

Multiple cases of vaccine fraud have been uncovered, but this is something you might not know given the fact that the mainstream media completely ignores these facts, and vaccines are heavily marketed.

For example, Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry and is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine, as well as a medical investigator, uncovered documents that reveal vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. - Source

But perhaps one of the biggest revelations in medical history, also unfortunately ignored by mainstream media, came only a couple of years ago and is still making noise, as it should.



Related: Some Of The Biggest Lies Of Science

Dr. William Thompson, a longtime senior CDC scientist, published some of the most commonly cited pro-vaccine studies, which showed that there was absolutely no link between the MMR vaccine and autism (Thompson, et al. 2007, Price, et al. 2010, Destefano, et al. 2004). 

However, Dr. Thompson recently admitted that it was “the lowest point” in his career when he “went along with that paper.” He went on to say that he and the other authors “didn’t report significant findings” and that he is “completely ashamed” of what he did. He was “complicit and went along with this,” and regrets that he has “been a part of the problem.” (source)(source)(source)

A  study with revised information and no data omitted was published by Dr. Brian Hooker (a contact of Dr. Thompson) in the peer reviewed journal Translational Neurodegeneration, and it found a 340% increased risk of autism in African American boys receiving the Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. The study has since been retracted, around the same time this controversy arose.

You can read the full study here, although, unsurprisingly, it has since been retracted.

Thompson’s attorneys, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Bryan Smith of Morgan & Morgan, also released a statement from Dr. Thompson, which mentioned Hooker:

“I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies  the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent.” - Source

he had to invoke whistleblower protection and turned extensive agency files over to Congress. He said that, for the past decade, his superiors have pressured him and his fellow scientists to lie and manipulate data to conceal a causal link between vaccines and brain injuries, including autism.


Final Thoughts

As you can see, scientific fraud is a big problem across the board, and this article has only provided a few examples. The problem is not just with GMOs and vaccines - it affects cosmetics, food, cleaning supplies, and so much more. How have so many products, which cause so much harm, been approved by the agencies that are tasked to protect us?



Related: 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

There are so many books on this topic, but they don’t get the attention they deserve, since the major mainstream media shareholders are identical to those of the entire health industry. Why would they bash their own products on their own national television networks?

The power of corporate America has taken over almost every aspect of our lives. If you’re wondering what we can do about it, well, I believe the first step is awareness. There is still a plethora of information that the general public is completely unaware of, but if we backtrack to a decade ago, information that used to be considered a conspiracy is now simply fact.



Related: The Top 10 Tricks Used By Corporate Junk Science

A great example is the corporate takeover of science, as discussed in this article, but another one could be the Snowden Leaks on mass surveillance, or 9/11. Studies are now being published by physicists and engineers regarding that event.

Awareness makes it harder for the elite to manipulate us. Once we become aware of something, we can stop it. For example, look at Genetically Modified Foods and the pesticides that go with them.

As soon as the masses became aware of their dangers, they began to change their shopping habits. Now, most countries around the world have completely banned these foods.

It’s difficult to accept that there are unseen powers, motivated by their own greed and lust for power, that are doing us harm disguised as good. It is only when we become aware of how we are being harmed and change our shopping habits - hurting their bottom line - that they change their tactics. 

On the other hand, it’s encouraging to know that once we do come together for a common goal, anything can be accomplished, and we actually do have the potential and power to change our world.


Related Articles:

Global Warming HOAX Unravels: Globalist Science Fraud Engineered To Control Humanity, Not Save It + Global
Warming - The Largest Science Scandal In History

Senior Academic Condemns ‘Deluded’ Supporters Of GM Food As Being ‘Anti-Science’ And Ignoring Evidence Of Dangers

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

This is nothing less than the creation of reality.

From so many directions, official science is shaping our future - that’s why it’s vital to understand the manipulations involved.

It’s one thing to say media collaborate to sell a false picture of reality, a picture which is then bought by the masses.

It’s quite another thing to say media collaborate to PRETEND there is ALREADY a consensus of the best professional minds on a given scientific subject - when there ISN’T.

I’ll start with a theoretical example. Let’s say three researchers at a university examine data based on US space shuttle missions, and they conclude that a small set of new conclusions is true. I’ll call this set X.



Related: Official Science: The Grand Illusion

The researchers publish an article in a journal, and a healthy debate ensues in professional circles. Is X correct? Are there flaws in the research?

However, a powerful public agency decides that X is dangerous. X could lead to inquiries about contractors, investigations into cost overruns, missing money, and, worst of all, flawed engineering of the shuttles. Therefore, this powerful agency goes on an all-out propaganda campaign, tapping its press sources, culminating in a new study that concludes X is entirely false.

The press basically trumpets: “Experts agree X is false. X was the result of shoddy research. The original researchers made numerous amateur mistakes.”

Notice that, in this case, the press isn’t simply distorting the news. It’s announcing that a superior consensus already / suddenly exists among the best scientific minds.

It’s lying about a consensus that doesn’t exist among scientists who, up until that moment, were having a healthy debate. The press is presenting the false consensus as if it were real and widespread, when it isn’t.

But at this point, all relevant scientists get the message: keep quiet, don’t debate for another moment; otherwise grant monies will vanish, demotions will occur, peers will lay on heavy criticism, excommunication from The Club will follow.

So these scientists do keep quiet - and NOW a consensus among them comes into being, by implied threat and coercion.



Related: Scientific American Writer Exposes The Tribal Cultist Arrogance And Dogmatic Lunacy Of Science 'Skeptics'

This is basically what happened in the arena of energy-production via cold fusion. Wikipedia adequately summarizes the superficial situation:

“The most famous cold fusion claims were made by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989. After a brief period of interest by the wider scientific community, their reports were called into question by nuclear physicists.”

Not just called into question; defamed, derided, mocked, slammed over the head with a sledgehammer.

A superior consensus was invented, despite the fact that many scientists were intensely interested in the Pons / Fleishmann findings. Some of these scientists tried, in vain, to point out that failed efforts to reproduce those findings resulted because researchers were altering Pons and Fleishman’s methods.

No dice. Cold fusion was labeled a giant error and even a fraud. The official door was closed. THEN a consensus hardened - through coercion and intimidation.

In my research leading up to the publication of my first book, AIDS INC., in 1988, I reviewed the period of the early 1980s, when many researchers were coming at the question of the cause(s) of AIDS from different angles. But then, suddenly, in the spring of 1984, the US government officially announced, at a televised press conference, that a virus called HTLV-III (HIV) was the cause.



Related: Seeding Doubt: How Self-Appointed Guardians Of “Sound Science” Tip The Scales Toward Industry

The science was shoddy, to put it mildly. It was bad science and no science. There was no single published paper that meticulously laid out proof of HIV as the cause of AIDS. But no matter.

Overnight, all the monies that had gone into discovering what caused AIDS were diverted into the question: How does HIV cause AIDS? Any scientist who failed to see the handwriting on the wall was shoved out into the cold.

The press closed ranks. The consensus (though it was manufactured in the blink of an eye) was trumpeted around the world.

The big news headline wasn’t just false and distorted. It was false-and-distorted about a consensus that, until a few seconds ago, didn’t exist - and only existed now because researchers went silent and accepted dogma and folded up.

Predatory corporations, who spray poisonous pesticides all over the world and cause birth defects, need special protection and cover?

Public health agencies that recommend giving vaccines to pregnant women, and increase the risk of babies born with defects?

Solution: invent, overnight, and broadcast, a consensus that a basically harmless virus is the cause of those tragic birth defects.

I can assure you there are many scientists who don’t, for a second, believe the Zika virus is such an agent of destruction. But they have kept their mouths shut, and have chosen to roll with the tide.



Related: Everything Is Rigged: Medicine, Science, Elections, The Media, Money, Education, Search Engines, Social Media... You Are Living In A Fabricated Fairy Tale

However, that tide is turning, in many arenas of science. Journalists and researchers with no allegiance to official bodies have emerged.

A different species of handwriting is being inscribed on the wall. What can the mainstream press do about it?

They can only deploy the crass tactics I’ve mentioned here. A massive and stunning re-education is taking place among the population. No school is running it. No agency is sponsoring it. It’s happening from the ground up.

It turns out that living as a cipher and a unit in the sticky web of fabricated consensus isn’t nearly as attractive as it once was.

More and more, major media are using the consensus strategy to invent the news - and people are rejecting it.

Without realizing it, the press is committing professional suicide.

An article that was once headlined, “Three dead horses found in a field,” has become, “Scientists agree that the three dead horses were an unconnected coincidence.”

And people are laughing the press out of court.

The ongoing scandal surrounding the film, Vaxxed, is a good example.


Trailer: Vaxxed - From Cover Up to Catastrophe

The press assures the population that pointing out a connection between a vaccine and autism is absurd, because scientific experts agree there is no such connection.

But the film features a long-time researcher at the Centers for Disease Control, who confesses that he and colleagues falsified a 2004 study in order to exonerate such a vaccine, the MMR, which does increase the risk of autism.

One of the film’s subjects is false consensus. And the press can do no better than repeat, over and over: the consensus is real and valid.

The CDC researcher and whistleblower, William Thompson, essentially said: I was part of the fake consensus. Don’t you get it? I was a card-carrying member of the club that invents fake consensus. And now I’m telling you that.

Bottom line: the media are collapsing into their own swamp. The swamp they manufacture.

For decades, the press, government agencies, the UN, and a whole host of think-tank, foundation, university players, and financiers have been fronting for a consensus which they falsely claim is already established: planned societies.



Related: A Totalitarian Society Has Totalitarian Science

They frame this consensus as technology/science - as if science itself dictates that the future must consist of interlocked organizations which insert citizens into slots. Slots where they live, where they work, where they socialize.

Abstract patterns, imposed on humans.

This has the flavor of science, but on reflection, not the substance. “We can make the top-down organization of society look scientific, as if we’re following physical laws. We can sell this as science.”

Really? Is a chart detailing how thousands of slaves will transport huge blocks of stone to chosen sites, where monuments will be built, scientific? Of course not.

In the modern world, this fakery is called technocracy. Technocracy may employ methods such as technological surveillance, but the overriding plan for organizing society has nothing to do with science. It has to do with control.



Related: US Deep State In Deep Trouble + A Deeper Understanding Of Technocracy

And when you see it that way, the supposed consensus falls apart. Who wants to live in an assigned slot “for the greater good?” Up close and personal, who wants to give up his freedom?

Review your understanding of Marxism. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

It, too, was sold as a scientific analysis of human society. It was imbued with the flavor of science, as if this Marxian principle had been discovered, just as molecules and atoms had been discovered.

And it too was promoted as an already-existing consensus among the wisest and the best and the brightest.`

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

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

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

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

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

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

The majority of territories understand the toxicity of fluorides.

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




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







Related: Why Does NZ Still Fluoridate? TV Commercial FFNZ

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

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

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

Quoting from a May 1, 1999, statement -

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

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

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



Related: Fluorides, the atomic bomb, and fake news

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

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


Related Articles:

Fluoride & The Brain

The Spice That Prevents Fluoride From Destroying Your Brain

Former EPA Senior Scientist Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ

Undeniable Evidence From Numerous Studies Proves That Fluoride Causes Cancer

Boycott Tourism In NZ: More Fluorides?

New Zealand Government Plans To Drown Its Citizens In Toxic Fluorides

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

Fluoride: Poison On Tap Official Trailer

The Fluoride Deception

New Zealand Fluoridation Review Unscientific And Intellectually Dishonest Say International Reviewers

Fluoride Free New Zealand: Dirty Science

Secret Fluoridation Review Totally One-Sided Admits Chair

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

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

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

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

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

It’s pure hypocrisy – and textbook Machiavelli deception.

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

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

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

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

Biophotons: The Human Body Emits, Communicates With, And Is Made From Light
March 16 2017 | From: Omnithought / Various

Increasingly science agrees with the poetry of direct human experience: we are more than the atoms and molecules that make up our bodies, but beings of light as well.

Biophotons are emitted by the human body, can be released through mental intention, and may modulate fundamental processes within cell-to-cell communication and DNA.

Consider that from light, air, water, basic minerals within the crust of the earth, and the at least 3 billion year old information contained within the nucleus of one diploid zygote cell, the human body is formed, and within that body a soul capable of at least trying to comprehend its bodily and spiritual origins.

Given the sheer insanity of our existential condition, and bodily incarnation as a whole, and considering that our earthly existence is partially formed from sunlight and requires the continual consumption of condensed sunlight in the form of food, it may not sound so farfetched that our body emits light.

Indeed, the human body emits biophotons, also known as ultraweak photon emissions (UPE), with a visibility 1,000 times lower than the sensitivity of our naked eye. While not visible to us, these particles of light (or waves, depending on how you are measuring them) are part of the visible electromagnetic spectrum (380-780 nm) and are detectable via sophisticated modern instrumentation.


The Physical and “Mental” Eye Emits Light

The eye itself, which is continually exposed to ambient powerful photons that pass through various ocular tissues, emit spontaneous and visible light-induced ultraweak photon emissions. It has even been hypothesized that visible light induces delayed bioluminescence within the exposed eye tissue, providing an explanation for the origin of the negative afterimage.

These light emissions have also been correlated with cerebral energy metabolism and oxidative stress within the mammalian brain.



And yet, biophoton emissions are not necessarily epiphenomenal. Bókkon’s hypothesis suggests that photons released from chemical processes within the brain produce biophysical pictures during visual imagery, and a recent study found that when subjects actively imagined light in a very dark environment their intention produced significant increases in ultraweak photo emissions.

This is consistent with an emerging view that biophotons are not solely cellular metabolic by-products, but rather, because biophoton intensity can be considerably higher inside cells than outside, it is possible for the mind to access this energy gradient to create intrinsic biophysical pictures during visual perception and imagery.


Our Cells and DNA Use Biophotons To Store and Communicate Information

Apparently biophotons are used by the cells of many living organisms to communicate, which facilitates energy/information transfer that is several orders of magnitude faster than chemical diffusion. According to a 2010 study;

“Cell to cell communication by biophotons have been demonstrated in plants, bacteria, animal neutriophil granulocytes and kidney cells.”

Researchers were able to demonstrate that:

“…different spectral light stimulation (infrared, red, yellow, blue, green and white) at one end of the spinal sensory or motor nerve roots resulted in a significant increase in the biophotonic activity at the other end.” Researchers interpreted their finding to suggest that “…light stimulation can generate biophotons that conduct along the neural fibers, probably as neural communication signals.”

Even when we go down to the molecular level of our genome, DNA can be identified to be a source of biophoton emissions as well. One author proposes that DNA is so biophoton dependent that is has excimer laser-like properties, enabling it to exist in a stable state far from thermal equilibrium at threshold.



Related: The Fibonacci Sequence: What Is The Golden Ratio?

Technically speaking a biophoton is an elementary particle or quantum of light of non-thermal origin in the visible and ultraviolet spectrum emitted from a biological system. They are generally believed to be produced as a result of energy metabolism within our cells, or more formally as a;

“…by-product of biochemical reactions in which excited molecules are produced from bioenergetic processes that involves active oxygen species,"

The Body’s Circadian Biophoton Output

Because the metabolism of the body changes in a circadian fashion, biophoton emissions also variate along the axis of diurnal time.



Research has mapped out distinct anatomical locations within the body where biophoton emissions are stronger and weaker, depending on the time of the day:

“Generally, the fluctuation in photon counts over the body was lower in the morning than in the afternoon. The thorax-abdomen region emitted lowest and most constantly. The upper extremities and the head region emitted most and increasingly over the day. Spectral analysis of low, intermediate and high emission from the superior frontal part of the right leg, the forehead and the palms in the sensitivity range of the photomultiplier showed the major spontaneous emission at 470-570 nm. The central palm area of hand emission showed a larger contribution of the 420-470 nm range in the spectrum of spontaneous emission from the hand in autumn/winter. The spectrum of delayed luminescence from the hand showed major emission in the same range as spontaneous emission.”

The researchers concluded that “The spectral data suggest that measurements might well provide quantitative data on the individual pattern of peroxidative and anti-oxidative processes in vivo.”


Meditation and Herbs Affect Biophoton Output

Research has found an oxidative stress-mediated difference in biophoton emission among mediators versus non-meditators.



Those who meditate regularly tend to have lower ultra-weak photon emission (UPE, biophoton emission), which is believed to result from the lower level of free radical reactions occurring in their bodies.

In one clinical study involving practitioners of transcendental meditation (TM) researchers found:

“The lowest UPE intensities were observed in two subjects who regularly meditate. Spectral analysis of human UPE has suggested that ultra-weak emission is probably, at least in part, a reflection of free radical reactions in a living system. It has been documented that various physiologic and biochemical shifts follow the long-term practice of meditation and it is inferred that meditation may impact free radical activity.”

Interestingly, an herb well-known for its use in stress reduction (including inducing measurable declines in cortisol), and associated heightened oxidative stress, has been tested clinically in reducing the level of biophotons emitted in human subjects.

Known as rhodiola, a study published in 2009 in the journal Phytotherapeutic Research found that those who took the herb for 1 week has a significant decrease in photon emission in comparison with the placebo group.


Human Skin May Capture Energy and Information from Sunlight

Perhaps most extraordinary of all is the possibility that our bodily surface contains cells capable of efficiently trapping the energy and information from ultraviolet radiation.

A study published in the Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology in 1993, titled, “Artificial sunlight irradiation induces ultraweak photon emission in human skin fibroblasts,” discovered that when light from an artificial sunlight source was applied to fibroblasts from either normal subjects or with the condition xeroderma pigmentosum, characterized by deficient DNA repair mechanisms, it induced far higher emissions of ultraweak photons (10-20 times) in the xeroderma pigmentosum group.

The researchers concluded from this experiment that “These data suggest that xeroderma pigmentosum cells tend to lose the capacity of efficient storage of ultraweak photons, indicating the existence of an efficient intracellular photon trapping system within human cells.“ More recent research has also identified measurable differences in biophoton emission between normal and melanoma cells.

In a previous article, Does Skin Pigment Act Like A Natural Solar-Panel, we explored the role of melanin in converting ultraviolet light into metabolic energy:

“Melanin is capable of transforming ultraviolet light energy into heat in a process known as “ultrafast internal conversion”; more than 99.9% of the absorbed UV radiation is transformed from potentially genotoxic (DNA-damaging) ultraviolet light into harmless heat.”

If melanin can convert light into heat, could it not also transform UV radiation into other biologically/metabolically useful forms of energy?

This may not seem so farfetched when one considers that even gamma radiation, which is highly toxic to most forms of life, is a source of sustenance for certain types of fungi and bacteria. More on melanin-mediated energy production here.


The Fourth Phase of Water: Dr. Gerald Pollack

Related: This Is What Happens To Your Body When You Increase Your Water Intake & 8 Amazing Effects Of Drinking Water On An Empty Stomach

Gerald Pollack, PhD, who wrote The 4th Phase of Water has identified water molecules, which constitute 99% of the molecules in our body by number, as capable of storing the energy of sunlight like batteries and driving the majority of processes within our body as a primary, non-ATP-based source of energy.

Dr. Pollack wrote a guest article for us on the topic here, Can Humans Harvest The Sun’s Energy Directly Like Plants?


The Body’s Biophoton Outputs Are Governed by Solar and Lunar Forces

It appears that modern science is only now coming to recognize the ability of the human body to receive and emit energy and information directly from the light given off from the Sun.

There is also a growing realization that the Sun and Moon affect biophoton emissions through gravitational influences.



Related: The Biocrystal, Human Energy Field And Hyperdimensional Water

Recently, biophoton emissions from wheat seedlings in Germany and Brazil were found to be synchronized transcontinentally according to rhythms associated with the lunisolar tide.

In fact, the lunisolar tidal force, to which the Sun contributes 30% and the Moon 60 % of the combined gravitational acceleration, has been found to regulate a number of features of plant growth upon Earth.

Intention Is a Living Force of Physiology

Even human intention itself, the so-called ghost in the machine, may have an empirical basis in biophotons.

A recent commentary published in the journal Investigacion clinica titled “Evidence about the power of intention” addressed this connection:

“Intention is defined as a directed thought to perform a determined action. Thoughts targeted to an end can affect inanimate objects and practically all living things from unicellular organisms to human beings. The emission of light particles (biophotons) seems to be the mechanism through which an intention produces its effects. All living organisms emit a constant current of photons as a mean to direct instantaneous nonlocal signals from one part of the body to another and to the outside world. Biophotons are stored in the intracellular DNA. When the organism is sick changes in biophotons emissions are produced. Direct intention manifests itself as an electric and magnetic energy producing an ordered flux of photons. Our intentions seem to operate as highly coherent frequencies capable of changing the molecular structure of matter. For the intention to be effective it is necessary to choose the appropriate time. In fact, living beings are mutually synchronized and to the earth and its constant changes of magnetic energy. It has been shown that the energy of thought can also alter the environment. Hypnosis, stigmata phenomena and the placebo effect can also be considered as types of intention, as instructions to the brain during a particular state of consciousness. Cases of spontaneous cures or of remote healing of extremely ill patients represent instances of an exceedingly great intention to control diseases menacing our lives. The intention to heal as well as the beliefs of the sick person on the efficacy of the healing influences promote his healing. In conclusion, studies on thought and consciousness are emerging as fundamental aspects and not as mere epiphenomena that are rapidly leading to a profound change in the paradigms of Biology and Medicine.”

So there you have it. Science increasingly agrees with direct human experience: we are more than the atoms and molecules of which we are composed, but beings that emit, communicate with, and are formed from light.

Related: Evidence that the Heart Has Its Own ‘Brain’ and Consciousness

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

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

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

And therein lies the gigantic problem.

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

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

Getting the picture?

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

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

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

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

This is like saying;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blog that.

Medical-Drug Destruction Of Life, By The Numbers

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health and life are not medical functions.

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

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

Host resistance = strong immune system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Troubles In Australia: PM-Of-The-Day Pushes Vaccination Agenda, Fascist Biometrics + More
March 13 2017 | From: TheGuardian / ActivistPost / MSN

Malcolm Turnbull pushes for ban on unvaccinated children at childcare centres.

PM to take ‘no jab, no play’ policy that would also ban unvaccinated children from preschools to Coag meeting.

Unvaccinated children would be banned from childcare centres and preschools across the country under a push by the federal government.

The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has written to state and territory leaders in a move towards introducing nationally consistent laws to protect children across Australia. He says he will take the policy to the next Council of Australian Governments (Coag) meeting.

Under the proposal the immunisation rates of all preschools and daycare centres would be made publicly available to parents and the right to make a formal objection would also end.

In the letter to state and territory leaders he writes:

“At our next Coag meeting I propose we agree that all jurisdictions implement legislation that excludes children who are not vaccinated from attending childcare or preschool, unless they have a medical exemption. Vaccination objection is not a valid exemption. We must give parents the confidence that their children will be safe when they attend childcare and preschool. Parents must understand that if their child is not vaccinated they will be refused attendance or enrolment.” Turnbull told News Corp: “If you don’t vaccinate your child you are not just putting their own life at risk but you are putting everyone else’s children at risk.”

The federal health minister, Greg Hunt, said the government’s “no jab, no pay” policy of withholding family payments to parents of unvaccinated children was being supplemented by an “equally tough” policy of “no jab, no play”.

“We want to work with all of the states and I’m very confident that they’ll come on board,” he told the Seven Network. “Ultimately it’s about protecting kids against horrendous illnesses that are agonising and potentially in some cases tragic.”

“The AMA says that, next to clean water, this is probably the most important public health measure that a country can have,” Butler told ABC television. “We’ve said that we think there is also some need for consideration of a public advertising campaign at a national level, just to reinforce that public health message that the AMA is talking about.”

The government’s push comes after the leader of One Nation, Pauline Hanson, apologised for incorrectly claiming that parents could conduct their own tests to evaluate vaccination safety.

Hanson was criticised by the Australian Medical Association and others for giving the impression that vaccines were not safe.

She told the ABC’s Insiders program that successive governments had “blackmailed” people into having their children vaccinated because of the policy of withholding childcare fee rebates and welfare payments from parents who don’t have their children fully immunised.

Turnbull had attacked Hanson’s comments, which came a week before the Western Australian state election.

Her comments were denounced by both the Coalition and Labor, with Hunt saying: “The clear and categorical advice from experts including the chief medical officer, based on decades of research and evidence, is that vaccinations save lives.”

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has announced a plan that could make Australia the world’s first country to implement a nationwide “contactless” system for processing its air travelers.

As The Sydney Morning Herald reports:

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection has sought technology that would abolish incoming passenger cards, remove the need for most passengers to show their passports and replace manned desks with electronic stations and automatic triage.

Officials are looking to use existing databases coupled with iris scans, facial recognition and fingerprint scans as the final phase of a five-year project called “Seamless Traveller” that is slated for completion by 2020.

It’s all a part of the move toward a full-fledged Smart World where YOU become a digitally scanned device in a matrix of online and real-world activity.

Head of Australia’s border security, John Coyne, highlighted the rapid acceleration of biometric technology, as well as government access to the massive processing power of Big Data which he noted “is increasing exponentially.”  Furthermore, he flatly stated that such access is global.

The innovation was possible because of the massive amount of passenger data – including ticket information, travel history and criminal records – sourced globally and analysed in the back room, Dr Coyne said. [emphasis added]

Similar to other “smart traveler” initiatives, the first appeal is made to convenience. Anyone familiar with increasingly long lines and intrusive human security checks might welcome the project’s vision to enable travelers to literally walk into an airport and out the other side without a single interference. While that might be the focus message to the consumer, Coyne reveals the true heart of the mission.

Dr Coyne said it was all about “selective permeability”, or using intelligence to determine in advance which types of passengers posed a risk – and getting everyone else through more efficiently.

“All of this is about risk,”he said. “I think in Australia we’re doing exceptionally well.”

Given the fact that biometric security itself has trickled down from use in war zones like Afghanistan to catalog potential terrorists, this would have to be the priority. Moreover, wherever these systems have popped up, abuses have been recorded.

Even in the “Land of the Free,” local police have been caught using biometrics without consent by harvesting information from unaccountable databases, which illustrates how easily purported border security measures can creep well beyond their stated intent.

As it turns out, the problem in the U.S. is much greater than that.  The FBI has been actively trying to exempt from privacy protections a massive national biometrics database called the Next Generation Identification (NGI) System.

And this is only what we know about - in a country that has constitutional protections for its citizens.

As disparate biometrics systems from security to banking to travel and even to your home computer all begin to link up and cross communicate, globally, the possibility of widespread privacy violations increases exponentially.

For additional details about Australia’s plan for biometric processing for air travelers, please see the video below.


Australia To Replace Passports In Favour Of Biometric Scanning

Stay-At-Home Mums Are Under Attack, Yet Again. But Where Are The Dads?

Women who stay at home to raise children are a problem for Australia’s economy, according to a major new study.

A report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) claims stay-at-home mums and women who work short part-time hours are creating  “potentially large losses to the economy”.

Part-time workers and women with children are the “greatest untapped potential in the Australian labour force”, the study states. The authors say more “prime aged” women (25-54) could enter the workforce and further efforts are needed to encourage mothers with young children into work.

The idea is that paid work is “important for women’s personal well-being and perceptions of their overall quality of life’’, the study states. These are familiar motherhood battle lines, where women are told to choose a side in what’s presented as a black and white situation.

The Parenthood‘s Principal Campaign Manager, Nicole Lessio, says she’s angry that women are demonised for choices they’re sometimes “forced to make”.

"Stay-at-home mums should ignore the horrible headlines,” says Ms Lessio. “As mums we’re either cold, ambitious and leaving our children to go to work or we’re a drain on the economy if we stay at home – we just can’t win." “All mums should choose what is right for them in their circumstances but have the support and childcare options to make working choices easier.”

The daily accomplishments of brushing teeth, timing a nap, orchestrating siblings or negotiating a tantrum should not to be overlooked.

The selflessness of motherhood and caring for a child is completely under-rated as a purpose or vocation. Parenting doesn't match the maternity leave time span. It doesn't end when you are due back at work. It's also not something you can do later.

So what's the solution?

"Childcare accessibility and affordability is a huge challenge that disproportionately affects women returning to work, so more affordable childcare is needed," says Ms Lessio.  "But we also need to focus on creating more flexible and supportive workplaces so women and men can better balance work and home responsibilities," she added.

Obviously, mothers and families are as varied as the babies they bring into the world. Some want to stay at home, some don't. Where are the dads in this equation? Would longer paternity leave mean they could contribute at home more and balance the employment gap?

For mothers who want to return to work and are searching for a balanced work-life balance there are real challenges for finding child-friendly part-time roles.

It's offensive to think that women who are giving their all to raising our little people could be thought of as a drain to the economy. Life for me was messy after giving birth - not much went to plan. It is a new way of life, where a little boy is considered in the decisions I make.

The study highlights what we already know - the women who stay at home are a talented bunch of women and an incredible asset to Australia.

Women don't lose those their skills when they stay home - they re-apply them and work gruelling hours for their families.

Stay-at-home mothers are already doing the country's most undervalued job.

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

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

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

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

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



Related: Should Some Foods Be Treated As A Drug?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Related: How Clothes Are Polluting the Food Supply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Related: Why You Should Avoid Nutella

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

This could lead to food innovations that actually prevent disease.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

“And more money would be nice.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Related: Low-Carbohydrate, High Fat Diet Advice Questioned

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what's a confused dieter to do?



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As reported by the National Post:

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

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

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

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


Go Green, or Go Greed?

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

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



Related: Static Energy Meter Errors Caused by Conducted Electromagnetic Interference

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

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



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

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


We Can Handle The Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



Related: State Kept Secret Guidelines on Safe Cell Phone Use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Related: Cell Phones and Health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two serious health suggestions jump out of the above paragraphs:

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

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


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

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

At Birth 250 mcg

2 Months 1225 mcg

4 Months 975 mcg

6 Months 1000 mcg

12 Months 600 mcg

15 Months 625 mcg

18 Months 250 mcg

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

Unbelievable!

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Regarding autism, Miller states;

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Related: Trace Amounts: Ethyl Mercury | Educational Documentary

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

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



Related: Hear this from a Real Scientist!

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

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

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

Their study abstract states:

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

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

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

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




Vaxxed Producer - We Are Killing Our Children

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

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

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

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



Related: How CDC Uses False Fears to Promote Vaccine Uptake

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

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

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

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



Related: Statin Drugs Linked to Thyroid Cancer in Women

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

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

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

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

Related: Nebulizing Sodium Bicarbonate

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

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

:

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

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

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



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

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

A Cancer Journal for the Clinician article concludes by stating:

Vitamin D May Slash Breast Cancer Risk by 90 Percent

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




Cancer Researchers Discover How High-Dose Vitamin Kills Cancer Cells

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



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

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

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

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

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



Not quite how it's done

Related: Vitamin C Campaigner Begins Month-Long Walk

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

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

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

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

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

Injections of high dose vitamin C shown to annihilate cancer

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

High dose IV vitamin C kills cancer cells

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



Looks heaps safe...

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

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

Weather Modification: SatelliteImagery Reveals Unmistakable Aerosol Operation Over South Florida

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

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

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

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

As reported by ChemtrailsPlanet,

Satellite Captures Florida Climate Engineering 1-28-2017

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

Physicist Tom Valone says:

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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


Electromagnetic Energy, Weather Modification, and Other Elite Agendas

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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



According to Physicist Bernard Eastlund;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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



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

The farmers don’t benefit from these disasters.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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




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

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



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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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



Related: France: Soon 11 Compulsory Vaccinations!

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

As Simco Reformer reports;

According to the Simco Reformer;

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



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

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

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

Oh Canada . . . .

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

The opening comment under “Clinical Significance” states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Story

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

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

And yet….

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

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


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

1. Our skin absorbs many toxins, including chlorine.

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

3. Chlorine kills beneficial bacteria in your gut.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A recent statement from Take Back Your Power says:

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

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

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

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

Headlines with an alternative perspective read:

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

1) 1,659 studies on EMF and bioeffects:

powerwatch.org.uk

(Of these:

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

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

• only 257 did not find effects.)

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

bioinitiative.org

justproveit.net

emf-portal.org

stopsmartmeters.org.uk

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

ethics.harvard.edu

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

microwavenews.com

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

Video: vimeo.com

Firing: theguardian.com

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

youtube.com

7) TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION ON “5G”:

parentsforsafetechnology.org

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

wifiinschools.org.uk

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

bioinitiative.org

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

newsweek.com

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

telegraph.co.uk

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

news.com.au

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

today.com

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

safeinschool.org

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

safetechforschoolsmaryland.blogspot.com

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

youtube.com

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

takebackyourpower.net

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

naturalhealth365.com

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

.rmmagazine.com

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

newsweek.com

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

microwavenews.com

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

takebackyourpower.net

23) Study Uncovers How Electromagnetic Fields Amplify Pain in Amputees

utdallas.edu

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

youtube.com

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

emfsafetynetwork.org

26) Solutions: Reducing Wirelesss Radiation and EMF

youtube.com

27) Solutions: Reducing Your EMF Exposure

emfanalysis.com

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

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



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

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

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


Danish Pig Farmers Struggle With Mysterious Swine Disease

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

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

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

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

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


He noticed two intriguing connections:

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

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

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


Trailer: Transgenic Wars






Transgenic Soy Destroying Argentina

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Argentinian Farmers Recognize GE Soy Cannot Be Used for Animal Feed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Deformed Children, Deformed Pigs - Are Herbicides to Blame?

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


Mutant Enemies

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



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

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

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

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


Staggering Increases in Cancer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Patrick Moore and Golden Rice

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


1. Milk… It Does a Body Good

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



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


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

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



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


3. Organic Canola Oil is a Healthy Choice

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



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

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


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

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



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

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

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


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

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



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


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

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

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



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


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

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


8. There is No Cure for Cancer

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



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

Then research natural remedies online.


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

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


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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOUNCE. NOTHING REGISTERED.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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