PDA

View Full Version : The Biochemical Manipulation of Humanity



ponda
17th January 2017, 05:08
The Biochemical Manipulation of Humanity
(https://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20090816_biochemical_manipulation.htm)



Many prominent scientists and authors have on various occasions stated that in the future, the common people would be manipulated through chemicals in their food, water and injections, to suit the needs of the people that govern them.

In his 1931 book, The Scientific Outlook, elitist Bertrand Russell wrote:

“Perhaps by means of injections and drugs and chemicals the population could be induced to bear whatever its scientific masters may decide to be for its good.”

One of the most famous examples of the idea of biochemical manipulation of the underclass was raised in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley in 1932. In Brave New World, the lower classes are exposed to a variety of chemicals before they are “born” that reduce their intelligence and adult height, and prepare them for the role they will fulfill when they grow up. Alcohol is used, lower castes receive less oxygen, and they are exposed to x-rays. The lower castes are also exposed to certain hormones to make them infertile. 70% of women are exposed in the womb to male hormones, and turned into so called “freemartins” – sterilized women who exhibit masculine behavior.

Bertrand Russell wrote in 1952 in The Impact of Science on Society, that:

Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.


https://alternativenewsproject.org/files/5139525580_27f75612e6_z.jpg


Charles Galton Darwin, grandson of Charles Darwin, wrote in his 1952 book, The Next Million Years that:

Looking a little deeper there is the possibility of substantially altering the intellectual and moral natures of individuals by some sort of hormonal injections; already great effects have been produced on animals.

John Holdren, who currently works for the Obama administration [as of 2009] as his adviser on science, wrote in 1977 (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/):

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

All of these ideas may sound terrible, but Bertrand Russell himself explained that (https://books.google.nl/books?id=IZ3miaHwjdUC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=Really+high-minded+people+are+indifferent+to+happiness,+especi ally+other+people's&source=bl&ots=OdgjNPoosc&sig=Y5_syvdRrNnJYLzGTbiCPvZ3pNw&hl=nl):

This article will discuss the various artificially induced disease states that are becoming more common every day, the methods by which they are induced, and the reasons behind this.

Masculinization and sterilization of women

Many products used today contain Bisphenol A, a chemical first synthesized in 1891. It was discovered to have hormonal effects on the human body in 1938 (http://website.lineone.net/~mwarhurst/bisphenol.html). Because of this, in the 1930’s it was used as a synthetic estrogen (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-how-harmful-are-bisphenol-a-plastics/). Later, after it’s effects were known, in the 1950s it began to be used in the production of Polycarbonate, a plastic now used in many food products. There are hundreds of types of plastic, many of them having no effect on the endocrine system, but the industry insists on using Bisphenol A.

The effects on women are well known. Scientists have discovered that women who have had three or more consecutive miscarriages had 3 times higher levels of Bisphenol A (http://www.foodqualitynews.com/Regulation-and-safety/Bisphenol-A-linked-to-recurrent-miscarriages) in their blood than women who had successfully given birth. Studies in rats have also shown that at levels that humans are exposed to Bisphenol A masculinizes the brain(new URL link) (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/bpa-makes-male-mice-less-macho) of females, which resulted in the female mice exhibiting behavior typical of male mice.

A growing epidemic in predominantly the Western world is Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Polycystic ovary syndrome is a syndrome that is characterized by women receiving an abundance of male hormones, and symptoms include infertility, excessive body hair, loss of hair on the head, obesity, and deepening of the voice. Estimates of how common this problem is vary from anywhere between 2 and 20 percent of women worldwide, but what is clear is that the problem is caused by Bisphenol A. Studies have shown (http://cat.inist.fr?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15886970) that levels of Bisphenol A are significantly higher in women with PCOS. The masculinization and sterilization of women in the womb as described in Brave New World could thus effectively be carried out using Bisphenol A.

Polycarbonate, the plastic that leaches Bisphenol A, was developed in Germany and the United States at the same time, in 1955, by Bayer in Germany and General Electric in the United States(new URL link) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A) respectively.

The history of Bayer is interesting. Bayer was the result of the break up of IG Farben in 1951 (http://pubs.acs.org/cen/125th/html/7913events.html). IG Farben was the company that manufactured the Zyklon B (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3257403.stm) that Nazi Germany used in the gas chambers during the Holocaust.

Of course, many people who had worked for IG Farben while it produced Zyklon B continued to work for Bayer after the break up of IG Farben. Fritz Ter Meer (http://www.cbgnetwork.org/1695.html) for example, was a board member of IG Farben since 1925. During the Second World War he was responsible for the construction of the IG Farben factory in Auschwitz, in which around 30 000 slave labourers went to their deaths. In July 1948 at the Nuremberg IG Farben trial, ter Meer was sentenced to seven years in prison for enslavement and looting. After his release in 1952 he immediatly began working for Bayer again, and in 1955 he became a boardmember of Bayer, and a year later he became chairman of the board.

The question how anyone could thus knowingly sell products that contain dangerous synthetic estrogen that can sterilize people and have various other negative health effects is thus easily answered: The same people who started producing this product produced the Zyklon B that Nazi Germany used in the Holocaust.

The question of how Bayer and General Electric could come up with this product at the same time and make a deal to sell it can be explained using Anthony Sutton’s book, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. Like I. G Farben, General Electric was instrumental in funding Nazi Germany.

International General Electric was the largest shareholder (30%) of German General Electric (A. E. G.), the company that funded Hitler in the early days of his rise to power. Several of A. E. G.’s Directors were also on the board of I. G. Farben. I.G. Farben and International General Electric also had the same shareholders. The Warburg Manhattan bank, and the Rockefeller Chase Bank had a large interest in General Electric. The Rockefeller Family also had a controlling interest (25%) In Standard Oil, which worked together with I G Farben as well according to Sutton.

I. G. Farben was owned and controlled by Warburg family members as well. Max Warburg was a member of the board from it’s inception in 1925 until 1938. His brother, Paul Warburg, was a board member of the American I. G. Farben, which was controlled by the German I. G. Farben. Sutton proves that the Electric Industry was turning into a trust, and specifically mentions that the companies were no longer competing for patents. It should be no surprise that a decade later Bayer and General Electric together brought this toxic plastic on the market that is now used to package our food and drinks.

It’s important to note that Bayer later ran into trouble (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bayer-sold-hiv-risky-meds/) when the company knowingly sold and continued producing blood products contaminated with HIV, while it had a safe alternative available.

Because a ban on Bisphenol A is now becoming likely, the Coca Cola company panicked, and leaked internal memos that show the company planned a propaganda campaign that would include using a “pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA” as their ‘holy grail’ spokesperson. According to the Environmental Working Group, this campaign would be specifically targetted at the poor and ethnic minorities. The leaked memo can be found here.( new URL link) (http://www.naturalnews.com/055762_Coca-Cola_soda_taxes_propaganda.html)

I have covered forced sterilization campaigns carried out primarily against women through the use of vaccinations before. For more information on this subject, click here.(new URL link) (http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/01/14/eugenics-today-how-vaccines-are-used-to-sterilize-the-masses/)

The Sterilization and Feminization of Men

The global decline in fertility in men has been well documented. John Holdren mentioned that chemicals added to the water supply could be used to sterilize people, and indeed, chemicals are added to the water that reduce fertility. One of these chemicals is Fluoride. As I pointed out before(new URL link) (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/29/fluoride-reproductive-health-dangers.aspx), Sodium Fluoride reduces men’s sperm count, and communities with higher levels of Fluoride in the water have a lower birth rate than communities with lower levels of Fluoride.

Sperm counts worldwide have fallen by about 50% per ml (for sources, see here(new URL link) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3739167/) in 50 years.

Various chemicals are found in the water that act as endocrine disruptors, widely held responsible for the increasing number of problems found in men. However, these chemicals could be easily filtered out of the water, but this is not done, due to the false threat of global warming. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/water-supply-will-stay-poisoned-with-gender-bending-chemicals-due-to-carbon-footprint-of-filtering-systems.html)

As I mentioned before, Soy also sterilizes men, and changes their brain:

A study done with rats showed that even moderate amounts of soy caused these animals to spend less time in social interaction with other rats. Another study down in adult male monkeys fed phyto-estrogens showed changes in their behavior as well. Time spent together with other monkeys was halved. Furthermore, the monkeys showed a threefold increase in submissive behavior.

Reduction of IQ, and inducement of learning disabilities in children

As should be known by most people by now, Fluoride in the water has been shown in multiple studies (http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/brain/) to reduce the IQ of children. Other methods are used to bring about the same effect.

A study showed, for example, that boys who received all three hepatitis B vaccines have a 9 times higher risk of developmental disability (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02772240701806501) than boys who receives no hepatitis B vaccine. Another study found that receiving a single vaccine containing Thimerosal increased the risk of autism and ADHD. Another study by Verstraeten found that the risk of autism and ADHD increased significantly in children that received vaccines. Unfortunately, his supervisors wanted to see a different result, and thus he changed the outcome by excluding a large number of children. The initial outcome of the study can be found here (http://web.archive.org/web/20050218074133/http://safeminds.org/research/library/GenerationZeroPowerPoint.pdf). A larger amount of evidence showing how vaccines cause autism can be found here (https://avn.org.au/2013/08/studies-supporting-vaccineautism-causation/).

Russell’s prediction that injections would be used to manipulate the behavior of people was correct.

Cancer.

Multiple viruses that cause cancer(new URL link) (http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2011/02/18/60-lab-studies-now-confirm-cancer-link-to-a-vaccine-you-probably-had-as-a-child/) are found in our vaccines. The first of these viruses was created with funding of the Rockefeller family. Many people ask themselves how such a thing can happen. The answer is that we should be surprised if these vaccines were not a method to harm people. The same people in charge of the pharmaceutical companies headed America’s biological warfare program. On a government website we find the following:

From the moment of its birth in the highest levels of government, the fledgling biological warfare effort was kept to an inner circle of knowledgeable persons. George W. Merck was a key member of the panel advising President Franklin D. Roosevelt and was charged with putting such an effort together. Merck owned the pharmaceutical firm that still bears his name.

Depression.

Depression is becoming more common throughout the Western world. Depression is caused by brain inflammation, because brain inflammation (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X09006196) depletes the body of serotonin. This brain inflammation is the result of vaccines. A good explanation can be found here. (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/pages/vaccines-depression-and-neurodegeneration-after-age-50.aspx) It goes without saying that the same companies that produce the vaccines are the ones that sell the anti-depressants. Anti-Depressants are now the most sold drugs (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/07/09/antidepressants/) in the United States, and adult use of antidepressants almost tripled between the periods 1988-1994 and 1999-2000. The most popular anti-depressant (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/34659.php)is Prozac, an SSRI patented by Eli Lilly (http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/01/01/eli_lilly_knew_prozac_causes_suicides_violence_fda _closed_both_eyes.htm). Eli Lilly also has the patent on Thimerosal (http://www.healing-arts.org/children/mercury_in_vaccines_autism_research/thimerosalinvaccinationslink.htm), the mercury compound that is added to vaccines and involved in causing autism. In the United States, 37% of autistic children are given SSRI’s like Prozac.(new URL link) (http://www.autismdailynewscast.com/should-prozac-be-prescribed-for-autism/76/arielrelaford/)

It’s easy to make a profit when you sell products that treat the symptoms caused by the products you sell.

Noelle
17th January 2017, 06:35
Thanks for your post. I was just researching BPA the other day. It amazes me, in the worst possible way, how long it took for it to be banned in baby bottles and how it is still allowed to be in mass-consumed products. I decided to research it after someone told me that there is BPA powder on the receipts that cash registers spit out.

vanEyck
17th January 2017, 14:03
I wish to thank ponda for the post, because surely it was published with the best of intentions. However, I found several things that are inaccurate or simply false. Whilst I believe that some of the facts outlined in the text are likely to be true, and some are actually well documented, others are pure and simple lies, intentional or unintentional. Just to cite a few:

- BPA is known for its possible adverse effects on the human body (though the levels we are exposed to are supposed to be safe, but who knows), but it DOES NOT masculinize women. Its effects are just the opposite: it mimics natural estrogens because the molecule is so similar that it binds to some of the natural receptors for them. That means its effect is similar to natural female hormones, not male ones.

- I never heard of Bayer selling products contaminated with HIV, and I have a health-related scientific background. However, it could be that I just didn't know.

- The statement that soy feminizes men is not proven. Whereas we could think that phytoestrogens theoretically could have this effects, this is still under study. Feeding phytoestrogens to monkeys, who knows at which dose, is not the same thing as eating soy.

- I would very much like to see those studies that link vaccines to autism at a rate of 9 times higher risk. I will look for them when I have some time.

- With some exceptions (such as HPV) cancer is not caused by viruses, bacteria or any other pathogens. Cancer is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and the fact that its prevalence has risen so much in the last century is linked to probably hundreds or thousands of factors, some known (tobacco, pollution, some chemical compounds, etc) and some unknown. Big pharmas intentionally putting viruses secretly enginereed to cause cancer in vaccines sounds too far-fetched for me.

- The link between brain inflammation and depression is a recent discovery, and seems more linked to anomalous activity of the immune system than to vaccines. I find it hard to see that compounds present in injections that you get just a few times in your life, most of them during childhood, can cause inflammation much later in life, and even chronic one. It sounds to me like the individual who wrote the article has a personal bias against vaccines and was looking for something to blame them for.

GrnEggsNHam
17th January 2017, 16:45
I wish to thank ponda for the post, because surely it was published with the best of intentions. However, I found several things that are inaccurate or simply false. Whilst I believe that some of the facts outlined in the text are likely to be true, and some are actually well documented, others are pure and simple lies, intentional or unintentional. Just to cite a few:

- BPA is known for its possible adverse effects on the human body (though the levels we are exposed to are supposed to be safe, but who knows), but it DOES NOT masculinize women. Its effects are just the opposite: it mimics natural estrogens because the molecule is so similar that it binds to some of the natural receptors for them. That means its effect is similar to natural female hormones, not male ones.

- I never heard of Bayer selling products contaminated with HIV, and I have a health-related scientific background. However, it could be that I just didn't know.

- The statement that soy feminizes men is not proven. Whereas we could think that phytoestrogens theoretically could have this effects, this is still under study. Feeding phytoestrogens to monkeys, who knows at which dose, is not the same thing as eating soy.

- I would very much like to see those studies that link vaccines to autism at a rate of 9 times higher risk. I will look for them when I have some time.

- With some exceptions (such as HPV) cancer is not caused by viruses, bacteria or any other pathogens. Cancer is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and the fact that its prevalence has risen so much in the last century is linked to probably hundreds or thousands of factors, some known (tobacco, pollution, some chemical compounds, etc) and some unknown. Big pharmas intentionally putting viruses secretly enginereed to cause cancer in vaccines sounds too far-fetched for me.

- The link between brain inflammation and depression is a recent discovery, and seems more linked to anomalous activity of the immune system than to vaccines. I find it hard to see that compounds present in injections that you get just a few times in your life, most of them during childhood, can cause inflammation much later in life, and even chronic one. It sounds to me like the individual who wrote the article has a personal bias against vaccines and was looking for something to blame them for.

Well done :thumbsup:. Unfortunately the several "found here" statements are not URL linked on the site. Perhaps these hyperlinks appear only to registered users of the site? Either way I found that to be the biggest clue while discerning the information for myself. Without the sources to verify these claims I simply had to file them away until I come across information supporting said claims. It's quite likely that information doesn't actually exist, just as you've asserted.

TigaHawk
18th January 2017, 04:00
- With some exceptions (such as HPV) cancer is not caused by viruses, bacteria or any other pathogens. Cancer is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and the fact that its prevalence has risen so much in the last century is linked to probably hundreds or thousands of factors, some known (tobacco, pollution, some chemical compounds, etc) and some unknown. Big pharmas intentionally putting viruses secretly enginereed to cause cancer in vaccines sounds too far-fetched for me.
.


Hitler may sound outrageous but he certainly would not do anything extreme like murder thousands of people just because of their race. That sounds too far-fetched for me.

ponda
18th January 2017, 06:40
I wish to thank ponda for the post, because surely it was published with the best of intentions. However, I found several things that are inaccurate or simply false. Whilst I believe that some of the facts outlined in the text are likely to be true, and some are actually well documented, others are pure and simple lies, intentional or unintentional. Just to cite a few:

- BPA is known for its possible adverse effects on the human body (though the levels we are exposed to are supposed to be safe, but who knows), but it DOES NOT masculinize women. Its effects are just the opposite: it mimics natural estrogens because the molecule is so similar that it binds to some of the natural receptors for them. That means its effect is similar to natural female hormones, not male ones.

- I never heard of Bayer selling products contaminated with HIV, and I have a health-related scientific background. However, it could be that I just didn't know.

- The statement that soy feminizes men is not proven. Whereas we could think that phytoestrogens theoretically could have this effects, this is still under study. Feeding phytoestrogens to monkeys, who knows at which dose, is not the same thing as eating soy.

- I would very much like to see those studies that link vaccines to autism at a rate of 9 times higher risk. I will look for them when I have some time.

- With some exceptions (such as HPV) cancer is not caused by viruses, bacteria or any other pathogens. Cancer is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and the fact that its prevalence has risen so much in the last century is linked to probably hundreds or thousands of factors, some known (tobacco, pollution, some chemical compounds, etc) and some unknown. Big pharmas intentionally putting viruses secretly enginereed to cause cancer in vaccines sounds too far-fetched for me.

- The link between brain inflammation and depression is a recent discovery, and seems more linked to anomalous activity of the immune system than to vaccines. I find it hard to see that compounds present in injections that you get just a few times in your life, most of them during childhood, can cause inflammation much later in life, and even chronic one. It sounds to me like the individual who wrote the article has a personal bias against vaccines and was looking for something to blame them for.


Hi vanEyck,

Thanks for your post.

The link from the Nexus news feed to the article address was broken. I've just done a quick search and found another location for the article at corbett.com. I added the link at the op and inserted what url's were still working from the 2009 article for your perusal. I also added substitute URL links where i could find them and stated this in the url link in the op.

I've never seen so many URL's in an article that are no longer working. Very interesting.

I'm not going to get into a prolonged debate over what is or is not proven to harm the health of humans when it comes to the accumulation of chemical food and water additives in the human body. To me it's a big grey area but i would assume that the less man made chemical additives that one ingests the better off in the long term your health will be. It's quite amazing to closely read the food product ingredient labels whilst wandering around a supermarket. The amount of chemical additives, preservatives, stabilisers, emulsifiers etc that are ingredients in popular foods is quite startling to say the least. Items such as ice cream and salad dressings can contain anywhere from 6 to 12 different chemical additives in them. Do they cause harm to ones health to some degree in the long term ? My guess is...probably. Depending on the individual's circumstances etc.

My take on the article as a whole is that it is asking the question...."is it possible that a society can be manipulated/dumbed down/??? by adding chemicals in their food, drinking water and vaccines over a prolonged period of time...aka lifetimes and generations. In my opinion the answer is definitely YES.


cheers

ponda
18th January 2017, 06:45
I wish to thank ponda for the post, because surely it was published with the best of intentions. However, I found several things that are inaccurate or simply false. Whilst I believe that some of the facts outlined in the text are likely to be true, and some are actually well documented, others are pure and simple lies, intentional or unintentional. Just to cite a few:

- BPA is known for its possible adverse effects on the human body (though the levels we are exposed to are supposed to be safe, but who knows), but it DOES NOT masculinize women. Its effects are just the opposite: it mimics natural estrogens because the molecule is so similar that it binds to some of the natural receptors for them. That means its effect is similar to natural female hormones, not male ones.

- I never heard of Bayer selling products contaminated with HIV, and I have a health-related scientific background. However, it could be that I just didn't know.

- The statement that soy feminizes men is not proven. Whereas we could think that phytoestrogens theoretically could have this effects, this is still under study. Feeding phytoestrogens to monkeys, who knows at which dose, is not the same thing as eating soy.

- I would very much like to see those studies that link vaccines to autism at a rate of 9 times higher risk. I will look for them when I have some time.

- With some exceptions (such as HPV) cancer is not caused by viruses, bacteria or any other pathogens. Cancer is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and the fact that its prevalence has risen so much in the last century is linked to probably hundreds or thousands of factors, some known (tobacco, pollution, some chemical compounds, etc) and some unknown. Big pharmas intentionally putting viruses secretly enginereed to cause cancer in vaccines sounds too far-fetched for me.

- The link between brain inflammation and depression is a recent discovery, and seems more linked to anomalous activity of the immune system than to vaccines. I find it hard to see that compounds present in injections that you get just a few times in your life, most of them during childhood, can cause inflammation much later in life, and even chronic one. It sounds to me like the individual who wrote the article has a personal bias against vaccines and was looking for something to blame them for.

Well done :thumbsup:. Unfortunately the several "found here" statements are not URL linked on the site. Perhaps these hyperlinks appear only to registered users of the site? Either way I found that to be the biggest clue while discerning the information for myself. Without the sources to verify these claims I simply had to file them away until I come across information supporting said claims. It's quite likely that information doesn't actually exist, just as you've asserted.

Hi,

Just updated the op with a new link to the original article with URL's. Some are not working now as the article is from 2009.

cheers

vanEyck
18th January 2017, 14:37
- With some exceptions (such as HPV) cancer is not caused by viruses, bacteria or any other pathogens. Cancer is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and the fact that its prevalence has risen so much in the last century is linked to probably hundreds or thousands of factors, some known (tobacco, pollution, some chemical compounds, etc) and some unknown. Big pharmas intentionally putting viruses secretly enginereed to cause cancer in vaccines sounds too far-fetched for me.
.


Hitler may sound outrageous but he certainly would not do anything extreme like murder thousands of people just because of their race. That sounds too far-fetched for me.

I understand your point, and we can't just think something is not happening because it's far-fetched, but they're entirely different things in practical terms, in my opinion. Strange as it may sound, I think it's much more difficult to infect millions of people with cancer-inducing viruses in vaccines than doing what happened in Germany. Hitler did not have opposition to his evil plans, once he was at power he put it into practice and even when his actions were discovered by the international community he continued doing it.

However, consider the process a pharmaceutical company would have to follow to achieve such a destructive goal. First off, you need to develop the virus, which involves having a team of people researching into it and spending vasts amounts of money in such research, not to mention the time that would take. For that purpose, you need a virus that binds to the human cell type or types of your choice, and that does not immediately destroy the host cell (thus causing an acute infection) nor cause a tumor anywhere in the near future, because you risk being caught by health authorities and epidemiological studies. Moreover, your virus must FAIL to complete its task in most of the patients, or it will become too evident. And the cancer you induce must be suitable for treatment with your drugs, or the whole scheme is pointless.

Even if you can create such an organism, success requires no one, from the CEO to laboratory assistants, telling about it. A single whistleblower and your company is over (imagine the price of stock after the story appears on the news). The cost is onerous, and the risks are huge. And you have to test your virus before going live, which involves following patient's health for years (more cost).

It's not their ethics (I don't think they even know that word) that makes me think this is unlikely to happen, it's about the difficulty, cost and risk of the whole process.

ponda
28th January 2017, 00:42
5 WAYS TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM BRAIN-DAMAGING TOXINS

source link (http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/01/27/5-ways-to-protect-children-from-brain-damaging-toxins/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Collective-evolution+(Collective+Evolution))


http://cdn2.collective-evolution.com/assets/uploads/2017/01/brain-2.jpg

Having a child is often considered to be one of the most joyous moments in a parent’s life, but it can also be one of the most stressful. One common stressor is the risk of your little one coming into contact with harmful toxins. Many new parents, in fact, rate this as the biggest source of concern in the first few years of having a newborn.

Exposure to harmful toxins can happen in many ways. Some toys, even though they are specifically designed for babies, can contain toxins. Equally, a lot of processed foods can contain obscure chemicals and additives.

A recent Forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/02/15/11-toxic-chemicals-afffecting-brain-development-in-children/#7aee7ec179e3) points to research that suggests chemicals in toys and food may be contributing to what scientists are calling the “global, silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity.”

Limiting exposure to toxins is especially important for babies because they are still developing. As such, their immune systems are less able to fight potentially damaging toxins than a fully grown adult’s. And while you may be able to limit your own exposure to toxins by being careful about the products you use, the fact that children put everything in their mouths means that everything they are close to needs to be safe!

So how do you limit your child’s exposure to harmful toxins? You could, of course, uproot your whole family and move to a pure, beautiful spot in the countryside. Alternatively, you could keep your kid in a hermetically sealed box for the first few months!

For most parents, though, these are not realistic options. Instead, follow these five steps to drastically reduce your child’s exposure to harmful chemicals:

Create a healthy nursery

Trust the experts

Go organic

Check the label

Heed your intuition




Let’s take a closer look at each step:


Create a Healthy Nursery


The importance of designing and creating a healthy nursery cannot be overstated. The nursery is the place where your child is going to spend the most time during the first few months and years of their life, so you want to create a space that is as free from harmful toxins as is humanly possible. (http://www.mom365.com/pregnancy/preparing-for-baby/all-about-setting-up-a-baby-nursery/creating-a-nontoxic-nursery/)

Nowadays, thankfully, this can be relatively easy. Our increased awareness of the effects of harmful toxins on children has led to many manufacturers producing nursery products that are free of dangerous and unnecessary chemicals. Everything from the mattress your little one sleeps on to the paint you use to decorate their room is now rigorously tested, and comes with guarantees that it will not expose your child to synthetic chemicals.

Do Your Research

A little research can go a long way when it comes to reducing your child’s exposure to potentially harmful toxins. Even a few minutes spent reading about the products you are planning to buy can afford great peace of mind, because you can be sure that every item your child comes into contact with has been approved by experts.

Medical authority sites like Parenting.com (http://www.parenting.com/baby/health), and reputable review sites such as Kokopax (http://kokopax.com/), are good places to start your research. The best review sites rate the products they review by speaking to real parents, so you can be sure that the opinions you are reading can be trusted. Many parents now prioritize limiting their children’s exposure to harmful toxins when considering which products to buy, so most trusted review sites will take this into account.

Go Organic

Of course, harmful toxins do not only reside in the toys, bedding, and paint that your child comes into contact with — they can be in the food they eat, too. Many parents have accordingly decided to go organic (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/organic-baby-food-market---1151-cagr-to-2020-driven-by-emea-585813071.html) to avoid exposing their children to pesticides.

Food manufacturers have caught onto this fashion, and so wherever you are, you should be able to find good-quality organic baby food, even when your child is really small. Look for the mark of your local organic certifying authority, and you can be sure that the food you are buying is free from pesticides and other nasty chemicals.

Check the Label

This might sound obvious, but it is something that is easy to forget in the first few months of having a newborn child. This can be an extremely busy, stressful time for many parents, but taking a few minutes to read the label of the items you buy for your child will make a big difference in their health and in your own peace of mind.

Nowadays, everything from baby formula to mattresses must, by law, say what it is made from. Checking the label is therefore the easiest, most direct way to see if there are any harmful toxins in these items.

Trust Your Gut

Ultimately, trust yourself. Test a few different products, and find the ones that work for you and your child. New parents soon develop an almost supernatural ability to detect chemicals and toxins, becoming almost a part of their children’s immune system!

If a product has an unpleasant chemical smell, or you simply do not trust it for whatever reason, listen to your gut. In the end, nothing can replace your finely-honed instincts as a new parent.

Following these rules can significantly reduce your child’s exposure to harmful toxins. Make sure you create a healthy nursery, use review sites to do your research, consider going organic, and always read the label. Ultimately, though, trust yourself and your instincts.

ponda
28th January 2017, 00:55
11 Toxic Chemicals Affecting Brain Development In Children


source link (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/02/15/11-toxic-chemicals-afffecting-brain-development-in-children/#7aee7ec179e3)


The list of chemicals that can affect brain development in children has grown. In a study (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract) out today in The Lancet Neurology, researchers outline new chemicals that may be contributing to what they dub the “global, silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity.” In 2006, the team had released a list of five neurotoxins that may contribute to everything from cognitive deficits to attention problems. Now that list is expanded, based on new research that has since accumulated on chemicals linked to developmental disorders in children. Today, they outline six more.

"The greatest concern is the large numbers of children who are affected by toxic damage to brain development in the absence of a formal diagnosis," said study author Philippe Grandjean, of the Harvard School of Public Health. “They suffer reduced attention span, delayed development, and poor school performance. Industrial chemicals are now emerging as likely causes.”

Neurobehavioral problems, like autism, ADHD, and dyslexia, affect about 10-15% of kids born today, the authors say. Genes play a large role in some of these disorders – but not that large. Only about 30-40% of the cases of the disorders can be accounted for by genes alone, so environment must make up the other part. Outlining those compounds can be difficult, but the research is mounting, and pointing to a growing list of chemicals that we should avoid.

Because of the frequency with which these chemicals are present in our everyday lives – even banned ones – and the rising rates of developmental disorders in children, the authors say that urgent change should take place: “A new framework of action is needed.”


The list of chemicals that can affect brain development in children has grown. In a study out today in The Lancet Neurology, researchers outline new chemicals that may be contributing to what they dub the “global, silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity.” In 2006, the team had released a list of five neurotoxins that may contribute to everything from cognitive deficits to attention problems. Now that list is expanded, based on new research that has since accumulated on chemicals linked to developmental disorders in children. Today, they outline six more.

"The greatest concern is the large numbers of children who are affected by toxic damage to brain development in the absence of a formal diagnosis," said study author Philippe Grandjean, of the Harvard School of Public Health. “They suffer reduced attention span, delayed development, and poor school performance. Industrial chemicals are now emerging as likely causes.”

Neurobehavioral problems, like autism, ADHD, and dyslexia, affect about 10-15% of kids born today, the authors say. Genes play a large role in some of these disorders – but not that large. Only about 30-40% of the cases of the disorders can be accounted for by genes alone, so environment must make up the other part. Outlining those compounds can be difficult, but the research is mounting, and pointing to a growing list of chemicals that we should avoid.

Because of the frequency with which these chemicals are present in our everyday lives – even banned ones – and the rising rates of developmental disorders in children, the authors say that urgent change should take place: “A new framework of action is needed.”



Here are the 11 chemicals for which there is strong evidence of connection to neurodevelopmental disorders in children:



Lead–This is one of the most extensively researched compounds in terms of neurodevelopment, and has been consistently linked to serious deficits, including low IQ. Its effects seem to be permanent, leading to the conclusion (http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/) that there is no safe level of exposure.

Methylmercury–Affecting the neurological development of the fetus,exposure often comes from maternal intake of fish containing high levels of mercury, according to the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/ceh/capacity/neurodevelopmental.pdf) and the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/effects.htm).

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) – This family of chemicals (http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/effects.htm) has routinely been associated (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241394/) with reduced cognitive function in infancy and childhood. It is often present in foods, particularly fish, and can be passed along in breast milk.

Arsenic – When absorbed through drinking water, this chemical has been linked to reduced cognitive function in schoolchildren. Follow-up studies from the Morinaga milk poisoning incident have linked it to neurological disease (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635412/) in adulthood.

Toluene – Used as a solvent, maternal exposure has been linked to brain development problems and attention deficit in the child, according to the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/hlthef/toluene.html) and OSHA (https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/toluene/health_hazards.html)

Manganese – In the drinking water in Bangladesh, for example, this chemical has been linked to lower scores in math, diminished intellectual function, and ADHD.

Fluoride – Higher levels of this chemical has been connected (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/) with a 7-point decrease in IQ in children.

Chlorpyrifos and DDT (pesticides) – Linked to structural abnormalities (http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsletter/2012/7/science-prenatal/) of the brain and neurodevelopmental problems that persist up to age 7. These pesticides are banned in many parts of the world (U.S. included), but still used in many lower-income countries. They have recently been linked to Alzheimer’s disease (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/01/28/is-the-pesticide-ddt-linked-to-alzheimers-disease/) as well.

Tetrachloroethylene (AKAperchlorethylene)– These solvents have been linked to hyperactivity and aggressive behaviour, and increased risk of psychiatric diagnosis. Mothers in certain professional roles, like nurse, chemist, cleaner, hairdresser, and beautician had higher levels of exposure.

The polybrominateddiphenyl ethers – These flame retardants are banned now, but believed to be neurotoxins. Prenatal exposure has been linked to neurodevelopmental disorders in the child.

Two more compounds of concern are bisphenol A (BPA), a common plastics additive, and phthalate, found in many cosmetics. BPA is an endocrine (hormone) disruptor, and, strongly suspected to affect neurodevelopment in children (http://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/BisphenolA_FactSheet.html), it has been banned in baby bottles and sippy cups. Phthalates (http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductandIngredientSafety/SelectedCosmeticIngredients/ucm128250.htm#cos), which are common in personal products like nail polish and hair spray, have been routinely linked to shortened attention span and impaired social interactions in children.

The developing human brain is incredibly vulnerable to chemical exposures, both in utero and in early childhood, and these changes can be lifelong. “During these sensitive life stages,” say the authors, “chemicals can cause permanent brain injury at low levels of exposure that would have little or no adverse effect in an adult.”

The neurotoxin “pandemic” is disturbing enough that the authors strongly recommend having mandatory tests for chemicals, which many have been arguing for years. One common complaint has been that when one compound does finally become banned, another equally toxic and often untested chemical may take its place. More rigorous testing, though complicated to carry out, might address this major issue.

"The problem is international in scope,” says Grandjean,“and the solution must therefore also be international. We have the methods in place to test industrial chemicals for harmful effects on children's brain development—now is the time to make that testing mandatory."

Avoiding these chemicals can be difficult, because they are so prevalent, and present in food, cosmetics, receipt papers, and containers. But reading labels and avoiding certain products is a start. For more information on how to do this, please see the Environmental Working Group’s website (http://www.ewg.org/research/dirty-dozen-list-endocrine-disruptors).

onawah
31st January 2017, 04:34
Stem Cell Therapies for Cerebral Palsy: Fact or Fiction?
http://bolenreport.com/stem-cell-therapies-for-cerebral-palsy-fact-or-fiction/
This is not quite on topic, but it connects.

Note from Tim Bolen: There has been, for a very long time, a prohibition against anything that (1) competed for drug dollars in the US health care system, or (2) actually made people healthier or fixed specific problems. Let’s call those things “Forbidden Therapies.” You will find articles about them by clicking on the orange box on the right…
http://bolenreport.com/category/cutting-edge-health-care-paradigms/
Everyone has heard of stem cell therapies, but few know much about the controversy and the reasons why we DO NOT HAVE a stem cell program in the US. But I, Tim Bolen, know why, and I am, with the assistance of some stem cell expert friends of mine, like David Steenblock DO, and Rick Jaffe Esq., going to tell you what’s REALLY going on.

In short stem cells are magnificent. They repair damage to the body – bones, brains, muscle tissue – everything. Scientific proof, around the world, abounds. There is NO SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT against them – THEY WORK. So why aren’t we embracing this technology in the US? Pure, unadulterated, greed and public malfeasance.

The controversy over stem cells is because there are two kinds of stem cells – embryonic and adult. (1) Embryonic stem cells are PATENTABLE and would make BIG Pharma another massive fortune. (2) Adult stem cells are natural, work extremely well, but THERE is NOTHING to patent.

Embryonic stem cells are made from aborted fetal tissue, and although Big Pharma thought that would NOT be a problem, Americans, at large, had a problem with throwing unborn babies in a blender. So, embryonic technology fell flat – thud.

Adult stem cells are gathered from tissue easily harvested from various parts of the human body. Read about how this works here. A popular source is an umbilical cord after the baby is born. A short explanation is that about 50,000-70,000 stem cells come from a cord. Then, those cells are put into a growth medium in a specialized lab for about two weeks where there is an end output of 50 million stem cells – and THEN you have an effective tool to repair damaged areas of the human body. Different growth mediums produce different stem cell types for different uses. MORE, and VERY important, is that adult stem cells sort of look around in the body and fix other broken stuff at the same time…

The key to adult stem cell efficiency is in the growth and management in the lab. Of course the US FDA FORBIDS the growth of adult stem cells in the lab claiming that that growth process is “A New Drug.” They want each doctor, and the lab, to spend 1.8 billion dollars going though THEIR process for EVERY patient.

Which leaves, in the US, only one adult stem cell therapy legal for use – the one where the patient’s own stem cells are harvested and re-inserted with no growth or intervention at all. To me, it is the LEAST effective stem cell treatment on Planet Earth – but still effective to some extent. The US FDA is, of course, trying to have anyone and everyone offering this therapy arrested and shot…

But the Trump administration has OTHER ideas. (smile here). And that’s why I enlisted David Steenblock DO to tell you about how it all works.

In the article below I have inserted a video clip from Vice TV about this subject. Vice, it appears to me, was trying to denigrate the use of adult stem cells by repeatedly insisting that “they are unproven and are a placebo effect, blah, blah, blah.” If you look at, and listen, closely to what the video interviewer is saying it becomes obvious that he was engaging in what our President Donald Trump rightfully describes as “Fake News.” He, obviously had no idea what “unproven” means, nor did he know what a “placebo effect” actually is.

But, the reporter made THREE very important points, one of which is that the new Trump administration WANTS stem cells…

So do I. So do you..

So, here we go…


Adult Stem Cell Therapies for Cerebral Palsy: Fact or Fiction?

By David A. Steenblock, B.S M.S., D.O.

“Cerebral Palsy (CP) is a disability resulting from damage to the brain before, during, or shortly after birth. It is outwardly manifested by muscular dis-coordination and speech disturbances. CP brain damage is very similar to that in Autistic children.”

One of the favorite tactics used by critics and dogmatic skeptics of integrative medicine, and especially adult stem cell therapies, is to call them “unproven” and to call positive patient responses “placebo effects”. Both terms have been applied ad nauseum to pioneering clinical work and the many patient turnarounds I, and others, have reported (over the past forty years of medical practice).

“Unproven” and “placebo” were most recently brought up with respect to my stem cell work during the fall of 2016 when a cable news crew (Vice) came to my clinic in San Clemente (California) to film a pediatric patient’s treatment for cerebral palsy1 which included the use of the boy’s own stem cell-rich bone marrow (A wholly legal form of “stem cell therapy”).

Although the film crew spent the better part of a day at my Personalized Regenerative Medicine clinic, the edited online version ran 7 minutes and 11 seconds. See it just below…

Towards the end of the episode a male interviewer sat and spoke with me concerning reports of impressive patient responses to the stem cell therapies I do.

While the interviewer admitted it was impossible to deny the reality of the many patient’s positive responses to stem cells, he challenged me to prove that all of these positive results were not merely due to “placebo“ and wishful thinking on the part of the parents. At this point I interjected that “if the great results I am having with stem cells are due to a “PLACEBO” then this is one placebo (STEM CELLS), I want to keep using!”

The eight (8) minute video below, titled “Cerebral palsy patients are spending thousands on unproven stem cell therapies,” appeared on Vice News HBO on November 30, 2016.https://news.vice.com/story/stem-cell-therapyI have seen far too many turnarounds that cannot be explained by placebo effects. In a January article titled “Update on the US Stem Cell Wars“ (BolenReport), I laid this out in no uncertain terms:

“It is important to keep in mind that placebo effects have not been shown to permanently improve a dire illness or medical condition. They can lessen a patient’s perception of pain or nausea and other symptoms, but not pull off the “miraculous” PERMANENT reversal of a chronic debilitating condition like CP since these PLACEBO effects only last three to four weeks! (1,2,3,4,5,6)

“This brings me to how academic researchers (mostly lab people working with mice and rats) and journalists have dismissed patient accounts of impressive physical improvements as wishful thinking or placebo effects. It is actually mindboggling that scientists, in particular, would call physiological, neurological and other turnarounds “wishful thinking” or the end result of “placebo effects”. Do they really believe, for instance, that a young boy who is cortically blind from birth and then recovers some of his ability to see following a stem cell treatment (in Mexico) experienced this due to wishful thinking, placebo effects or coincidental betterment?

And while a patient, parent or caregiver might indulge in “wishful thinking” in the sense of inflating a minor improvement into something else, what of those who document changes of a magnitude not seen in their child prior to the administration of stem cells?

My stem cell related work with cerebral palsy and many other neurologic issues goes back to the early 2000s (albeit I did experimental work in the US and Mexico in the early 1990s that set the stage for his subsequent stem cell work.

See side bar titled “More on how Drs. Steenblock & Ramirez forged a collaboration that advanced the field of stem cell therapies“).

In fact, the staff of my nonprofit namesake research institute in San Clemente and I collaborated with a highly respected Mexican orthopedic surgeon, Fernando Ramirez Del Rio, MD, in tracking and documenting the responses of pediatric and adult patients treated by Ramirez and his medical team in Mexico using pure umbilical cord stem cells.

The treatment outcomes of neurologic patients in particular was so impressive that my staff and I worked with Ramirez to design and execute a clinical study to gauge the effects of using pure umbilical cord stem cells on eight (8) children with cerebral palsy.

As part of this study improvements were gauged by the children’s parents who kept diaries and used medical and physical therapy check-ups to categorize and quantify change.

Eight out of eight children showed some significant improvements in mobility and/or mental (cognitive) function.

Six children (75%) showed improvements in muscle tone, hip movement, leg movement, and much more. And one little boy named Adam S. who went into study “cortically blind” (due to optic nerve hypoplasia) began tracking objects during the fourth month following his stem The study was published in the journal Medical Hypotheses & Research (Click to access) and was then included in a book I coauthored titled “Umbilical Cord Stem Cell Therapy: The Gift of Healing from Healthy Newborns” (2006, Basic Health Publications).

In the years since that pioneering study the “good news” concerning adult stem cells and CP continued to accrue. For instance, to-date more than five (5) children with “cortical blindness” have experienced a resolution of their condition, many being so improved that they were subsequently fitted with prescription eyeglasses and begin doing what visually unimpaired children do.

And numerous children who were battling seizures experienced a significant reduction in these following their stem cell treatment. A few stopped having seizures altogether.

There Certainly Is a Track Record…

It would seem that in some instances “proven” includes procedures, biologics and other things in medicine that have been used long enough to leave a substantial track record of safety and efficacy.

Given the literally thousands of off-label umbilical cord stem cell treatments done worldwide in just the past fifteen years which have demonstrated both safety and effectiveness in remediating a whole host of medical diseases and conditions, perhaps it would be fairer to characterize them not as “unproven”, but as “provisionally” or “tentatively” proven — or validated.

And given the fact I and other physician’s have achieved comparable or better clinical outcomes using stem cell-rich bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) to treat cerebral palsy and other medical conditions, perhaps “provisionally” or “tentatively” proven is a label that should be applied to them as well.

The Bottom Line…

But whether called proven or unproven, the fact remains that both off-label umbilical cord and bone marrow stem cell treatments have produced clinical responses that reflect biological, physiological and neurological improvements which cannot be attributed to placebo effects or wishful or magical thinking.

By David A. Steenblock, B.S M.S., D.O.



Reading Resources:

Dr. Steenblock’s Personalized Regenerative Medicine Clinic (San Clemente, CA. USA)

Cerebral Palsy Patient Testimonials

Healing with Stem Cells: My Journey by David A. Steenblock, M.S., D.O. (Townsend Letter, December 2016)

1: Misra S. Randomized double blind placebo control studies, the “Gold Standard” in intervention based studies. Indian J Sex Transm Dis. 2012 Jul;33(2):131-4.doi: 10.4103/0253-7184.102130. PubMed PMID: 23188942; PubMed Central PMCID:PMC3505292.

2: Rains JC, Penzien DB. Behavioral research and the double-blind placebo-controlled methodology: challenges in applying the biomedical standard to behavioral headache research. Headache. 2005 May;45(5):479-86. Review. PubMed PMID: 15953264.

3: Berkman ND, Santaguida PL, Viswanathan M, Morton SC. The Empirical Evidence of Bias in Trials Measuring Treatment Differences [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014 Sep. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK253181/ PubMed PMID: 25392898.

4: Colagiuri B. Participant expectancies in double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trials: potential limitations to trial validity. Clin Trials. 2010 Jun;7(3):246-55. doi: 10.1177/1740774510367916. Review. PubMed PMID: 20421243.

5: Marusic A, Wager E, Utrobicic A, Rothstein HR, Sambunjak D. Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 4;4:MR000038. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000038.pub2. Review. PubMed PMID: 27040721.

6: Haahr MT, Hróbjartsson A. Who is blinded in randomized clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors. Clin Trials. 2006;3(4):360-5. Review. PubMed PMID: 17060210.

© 2017 by David A. Steenblock, D.O., Inc. All rights reserved.

Horong
7th February 2017, 06:01
The Biochemical Manipulation of Humanity
(https://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20090816_biochemical_manipulation.htm)


Depression.

Depression is becoming more common throughout the Western world. Depression is caused by brain inflammation, because brain inflammation (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X09006196) depletes the body of serotonin. This brain inflammation is the result of vaccines. A good explanation can be found here. (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/pages/vaccines-depression-and-neurodegeneration-after-age-50.aspx) It goes without saying that the same companies that produce the vaccines are the ones that sell the anti-depressants. Anti-Depressants are now the most sold drugs (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/07/09/antidepressants/) in the United States, and adult use of antidepressants almost tripled between the periods 1988-1994 and 1999-2000. The most popular anti-depressant (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/34659.php)is Prozac, an SSRI patented by Eli Lilly (http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/01/01/eli_lilly_knew_prozac_causes_suicides_violence_fda _closed_both_eyes.htm). Eli Lilly also has the patent on Thimerosal (http://www.healing-arts.org/children/mercury_in_vaccines_autism_research/thimerosalinvaccinationslink.htm), the mercury compound that is added to vaccines and involved in causing autism. In the United States, 37% of autistic children are given SSRI’s like Prozac.(new URL link) (http://www.autismdailynewscast.com/should-prozac-be-prescribed-for-autism/76/arielrelaford/)

It’s easy to make a profit when you sell products that treat the symptoms caused by the products you sell.

Can I just rant a bit? I came back from an appointment regarding to my ventures. Well basically lately I've been dealing with my DNA's transformation and upgrade (subject to your belief, but I digress. It all started with a sleep paralysis which was actually contact from my star origins and I sought out a reliable psychic that identified what happened.) So practically this has been affecting my ability to concentrate and perform for a long time and has worsened lately because my body is still adapting to this change. So what happened with me was, and I don't care how big a smile you give me when you say this, but practically force-feeding me anti-depressants or else you're not going to consider my application's consideration is just sick. I know the person concerned mean well but hell. I hate this 3D world in how this works. And guess what? Prozac was in the list shown to me, get this - as one of THE LEAST SIDE-EFFECT ANTIDEPRESSANT DRUGS out there. I call bull****. A simple search on Google like "Prozac side effects" will bring up lists of why it is bad and even dangerous. Cases of people on Prozac committing deadly crimes. How many more do they need to convince themselves it's Big Pharma in work?

IgCpa1RlSdQPsychiatrists don't even know what the heck they're doing!!!

What did the psychiatrists say to my concerns? "Don't read these crap online." Boom. Case closed. I darn well almost swore expletives but if I did they would have strapped me down to a gurney and made me stay the night for more "evaluations" in the morning. They didn't strap me down but they did freaking wasted one night of my time forcing me to sleep with real psychotic people (no offense intended). The western medical practice on mental health is ATROCIOUS. Try Doctor Rima Laibow. 27LSSR2zSkg But NooOOoOooo. You have to be forced to take meds or else you won't be allowed to be processed and function in society.

I regret even talking to anyone about me being "depressed". Sure for practical purposes I have to say it's that to even be considered for anything regarding my 3D issues. But god, I'm getting more and more disgusted at how the system works now. The universities and jobs now basically equates not taking anti-depressants to YOU not doing anything about your practical depression and if you aren't improving, you either have to shove more meds up your pie hole or take a different one and you get fired either way for not "improving" and you're left to rot and forgotten.

Oh I do hope the big shift comes. I hope they get changed. I hope they get visited and get knocked to their very core. Then they will know what it is like to deal with it, where you cannot sit still because something's boiling inside you yet you're not ADHD, you feel and are sensitive intuitively to more things yet you are not psychotic, you cannot perform yet everyone you talk to tells you are the most intelligent person they've ever met. And you cannot tell anyone about it lest you want to be strapped to a gurney and be considered a looney and have your whole professional career ruined.

Rant over. I know many more people are suffering more than I am. But I have never felt so frustrated in my life. I'm at the point where I am even considering lying to them on me taking the anti-depressants in order to even get considered on any applications at all.

With that said, here's a waiver to protect you guys:
My "views" aren't in any way shape or form motivated or influenced by Avalon forums. I joined this place exactly because I had these "views" in the first place. Projectavalon.net is not responsible whatsoever for my health and well-being.

To take away from my useless rant, here's at least something more for you:
Rima Laibow's website (http://drrimatruthreports.com/aboutus/meet-rima-e-laibow-md)

I believe this wonderful woman whole-heartedly as she does not back down from controversial subjects at all.

I'm not sure what I'm more angry at - myself, or the populace that just accepts everything from Big Pharma.

Good luck and good health everyone. I sincerely hope you all try the best you can.:bearhug:

onawah
9th February 2017, 04:02
NEW STUDY QUANTIFIES FLUORIDE’S POTENTIAL TO LOWER IQ IN CHILDREN
Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin | February 6, 2017
http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_2-6-17/

Some children may be consuming enough fluoridated water in the USA to reach doses of fluoride that have the potential to lower their IQ, according to a research team headed by William Hirzy, PhD, a former US EPA senior scientist who specialized in risk assessment and published in the journal Fluoride (October-December 2016), reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

Current federal guidelines encourage the addition of fluoride chemicals into water supplies to reach 0.7 milligrams per liter.Hirzy followed EPA risk assessment guidelines to report

“The effect of fluoride on IQ is quite large, with a predicted mean 5 IQ point loss when going from a dose of 0.5 mg/F/day to 2.0 mg F/day.”

Many children in the U.S. commonly consume these levels of fluoride within this range from all sources (i.e. water, food, dental products, medicines, air pollution).

Dr. Hirzy explains the significance of this study:

“The significance of this peer reviewed risk analysis is that it indicates there may be no actual safe level of exposure to fluoride.

Groups of children with lower exposures to fluoride were compared with groups having higher exposures. Those with higher exposures performed more poorly on IQ tests than those with lower exposures.

Applying two different, standard risk analysis techniques used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to published data on the impact of fluoride exposure in children shows that daily intakes in excess of about 0.05 mg of fluoride may result in depressed intellectual capability. This calculation involved using safety factors designed to protect the most vulnerable child.

One well-conducted Chinese study indicated that children exposed to 1.4 mg/day had their IQ lowered by 5 IQ points. Current average mean daily intakes among children in the United States are estimated by EPA to range from about 0.80 mg/day to 1.65 mg/day.

Fluoride may be similar to lead and mercury in having no threshold below which exposures may be considered safe.”

Bill Osmunson, DDS, FAN’s Interim Director noted that this study adds further weight to the Petition submitted to the US EPA by FAN and other groups in November to ban the addition of fluoride chemicals to the drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act. The EPA has until Feb 20 to rule on this Petition.

Read & Share the Study http://www.fluorideresearch.org/494Pt1/files/FJ2016_v49_n4Pt1_p379-400_pq.pdf

New FDA Warning Label on Fluoride Anesthetics

The FDA just released a safety announcement warning “that repeated or lengthy use of general anesthetic and sedation drugs during surgeries or procedures in children younger than 3 years or in pregnant women during their third trimester may affect the development of children’s brains.”

As a result, the FDA will now require warning labels be added to certain general anesthetics and sedation drugs, and is advising caution in the use of these drugs by healthcare professionals.

While the FDA announcement does not mention fluoride as the cause of neurological harm, several of the listed anesthetics are known to release fluoride in large amounts and cause other types of adverse effects due to the fluoride exposure. It is a possibility, based on the many studies that have shown fluoride to be a developmental neurotoxin (neurotoxic to fetuses and children), that fluoride is contributing to this negative health outcome.

Australian Campaign Starts Fluoridation-Focused Political Party

Anne Porter, of Fluoride Free Western Australia has asked that we share the following announcement with our scientific and public health professionals, as well as Australian residents:

Fluoride Free WA have officially become a political party . Our aim is to field candidates in each region at the Western Australian state election to be held 11th March 2017.

By becoming a political party we are looking to raise community awareness about fluoridation and affect change from within through the political process. This is ever more important as the current government is aggressively expanding the practice into previously un-fluoridated regional centres in Western Australia.

This could be a watershed moment for all anti-fluoridation campaigns. A successful campaign here in Western Australia could be the catalyst for huge change not only across Australia but all fluoridating nations.

For more fluoride related media, please visit FAN’s News Archive. http://fluoridealert.org/about/archive-of-fan-bulletins/

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network

ponda
15th February 2017, 03:22
Ice Cream or Ice Chemicals This Will Shock You

source link (http://globalhealthrenegade.com/articles/2013/10/25/ice-cream-or-ice-chemicals-this-will-shock-you)


https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52536cbde4b04bbc53b210f3/t/526a1942e4b0ca2844ff3aae/1382685033780/ice-cream+2.jpg?format=750w


I remember eating ice cream when I was young. It seemed so different back then… and as you read on you’ll find it is very different from back then.

Unfortunately, gone are the days when your sweet favourites and tasty treats where generally made from good wholesome products.

Some companies are doing everything they can to reduce their costs of production and increase profits. But where does it end? I don’t believe profits should come before risking people’s lives!

I know that ice cream is a huge favourite for lots of people, especially children. So before you think that it’s just a bit of sugar, so it can’t be that bad for yourself or your children, read on. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to feed yourself or your children paint remover… Correct?

Depending on the country you reside in, some manufacturers by law don’t have to list the chemical ingredients they put into their ice cream. Also a lot of them are filling the ice cream with air during production to increase the volume. This is not a dangerous practice, you’re just getting less product for the same price. Talk about deceitful.

Many of the commercial ice creams being produced today are simply chemical cocktails presented to you in a nice looking package to influence you to salivate and buy the product. However, I believe that is not fit for human consumption.

Again depending on country, manufacturer and product, analysis has shown that some if not most of the following chemicals are in many of the commercial ice creams.

Diethyl glycol (DEG) - Is used as a paint solvent and to make polyester resins and plasticisers. It’s also used in anti-freeze for engines and paint removers. It's used as a cheap substitute (emulsifier) instead of eggs in ice cream to thicken the product. It was stated by the FDA that this substance in ANY amount is not suitable for use in toothpastes. So why is it allowed to be put into things people ingest?

Piperonal also known as heliotropin - Is used in place of vanilla as a cheap substitute. It’s listed in the National Library of Medicine HSDB Database as “moderately toxic” as well as a “human skin irritant”. It’s used in head lice formulas to kill lice. No matter how well you sugar coat it - “moderately toxic” is still toxic!

Ethyl Acetate (EtOAc or EA) - Is used as a pineapple flavor. It is also used as a cleaner for leather and textiles. It’s used in paints as an activator or hardener as well as being use in some glues and nail polish removers. Its vapors have been known to cause chronic lung, liver and heart damage.

Aldehyde C-17 - Is used as a cherry flavour. It is an inflammable liquid also used in aniline dyes and the manufacture of plastic and rubber.

Amyl Acetate (pentyl acetate, also known as banana oil) - Is used as a flavoring agent mainly as banana flavour. It’s also used as a paint and lacquer solvent.

Butyraldehyde (butanal) - Derived from butane. Is used in the manufacturing of plasticisers, alcohols, solvents, polymers, rubber accelerators and cements, textile auxiliaries, perfumery and flavors.

Benzyl Acetate (phenylmethyl acetate) - Used as a fragrance and food flavoring agent to name but one of its uses. It’s also used in detergents, soaps, inks, polishers, lacquers and as a solvent in plastics and resins.

Propylene Glycol (1,2-propanediol or propane-1,2-diol) - Is used in food colors, as a humectant (E1520) and preservative in food and for tobacco products. It’s also a solvent in plastics and paint, used in aircraft de-icing fluid, automotive engine anti-freeze, liquid household and dishwashing detergents, as well as industrial soaps and cleaning fluids. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) lists the kidneys, urinary and respiratory system as well as the skin as being affected by propylene glycol. The acute oral toxicity of propylene glycol is classed as very low. However, low or not, it still is toxic.

Sodium benzoate (E211) - Is mainly used as a preservative in foods, drinks, medicines and cosmetics. Just a preservative... it sounds so innocent... It’s also used in fireworks as a fuel. It’s been shown in studies to be a carcinogenic substance. Professor Peter Piper, a professor of molecular biology and biotechnology at Sheffield University, in 2007 said “These chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they totally inactivate it; they knock it out altogether. The mitochondria consumes the oxygen to give you energy and if you damage it – as happens in a number of diseased states – then the cell starts to malfunction very seriously. And there is a whole array of diseases that are now being tied to damage to this DNA – Parkinson’s and quite a lot of neuro-degenerative diseases, but above all the whole process of ageing."

Also when it’s combined with vitamin C or E, this combination causes benzene to be formed. Benzene has been shown to cause cancer.

Potassium sorbate (E202) - is used as a preservative to inhibit the growth of yeast and molds to increases shelf life. It’s been shown to be a respiratory, skin and eye irritant. Some studies have shown that it’s both genotoxic and mutagenic to human blood cells. Potassium sorbate is found to be toxic to human DNA and that it negatively affects immunity.

Polysorbate 80 (E433 as well as many other names) - is used as an emulsifier in foods, particularly in ice cream. Also used in soaps and shampoos. It’s been shown to suppress the immune system and it can cause severe allergic reactions including anaphylactic shock.

These are some of the most common chemical ingredients that can be found in many commercial ice creams. Below are a few more and depending on which country you live in, unfortunately you might be able to find many more.

Caroxymethyl cellulose

Monoglycerides, diglycerides and triglicerides

Disodium phosphate

Mono stearates

Modified corn starch

Soy lecithin

Calcium sulfate

Magnesium hydroxide

So instead of going for the tub of antifreeze, paint remover, leather cleaner, and lice killer. Make your own. Yes it takes a little time but at least you know you’re not paying to slowly poison yourself or your loved ones.

Go to our Media page (http://globalhealthrenegade.squarespace.com/media/) for our own home-made, delicious and truly natural ice cream recipes – without the chemicals!




Here's some links to home made ice cream recipes

http://www.eatingwell.com/recipes/18290/desserts/homemade-ice-cream/

http://dailyburn.com/life/recipes/healthy-homemade-ice-cream-recipes/

http://www.countryliving.com/food-drinks/g952/easy-homemade-ice-cream-0610/

ponda
16th February 2017, 02:29
Richie Allen interviews Jon Rappoport and they discuss Jon's recent article that's titled "The number-one mind-control program at US colleges". (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/the-number-one-mind-control-program-at-us-colleges/)

This article states that...


“More than 25 percent of college students have been diagnosed or treated by a professional for a mental health condition within the past year.”

Let that sink in. 25 percent.

Colleges are basically clinics. Psychiatric centers.

Colleges have been taken over. A soft coup has occurred, out of view.

You want to know where all this victim-oriented “I’m triggered” and “I need a safe space” comes from? You just found it.

It’s a short step from being diagnosed with a mental disorder to adopting the role of being super-sensitive to “triggers.” You could call it a self-fulfilling prophecy. “If I have a mental disorder, then I’m a victim, and then what people say and do around me is going disturb me…and I’ll prove it.”

The dangerous and destabilizing effects of psychiatric drugs confirm this attitude. The drugs DO, in fact, produce an exaggerated and distorted sensitivity to a person’s environment.

You want to know where a certain amount of violent aggressive behavior on campuses comes from? You just found it. The psychiatric drugs. In particular, antidepressants and speed-type medications for ADHD.

You want to know why so many college students can’t focus on their studies? You just found one reason. The brain effects of the drugs.

The usual variety of student problems are translated into pseudoscientific categories of “mental disorders”—and toxic drugging ensues.

continues... (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/the-number-one-mind-control-program-at-us-colleges/)

Later during the interview Jon is asked if he thinks that these prescribed Psychotropic drugs can have an added effect on humans who have also been exposed to various vaccines earlier in their lives.


Rappoport "Mental Disorders Invented By Committees Of Psychiatrists From Menus Of Human Behaviours."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bikkPesTXqQ&t=1s

onawah
27th February 2017, 22:45
Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin |
February 27, 2017
(Obviously, the EPA is worthless, but is Trump saying he will put something that works in its place? Because we sure need something that works. )

http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_2-27-17/


Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published their response to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 21 petition submitted by the Fluoride Action Network and a coalition including the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Food & Water Watch, the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, and the Organic Consumers Association. The full TSCA petition can be accessed here, a shorter 8-page summary here, and our press release here.

Michael Connett, an attorney with the Fluoride Action Network and the author of the petition has the following statement regarding the initial ruling:

Unfortunately, the EPA’s decision to deny our petition demonstrates that the Agency is not yet prepared to let go of the outdated assumptions it has long held about fluoride.

We presented the Agency with a large body of human and animal evidence demonstrating that fluoride is a neurotoxin at levels now ingested by many U.S. children and vulnerable populations. We also presented the Agency with evidence showing that fluoride has little benefit when swallowed, and, accordingly, any risks from exposing people to fluoride chemicals in water are unnecessary. We believe that an impartial judge reviewing this evidence will agree that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk.

In their decision the EPA claimed, “The petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S.”

As many independent scientists now recognize, fluoride is a neurotoxin. The question, therefore, is not if fluoride damages the brain, but at what dose.

While EPA quibbles with the methodology of some of these studies, to dismiss and ignore these studies in their entirety for methodological imperfections is exceptionally cavalier, particularly given the consistency of the findings and the razor-thin margin between the doses causing harm in these studies and the doses that millions of Americans now receive.

EPA’s own Guidelines on Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment highlight the importance of having a robust margin between the doses of a chemical that cause neurotoxic effects and the doses that humans receive. We presented the EPA with over 180 studies showing that fluoride causes neurotoxic harm (e.g. reduced IQ), and pointed out that many of these studies found harm at levels within the range, or precariously close to, the levels millions of U.S. children now receive. Typically, this would be a cause for major concern. But, unfortunately, the EPA has consistently shied away from applying the normal rules of risk assessment to fluoride — and it has unfortunately continued that tradition with its dismissal of the Petition.

Fortunately, the TSCA statute provides that citizens can challenge an EPA denial in federal court and, importantly, that the federal court must conduct a de novo review of the evidence. In other words, federal courts are to conduct their own independent review of the evidence without deference to the EPA’s judgment. We intend, therefore, to challenge EPA’s denial in court, as we are confident in the merits of the Petition.

For too long, EPA has let politics trump science on the fluoride issue (see examples). We welcome therefore having these issues considered by a federal court.

FAN will continue to provide updates as we move forward with our case against the EPA.

NTP Conference Call Audio

On February 16th, 2017 the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) gave an update via conference call on their pending review of fluoride’s neurotoxic effect on humans and animals. In this conference call, NTP updated interested parties on the status of their study and fielded several questions on the specifics of their soon-to-be -published review. A handful of FAN team members were on the call and asked questions:

Listen to the Call

Latest Fluoride News

–Water Systems Told to Pay Their Legal Bills in Fluoridation Lawsuit (Arkansas)

–Bill Introduced to Reverse Arkansas’ Statewide Fluoridation Mandate (Arkansas)

–Supreme Court Grants Right for Another Fluoridation Appeal (New Zealand)

–Brandtford: Budget for Fluoridation System Climbs (Ontario)

–Fluoride Back in Debate in Kununurra (Australia)

–Western Australia Anti-Fluoride Candidate May Be Elected (Australia)

–Fumigants and Fast Food Packaging Are Source of Toxic Fluoride (USA)

–Former EPA Senior Scientist Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ (USA)

–Nevada Legislation Could Expand Statewide Fluoridation Mandate (Nevada)

–Peel Asks Ontario Government to Test Toxicity of Fluoridation Chemicals (Ontario)

–Chapel Hill: Human Error Caused OWASA Fluoride Overdose (North Carolina)

For more fluoride related media, please visit FAN’s News Archive.

Sincerely,

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network

See all FAN bulletins online

ponda
3rd March 2017, 11:42
Scientists categorize Earth as a 'toxic planet'

source (https://phys.org/news/2017-02-scientists-categorize-earth-toxic-planet.html)



Humans emit more than 250 billion tonnes of chemical substances a year, in a toxic avalanche that is harming people and life everywhere on the planet.

"Earth, and all life on it, are being saturated with man-made chemicals in an event unlike anything in the planet's entire history," says Julian Cribb, author of 'Surviving the 21st Century' (Springer International 2017).

"Every moment of our lives we are exposed to thousands of these substances. They enter our bodies with each breath, meal or drink we take, the clothes and cosmetics we wear, the things we encounter every day in our homes, workplaces and travel.
Mr Cribb says that the poisoning of the planet through man-made chemical emissions is probably the largest human impact – and the one that is least understood or regulated. It is one of ten major existential risks now confronting humanity, he describes in Surviving the 21st Century.

"The European Chemicals agency estimates there are more than 144,000 man-made chemicals in existence. The US Department of Health estimates 2000 new chemicals are being released every year. The UN Environment Program warns most of these have never been screened for human health safety," he says.

"The World Health Organisation estimates that 12 million people – one in 4 – die every year from diseases caused by 'air water and soil pollution, chemical exposures, climate change and ultraviolet radiation', all of which result from human activity."


Examples of the toxic avalanche include:

Manufactured chemicals – 30 million tonnes a year

Plastic pollution of oceans – 8mt/yr

Hazardous waste – 400 mt/yr

Coal, oil, gas etc – 15 gigatonnes (billion tonnes) a year

Lost soil – 75 Gt/yr

Metals and materials – 75 Gt/yr

Mining and mineral wastes - <200 Gt/yr

Water (mostly contaminated with above wastes) – 9 trillion tonnes a year.



"Industrial toxins are now routinely found in new-born babies, in mother's milk, in the food chain, in domestic drinking water worldwide. They have been detected from the peak of Mt Everest (where the snow is so polluted it doesn't meet drinking water standards) to the depths of the oceans, from the hearts of our cities to the remotest islands.

"The mercury found in the fish we eat, and in polar bears in the Arctic, is fallout from the burning of coal and increases every year.

"There is global concern at the death of honeybees from agricultural pesticides and the potential impact on the world food supply, as well as all insect life - and on the birds, frogs and fish which in turn depend on insects."

Mr Cribb says an issue of chemical contamination largely ignored by governments and corporations is that chemicals act in combination, occur in mixtures and undergo constant change. "A given chemical may not occur in toxic amounts in one place – but combined with thousands of other chemicals it may contribute a much larger risk to the health and safety of the whole population and the environment."

Medical science is increasingly linking issues such as obesity, cancers, heart disease and brain disorders such as autism, ADHD and depression to the growing volume of toxic substances to which humans are exposed daily.

"Despite attempts to regulate chemical use, only 21 out of 144,000 chemicals have so far been banned. In countries such as the United States, attempts are apparently under way to roll back chemical regulation, exposing the population to ever-greater health risks."

Mr Cribb says solutions to the threat of global poisoning exist, but require the co-operation of consumers, government and industry worldwide.

"First, we need a new Human Right – a right not to be poisoned. Without such a right, there will never again be a day in history when humans are free from man-made poisons.

"Second we need a global alliance of consumers who will reject toxic products or products made with toxic processes – and give industry the economic incentive to switch to 'green chemistry' and other safer systems.

"Our communities need to adopt 'zero waste', where nothing is discarded but all substances are re-used and toxic ones made safe."

"People need to understand that these poisons are only released because we as consumers send our dollar demands to industry to make things as cheaply as possible. This takes no account of the damage to human life and health. So we are all, in a sense, getting away with murder.

"If consumers demand safe, healthy, green products and are willing to pay industry a little more to make them safely, we can cleanse our planet within a generation.

"We all end up paying chemical toxicity one way or another. It's a simple choice – pay at the supermarket, or pay at the hospice."

Surviving the 21st Century describes what humanity as a whole must do, and what individuals can do to turn back the toxic tide.

onawah
16th March 2017, 03:54
Fluorides, the atomic bomb, and fake news
by Jon Rappoport
March 15, 2017
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/fluorides-the-atomic-bomb-and-fake-news/


Occasionally, I reprint this article. I wrote it some years ago, during research on toxic chemicals pervading the landscape. I used to send the piece to mainstream reporters, but I eventually gave that up as a bad bet.

They’re dedicated to fake news…and now they’re losing control over public consciousness. Losing badly. Independent media are in the ascendance, and rightly so.

In 1997, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, two respected mainstream journalists, peered into an abyss. They found a story about fluorides that was so chilling it had to be told.

The Christian Science Monitor, who had assigned the story, never published it.

Their ensuing article, “Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb,” has been posted on websites, sometimes with distortions, deletions, or additions. I spoke with Griffiths, and he told me to be careful I was reading a correct copy of his piece. (You can find it—“Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb,” at fluoridealert.org.)

Griffiths also told me that researchers who study the effects of fluorides by homing in on communities with fluoridated drinking water, versus communities with unfluoridated water, miss a major point: studying the water is not enough; toxic fluorides are everywhere—they are used throughout the pharmaceutical industry in the manufacture of drugs, and also in many other industries (e.g., aluminum, pesticide).

I want to go over some of the major points of the Griffiths-Bryson article.

Griffiths discovered hundreds of documents from the World War 2 era. These included papers from the Manhattan Project, launched to build the first A-bomb.

Griffiths/Bryson write: “Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production…millions of tons…were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War.”

The documents reveal that fluoride was the most significant health hazard in the US A-bomb program, for workers and for communities around the manufacturing facilities.

Griffiths/Bryson: “Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide ‘evidence useful in litigation’ [against persons who had been poisoned by fluoride and would sue for damages]… The first lawsuits against the US A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the [government] documents show.”

A-bomb scientists were told they had to do studies which would conclude that fluorides were safe.

The most wide-reaching study done was carried out in Newburgh, New York, between 1945 and 1956. This was a secret op called “Program F.” The researchers obtained blood and tissue samples from people who lived in Newburgh, through the good offices of the NY State Health Department.

Griffiths/Bryson found the original and secret version of this study. Comparing it to a different sanitized version, the reporters saw that evidence of adverse effects from fluorides had been suppressed by the US Atomic Energy Commission.

Other studies during the same period were conducted at the University of Rochester. Unwitting hospital patients were given fluorides to test out the results.

Flash forward. Enter Dr. Phyllis Mullenix (see also here), the head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston. In the 1990s, Mullenix did a series of animal studies which showed that, as Griffiths/Bryson write: “…fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin…”

Mullenix applied for further grant monies from the National Institutes of Health. She was turned down. She was also told that fluorides do not have an effect on the CNS.

But Griffiths/Bryson uncovered a 1944 Manhattan Project memo which states: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect…it seems most likely that the F [fluoride] component rather than the [uranium] is the causative factor.”

The 1944 memo was sent to the head of the Manhattan Project Medical Section, Colonel Stafford Warren. Warren was asked to give his okay to do animal studies on fluorides’ effects on the CNS. He immediately did give his approval.

But records of the results of this approved project are missing. Most likely classified.

Who was the man who made that 1944 proposal for a rush-program to study the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge, who worked at the Manhattan Project.

Who was brought in to advise Mullenix 50 years later at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, as she studied the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge.

Who never told Mullenix of his work on fluoride toxicity for the Manhattan Project? Dr. Harold Hodge.

Was Hodge brought in to look over Mullenix’s shoulder and report on her discoveries? It turns out that Hodge, back in the 1940s, had made suggestions to do effective PR promoting fluoride as a dental treatment. So his presence by Mullenix’s side, all those years later, was quite possibly as an agent assigned to keep track of her efforts.

Getting the idea here? Build an A-bomb. Forget the toxic fluoride consequences. Bury the fluoride studies. Twist the studies.

More on Hodge. In 1944, “a severe pollution incident” occurred in New Jersey, near the Du Pont plant in Deepwater where the company was trying to build the first A-bomb. A fluoride incident. Farmers’ peach and tomato crops were destroyed. Horses and cows became crippled. Some cows had to graze on their bellies. Tomato crops (normally sold to the Campbell company for soups) were contaminated with fluorides.

The people of the Manhattan Project were terrified of lawsuits and ensuing revelations about the toxic nature of their work. A heads-up memo was written on the subject. Its author? Harold Hodge. Among other issues, he reported on the huge fluoride content in vegetables growing in the polluted area.

Also the high fluoride levels in human blood.

The farmers began to bring lawsuits. Big PR problem.

The lawsuits were settled quietly, for pittances.

Harold Hodge wrote another memo. Get this quote: “Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents [near the A-bomb facility]…through lectures on F [fluoride] toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?”

Griffiths/Bryson write: “Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War.”

This was a launching pad for fluorides as “successful dental treatments.”

Now you know why promoting toxic fluorides as a dental treatment was so important to government officials.

Footnote: In Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film, Dr. Strangelove, Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper rails about the destruction fluorides are wreaking on the “pure blood of pure Americans.” Of course, General Ripper is fleshed out as a crazy right-wing fanatic. He’s ready and willing to start a nuclear war. How odd. Apparently unknown to the Strangelove script writers, fluorides were, in fact, very toxic and were an integral part of the program that created atomic bombs in the first place.

onawah
16th March 2017, 22:32
Strong link between fluoridated water and ADHD, according to new scientific study
Posted by: Dena Schmidt, staff writer March 14, 2017
http://www.naturalhealth365.com/fluoridated-water-adhd-2169.html

NaturalHealth365) Fluoridated water and the ingestion of fluoride have now been identified as factors in the development of ADHD, according to researchers. A report on this topic was published in Environmental Health, and the study is the first of its kind to closely examine the relationship between ADHD and exposure to fluoridated water.
A fluoride-like chemical called hydrofluosilicic acid has been added to public water supplies for decades in an attempt to help prevent tooth decay in the populations that drink it. The objective was to mimic the effects of natural calcium fluoride. However, the teeth actually require calcium (along with other minerals) for optimal health – NOT fluoride.
ADHD affecting a growing number of children
ADHD, which stands for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, has become an all too common diagnosis. Over 6 percent of American children are currently being treated for ADHD, with numbers trending upward. The symptoms of ADHD include difficulty in focusing and paying attention, hyperactivity, and problems with impulse control.
The researchers took participants’ socio-economic-status into consideration for the study, and still found fluoridated water to be an environmental risk factor in cases of ADHD. Up until this time, the potential effects of fluoride and fluoridated water had received little to no attention in ADHD research. This was despite an abundance of anecdotal evidence that it could be contributing to the onset of this disorder.
The link revealed: Fluoridated water, ADHD and hypothyroidism
Another recent study out of the UK found a correlation between fluoride and thyroid disease. Malin and Till, the researchers behind the ADHD study, strongly believe ADHD manifests via suppression of the thyroid gland caused by fluoridated water.
The researchers estimate that both adults and children in communities that practice drinking water fluoridation ingest between 0.9 and 3.6 mg/L of fluoride per day from drinking water alone. In pregnant women, fluoride can cross the placenta and accumulate in the infant brain. From there, it can exert neurotoxic effects that negatively impact attention, learning and memory.
The researchers also found that children exposed to water with levels of fluoride at 1.2 – 3 mg/L (higher than the U.S. recommended level) had increased urinary fluoride concentration. This marker is associated with poorer visual-spatial organization, slowed reaction times, and an impairment of the ability to read and write.
And, as if that wasn’t enough, the ingestion of fluoride is also linked with lower IQ numbers.
Crazy city water treatment policy: Fluoridated water is far from safe
Some people believe that the science and research on fluoridation has been ‘settled’ and that fluoridated water is safe to drink. This is clearly not the case. If it took this long to expose the link between fluoride and ADHD, what else hasn’t been thoroughly studied?
The trend of government agencies toward dismissing research that finds fluoridation unsafe instead of protecting citizens is appalling. With fluoridated water and fluoride ingestion now linked with ADHD, hypothyroidism and lowered IQ, continuing the fluoridation of public drinking water is clearly a reckless act. (some might even suggest, criminal!)
References:
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-015-0003-1
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/840873
http://www.healthline.com/health/adhd/facts-statistics-infographic
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20150303/Study-finds-link-between-fluoridated-water-and-ADHD-prevalence.aspx

onawah
9th April 2017, 18:29
How Soil Microbes and Intercellular Communication Affects Human Health
April 09, 2017
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/04/09/soil-microbes-intracellular-communication-affects-health.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20170409Z1_UCM&et_cid=DM140297&et_rid=1960805792
VLKbNEYgBTg

By Dr. Mercola

Your health is in large part determined by the health of the soil in which your food is grown. In this interview, Dr. Zach Bush delves into the many reasons why this is so.

Bush, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology and metabolism, and hospice and palliative care has done some fascinating and innovative research in this area and is one of the brightest physicians I have ever met.

He began his career as a conventional cancer researcher funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

When his funding dried up following the 2008-2010 recession, Bush transitioned into nutrition, eventually coming to understand how chronic inflammation and loss of intercellular communication is at the core of all disease, and why so many of our foods have lost their medicinal value.

His science team's work has contributed to the new science of micro-RNA, the result of all that "junk" DNA in your body (accounting for more than 90 percent of the DNA sequences in your genome).

As it turns out, this "junk" DNA and the resulting micro-RNA play an absolutely crucial role in regulating the 25,000 genes that actually make the proteins that build your body. The micro-RNA function as "on/off" switches for the genes. Depending on the micro-RNA input, a single gene can code for any of more than 200 protein products.

What's more, 30 percent of the micro-RNA switches that regulate genes' production of proteins do not have a human source — they're from the bacteria and fungi obtained from your food and environment. Truly, this interview is one you will not want to miss! So, sit back, have a listen and prepare to be blown away.

The Road From Cancer Research to Nutrition

During his endocrinology and metabolism fellowship, Bush was managing diabetes, autoimmune disorders, metabolic disorders and infertility in his clinic; in his research role at the University of Virginia, he focused on cellular biology research, looking at novel mechanisms by which cancer cells can kill themselves.

It's a commonly held view that cancer involves a battle between your immune system and the cancer cells; however, Bush's research demonstrated the critical role of cancer-cell suicide in the body's management of cancer.

The redox (reduction and oxidation) communication molecules are the foundation of this important response system.

As long as there's sufficient cell-to-cell communication, the cancer cells should recognize that they're damaged beyond the point of repair and commit suicide, a process called apoptosis, or programmed cell death.

So why does that process fail in so many people? And beyond cancer, why are so many people struggling with so many chronic illnesses?

"We were seeing this explosion of type 2 diabetes, obesity, metabolic collapse, cardiovascular disease and, of course, cancer … It ended up being patients that [changed] my 17 years of intense academic training in cellular biology. I started thinking … there's got to be a better mechanism by which to [treat] this …

[In] clinic … I was using more and more pharmaceutical drugs to tackle [diabetes]. [But] it doesn't take long to realize there are huge downsides to the pharmaceutical approach. There are huge limitations to efficacy. There's enormous toxicity …

[P]atients were looking great on paper — blood sugars would come down — but they were getting worse clinically. More edema, more weight gain, more fatigue, more depression. Every ounce of insulin I put them on was more disease. It was this Catch-22 situation.

It was my patients that started to help me out of that box that was … starting to get me very depressed. It was really these root-cause questions my patients were asking that I felt incredibly unequipped to answer …

Ultimately, they had an intuitive knowledge that … food must have something to do with it. I kept sending them to the diabetes educators who would teach them a low-carb diet. It turns out that type 2 diabetes is not caused by carbohydrates."

Disease Is Loss of Cell-to-Cell Communication

Bush realized something was terribly wrong with the dietary recommendations his patients were receiving when they kept getting worse despite being fully compliant with the diet.

One of the first tip-offs that something was wrong with the patient education system was when he realized that hotdogs were listed as an acceptable staple diabetic food in the nutrition material they were receiving from the dieticians at the university.

"I had these patients that were eating, [for] breakfast, lunch and dinner, hotdogs with no buns," he says. "They thought they were now on a healthy diet because they were eating no carbs. This was the first red flag … That hotdogs are even on anybody's list of nutritious foods is somewhat dumbfounding.

That it could somehow be interpreted as the only food they should be eating was truly amazing. Those were some of the foundational cracks. But I felt profoundly unprepared to start to enter into that diet or nutrition conversation because I had no training in it …

Our [medical] education is so slanted away from lifestyle and … toward pharmaceutical management of chronic disease. Then, really, the blinders came off."

In a nutshell, Bush discovered that the process occurring in necrotic tissue, such as that of a diabetic ulcer, behaved almost identically to cancer cells viewed under a microscope.

"I said, 'My gosh. There's no such thing as diabetic ulcers. There's no such thing as cancer. There's no such thing as disease. There's only a loss of cell-cell communication,'" he says. "There's only a loss and isolation … that leads to this broken state … That was a huge transformational moment."

The truth Bush discovered can be likened to the analogy of light and dark — you cannot have both in the same place. If you shine a light in the darkness, darkness disappears. Health is like the light, and if you have health, you're just not going to be sick.

The Chemoprotective Intelligence in Soil

Bush left academia in 2010 to enter the world of nutrition. He opened a plant-based nutrition clinic to reach out to one of the poorest counties in Virginia, figuring if he could make a difference here, the same principles could be applied anywhere.

"I was just pounding my patients with the best nutrients I could find in the garden and helping them learn how to grow food. Frustratingly, there was a good 40, 50 percent of them that weren't responding in the right direction.

There was this amazing miracle happening to the 40 percent of them where conditions of decades were just melting away under the force of nutrition. But then there was this huge percentage that no matter how much nutrition we tried to bring to the plate, they were getting worse, not better."

He began questioning the science on nutrients' impact on mitochondrial metabolism. Then, a colleague named William Vitalis brought in a 90-page white paper on soil science, which led to another breakthrough in thinking.

"Around page 40, there's this big picture of a molecule sitting there that stopped me in my tracks … The blinders came down for a moment and I said, 'That looks a lot like the chemotherapy I used to be making. What is that doing in soil?' That was the moment we started turning our attention to the possibility that there was intelligence in the soil," Bush says.

One factor contributing to our rising cancer burden is the fact we've been using industrial farming practices for close to a century — practices that decimate the soil by disturbing and killing the microbes therein. We've essentially undermined public health from the roots up. If you don't have healthy soil, you can't grow healthy foods because the necessary micronutrients aren't there. As a result, even if you think you're eating some of the healthiest foods available, you're going to be deficient in micronutrients.

As noted by Bush, plant health correlates to and parallels human health. One of the very first things that happens when a plant is lacking in nutrients is that it will be attacked by pests. The same phenomenon occurs in your body. Conventional farming addresses this problem with chemical pesticides. In humans, we address it with antibiotics. However, both lead to resistance, and the more drug-resistant these microbes get, the worse the disease gets.

How Glyphosate Has Decimated the Medicinal Value of Food

In 1976, glyphosate was introduced. This is the active ingredient in a vast majority of weed killers on the market today, including Roundup®. However, this chemical does not selectively kill weeds. Any plant sprayed with this chemical will die — which is why Monsanto and other pesticide producers came up with the idea of creating herbicide-resistant plants through genetic engineering.

"It's worthwhile noting why it kills plants," Bush says. "Glyphosate blocks an enzyme pathway … called the shikimate pathway. These enzymes are responsible for making some of the most important compounds in food [including] ringed carbon structures, such as tryptophan, that are the backbone of hormones.

If you take away tryptophan from the plant chain or the plant kingdom by killing this pathway in bacteria and plants, the plant cannot make these essential signaling molecules … It wipes out about four to six of the essential amino acids, which are the building blocks for all proteins in your body … There are only 26 amino acids. You take away four to six of those [and] you just lost a huge percentage of biology.

But that's just the beginning of the problem that we're talking about in nutrition. This is, I really believe, the answer to why we were feeding all these healthy foods to our patients [yet] not seeing health benefits: There's a family of compounds called alkaloids … [When you] remove the alkaloids from food, what you see is the disease burst we have going on across so many organ systems in our bodies.

There's a family of [alkaloids] that are anti-parasitic … [others] are antidiabetic … anticancer … antihypertensive … anti-mood disorder … antiasthma, anti-eczema type of compounds. You go through the list of alkaloids and [realize that if you add a] chemical to our food chain that wipes out the production of [alkaloids] …

we [lose] the medicinal quality of food that has existed for thousands of years … [By using glyphosate] we robbed the soil and the plant from the ability to make these essential medicinal [compounds]."

According to Monsanto, glyphosate cannot affect human health because humans do not have the shikimate pathway. However, human gut bacteria do, as do soil bacteria and plants. Moreover, the human body cannot make its own alkaloids and essential amino acids. You must get these compounds from plant foods that feed off bacteria in the soil.

Glyphosate Is a Major Health Threat

Glyphosate also disrupts intercellular communication, which is at the heart of virtually all disease. To understand this, you first need to understand that bacteria, fungi and other microbes work in concert — there are relationships at play where certain ones help keep others in check. Unfortunately, since the discovery of penicillin we've essentially waged war against bacteria, with antibiotics often considered cure-alls by doctors and patients alike.

An estimated 7.7 million pounds of antibiotics are prescribed to Americans every year, equaling over 800 prescriptions for every 1,000 individuals. Since the 1960s, antibiotics have also been added to animal feed to promote faster weight gain. An estimated 300 milligrams of antibiotics are used for every kilogram (2.2 pounds) of beef produced, totaling nearly 30 million pounds per year.

In addition, farmers also use 5 billion pounds (over 2 billion kilograms) of glyphosate per year, worldwide, making glyphosate weed killers the most prevalent antibiotic on the planet.

In fact, that was part of the original glyphosate patent, stating its function to kill soil bacteria. So, antibiotics are used in medicine, meat production and on plant crops. By using glyphosate on our crops, neither the soil nor the plants can produce the medicinal alkaloids or any of the essential amino acids your body requires, and this appears to be a major part of why more than half of Americans are chronically ill.

"Glyphosate … is an organophosphate. [It is] called glyphosate because its backbone is glycine, which is one of the most essential amino acids that's extremely rich in your extracellular matrix … Your extracellular matrix, your neurons and many tissues rely on glycine as an amino acid building block. Glyphosate is glycine with a phosphate tagged on the end of it, and an amine, which is a carbon oxygen compound, on the other …

Organophosphate molecules are a toxin that tragically is water soluble. For a biochemist, this is … Dante's hell opening up … Because if you have a water-soluble toxin … it's now infiltrated every sector of the water cycle … 75 percent of the rainfall [is] contaminated with glyphosate … As consumers, we are waking up to reality … We're eating organic food … Yet, if it rained on [that] crop, you've got glyphosate contamination. [The] whole ecosystem is contaminated with a chemical that is an antibiotic."

Based on environmental levels, typical glyphosate exposure through diet is thought to be anywhere from 1 part per million (ppm) up to 40 ppm , depending on the food or water source, with an average intake per human in the 5-50 mg of glyphosate per day. Testing has revealed that women's breast milk can contain 760 to 1,600 times the amount of glyphosate allowed in European water systems, even if the mother is trying to avoid glyphosate contamination.

This is a true testament to how pernicious this chemical has become. When you combine glyphosate-contaminated breast milk with the sterile C-section birth, which prevents the infant from being properly exposed to its mother's microbiome, you have a perfect recipe for health disaster.

How Glyphosate Promotes Whole-Body Toxicity

Bush's team discovered bacterial communication molecules in soil in 2012. As they began to study the effects of this communication network in the human gut environment, they realized glyphosate's toxicity is closely linked to the lack of bacteria. This discovery brought many pieces of the puzzle together. As explained by Bush, the toxic effects of glyphosate in the human environment are directly tied to damage to specific protein structures in the gut and other membranes in the body.

"This protein is called tight junctions. It has multiple constituents, multiple little proteins that make up these large Velcro-like proteins that hook together and attach one microscopic cell to the next cell. [Starting] at your sinuses and [going] all the way to the rectum, you have a vast amount of cells that make up a single cohesive carpet or membrane or shield from the outside world — ideally.

That membrane … is your frontline of defense … It is a single-cell layer thick … The "Velcro" is loosened appropriately by biology to allow big macromolecules to come in and then it tightens up right behind. That is managed by a little protein we make in our body called zonulin. Zonulin is produced appropriately by molecules that need to get through the membrane. It touches the membrane [and] the gut epithelium makes zonulin. The zonulin opens up the tight junction …

Zonulin is the critical modulator of this permeability of the gut membrane. If zonulin starts to get overproduced and you can't check its production, it … leads to damage in the gut epithelium … All the gates open and everything it was supposed to keep out [in the intestines] is let in [to the bloodstream].

It turns out that zonulin is triggered very potently by glyphosate. What a sad story. Monsanto and other companies have been telling us, 'It's safe. You eat it and you'll pee it out at the same rate.' [But] that's really bad news. Because [to eliminate glyphosate it has] to not cross just the gut membrane, it has to cross the membrane of the hepatocyte, the liver cells; go from one bloodstream to the other [and] all the blood vessels are tied together with tight junctions.

Now you go to the blood-brain barrier — tied together with tight junctions. When that starts to leak, your brain's exposed. Then you get to the kidney, the critical organ for detox … It starts leaking. You can no longer build gradients to pull toxin out of the body … [Your] body just became a sponge for toxins and you live in a toxic world. This is how we have [the] disease rates we do today."

To Reverse Disease Rates, We Must Eliminate Glyphosate

One of the diseases heavily influenced by this gut permeability is autism. If the current trajectory continues, somewhere between 2030 and 2045 — a mere 13 to 28 years from now — autism is projected to affect 1 in 3 children. At that point, it will be impossible to maintain human productivity in any given sector. Society as we know it will collapse.

"There is no time for us to wait for legislation," Bush says. "If we don't band together and hurry up to get this message out there — that we have to stop spraying glyphosate right now — we're doomed." On the other end of the age spectrum we have Alzheimer's disease claiming our seniors at ever-growing rates — and that's if they live long enough to not die from cancer first.

"In my clinic, I see this almost on a monthly basis now … sarcomas in the bones or chronic bone marrow cancers. All these things that used to happen in 70, 80 or 90-year-old people are now happening in 5-year-old children, 3-year-old children. Not to mention the brain tumor epidemic that we have going on in children," Bush says.

Today, 1 in 2 adults also struggle with mental health problems. In 1900, that ratio was 1 in 100. All of these disease statistics and more correlate with dramatic changes to our food, specifically the loss of nutrients and medicinal qualities of our foods.

"Now, let's paint this all back to an amazing story of communication," Bush says. "What we found in 2012 is a bacterial communication molecule. There's a lot of complex biochemistry, but I want to boil this down to a nutshell. The word "redox" means reduction and oxidation … [R]eduction is the donation of an electron to an environment. Oxidation is the tearing away or removal of an electron. The most common oxidation you're used to seeing ... is rust … It's starting to erode itself …

Osteoarthritis, that's the rusting of a joint. Cardiovascular disease [is] the rusting of the vascular tree … What we discovered in 2012 was a redox molecule potential in soil made by bacteria. This was earth-shattering because all my cancer research had been on mitochondria.

Mitochondria look a lot like bacteria, but they're about 1,000 times smaller. They live inside your cells … Your neurons can have 3,000 mitochondria in a single nerve. The average across the whole body is about 200 mitochondria per human cell …

When mitochondria digest your food, they make balanced signaling of redox molecules. It's those redox molecules I was studying [when I said], 'Wow. We can use this communication network to empower a cancer cell to induce apoptosis' … Mitochondria rule the cancer cell if they make enough redox molecules. If they can get high enough oxidative stress in there, the cell will kill itself.

Fast-forward to 2012. What is that molecule in soil? Why is there redox potential in the soil? And then of course, bacteria don't have mitochondria. Only multicellular organisms … have mitochondria because we can't break down nutrients from the food by ourselves. We need the mitochondria to do that … Bacteria don't have mitochondria; therefore, they don't have all that redox signaling.

How do they balance an ecosystem of 40,000 species if they can't talk? The blow-my-mind moment of 2012 was, 'They are talking.' The bacteria are in communication. They know what balance looks like. They know how to change the system. To our shock, amazement and joy — I'm so glad to tell you this is all going to end on a good note, or at least an opportunity for us as humans to heal — … our bacterial communication network … [is] the antidote to glyphosate …"

Introducing a New View of Biology Where 'Junk' DNA Hold the Key to Health

For the first time, Bush and his team were studying human biology in the context of a fluid, fluent, robust bacterial communication system. They had never seen human cells in that environment under a microscope before, and it changed everything they believed about apoptosis, protein synthesis, genomics and more. As noted by Bush, "We never took into account the possibility that an ecosystem of fungi and bacteria could be dictating human cellular behavior in health."

Scientists have already concluded that environment is king when it comes to genetic expression. A single gene is now recognized to be able to make 200 different proteins depending on its environment. This was a total paradigm shift and really bad news for those banking on personalized medicine in the 90s, because this meant the genome is a warehouse of options waiting to respond to the environment; the human genes themselves are not determining the outcome of the biology.

If you calculate the possibility of one gene creating 200 outcomes and multiply that by 25,000 genes that code for proteins, there are many millions of potential health outcomes for your body — all based on the environment you provide. Now, the next generation of epigenetics is micro-RNA.

"In a classic move in science, we, as scientists, took a look at the genome and said, 'We only have 25,000 genes … that code for 200,000 proteins … We're only a little less than twice as complicated as the fruit fly when it comes to genes … But the stunning reality is that 90 percent of the DNA doesn't code for a gene that's going to code for protein — over 90 percent!

We just called that junk DNA … Well, in the last five years, it's become obvious that the junk DNA is doing something. Not surprisingly, it's the junk DNA that's actually regulating the 25,000 genes that actually make protein[s]. How does it do that? Each little strip of junk DNA makes a micro-RNA that's never going to code for protein. Instead, the micro-RNA functions as a switch. It now goes into the bloodstream and into other cells to turn on and off gene behavior.

The stunning reality of your ecosystem and human health is that 15 percent of the on and off switches in your bloodstream are not from you. They're from the bacteria in your gut and the bacteria you breathe. Another 15 percent are from the fungi in your environment. Thirty percent of the on and off switches that are determining what gene is going to code for what protein … [have] no human source …

What does this mean for us as humans? We have got to get back in touch with our ecosystem. We have got to get a complicated ecosystem back. We have got to stop taking antibiotics, for sure. We need to stop eating and spraying antibiotics all over our food and soil.

We have to stop disrespecting this normal balance of ecosystem. We need to start getting back outside … We have to make our workspaces look different. We have to really get people back out and inject ecosystem back into their day-to-day lives."

More Information

Bush has authored a book titled "Gut Biome," which is expected to be published this summer. If this interview has whet your appetite for more, do keep your eyes peeled for the release of that book. What we covered here is a mere fraction of the information Bush and his team have uncovered.

While the scope of the problems we face are beyond what most of us can even imagine, with this new understanding new solutions become apparent and, with that, new hope.

"What we see in the clinic is that as soon as you put this bacteria [in] communication, we're back into play," Bush says. "We outsourced our food. We outsourced our nutrition … I think we are responsible, each of us in a small way, for what Monsanto and the chemical companies became, because we stopped doing it ourselves.

We need to take back that control. How much power is that? We should be super empowered as consumers to say, 'With a little bit of collaboration, with a little bit of discussion, we can change everything.' That's what we'll do."

ponda
20th April 2017, 05:27
Short video about corruption around vaccines and anyone trying to get compensation from big pharma.

Rob Schneider-Vaccine Courts & Big Pharma Corruption !


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueKVez4W54g

onawah
20th April 2017, 15:07
Shut down the FDA, start over

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2017
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/shut-down-the-fda-start-over/

Vera Sharav, at ahrp.org, has posted a piece about an investigation headed by NYU Professor Charles Seife.

Seife and his students probed the work of the FDA, the federal agency tasked with approving medical drugs for public use.

Sharav: “FDA documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed that the FDA has been concealing from the medical community and the public serious research misconduct; including fraud, deception, avoidable risks for human subjects — even deaths — that occurred in clinical trials [of medical drugs].”

Professor Seife (from his article at Slate magazine): “Reading the FDA’s inspection files feels almost like watching a highlights reel from a Scientists Gone Wild video. It’s a seemingly endless stream of lurid vignettes—Faked X-ray reports. Forged retinal scans. Phony lab tests. Secretly amputated limbs. All done in the name of science when researchers thought that nobody was watching.”

“That misconduct happens isn’t shocking. What is: When the FDA finds scientific fraud or misconduct, the agency doesn’t notify the public, the medical establishment, or even the scientific community that the results of a medical experiment are not to be trusted. On the contrary. For more than a decade, the FDA has shown a pattern of burying the details of misconduct. As a result, nobody ever finds out which data is bogus, which experiments are tainted, and which drugs might be on the market under false pretenses.”

“The FDA has repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud not just from the public, but also from its most trusted scientific advisers, even as they were deciding whether or not a new drug should be allowed on the market. Even a congressional panel investigating a case of fraud regarding a dangerous drug couldn’t get forthright answers. For an agency devoted to protecting the public from bogus medical science, the FDA seems to be spending an awful lot of effort protecting the perpetrators of bogus science from the public.”

There is much more, but that taste should be enough to convince any sane person that the FDA is a rogue agency, dedicated to protecting and forwarding the profits of pharmaceutical companies.

In past articles, I’ve revealed that, every year in the US, FDA-approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans. This conservative assessment was made by Dr. Barbara Starfield, in her landmark July 26, 2000, review in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

In my 2009 interview with Dr. Starfield, she emphatically stated that she was aware of no systematic federal effort to fix this horrendous ongoing disaster.

In fact, the FDA had (until they removed it) a page on their own site which stated: “Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs (adverse drug reactions yearly.” “100,000 DEATHS yearly.” The FDA was highlighting the catastrophic effects of medical drugs they themselves were certifying as safe and effective. (Update: the slide presentation making these statements now found here.)

Of course, they took no responsibility.

This is on the order of a defendant saying, “Did I kill people? Well, if you look in that field over there, if you start digging, you’ll find a number of bodies. I know. I put them there. But I wasn’t really responsible. Why would you place me on trial?”

In a stunning interview with Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg (7/29/12), former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Kavanagh, exposed the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies:

Kavanagh: “…widespread racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation.”

“I was threatened with prison.”

“One [FDA] manager threatened my children…I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators.”

Kavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the agency who insisted the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.

But honest appraisal wasn’t part of the FDA culture, and Kavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children was on the line.

What was his secret task at the FDA? “Drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs.” In other words, rubber stamp them. Say the drugs were safe and effective when they were not.

Veterans of the Armed Forces, take note: Kavanagh remarked that the drug pyridostigmine, given to US troops to prevent the later effects of nerve gas, “actually increased the lethality” of certain nerve agents.

Kavanagh recalled being given records of safety data on a drug—and then his bosses told him which sections not to read. Obviously, they knew the drug was dangerous and they knew exactly where, in the reports, that fact would be revealed.

Getting the picture?

Anyone who believes the FDA can be fixed with a few adjustments to rules and a few personnel changes is whistling in the dark.

Talk about a swamp.

Nothing short of shutting down the Agency, fumigating the buildings, and starting over with actual humans in charge, humans who believe in human health, would work.

Scores of criminal prosecutions, convictions, and very long prison terms for current FDA employees would also be necessary.

onawah
20th April 2017, 21:57
EPA SAYS A PESTICIDE IS HARMFUL FOR CHILDREN; SCOTT PRUITT SAYS LET’S USE IT ON OUR CROPS
http://uspirg.org/blogs/blog/usp/epa-says-pesticide-harmful-children-scott-pruitt-says-let%E2%80%99s-use-it-our-crops
Not surprisingly, Trump's cabinet members look like they are going to continue making policies just as horrible as they were before.



FRIDAY, APRIL 7, 2017
By Kara Cook-Schultz
Toxics Program Director
Last year, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) panel found that a chemical pesticide, chlorpyrifos, is unsafe to ingest at any level. So in November of 2016, the EPA proposed to completely ban its use.

But last week the EPA changed course: Scott Pruitt announced that EPA will let Big Ag keep using this chemical on food.

The controversy over chlorpyrifos began more than a decade ago, when the EPA first banned the indoor use of the insecticide, but continued to allow its use on food crops. After this decision, the EPA studied the risks of eating food treated with the pesticide. Jim Jones, former assistant administrator of the EPA, says scientists followed hundreds of mothers and their newborn children, monitoring their exposure.

EPA scientists found that 90% of American women of childbearing age have unsafe levels of chlorpyrifos in their bloodstream. Studies showed that at age 7, the average IQ of children who had been exposed to high levels of chlorpyrifos was a few percentage points lower than children who hadn't been exposed to much of the chemical at all. And in November of 2016, the EPA found some toddlers are exposed to levels that are more than 14,000 percent above what the EPA scientists considered a “safe” limit.

So last year, the agency proposed an outright ban on chlorpyrifos. After all, the agency’s own chemical safety experts found that crops sprayed with the insecticide are dangerous to ingest. But then last week, the EPA reversed course. Scott Pruitt’s EPA quietly announced that it was not going to ban chlorpyrifos, after all.

The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment. It is the agency’s duty to review risks associated with the pesticides we use and take appropriate action. The law on pesticides (the Federal Fungicide, Insecticide, and Rodenticide Act) is very strict: it requires “a reasonable certainty that no harm will result,” to consumers or people living in the areas where pesticides are applied.

In this case, there is a reasonable certainty that harm is ongoing from the use of this pesticide. I’m angry and I’m calling for a change. You should be, too. We can do something about this--we can tell the EPA that this is unacceptable.

The EPA is required to complete the next re-evaluation of chlorpyrifos by October 1, 2022. That’s too late; children and their brains are at risk now. The EPA needs to convene their re-evaluation today, and following their own scientific results, the agency should ban chlorpyrifos.
1. Brady Dennis, "EPA chief, rejecting agency's own analysis, declines to ban pesticide despite health concerns," The Washington Post, March 29, 2017.
2. Ibid.
3. "Revised Human Health Risk Assessment on Chlorpyrifos," Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed on April 7, 2017.

onawah
21st April 2017, 03:21
DOW CHEMICAL DONATES $1 MILLION TO TRUMP, ASKS ADMINISTRATION TO IGNORE PESTICIDE STUDY
The fact that C.E.O. Andrew Liveris is a close adviser to Donald Trump can’t hurt.
BY BESS LEVIN
APRIL 20, 2017
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/dow-chemical-endangered-species


Chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion are a group of pesticides that are a big money-maker for Dow Chemical, with the company selling approximately 5 million pounds of chlorpyrifos in the U.S. each year, according to the Associated Press. Dow Chemical, however, has a small problem on its hands, and it’s not the fact that the pesticide was “originally derived from a nerve gas developed by Nazi Germany,” per the AP, though that’s certainly not great for marketing materials. In this case, it’s the fact that studies by federal scientists have found that chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion are harmful to almost 1,800 “critically threatened or endangered species.” Historically, groups like the Environmental Protection Agency would want to avoid killing frogs, fish, birds, mammals, and plants, which is why the regulator and two others that it works with to enforce the Endangered Species Act are reportedly “close to issuing findings expected to result in new limits on how and where the highly toxic pesticides can be used,” the AP reports.

Luckily for Dow, the E.P.A. is now run by climate-change skeptic and general enemy of living things Scott Pruitt, who last month said he would reverse “an Obama-era effort to bar the use of Dow's chlorpyrifos pesticide on food after recent peer-reviewed studies found that even tiny levels of exposure could hinder the development of children's brains.” Plus, Dow Chemical C.E.O. Andrew Liveris is good buddies with President Donald Trump. So, you can see how the company, which the AP reports also spent $13.6 million on lobbying last year, might feel like it is in the clear.

According to the AP, lawyers representing Dow and two other companies that manufacture the pesticides in question (known as organophosphates) have sent letters to the heads of the E.P.A, the Department of Commerce, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, asking them to “set aside” the results of the studies, claiming that they are “fundamentally flawed.” Not surprisingly, the scientists hired by Dow “to produce a lengthy rebuttal to the government studies” have come up with diverging results.

In addition to Pruitt’s long history of, per the AP, aligning “himself in legal disputes with the interests of executives and corporations,” Dow has another reason to be hopeful the government will conveniently ignore any lingering concerns about killing off entire species: Andrew Liveris is a close adviser to Donald Trump who was literally standing next to the president in February when he signed an executive order “mandating the creation of task forces at federal agencies to roll back government regulations.”

Dow also donated $1 million to underwrite Trump’s inaugural festivities, the AP reports, but God help the person who dares to wonder aloud if the check was some sort of an attempt to curry favor with the administration. As Rachelle Schikorra, Dow’s director of public affairs, told the AP, any such suggestion is “completely off the mark.”

onawah
24th April 2017, 21:30
If even the corporate owned, sell-out EPA was in favor of banning chlorpyrifos, you know it must be BAD.
With Pruitt in charge now, activists had better get really busy.
I got this email today from Sierra Rise:

The science on chlorpyrifos was as clear as it was damning. Even small doses of the pesticide can harm children's brains and farmworkers' nervous systems.1 The Environmental Protection Agency proposed banning it.

Then Scott Pruitt rejected his own agency's science and overturned its recommendations. Chlorpyrifos lives to fight our health another day.

But Pruitt can't stop retailers from banning the toxic chemical in their stores. Tell grocery outlets not to stock any food that has been treated with chlorpyrifos.

"There's a sense of helplessness," said a California dairy worker to the Guardian. "I'm being poisoned and I can't do anything about it. It's like a slow death."2

Chlorpyrifos is in the same chemical category as sarin nerve gas3 and has been linked to autism, lower IQs, and memory problems in children of pregnant women who have been exposed to the toxin.4 We shouldn't be spraying it over our produce or anywhere near where people live.

But that's exactly what we're doing: six to ten million pounds a year on crops including apples, asparagus, broccoli, cauliflower, corn, cranberries, onions, peaches, strawberries, soybeans, and walnuts. Researches have found chlorpyrifos residue on food and in drinking water.5

In 2000, chlorpyrifos was prohibited from most household products after thousands of poisonings resulted in twitching, tremors, slurred speech, paralysis, and death.6 It's time for us to stop using it entirely. If the EPA won't ban chlorpyrifos, get grocery outlets to shut this dangerous chemical out of their stores.

In it together,
The SierraRise team



References:
1. Schlanger, Z. (30 March 2017). "The US government is ignoring its own scientists' warning that a Dow pesticide causes brain damage in children." Quartz.
2. Levin, S. (17 April 2017). "'Like a slow death': families fear pesticide poisoning after Trump reverses ban." The Guardian.
3. Prakash, A. and Dolšak, N. (12 April 2017). "Why did Scott Pruitt refuse to ban a chemical that the EPA itself said is dangerous?" Washington Post.
4. Levin, S. (17 April 2017). "'Like a slow death': families fear pesticide poisoning after Trump reverses ban." The Guardian.
5. Lerner, S. (14 January 2017). "Poison Fruit: Dow Chemical Wants Farmers to Keep Using a Pesticide Linked to Autism and ADHD." The Intercept.
6. Ibid.



Take action here: https://petitions.signforgood.com/chlorpyrifosaction2/?code=SierraRise

onawah
28th April 2017, 16:53
How would you feel if your doctor were bribed to give you a drug?

by Jon Rappoport

April 27, 2017
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/how-would-you-feel-if-your-doctor-were-bribed-to-give-you-a-drug/


Hello, Novartis. The pharmaceutical giant has just been fined $50 million by the government of South Korea for bribing doctors to prescribe the company’s drugs.

FiercePharma reports: “Last year, prosecutors in the country [Korea] raided Novartis offices to gather documents and account books. South Korean officials later indicted a half-dozen Novartis execs, as well as more than a dozen doctors and five medical journal heads…The Korea Times says the criminal trial is now underway.”

A Novartis spokesperson called the crime “in violation of our policies and inconsistent with our culture…”

Really? There’s more.

FiercePharma continues: “Outside of Korea, Novartis faces separate bribery claims in Greece, where an official earlier this month said ‘thousands’ of people could be implicated.”

“The company faced other allegations in Turkey, which it now considers ‘unsubstantiated,’ and paid $25 million to U.S. authorities last year to settle a bribery investigation in China.”

Sounds like bribery might be central to the culture of Novartis.

You walk into a doctor’s office. He makes a diagnosis and writes out a prescription for a drug. Unknown to you, he’s been paid off to tell you to take the drug.

In the case of Novartis, do law enforcement officials in Korea, Greece, Turkey, and China release the names of the bribed doctors and inform their patients of these crimes? If not, why not? The patients ought to know, and they ought to be able to sue the drug company.

Let’s take this whole business out on to a wider stage. Do you think doctors who take money from drug companies (e.g., for speaking fees and consulting) might be prone to altering their prescription habits? If so, consider this nugget from NPR (3/17/16): “Nationwide [in the US], nearly 9 in 10 cardiologists who wrote at least 1,000 prescriptions for Medicare patients received payments from a drug or device company in 2014, while 7 in 10 internists and family practitioners did.”

Then there is this bombshell from Business Insider (1/9/15)—wait for the punch line in the last sentence: “Companies pay doctors millions of dollars to promote not their most innovative or effective drugs, but some of their most unremarkable.”

“In the last five months of 2013, drug makers spent almost $20 million trying to convince physicians and teaching hospitals to give their freshly-patented drugs to patients, but many of them are near-copies of existing drugs that treat the same conditions.”

“A hefty portion are also available as generics, chemically identical copies that work just as well at a fraction of the price. And still others have serious side effects that only became apparent after they were approved by the FDA.”

Doctors paid by drug companies. Doctors prescribed those companies’ drugs. Some of those drugs have serious side effects.

Medicalbillingandcoding.org (5/25/11) follows the money. According to their analysis, between 2009 and 2011, these drug companies paid doctors the following amounts: Merck, $9.4 million; Johnson & Johnson, $10.6 million; Pfizer, $19.8 million; AstraZeneca, $22.8 million; GlaxoSmithKline, $96.4 million; and Eli Lilly, $144.1 million. For speaking fees, consulting fees, etc., and who knows what else? Does this cast an ominous cloud over the companies and their favorite doctors? Is the Pope Catholic?

Medicalbillingandcoding,org goes on to publish fines that have been levied against drug companies (2007-2010) for engaging in illegal activities with doctors. The fines are, of course, a drop in the bucket, considering the profits of these corporations:

Forest Laboratories, $313 million; Allergan, $600 million; AstraZeneca, $520 million; Cephalon, $425 million; Pfizer, $2.3 billion.

Paying a fine is having to say you’re sorry, and then you walk away.

The next time you talk with a doctor, you might apprise him of these matters, just to liven the conversation.

onawah
6th December 2018, 22:08
Dastardly Dow re chlorpyrifos harm to humans
From Organic Consumers Assoc. email update today
12/6/18
"We’ve known for a while that Monsanto buried the truth about Roundup weedkiller, by ignoring concerns by its own scientists. Now it seems Dow Chemical Co. has been using the same playbook.

Dow (renamed DowDuPont after its 2017 merger with DuPont) likely knew for decades that its widely used chlorpyrifos insecticide is harmful to humans—especially children and developing fetuses. But the company hid that information from regulators, both in the U.S. and EU, according to a new study, published in the journal Environmental Health.
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-018-0421-y

The revelation comes as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is duking it out in the legal system over a court ruling that the agency finalize a ban on chlorpyrifos that was proposed under the Obama administration, but overturned after Trump took office. On September 24, the EPA—the agency charged with protecting us from environmental contaminants—asked the courts to re-hear the case.

In the meantime, in California alone, 800,000 acres and on dozens of crops continue to be doused with a pesticide that Beyond Pesticides describes this way:

A neurological toxicant, chlorpyrifos damages the brains of young children: impacts of exposure, even at very low levels, include decreased cognitive function, lowered IQ, attention deficit disorder, and developmental and learning delays."

Read 'Did Dow Chemical Fake Safety Studies on Brain-Damaging Chlorpyrifos?'
https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/did-dow-chemical-fake-safety-studies-brain-damaging-chlorpyrifos
TAKE ACTION: Tell the EPA to ban this chemical that damages children's brains now
https://advocacy.organicconsumers.org/page/8228/petition/1

onawah
11th January 2019, 22:11
‘Prescription Drug Price Relief Act’
From Social Security Works 501C3's email update today:

"Tell Congress:

“No one should die because they can’t afford life-saving medication. But, because of Big Pharma’s greed, the American people pay, by far, the highest drug prices in the world. I’m becoming a co-signer of the ‘Prescription Drug Price Relief Act’ to force drug companies to lower their prices and to stop price gouging the American people.”

ADD YOUR VOICE: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/sanders-khanna?link_id=2&can_id=4870e31ee9d2b4c95e94bdd1b8471b48&source=email-big-pharmas-greed-and-corruption-is-only-getting-worse-2&email_referrer=email_476302&email_subject=big-pharmas-greed-and-corruption-is-only-getting-worse

Americans pay, by far, the highest drug prices in the world; often times, those prices are five times as much as the same medicines in Canada. This is because, for years, we’ve had a Congress that encourages Big Pharma’s corruption and monopoly power.

But now, there’s a new bill that will be introduced this week by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna, which will drive down drug prices and protect the American people from Big Pharma’s price gouging.

The “Prescription Drug Price Relief Act” will force drug companies to price medicines equal to or below the median price in these five countries: Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan.

And, most importantly, if companies refuse to lower their prices, the federal government would allow generic competition in order to ensure that prescription drugs are not out of reach for working families and older Americans.

This new legislation is clear-eyed about how Big Pharma works. Even if we leverage Medicare’s buying power to lower drug prices, Big Pharma will try to find ways to collude and continue to gouge us. This protects against that -- mandating the lower prices the rest of the world gets.

Stand by our champions in Congress and become a co-signer of the “Prescription Drug Price Relief Act” to protect the American people from Big Pharma’s price gouging.

Big Pharma’s greed and corruption is a problem that is only getting worse. But by seizing the means of production, we can transform the prescription drug industry from one that chases profits to one that is based in justice.

No one should die because they can't afford $150,000 per year for insulin or because drug manufacturers like Mylan decide to increase the costs of the life-saving EpiPen by 400 percent.

Become a co-signer of the “Prescription Drug Price Relief Act” today to ensure that no one goes without the medicine they need.

Thank you,

Michael Phelan
Social Security Works"

Savannah
11th January 2019, 22:53
https://gizadeathstar.com/2019/01/robert-f-kennedy-jr-vaccine-big-pharma-has-total-legal-immunity/

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR: VACCINE BIG PHARMA HAS TOTAL LEGAL IMMUNITY
Joseph Farrell

There is no doubt that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had a good year last year. Indeed, the son of the infamously murdered Senator and former U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy Sr., has for some reason been emboldened to remark last year that he did not believe the official story of his father's untimely murder shortly after winning the hotly-contested 1968 California Democratic Primary. Indeed, who does believe that story. It has more magic bullets flying around inside the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel than the murder of his uncle, former president John F. Kennedy.

RFK Jr also won a stunning victory in a lawsuit against Monsanto, and yet another stunning legal victory against the vaccine industry, opening up many documents that demonstrated an astonishing degree of malfeasance and inept, if not deliberately bad, science.

More recently, Mr. Kennedy spoke to Fox Network's Tucker Carlson on the legal protections afforded to Big Pharma and the vaccine industry, and it's a stunner(thanks to Mr. V.T for sharing this article):

Robert F. Kennedy Jr Drops Vaccine Truth Bomb Live On TV

It's worth noting what he said to Carlson:



“The pharmaceutical industry is so powerful,” he explained. “They give $5.4 billion a year to the media. They’ve gotten rid of the lawyers, so there is no legal interest in those cases. They have really been able to control the debate and silence people like me.“

Asked how things could get this bad, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explained that Congress granted Big Pharma “blanket legal immunity” when it comes to vaccines.

Big Pharma became a law unto themselves. They can put toxic ingredients in your vaccines, they can seriously injure your child – but you cannot sue them.

“What you have to understand is that the vaccine regimen changed dramatically around 1989.

Hmmmn.... 1989, wouldn't that be during the administration of G.H.W. "Poppy" and "New World Order" Bush? But I digress... back to Mr. Kennedy:


The reason it changed, Tucker, is that Congress, drowning in pharmaceutical industry money, did something they have never done for any other industry – they gave blanket legal immunity to all the vaccine companies.

And who had to sign any such legislation? Why, the same guy whose administration also gave use the "substantial equivalence" opening the floodgates for GMOs to be introduced into the food supply. But I digress again...


“So that no matter how sloppy the line protocols, no matter how absent the quality control, no matter how toxic the ingredients, or egregious the injury to your child, you cannot sue them.

“So there’s no depositions, there’s no discovery, there’s no class action suits. All of a sudden vaccines became enormously profitable.”

The enormous profits in the unregulated industry meant Big Pharma companies raced each other to produce new and unnecessary vaccines to pump into newborn children – often dozens at a time.

Now, all of this raises a question in my mind, and it occurred to Catherine Austin Fitts in our recent Solari-year-end-wrap-up conversation (which we hope will soon be available on Solari.com and in the members' area of this website): What has emboldened Mr. Kennedy to make such statements now, not only about big pharma, but about his murdered father? As he stated on the Carlson interview, it is only the second time he has been invited on a major television network to talk about the vaccine industry and vaccine safety. But why, also, invite further ire by only recently talking about his personal thoughts about his father's murder, and his disbelief in the official narrative that it was the "lone nut-Manchurian patsy" Sirhan Sirhan?

To put the point a bit differently, why does he feel confident enough to speak about any of these things? To do so, particularly if one is a Kennedy, is - I venture to say - a risky business. After all, all of the "brothers" - JFK, RFK Sr., Teddy - are gone. His cousin, JFK Jr., perished in highly suspicious circumstances aboard his private aircraft along with his wife, after apparently making it clear to a few friends that he either planned to investigate, or was investigating, his father's assassination, and had aspirations for political office.

One can, of course, take the view that Mr. Kennedy is aware of the risks but nonetheless speaking out courageously in spite of them. In doing so, he would certainly be following precedents established by his father and his assassinated presidential uncle.

But perhaps there are circumstances emboldening him as well. Times have changed since those assassinations. Three - and only three - television/radio networks no longer control the flow of information. The deep state playbook is now so transparently obvious that almost every story and government-corporate narrative is questioned almost as soon as it arises. Too many suspicious doctor deaths have raised awareness of the machinations of big pharma and big agribusiness to new levels of cynicism and skepticism.

And there is, I suggest, possibly something else going on: the deep factions are at war. Mr Kennedy alluded to this by calling Big Pharma a "mafia", and mafia bosses tend to sip brandy and smoke cigars at the table, while their soldiers are shooting at each other on the streets. In short, perhaps it was a subtle signal that the former "truces" are no longer in effect, and that some formerly allied factions are now going after other factions, with whom they were once allied. Perhaps, just perhaps, there are some within "the elite" who are genuinely alarmed at the technocratic, transhumanist, total-absence-of-morality-and-law direction that some globaloneyists want to take things.

Perhaps, but there are, after all, contra-indications. Emanuel-there's-no-such-thing-as-French-culture-and-please-protest-in-the-traditional-peaceful-French-way-Macron for example. Or Angela-Globaloney-Mad-Madam-Merkel's recent pronouncement that governments would have to give up their national sovereignty for the glorious sake of the New World Order, and her express statement that government would simply have to ignore their civilian populations and voters to do so. Who better to state the principles of tyranny than a German chancellor(in), huh?

In the meantime, though, kuddos, Mr. Kennedy, for stating with such clarity, the obvious truth that no one wants to confront.

See you on the flip side...