Fluorides, the atomic bomb, and fake news


Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
March 15, 2017

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.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Explosive: A Quick Review Of Fake Medical Diagnostic Tests

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
March 14, 2017

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

ONE: Antibody test. This is given to detect the presence of a specific germ in a human. However, prior to 1985, a positive test was generally taken as a sign of good health: the patient’s immune system detected the germ and defeated it. However, after 1985, public health agencies and doctors reversed field. They claimed a positive test showed the person was ill or was going to become ill. No true science backed up this claim.

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

TWO: The PCR test. The Polymerase Chain Reaction tests for the presence of virus in a patient. It takes a tiny sample, which technicians assume is a genetic piece of a virus far too small to observe, and amplifies it many times, so it can be identified. But in order to cause disease in a human, a huge quantity of virus (easily observed without the PCR) needs to be present. Therefore, a PCR test-result indicates nothing about disease—except that medical personnel couldn’t find enough virus in a person, to begin with, to assume the person was ill or would become ill.

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

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

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

Food for thought: “Publications by the World Health Organization show that diphtheria is steadily declining in most European countries, including those in which there has been no immunization. The decline began long before vaccination was developed. There is certainly no guarantee that vaccination will protect a child against the disease; in fact, over 30,000 cases of diphtheria have been recorded in the United Kingdom in fully immunized children.” (Leon Chaitow, Vaccination and Immunization, p. 58.)”

SIX: Unsupported claims from public health officials. No tests at all. For example, at the height of the so-called Swine Flu epidemic, in the fall of 2009, the CDC secretly stopped counting cases in America. Why? Because the overwhelming percentage of blood samples taken from the most likely Swine Flu patients, sent to labs, were coming back with no trace of Swine Flu or any other kind of flu. In other words, the epidemic was a dud and a hoax. Based on this vacuum of evidence, the CDC went on to estimate that, in America, there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu.

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

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Deep State Neuroscientists Believe They Can Turn Off Free Will

Deep Brain Electrical Stimulation Shown to Improve Memory | 33rd ...
Source: TheMindUnleashed.com
Nathaniel Mauka
March 9, 2017

Neuroscientists have argued whether we even have free will, but now they want to turn it off.

The Libet Experiment

In the 1980s scientist Benjamin Libet conducted an experiment. He ‘discovered’ that what seems to be free will or the conscious choice to do or not do something is really just the observance of something that has already happened. This completely rocked the foundations of what most thought of as a prerequisite for being human, and the long-held religious view that free-will must always be honored.

Libet recorded people’s brainwaves as they made spontaneous finger movements while looking at a clock. The participants in the study were to tell researchers the time at which they decided to wave their fingers. Libet found that there were several milliseconds of preparatory brain activity prior to the time that people reported the conscious act of waving their fingers. His findings were taken as gospel that free will did not exist. Now we call this preparatory action of the brain the ‘readiness potential.’

What Libet’s experiment failed to consider though, was manifold. It is possible that people were only conscious of an action milliseconds after a subconscious realization. It is possible that they could not indicate their intent as fast as their physical bodies could carry it out – a delay in physical vs. mental activity that has been well documented, and it is also possible that the cognition of an anticipated event is cognized well before the actual event, because the entire causal field is changed by our consciousness, as evidenced by recent experiments in physics. This is called the observer effect as it refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed.

Libet implies that the conscious decision act is divorced from fee will, in that it is acted out nonconsciously, and that the subjective feeling of having made this decision is tagged on afterward – however – we already know from vast amounts of research from Jung and others, that we know a lot more than we consciously allow ourselves to honor.

Nonetheless, Libet’s experiment has weathered such criticism and the implications have been replicated with even more advanced equipment including the use of FMRI technology and the direct recording of neuronal activity using implanted electrodes.

How to Reprogram Or Eliminate Free Will

These studies all seem to point in the same, troubling conclusion: We don’t really have free will. So why then are neuroscientists trying to remove our free will?

A study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers in Germany, has scientists backtracking on their original assumption that we have no free will.

The German researchers worked backwards in a way, from Libet’s experimental protocol, using a form of brain-computer integration to see whether participants could cancel a movement after the onset of the unconscious preparatory brain activity identified by Libet.

If they could, it would be a sign that humans can consciously intervene and “veto” processes that neuroscience has previously considered automatic and beyond willful control. There were more complex methods utilized including the use of colored lights, but in short, they found we could easily undo actions and “veto” them – a sign of undeniable free will.

A quote from the lead researcher, Dr. John-Dylan Haynes of Charité – Universitätsmedizin in Berlin, becomes telling in order to discover how neuroscientists working for the deep state could override our own free will,

“A person’s decisions are not at the mercy of unconscious and early brain waves. They are able to actively intervene in the decision-making process and interrupt a movement. Previously people have used the preparatory brain signals to argue against free will. Our study now shows that the freedom is much less limited than previously thought.”

These findings were supported by a French study which found that “nonconscious” preparatory brain activity identified by Libet is really just part of a fairly random ebb and flow of background neural activity, and that movements occur when this activity crosses a certain threshold.

And even more studies confirm what we all suspected regardless of early scientific findings – that we all act consciously, perhaps to different degrees, but certainly with free will.

When we form a vague intention to move, they explain, this mind-set feeds into the background ebb and flow of neural activity, but the specific decision to act only occurs when the neural activity passes a key threshold — and our all-important subjective feeling of deciding happens at this point or a brief instant afterward.

“All this leaves our common sense picture largely intact,” they write, meaning we can break a chain of events (determinism), but that also implies a certain responsibility for our actions.

The Cooperation of Subconscious and Conscious Awareness

All these studies do suggest, though, that our free will requires healthy partnerships between conscious and unconscious systems. In special circumstances like playing musical instruments, engaging in sports, or driving a car, we apparently recruit specialized unconscious agents with the ability to carry out certain acts quickly without conscious “permission.”

If these “unconscious” agents can be reprogrammed, then we can be controlled, essentially by “disabling” our free will – at least according to pedantic science.

Attempts to Destruct Free Will

Aside from using drugs like scopolamine, known to wipe our subconscious plates clean, so that new, possibly nefarious programming can be installed, and obvious mind control techniques admittedly researched by the CIA (with the help of Stanford Neuroscientists, and others) along with additional intelligence agencies of our government, there are subtle programming methods used every day in the form of subconscious messages in advertising. There are even cell phone apps meant to control the free will of the user. You can imagine what other technologies have been employed.

My advice? Use your free will to override unwanted subconscious programming. If it requires both conscious and ‘non’ conscious compliance, to remove free will, then we can at least interfere by utilizing our conscious awareness and removing tacit consent. That ought to keep the physicist busy for a while, at any rate, and the deep state wasting our tax dollars on more Mind Kontrol experiments.

Read More At: TheMindUnleashed.com

Academic Research May Not Be Accurate 85 Percent of the Time

Source: TheDailyBell.com
February 27, 2017

Universities in America have typically been dominated by a liberal
bias. … The mindset of employees at such institutions is quite different than one might think. We’re not going to name any names in this essay; this isn’t about a person or individual University. It’s about the intellectual class, really the only public intellectual class in America with any respect; the Ivory Tower. If you haven’t heard this expression before, it refers to the high brow raised lip attitude class of University Professors and their associates. They have influence on every aspect of society. -ZeroHedge

This article states that academia is changing for the better after so many years of getting worse. It also makes the point that academia doesn’t really have any power, certainly not the way business does.

The intellectual class, the article says, is like Adam Smith’s hidden hand. They are subtle advisers who don’t control things “like the Illuminati does.”

They have influence rather than out-right power but they know how to wield that influence. They’ve influenced “literally every aspect of human life in America.”


…  Have you been hearing recently “Studies show that … Obamacare is more popular after the election” or some such nonsense. Who are they polling? They claim their polls aren’t biased, they are scientific. But these are the polls and methods that had Trump losing by a landslide!

What does this mean? The article states we’re experiencing a major paradigm shift in which the influence exercised by academia is gradually waning.

“Many published research findings are false or exaggerated, and an estimated 85 percent of research resources are wasted.” It’s likely that some researchers are consciously cherry-picking data to get their work published … The problems of false findings often begin with researchers unwittingly fooling themselves: they fall prey to cognitive biases, common modes of thinking that lure us toward wrong but convenient or attractive conclusions.

This is a good deal of falsity, a massive amount actually, enough to render the entire academic infrastructure unworkable. But it feels right to us. We’ve wondered ourselves about the polls that show such a visceral and deep dislike for Donald Trump.

The article states that “We interpret observations to fit a particular idea. Psychologists have shown that “most of our reasoning is in fact rationalization.” Within this context academic “studies” can certainly have a large amount of rationalization. Scientists may ask “How am I right?” instead of asking, “How am I wrong,” which is what should be asked.

Partially as a result of the Trump election, the Ivory Tower Psychosis is happening in an obvious way now, at a class level, as a group.  Reality is crashing down, as it doesn’t fit with a given “reality.”

Their “Reality Based Community” is coming apart. The reality generated by empire is not working properly at a time when the current administration is anti-empire in many ways.

This is a very important point, though we would tend to think that the crashing of this reality is ultimately related to the Illuminati itself. We don’t think any of these realities are entirely de-linked.

In fact to take it a step further, we’ve often observed that, at this point in time, a chief goal is to spread chaos. There’s no reason why at the very top, chaos is being disseminated in academia as well as elsewhere.

Conclusion: In that case, the current chaos will probably grow a good deal worse along with many other kinds of disruption. The ultimate goal is to take down existing society and academia is part of that larger structure. It will therefore be part of the larger chaos and the disruption will continue.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

Jon Rappoport: Number One Mind Control Program At US Colleges

Source: Infowars.com
via: OpenMinds
Jon Rappoport | NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com

For more details, please see investigative reporter Jon Rappoport’s piece on this very subject:

The Number One Mind Control Program At US Colleges

22 Disturbing Facts Big Pharma Doesn’t Want You To Know

Zy Marquiez
February 10, 2017

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
–Marcia Angell, MD, New York Review of Books, 2009

Below follow 22 facts, each of which is individually disturbing enough, but when taken in conjunction paint a very ominous picture of the state of the medical establishment in America.

Embedded within the bowels of Big Pharma lie little known details most individuals are unaware of.

Most of these details rarely get reported by the mainstream media, and when they do, the slant is always in favor of Big Pharma, and if not, what the individual gets is a limited hang out, which barely even amounts to the ghost of the truth.

The following are some of the many issues that do not get to see the light of day, but should be spoken at length about:

#1: Did you know that the FDA frequently misleads the public regarding long term studies and health?

According to Dr. Peter Breggin, in his landmark book Toxic Psychiatry [review here]:

“People assume that FDA approval and the widespread distribution of a drug – with many patients taking it for months or years – means that longterm studies have found it safe in regard to side effects, drug interactions, dependency, addition, and withdrawal.  Thus, FDA approval grossly misleads the public, lulling it into an unfounded security.

The PDR admits that Prozac’s effectiveness has not been tested in controlled trials of “more than 5 or 6 weeks” and that “long-term” usefulness has therefore not been demonstrated.”[Bold Emphasis Added][1]

#2: Did you know that the U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries which allow drug companies to advertise directly to consumers?

Prior to 1997, there was a ban in place that restricted pharmaceuticals from advertising to consumers – known as drug-to-consumer-advertising, or DTCA- but this ban was removed, to the detriment of the populace.[2]

Why is this important?  Because that law was in place to protect individuals from the highly specialized, and yet misleading advertising of all drugs.

#3:  The great majority of prescription drugs sold is due to DTCA.  As Dr. Kelly Brogan notes in her landmark book, A Mind Of Your Own, The Truth About Depression [review here], in which she touches upon this specialized advertising:

“It’s been calculated that DTCA [drug-to-consumer advertising] is responsible for nearly half (49 percent) of requests for drugs.  And fully seven out of ten times doctors prescribe based on appeal by patients who learned through their computers and televisions that they have an “imbalance” that must be fixed with a pill.”[3][Bold Emphasis Added]

#4:  Coupled with the already disturbing above information, and with prescription drugs being doled out at 4 Billion per annum[4], it’s no wonder that Medical Errors are the third leading cause of death.[5]According to a new John Hopkins study, which is covered by the Washington Post:

“Their analysis, published in the BMJ on Tuesday [, shows that ‘medical errors’ in hospitals and other health care facilities are incredibly common and may now be the third leading cause of death in the United States — claiming 251,000 lives every year, more than respiratory disease, accidents, stroke and Alzheimer’s.”[6][Click here for the study named Medical Error – The Third Leading Cause Of Death In The US]

#5:  Unsurprisingly, given how Big Pharma & Big Medica have had no qualms in overstepping traditional boundaries, it’s no wonder that in many instances money from pharmaceutical companies sway Doctors’ prescriptions, which shows the serious conflict of interest.[7]

As Dr. Mercola elucidates:

“Not only was the receipt of drug-company money associated with a higher percentage of brand-name drug prescriptions, but the prescriptions rose with the amount of money received.”[Bold Emphasis Added]

#6:  Did you know, the FDA only requires two studies for drugs to be approved?

“…only two studies are required for FDA licensure of most pharmaceuticals, essentially leaving the population to participate in a post-marketing experiment in which adverse effects – casualties – are monitored passively.  It’s a fabrication of science to think these drugs have a place in medicine, what is meant to be the art of healing.”[8]

But there’s more.  Most drug research is in fact short term.  Dr. Brogan cautions:

Their patients have never consented to the long-term effects of these medications because pharmaceutical research is, by nature, short term.  There is no incentive on the part of the pharmaceutical companies to take a good look at what happens to the average individual when she takes a medication for a decade or so.”[9][Bold Emphasis Added]

#7:  This hyper-drugging of the populace has lead to prescription drugs in fact being 16,400% deadlier than terrorists.  But you won’t hear that in the mainstream media.[10]

#8:  Not only is our corrupt for-health for-profit medical system unsurprisingly the most expensive in the world[11], but our life expectancy is worse than that of a third world country.[12]

#9:  Heart surgery is 70 times more expensive in the US.[13]

#10:  Of course, with billions of prescriptions being filled yearly, it’s no wonder that 70% of Americans take prescription drugs.[14]

#11:  In fact, expensive treatment requests have predictably gotten so bad that Doctors are even calling for a ban for the duplicitous practice of DTCA.[15]

#12:  A large study, which was published in The Lancet, further debunks high cholesterol myths, admitting statin drugs are essentially worthless.[16]

#13:  Another study shows that combining multiple childhood vaccines isn’t safe, according to an article in the Journal Of American Physicians and Surgeons.[17]

#14:  The same statin drugs that were found to be worthless against cholesterol, are now going to be used as anti-cancer drugs.  You can’t make this stuff up![18]

#15:  Although the US has merely 5% of the world’s population, it consumes 80% of the world’s pain killers.[19]

#16:  A great portion of this is in large part to what is called “Disease Mongering” and the creation of disease.[20]

#17:  Pharmaceutical companies Genentech and OSI Pharmaceuticals have even been caught concealing adverse effects of drugs, and were ordered to pay a $70 million dollar fine.[21]

#18:   America has the worst infant mortality rate of all developed nations.  Let that disturbing fact sink in.[22]

#19: Since 1986 Big Pharma has had liability shielding preventing it from being prosecuted for endangering public health[23].  And some wonder why the medical establishment is so corrupt.

#20: Not long ago, medical conglomerate, Pfizer, paid over $2 BILLION Dollars for criminal and civil charges due to illegally promoting the use 4 of its drugs. [24]

#21: Merely months ago, a study proving that vaccinated children are 3 times more likely to be diagnosed with autism and other neurological issues was banned from the internet.[25]

#22:  Because of all of the reasons mentioned above, and more, Americans are spending over $30 billion dollars in out-of-pocket costs on alternative health[26].  Thankfully!

This overall pattern of dwindling care, that’s overly expensive, and only serves to fill the coffers of Big Pharma will only change when individuals quit buying in to the propaganda from the medical establishment.

And for all the technology, public schooling, and billions spent, our medical system isn’t even top 3 in the world, and the statistics prove it.

Instead of purchasing health insurance, perhaps individuals should focus on attaining health assurance.

The system in its current state sees people as nothing but cash cows, and the sicker they are, the more money they make.  And they also aren’t coming up with cures since that, also, will cut into their profits.
One must wonder, seeing that they have no virtues and are willing to throw the people under the bus with lies and fraud, what else are they willing to do?

Take control of your health, while you still got time.

Education will eviscerate ignorance; nutrition will beat disease; corruption will continue to be exposed; but only if the individual chooses to make it so.

Be mindful, stay aware.

Individuals can go with the flow, and take the tides as they come, or they can choose to rise to the occasion.

Pierce the veil.

Cast light on the shadows.

And become the solution you’ve always waited for.

Sources & References:

[1] Dr. Peter R. Breggin, M.D., Toxic Psychiatry, pp. 168-169
[2] Dr. Joseph Mercola, The Great Bird Flu Hoax, p. 39.
[3] Dr. Kelly Brogan M.D., A Mind Of Your Own – The Truth About Depression, p. 52.
[4] http://www.naturalnews.com/037226_drug_prescriptions_medical_news_pills.htm
[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/03/researchers-medical-errors-now-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-united-states/?utm_term=.d262ea291b26
[6] http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139
[7] http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/04/13/doctors-receiving-pharmaceutical-money.aspx
[8] Dr. Kelly Brogan M.D., A Mind Of Your Own – The Truth About Depression, p. 49.
[9] Ibid., p. 35.
[10] http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html
[11] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-22/us-healthcare-snapshot-most-expensive-yet-worst-developed-world
[12] http://www.salon.com/2013/10/22/life_expectancy_in_america_rivals_third_world_partner/
[13] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-29/what-does-heart-surgery-really-cost-and-why-it-70-times-more-expensive-us
[14] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-shows-70-percent-of-americans-take-prescription-drugs/
[15] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pharmaceuticals-advertising-idUSKCN0T62WT20151117
[16] http://www.naturalnews.com/054388_statin_drugs_medical_myths_Big_Pharma.html
[17] https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/06/14/848493/0/en/Combining-Multiple-Childhood-Vaccines-Not-Safe-According-to-Article-in-the-Journal-of-American-Physicians-and-Surgeons.html
[18] http://www.naturalnews.com/054707_statins_cancer_treatment_Big_Pharma.html
[19] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142481/Americans-consume-80-percent-worlds-pain-pills-prescription-drug-abuse-epidemic-explodes.html
[20] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-larry-dossey/big-pharma-health-care-cr_b_613311.html
[21] http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/07/health/genentech-lung-cancer-drug-settlement/index.html
[22] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/29/our-infant-mortality-rate-is-a-national-embarrassment/?utm_term=.9f6b6a036ca9
[23] http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/November-2016/end-pharma-liability-shield-protect-human-rights.aspx#_edn79
[24] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/02/pfizer.bextra/
[25] http://investmentwatchblog.com/study-proving-vaccines-cause-autism-banned-from-internet/
[26] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/22/study-americans-spend-billions-non-conventional-health-approaches/86200430/

Upcoming March for Government Science Encourages Falsity


Source: TheDailyBell.com
February 9, 2017

Scientists are worried about the Trump administration: His pick for the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t seem interested in protecting the environment, his energy secretary lacks the publication record of his highly academic predecessors, and the president himself once tweeted that global warming is a Chinese hoax. In light of such issues, they’re planning a march to advocate the use of scientific evidence in political decision-making.  Was there ever an alternative to evidence?  -Bloomberg

The march is going to take place on April 22, and chances are it will receive a great deal of coverage, much as the protest by women did. The march is not going to divorce science from political decision-making, only advocate its proper use.

The article says that people in the march may not understand the difference between fact-based scientific evidence and marketing material.Along with a march, maybe we need better education on the difference between science and politicized pseudoscience.”

Additionally, the march is scheduled for Earth Day , which comes with its own set of confusions. The article tells us that the first Earth Day was less of a celebration and more of an obituary. This was because researchers at the time were very firm that human being were about to deplete the earth’s remaining resources and “wipe themselves off the planet.”


Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted that between 1980 and 1989, 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would starve to death. Nobel Laureate George Wald estimated that civilization would end within 15 or 30 years unless humans took immediate action.

Life magazine ran a terrifying cover story, saying that “scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence” to predict that “by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect the earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”

It was more hype than science. None of the predictions had testable hypotheses. They simply coupled historical population growth rates with an absurd doomsday model. Ridiculous as the claims were, no one really wanted to refute them or argue against the conservation of natural resources.

The article goes on to point out that statistics can be used by both sides to make points about an industry. Cigarette  manufacturers were assaulted by lung cancer victims accounting for 3.3 percent of over 15,000 deaths but only .9 percent of 3,726 deaths among non-smokers.

But the cigarette companies turned this around and claimed that because the number was very low, there actually was no causation. The larger point of the article is that science is not always conclusive but that it doesn’t have to be to communicate a possible dangerous trend.

For us, this is a controversial notion. We tend to believe that just because science indicates something doesn’t mean that the result should be an inevitable legal tarnishing or outright banning of the product in question.

The first Earth Day is a good example. It is probably true that human beings have used up or diminished at least some resources. But in a market place, other resources will be discovered to take their place.

The insistence of trying to control these resources while not allowing their continued use makes it difficult for an industry to move from one resource to another in a somewhat seamless fashion. Additionally, such resources often do not run out. They are simply banned even though they are in existence, perhaps plentifully so.

Coal is a good example. Not only is it plentiful, it is easy to get. For this reason many people like to use it. One could argue that its very popularity makes it unacceptable to globalists who want to ration energy.

Likewise, the kind of energy that is popular today requires vast “farms.” These farms are not easily available to individuals, and that is part of the larger plan. The idea is to deprive people of the wherewithal to take care of themselves. Whether it’s food, water or even air, the idea is that the individual will have to turn to the state or a state affiliate for a properly purified and legal alternative.

Companies are so swollen these days as a result of court decisions that they are virtually part of the state. So companies provide what the state dictates.

And the state dictates the use of resources it can control for whatever reason. As the state makes more and more less available, people’s living standards decrease. That too is part of the plan.

Science really has very little to do with it except insofar as science can be used to diminish what is available. And often this sort of science is downright shoddy.

Conclusion: That’s the real problem with science these days. It’s often inaccurate and configured for certain purposes. In other words, it’s not real science at all.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com