Pesticide linked to Parkinson’s disease being sold in US, already banned in Europe

Image: Pesticide linked to Parkinson’s disease being sold in US, already banned in Europe
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
January 20, 2017

Like other pesticides, paraquat has been the subject of controversy for some time now. In Switzerland, for example, the toxic substance has been banned since 1989. The rest of the European Union has followed the Swiss’ lead, including England — even though there is still a factory there where paraquat is manufactured for export. (RELATED: Follow more news headlines on pesticides at Pesticide.news)

Even China has phased out the use of paraquat. In 2012, the Chinese government announced that the pesticide would no longer be used in order to “safeguard people’s lives.” China is not a nation that is recognized for its environmental protection policies. If they’re concerned about this pesticide, it stands to reason we should be too.

And yet, for some reason, paraquat is still available in the United States — even in spite of the growing body of research that suggests it is an extremely harmful chemical that likely causes Parkinson’s disease.

You’d think that as Europe and China ceased to use paraquat, the US would follow suit. But instead, use of this pesticide has only begun to increase. Last year, some 7 million pounds of paraquat were used on 15 million acres of land. To make matters worse, more weeds are becoming resistant to more popular pesticides like Roundup, and paraquat is being marketed as a substitute.

(Related: Learn more about glyphosate at Glyphosate.news)

The Paraquat Controversy

Paraquat first became heavily scrutinized for its use in suicide attempts; just a single sip of this stuff can be lethal. But now, a wave of research on this contentious product has shown that there are less-immediate effects of exposure to paraquat — like Parkinson’s disease.

The New York Times has even reported that the Environmental Protection Agency made note of paraquat’s toxicity in a recent regulatory filing. The EPA itself said, “There is a large body of epidemiology data on paraquat dichloride and Parkinson’s disease.” The Times writer Danny Hakim writes that the EPA is currently debating on whether or not the pesticide should still be allowed to be sprayed on our country’s farmland. A decision is not expected to be reached until sometime in 2018.

Europe is known for their cautious approach to pesticides; several bans and moratoriums on a number of different products have taken place over the years. While often criticized by industry officials, paraquat shows that caution is truly necessary when dealing with toxic chemicals — even if they supposedly not intended to be toxic to humans.

Research on paraquat and Parkinson’s disease

Perhaps what is most disturbing about paraquat is that science has indicated that the pesticide was possibly linked to Parkinson’s disease for more than twenty years. Over the last five years, however, research on the matter has grown more extensive.

In 2011, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) led a study that found two pesticides — rotenone and paraquat — were linked to a substantially higher risk of Parkinson’s disease. The study found that use of either pesticide were 2.5 times more likely to develop the condition. The research was a collaborative effort that included National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which is part of the National Institutes of Health, and the Parkinson’s Institute and Clinical Center in Sunnyvale, CA.

Freya Kamel, Ph.D. is a researcher in the intramural program at NIEHS and co-author of the paper appearing online in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. She stated that “Paraquat increases production of certain oxygen derivatives that may harm cellular structures. People who used these pesticides or others with a similar mechanism of action were more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease.”

A meta-analysis that was published in 2013 by the journal Neurology also found that exposure to paraquat and other similar pesticides could increase Parkinson’s disease risk. In their conclusion, the team states that current literature supports the theory that pesticide exposure increases Parkinson’s disease risk.

In 2000, which was almost 2 decades ago, research confirmed a potential link between pesticide exposure and Parkinson’s. Later, a 2006 study would show that exposure to paraquat resulted in a 70 percent higher chance of developing Parkinson’s disease. Research has been indicative of paraquat’s dangers for the last 20 years or so, and more recent research has only confirmed these suspicions.

The call to ban paraquat in the US has been a long time coming, but will the EPA listen?

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NYTimes.com

Neurology.org

NIH.gov

Another Look At Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s Death

athink
Source: NoMoreFakenews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 3, 2017

I’m taking another look because I have a new statement about a related case: Melaney Parker, a woman found dead on the railroad tracks in Marfa, Texas, in 2013, after a train hit her.

The same judge who inexplicably decided Scalia needed no autopsy, after he died in Texas, in 2016, came to the same conclusion in the Melaney Parker case.

That Texas judge is Cinderela Guevara.

Heavy.com summarizes the questions surrounding the 2013 death of Melaney Parker and Guevara’s role:

“Liz Parker, Melaney’s mom, questioned how Guevara handled the investigation of her daughter’s death, The Daily Kos reported. Melaney was hit by a Union Pacific Railroad train and, Liz wrote, a Union Pacific representative told her that it appeared that her body had been placed on the tracks while she was unconscious. Liz asked the Justice of the Peace and the Sheriff to open the case as a homicide investigation, but they would not. Guevara, who was a Justice of the Peace at the time, did not order a rape kit or an autopsy, Liz wrote, because a doctor at the scene said the cause of death was obvious.”

“Liz later wrote a letter to the editor, published in Big Bend Now, in which she said that Guevara had asked for God to give her an answer [!] about whether Melaney’s death was suicide. Liz wrote that Guevara told her: ‘Yes, this was a tragedy, but the true tragedy was that she died without accepting Jesus Christ as her savior’.” [!!]

“Big Bend Now also published a story about the controversial investigation. Melaney’s cousin, Aspen Parker, wrote a letter to Fox News in 2013 saying that Guevara’s cause of death ruling mentioned that Melaney had submitted a letter of resignation to her employers before her death. Aspen wrote that he called Melaney’s employers and they said that wasn’t true.”

The death of Melaney Parker sounds like a case begging to be reopened. I now have a new statement on it.

According to someone with knowledge of the investigation (or non-investigation), the crime scene was a mess. The day after the police initially visited it, Melaney Parker’s eyeglasses were still there. They hadn’t been picked up as evidence.

Pieces of Parker’s flesh were there as well. The engineer of the train that hit Parker said Parker had been positioned with one arm above her head, which suggested she might have been killed somewhere else and then dragged to the railroad tracks.

After toxicology tests were completed, Parker’s remains were cremated without her family’s permission.

If all this is true, Judge Guevara’s decision to skip an autopsy and accept the ruling of suicide is even more suspect.

And then three years later, when Justice Scalia dies, Guevara issues the same long-distance ruling, on the phone. No autopsy necessary.

Here is what I originally wrote about Scalia’s death. It’s extensive. Six articles. Some of the information overlaps:

ONE: “’Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was the senior member of the U. S. Supreme Court and one of the 10 most important public servants in the country. For better or worse over the course of his 29 years on the Court, he was arguably the most influential person in America’.” Eric Mink, Huffington Post, 2/17.

We start here—from the NY Post:

“Lethal poisoning could have left Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s body in virtually the same condition in which it was found, a top forensic pathologist told The Post on Wednesday.

“’It would look like he’s asleep. It [poisoning] doesn’t show anything on the body,’ said Dr. Michael Baden, who spent 25 years in the city’s chief Medical Examiner’s Office.

“Still, Baden stressed that natural causes was a plausible explanation.”

However, the official pronouncement of natural causes carries a burden with it. The burden of some semblance of proof. In this case, there was none.

And if you think “none” should be SOP in the case of a US Supreme Court Justice, you need to think again.

Judge Cinderela Guevara, miles away from Scalia’s body, sitting on the phone, rendered the judgment of natural causes after talking with marshals, none of whom had forensic training; and after talking with Scalia’s doctor, who was a few thousand miles from the Texas ranch where Scalia died.

Apparently, Scalia’s doctor told Judge Guevara that Scalia had a heart condition. Yes? And? This is proof a US Supreme Court Justice died of a heart attack?

Guevara, like a true bumbling amateur (or was something more ominous going on here?), decided no autopsy of the body was necessary. She decided she was too busy (doing what?) to climb in her car and drive to the ranch, to oversee the situation and talk to people at the scene.

So she said, on the phone, “Natural causes. No autopsy.”

In the case of a US Supreme Court Justice. In the biggest moment of Judge Guevara’s professional life.

And the Department of Justice, the FBI, the President, and all the members of US Congress immediately bought it.

No objections. No questions. No outrage.

Just the silence of the lambs.

In a city where blabbermouths never stop talking, suddenly—silence.

Paralysis.

And thereafter: no chain of custody for bodily evidence.

The body of a US Supreme Court Justice wasn’t put on a plane, from the mile-long airstrip at Cibolo Ranch, under supervision, and flown back immediately to Washington DC for analysis. No.

Instead, it was driven to the Sunset Funeral Home in El Paso, 230 miles from the Ranch. It could have been driven 65 miles to the Alpine Memorial Funeral Home in Alpine, but it wasn’t.

At the Sunset Funeral Home in El Paso, it was promptly embalmed—ruling out the possibility of a conventional autopsy. Even then, forensic pathologist Michael Baden states, toxicology tests could be done by sophisticated analysis. According to Wayne Madsen, reporting for Infowars, no bodily fluids were collected at the funeral home for later analysis.

Roughly 10 hours after the embalming, Scalia’s body was loaded on a plane and flown to Virginia, where Scalia’s family lives.

But “most people think Scalia died of natural causes.” That argument, for impaired minds, carries the day. Nothing more to see, nothing more to know.

“Old man, in ill-health, heart condition. He dies. What else could it possibly be? Natural causes.”

As reported by Eric Mink at the Huffington Post (2/17), in an excellent piece, there were 35-40 guests at the Cibolo Ranch on the weekend Scalia died. Who were they? Was this merely a quail-hunting outing? Or was it another kind of get-together?

No word. Silence. Why haven’t any of those guests spoken to the press? Do they know something that would shed a different light on the official story? Are they afraid? Did someone at the federal level throw a blanket over them?

Judge Cinderela Guevara spoke to a lawyer representing the Scalia family. He said the family didn’t want an autopsy. Who is he? Why hasn’t his name surfaced? Since when is a client’s lawyer’s name a secret?

Scalia traveled to the ranch with a friend. No one is saying who the friend is. That’s also a state secret?

Does the Cibolo Ranch have medical personnel on staff? If so, were any of them called when Scalia was discovered dead in his room?

The official narrative is: old man, long-time public servant, dies peacefully in his sleep of natural causes. This is the thin gloss that prevents any Washington politician with clout from demanding an investigation? This quiets and paralyzes the entire federal establishment, including eight Justices of the Supreme Court?

Cowards and lambs.

Not an ounce of conscience among them.

Neutered.

And/or told to stay silent.

In the wake of this titanic silence, the narrative is quickly and expertly shifted to the question of who will replace Scalia on the bench. That’s the certified subject of chatter. Should Obama appoint a nominee, or should nomination wait for the next President? What is the rule? The Republicans cross swords with the Democrats. Precedents are cited. The man isn’t in his grave, and the hangars-on and petty power players are arguing over his successor. It’s a B movie. Pundits prepare talking points, clean their suits, see their hair stylists, and sidle into their minutes of face time on news shows. The shows deliver filler between commercials.

This is the wet concrete that sets over the death of a US Supreme Court Justice.

The one man who could have swept aside all objections, and ordered an investigation, visits the flag-covered casket in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court, stands before it for 30 seconds, moves to a painted portrait of the deceased Justice, lingers there for one minute, and then goes home, to the Oval Office, to vet nominees, a herculean task that will unfortunately prevent him from attending the funeral.

Omerta.

TWO: Four days before he died, Supreme Court Justice Scalia voted to stall Obama’s plan to force drastic EPA climate-change rules on the American economy. The vote was 5-4.

With Scalia now gone, the vote would be 4-4.

With a new Obama Supreme Court appointee, if Obama could ram his choice through, the vote would be 5-4 in the President’s favor. Ditto, if the next President shares Obama’s position. And the climate-change agenda would roll ahead.

We’re not talking about small climate-change rules. We’re talking about the Big Ones.

And note: such rules could very well dovetail with the Brave New World spelled out in the upcoming TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership).

It’s a wedge formation, a squeeze play, a pincer movement featuring new EPA climate-change regulations on one side, and new draconian possibilities embedded in the TPP.

If Scalia was murdered, the above agenda was sufficient reason, because the climate agenda has the force to transform life on the planet.

If Scalia’s murder were a movie, he would have been told, as a warning: “You have no idea how big this thing is; you really don’t understand the forces you’re messing with.”

Of course, most Americans don’t believe a political murder along this line could happen in real life. They can only accept it in a movie, where it makes perfect sense. That tells you something about the schizoid nature of the public mind:

Adrenaline-driven in front of a screen; tranquilized and programmed to be passive and accepting of recognized authority, otherwise.

“Don’t be silly. Scalia, murdered, and murdered for that reason? It couldn’t happen. That’s so…barbaric. We’re civilized.” That opinion and $6 will get you a rainbow smoothie.

Obama’s climate-change plan uses the EPA to act out international agreements signed at the recent Paris summit. But in order to, yes, scam these agreements into force in the US, the EPA has to stretch and bend and distort already-existing US law. And it has done so.

However, a number of states have sued to stop the EPA, which wants to make all states cut CO2 emissions from electrical power production by 32% in the next 15 years. Aimed mainly at coal-burning plants, these regulations would create deep reductions in the overall US energy supply and output—a primary mission of the economy-wrecking Rockefeller Globalists.

The US Supreme Court, four days before Scalia’s death, with his vote, declared a narrow 5-4 halt to the Obama plan, pending a lower-court decision on the issue. The 5-4 vote didn’t knock out the plan, but it stalled it. And if Scalia had stayed alive, his vote going forward on the Obama plan could have remained crucial.

The pending TPP, another Globalist trade treaty, contains a section that allows endless changes and additions in the text as years pass. In other words, the passion for cutting energy production for the US, and the rest of the planet, can easily be folded into the treaty.

The TPP also reveals a cynical attitude toward the “humanitarian goal of saving the planet from CO2 death.” Major corporations that burn coal and employ other ways of releasing CO2 can relocate to far-off lands (e.g., Vietnam) and spew CO2 to their hearts’ content, without messy environmental controls.

In other words, the true underlying Globalist scheme, vis-à-vis climate change has nothing to do with messianic rescue: it has to do with lowering energy production.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Scientifically illiterate EPA thinks people can be a ‘blend’ of male and female genders

Image: Scientifically illiterate EPA thinks people can be a ‘blend’ of male and female genders
Source: NaturalNews.com
Jude Henry
December 16, 2016

A prenatal ultrasound test can definitively reveal whether a human who is safely developing in the womb is male or female. And since the early days of humanity, long before ultrasounds had come about, people have known that each human baby is either a male or female. A person is one or the other, but not both at the same time.

This obvious fact has been accepted over time and backed up by science. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) somehow thinks it can bypass reality and long-accepted societal standards to create its own definitions and policies on how gender is defined.

False claims

“Gender identity is ‘[o]ne’s innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither—how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves,’” the EPA claims. The problem is that this is utterly false. One does not determine one’s own gender; one is born as one gender, not a mixture of both male and female. Gender is not based on one’s “innermost concept of self.” A person can no more determine what gender (or mix of genders) they are than what race they are. This is obvious fact, backed up by such biological realities as gender-based anatomical characteristics, traits and hormones.

Collecting highly personal employee information

The EPA is collecting data from its employees through the Sexual Orientation Gender Identity (SOGI) program, asking them to voluntarily provide information on their sexual orientation and on whether they identify as male, female or a combination of both genders.

In addition to spreading the lie that a person can be a hybrid of both male and female at the same time, the EPA indicates that a person can identify with no gender at all. Not too many years ago, this type of idea would have been considered preposterous and laughable. But now, people in the federal government distribute ideas like these with straight faces.

Expanding information-gathering reach

The program was originally carried out just in the Midwest region of the country, and has recently become a national information-gathering initiative. By 2017, it is expected that the EPA will collect gender identity and sexual orientation information not just from employees, but also from those applying for jobs within the powerful federal agency.

The EPA’s goal in gathering this information from employees and candidates nationwide is to create more inclusive workplaces, and it believes that having this intimate information is essential for workplaces to be inclusive of all gender identifications and sexual orientations.

Matt Fritz, the EPA’s chief of staff, claimed in an announcement that the SOGI information would be an “important resource for developing workforce engagement strategies and improving organizational performance.” However, it is unclear how knowing about employees’ gender identifications and sexual orientations would accomplish those lofty objectives.

Privacy and security concerns

Collecting such personal and private information about employees should be a concern to everyone, especially considering that it is not clear how the EPA would handle the information, how it would use the information at some point in the future, and whether it would manage to keep the information private. With the reality of cyber attacks today, it is not guaranteed that the information would stay under lock and key.

The people at the EPA who are grossly misleading others when it comes to facts about gender need to emerge from their delusions and live in reality. The sooner it realigns such skewed thinking with the real world, the more effective the EPA will be at getting back to its real job of protecting our environment.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

FreeBeacon.com

FreeBeacon.com

AmericanThinker.com

EPA just approved another toxic herbicide linked to infertility, birth defects and lung cancer in both humans and animals

Image: EPA just approved another toxic herbicide linked to infertility, birth defects and lung cancer in both humans and animals

Source: NaturalNews.com
Daniel Barker
December 7, 2016

The EPA has just approved the widespread use of a highly toxic herbicide called dicamba, a chemical which poses serious health risks to both animals and people. In doing so, the agency has turned its back on its legal obligation to assess any threat to endangered species, as well as its responsibility to protect human health.

Dicamba has been in use for years, and is an ingredient in more than 1,000 farming and gardening products. Under the EPA’s new guidelines, however, its use is expected to increase on a massive scale.

Dicamba use will increase current levels more than 20 times

The EPA approval covers the use of dicamba for spraying dicamba-resistant GMO cotton and soybean crops that were developed by (you probably already guessed it) Monsanto as an alternative to its glyphosate-resistant GM crops.

From The Daily Sheeple:

“Dicamba is part of Monsanto’s two-point plan: replace glyphosate (the main ingredient in the company’s best-selling RoundUp weed killer), as it increasingly comes under fire, and create public acceptance of the GM crops engineered to withstand dicamba.

“Monsanto’s own conservative estimates predict that dicamba use on soybeans will likely rise from around 233,000 pounds per year to 20.5 million pounds per year — and dicamba use on cotton could go from 364,000 pounds per year to 5.2 million pounds per year.”

Dicamba health risks

Like many other toxic herbicides, Dicamba can cause a range of serious negative health effects in both humans and animals. Dicamba exposure has been linked to lung cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, reproductive damage, birth defects and hormonal disruption.

Monsanto would like for people to believe that dicamba represents a safer alternative to glyphosate, but it is also a highly toxic herbicide that will have an as-yet unknown impact on the environment and human health when its use is so dramatically increased.

The danger posed to other crops by dicamba

Dicamba has recently been making headlines due to crop damage caused by drift. At least 10 states have reported widespread damage to thousands of acres of “non-target” crops, and in one case, a farmer was allegedly killed over a dicamba drift incident:

“Allegedly, a farmer on the Missouri-Arkansas border applied dicamba without a permit and caused significant damage to a neighboring farmer’s soy crop. An argument bubbled over, which led the shooting death of one farmer, and the arrest of the other.”

Much of the recent drift problem was caused by illegal spraying of dicamba, and Monsanto has been highly criticized for selling its dicamba-resistant seed before the EPA approved the herbicide for use.

This resulted in widespread illegal spraying and incidents of herbicide drift – one peach farmer in Missouri lost 30,000 trees. Drift damage from dicamba also affected watermelon, tomato, rice and many other crops as well as non-dicamba-resistant strains of soybean and cotton.

Monsanto’s new dicamba-based herbicide product – designed to work with its dicamba-resistant GM soybean and cotton seeds –  is theoretically formulated to minimize drift contamination, but some are highly skeptical about its true effectiveness, while others worry that many farmers will continue illegally using the old drift-prone dicamba products.

At any rate, the EPA’s approval means that tens of millions more pounds of carcinogenic poison will be dumped yearly into our soil, water and air as the result of a money-making scheme propagated by an evil monopoly bent on owning and genetically manipulating the world’s seed supply, while destroying biodiversity and marginalizing those who would rather rely on organic farming techniques.

Monsanto wins a major victory with the help of the EPA

It sounds like the plot of an improbable Hollywood disaster film, but it’s all too real. Monsanto – after losing much of its company’s stock value and being forced to lay off a sizable portion of its workforce in recent years – seems to be rebounding with new strategies to maintain its stranglehold on global agriculture and food production.

Of course, having the EPA in its pocket hasn’t hurt Monsanto’s cause, either. In the war against food freedom and biodiversity, it appears Monsanto has just won a decisive battle.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

TheDailySheeple.com

BiologicalDiversity.org

EcoWatch.com

Memo To Steve Bannon: Solve The Water-Shortage Problem

... at 537 × 355 in Virtual water: tracing our overlooked water sources
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 28, 2016

To Steve Bannon, Trump’s inside man for policy and innovation.

The subject: actually solving the water-shortage problem in California and other places.

Government bureaucrats and leaders are psychotically obsessed with maintaining their tight grip on a problem, massaging it, adoring it, arguing about it, figuring out how they can enhance their reputations by funding unworkable solutions—you know, the usual.

Anything except coming up with a useful practical answer.

This is why, in California, it’s taken 15-20 years to start building a desalination plant in Carlsbad that will take the salt out of seawater. Are these politicians idiots? Is the Pope Catholic?

So, Steve, I point you to an October 29, 2015 article in Fortune, “This billionaire wants to solve California’s water problem,” by Brittany Shoot:

“Manoj Bhargava, the man behind 5-Hour Energy, believes his affordable desalination technology can equally help wealthy Californians and poor Indians.”

“Take the Rain Maker, a desalination unit roughly the size of a flatbed truck that relies on a conventional power source to distill seawater into freshwater well beyond Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. A single Rain Maker can be placed in a town with a wastewater plant. In a crisis, hundreds could be stacked on an ocean barge to process seawater. Coastal desalination facilities typically cost billions to construct and require massive amounts of energy. Could the Rain Maker, produced at industrial scale, pull California back from the brink of disaster? The forecast looks promising. Regulators at the Brackish Groundwater National Desalination Research Facility, a testing facility administered in New Mexico by the Department of the Interior, have given it a stamp of approval.”

Getting the picture, Steve? Doesn’t this sound worth exploring?

Your man, Trump, has sent signals that he wants to introduce, into moribund gridlocked government, solutions that bypass the official structure of embedded morons who keep finding new ways to get nothing done.

Well, here’s one. Contact Manoj Bhargava, the 5-Hour Energy owner, and work something out. Find out if his system really operates without glitches. Looking into his method, I believe Mr. Bhargava and his technicians are prepared to a) answer any and all questions about the validity of their work and its cost-effectiveness, and b) provide demonstrations that can be checked and analyzed by independent scientists.

If the Bhargava method does work, and California Governor Jerry Brown comes up with a way to try to stop you, I would favor sending in the DHS. They might actually do something helpful in the way of “securing the homeland.” I think the untold numbers of farmers in California who’ve seen their growing operations collapse deserve immediate help. I’m sure you could act as an intermediary between a group of these growers and Mr. Bhargava.

Think of it. Horrible drought problem. No rain. Crops dying. Farmers going out of business. The state government of California does nothing about it except moan and whine and avoid and warn and cut water usage.

—Then, assuming Bhargava’s system works, you step in and solve the whole thing.

The horrible case of bureaucratic depression you’d engender by this act would be worth the price of admission.

And simultaneously, the upward surge of positive emotion across the country would send a message that your administration means business—and all is not lost. Far from it.

***Face it, Steve, the powers-that-be and their little government helpers are determined to SHOWCASE drought as an inevitable consequence of “manmade global warming.” They want to keep shoving drought into people’s faces to prove their fraudulent climate-change “science” is valid. Their prime agenda involves continued water shortages.

Suppose you, on the other hand, can move in and make the shortage go away, help the farmers, and all the people who eat what the farmers grow?

And suppose, as you do this, Trump live-streams info direct to the American people, bypassing media, and details the efforts to block getting water to California farmers? He names names, he shows how they don’t actually want to solve the problem.

That would be a win-win.

Except for the bureaucratic losers, who richly deserve their fate.

Show a bureaucrat a real solution to a serious problem and he feels naked and afraid. He’s unaccustomed to true answers. He feels as if his life is threatened.

But that’s his issue, not ours.

We don’t have to grant any value to his mindset.

Why can’t abundance, rather than scarcity, compose the foundation of a better future?

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

My second open letter to Steve Bannon, Trump’s inside man

QuestionEverything2
Source:NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 21, 2016

Yesterday, I published my first open letter to Steve Bannon: Trump’s chief strategist, special counselor, and, yes, avowed enemy of major media and their fake news bubbles.

Here is a follow-up. Like the first, this one involves solutions aimed at improving life in America.

And believe me, I understand that Progressive vampires and their allied subalterns are very nervous about workable solutions, especially as they empower people to succeed beyond permanent dependence on government, The Universal Teat and Provider. So be it.

Steve,

Again, I remind you, there are millions and millions of people out there who aren’t polled or counted or factored into the algorithms of political calculations. Some of them voted for your man, some didn’t vote at all. All of them want a role in the political process, and if sufficiently motivated and encouraged, they will suddenly show up and support you with an energy that will knock you off your chair.

They are against the multitude of lies big government has been feeding them for decades—lies that come back to the basic issue of HEALTH.

Here is an introductory list of what these millions of Americans are burning about:

GMOs in the food supply (never proven to be safe, never proven to increase crop yields). Toxic pesticides drenching the food supply. The lacing of our water with toxic fluorides (forced medical treatment with no informed consent). Harmful vaccine after vaccine injected into our children, and the cooked studies that claim these substances are universally safe and effective (watch the film Vaxxed (trailer) for a window into the fraud). The pharmaceutical assault on the population with toxic and unnecessary drugs (killing, at minimum, 106,000 Americans every year, a million Americans per decade—see Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000).

Let’s start with those. There are more.

I assure you, Steve, people with stacks of evidence, beyond official pronouncements, could come forward and make a case for the destructive toxicity of these substances. They already have. The crazies in this situation are actually the corporate and media front men, who are parroting what sold-out scientists at the FDA, CDC, and other agencies are feeding them.

Ridding the country of poisons, to put it frankly, would certainly rank as a solution. Healthier adults and children, filled with energy, alert and alive? Isn’t this a fundamental?

Of course, I’m showing you a tall hill to climb here, given the ubiquitous special interests who have been squeezing America for so long. But I would point out that you and others have been taking the fight to the proponents of global warming and exposing them for the frauds they are. That’s a big hill, too.

The toxic items I listed above are on the same hill.

Part of the solution? Serious DOJ prosecutions against FDA and CDC personnel for fraud, reckless endangerment, and waste of enormous federal funds.

You want to see a massive silent majority explode in support of your administration? Carry out those prosecutions. Extend them to pharmaceutical executives who have knowingly foisted their highly destructive drugs on the population.

At this point you’ll be thinking you can’t go that far. It’s too much to take on. Well, you took on climate change because you saw the agenda involved torpedoing the economy. What I’m giving you here (massive and unending toxicity in various forms) torpedoes the right to life itself.

This isn’t some wild-eyed appeal from the fringe, Steve. As an independent reporter (one of many) who has been covering these issues for more than 30 years, I assure you there is a whole library of evidence to support the points I’ve sketched out here.

You’re an expert on corrupt media. I guarantee there is no greater media corruption than in the area of health and medicine. Those boys and girls are locked up tight. If they aren’t lying, they aren’t living. From what I can see, you take great pleasure in overturning apple carts. Here is the big one. Flip it over, and you’ll watch some of the weirdest and slimiest creatures on this green Earth come crawling out.

You want a real revolution? It’s there.

Talk to the mother of a child whose brain has been hit and damaged with a vaccine. Listen to her. Look in her eyes. This is the fire of truth no liar can contradict. This is devastation.

It’s time to do something about it, come hell or high water.

Whether it’s your time, Steve, is up to you.

PS: I attach a letter about the fluoridation of our water supplies. It’s self-explanatory. It’s a bombshell.

Here is what the EPA Union of Scientists (!) had to say about fluoridation:

Quoting from a May 1, 1999, statement— “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation” —written by William Hirzy, PhD, [Union of Scientists] Senior Vice-President, Chapter 280:

“…our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.”

“In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.”

“Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956…”

“EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue. The judge who heard the lawsuit he [Marcus] brought against EPA over the firing made that finding—that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA.”

“…data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey, Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his [Dr. Marcus’] analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.”

“Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries [cavities] incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities. The latest publication on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.”

“John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation—until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, ‘Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.’ In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.”

“…mutation studies…show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study…further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.”

“So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled — and apparently uncontrollable — exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water…

Continue Reading 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.

While the nation was watching the election, the EPA just approved another toxic herbicide for Monsanto

Monsanto
Source: NaturalNews.com
L.J. Devon
November 18, 2016

As universities across the country hold cry-ins, counseling sessions, and post-election therapy events for narcissistic, cry-baby college students, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has quietly approved Monsanto’s new drift-prone herbicide, which will further poison, emasculate, and weaken the population.

The soils are suffering from persistent over farming, bio-solid toxins, and chemical-intense agriculture. Soil and crops are so nutritionally depleted; the effect can be witnessed in the panicky, easily manipulated, fragile-minded behaviors of people.

EPA bows to Monsanto again, keeping farmers trapped in the herbicide-dependent agricultural cycle

The EPA is run by people who have worked for the biotech industry, who buckle under the pressure of the demands of multinational corporations like Monsanto. The EPA cannot protect anything if they lack the courage to say no to compounding use of damaging herbicides. The EPA has no discernment or integrity if the chemicals they approve are the very toxins that pollute the air, water, soil, and the people’s health. The EPA disrespectfully keeps American farmers trapped in the horrid cycle of spraying new chemicals to battle nature.

On the morning after the election, the EPA rushed a decision to allow a massive increase in the use of Monsanto’s toxic dicamba-based herbicide – XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology. Monsanto says this herbicide is less “volatile” than previous dicamba-based compounds that have damaged crops and led to lawsuits in the past.

This product is destined to enter the marketplace at the start of the next growing season, but Monsanto still needs approval from individual states before they can sell it to the farmers.

“We chose to launch this year to allow growers to experience the industry-leading varieties of Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans,” Monsanto spokesman Dan Urnikis told Delta Farm Press. “They can plant with confidence this year in anticipation of the chemical approval for the 2017 growing season.”

Herbicide drift wiping out various food crops across the country

Dicamba-based herbicides are a threat to the entire ecosystem and agricultural system because these chemicals vaporize from treated fields and drift to neighboring farms, fields, and woodlands. This causes crop damage to farms that don’t use the corresponding genetically engineered seeds that are designed to withstand the chemical. This also causes damage to other species of wild plants and herbs and hurts organic farms that don’t participate in the genetic engineering of food.

This dicamba-based herbicide wiped out countless crops in 2016, including soybeans, tomatoes, cantaloupes, watermelons, rice, cotton, peas, peanuts, alfalfa and even peaches. Missouri’s largest peach producer, Bader Peaches, lost 30,000 trees this year because of herbicide drift. After approving XtendiMax for 2017, the EPA ruled that the herbicide cannot be applied by aircraft or when wind speed is greater than 15 mph.

Monsanto was already positioned for the EPA’s approval of their newest herbicide

Monsanto has already positioned their company to monopolize on their drift-prone herbicide. They have already rolled out genetically engineered seeds, Bollgard II XtendFlex cotton and Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans. These GE seeds will be sold en masse to farmers whose current seeds cannot withstand the damages of drifting dicamba-based herbicides and failed glyphosate herbicides. This is precisely how the biotech industry controls farmers and enslaves them to genetically modified seeds and continuous use of new herbicides.

Monsanto faces bold ideological opposition from powerful groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity. Nathan Donley, a senior scientist for the center, says, “We can’t spray our way out of this problem. We need to get off the pesticide treadmill,” said in a prepared statement. “Pesticide resistant superweeds are a serious threat to our farmers, and piling on more pesticides will just result in superweeds resistant to more pesticides. We can’t fight evolution – it’s a losing strategy.”

Wake up and protest the experimentation being carried out on your fields, foods, and minds

Instead of throwing temper tantrums about an election result, poisoned America should instead bind together and protest the experiments that are being carried out on their soil, air, food, and water. These herbicides directly impact people’s health. Without healthy soils, food loses its nutrition profile and doesn’t nourish the body like it should. Accumulating herbicides and pesticides become more toxic to the body because the nutritionally depleted body can no longer detoxify like a healthy body should. The herbicides affect digestion, endocrine system and nervous system functions, leading to lowered states of immunity and cognitive function.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

RT.com

FoxNews.com

FoodForensics.NaturalNews.com