February 17, 2017
For those who want to inject children with the brain damaging heavy metal mercury, I say, “Drink it yourself first!”
Now that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has announced his $100,000 Thimerosal challenge — which the entire “fake news” mainstream media promptly blacklisted — I thought I would up the ante just a bit and challenge mercury vaccine pushers to demonstrate their claimed vaccine “safety” in a more dramatic way: DRINK MERCURY to prove it’s “safe.”
If ethylmercury is as safe as these toxic vaccine pushers claim it to be, they should be happy to drink a large volume of it and “prove” that it’s safe to inject into children, right? In fact, mercury vaccine pushers claim that ethylmercury is completely harmless and carries zero risk of neurological side effects, despite the CDC’s own research that completely debunks the false narrative, showing the heavy metal is incredibly dangerous to infant neurology. Yes, it’s still used in tens of millions of vaccines given to children each year in America.
The CDC study, Alkyl Mercury-Induced Toxicity: Multiple Mechanisms of Action, appeared last month in the journal, Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. The 45-page meta-review of relevant science examines the various ways that mercury harms the human body. Its authors, John F. Risher, PhD, and Pamela Tucker, MD, are researchers in the CDC’s Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
“This scientific paper is the one of most important pieces of research to come out of the CDC in a decade,” Paul Thomas, M.D., a Dartmouth-trained pediatrician who has been practicing medicine for 30 years, said. “It confirms what so many already suspected: that public health officials have been making a terrible mistake in recommending that we expose babies and pregnant women to this neurotoxin. I regret to say that I gave these shots to children. The CDC led us all to believe that it was perfectly safe.”
Now, I challenge mercury vaccine pushers to simply drink a liter of the mercury of their choice and either prove it’s safe… or not.
I personally consume all the nutrients and superfoods I recommend… so why won’t mercury vaccine pushers consume the vaccines they want to forcibly inject into children?
Mounting research suggests that human consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) poses innumerable risks, including a proclivity for food allergies, nutritional deficiencies, sex hormone disruption, immune-suppression, cancer and general toxicity. Agriculture reliant on GM crops and their associated pesticides generates environmental risks as well, including soil degradation, water pollution and significant harm to wildlife and essential plants.
Based on the aforementioned risks to humans and the environment, it is absolutely imperative that Americans have the right to know whether or not their food contains ingredients that have been genetically altered to contain foreign DNA. However, the Boston Globe would beg to differ.
In March, the Globe published a despicable editorial waging an all-out assault on GMO-labeling and its supporters, which constitutes 89 percent of Americans. The piece, which is suspiciously missing author information, claims that GMO-labeling is “an impractical and potentially burdensome solution that will cause unwarranted alarm and needless expense.”
Boston Globe attacks American values
Yes, you read that correctly. The Globe believes that America’s call for clearly labeled foods is impractical and a burden to poison-pushing, multi-million dollar food companies – which by the way, have no problem spending money on meaningless “all-natural” labels attached to items such as Lays potato chips.
Not only does the Globe discount citizens’ quest for better health while favoring profit-driven corporations, but it actually encourages lawmakers to vote against the needs and wants of their constituents.
Referring to Massachusetts’s recent proposal to establish GMO-labeling, the Globe says simply: “Lawmakers should reject the bill.” Consumers interested in purchasing non-GMO foods can already do so, it adds, downplaying the need for all genetically modified foods to be labeled.
But what about people who cannot afford food that’s Non-GMO Project Verified or USDA certified organic? After all, such products are significantly more expensive than conventionally processed foods.
The Globe seems to be insinuating that individuals of lower socioeconomic status do not reserve the right to know whether or not their food contains highly controversial ingredients – products that have been rejected by numerous governments around the world due to their potential toxicity.
Audaciously, the Globe says that GMO-labels are misleading and will do nothing but confuse customers. Hmm. … Sound familiar? If you’ve followed this debate closely you are probably aware that this is one of Monsanto’s key talking points.
A Monsanto website addressing the growing demand for GMO-labeling links to a statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) explaining “why mandatory labeling could create confusion for consumers.”
AAAS of course, is a mouthpiece for Monsanto, as well as other major biotech companies.
A quick Google search using the keywords “AAAS” and “Monsanto” retrieves some pretty telling headlines, including a Grist.org story entitled “Is a major science group stumping for Monsanto?” a Huffington Post article entitled “Is AAAS Serving Science or Monsanto?” and a US Right to Know article entitled “Who’s Behind the Attacks on US Right to Know?”
You get the picture.
The Globe’s attack on GMO-labeling steals another Monsanto talking point when it falsely reports that there is a lack of scientific evidence distinguishing GMOs from non-GMOs. Not only is this untrue, but it is a downright lie.
Several studies have indicated that organic food is significantly more nutritious than conventional. In fact, the British Journal of Nutrition just released a study this year concluding that organic dairy and meat contain 50 percent more omega-3 fatty acids versus conventional.
“Omega-3s are linked to reductions in cardiovascular disease, improved neurological development and function, and better immune function,” wrote the study authors.
How the Globe fails to consider that a distinguishable trait between GM foods and non-GM foods is beyond me. But the truth is, they know the truth, and are simply concealing it from you because they sold their souls to powerful industries long ago.
Unfortunately, the Globe’s piece is one of many callous attacks on consumer rights, financed in full by the very industry seeking to destroy public health under the disturbing guise of humanitarianism. Nonetheless, their efforts have failed to stop the health food movement currently sweeping the globe.
According to glyphosate laboratory testing conducted at Microbe Inotech Laboratories, Inc., in St. Louis, the Quaker Instant Oatmeal (Strawberries and Cream) sample tested at the lab contains an astonishing 1,327.1 ppb (parts per billion) of glyphosate weed killer.
The test results, achieved via the ELISA methodology (enzyme linked immunosorbent assay), are astonishing for two reasons:
1) They are extremely high, far surpassing the levels of glyphosate that have so far been detected in other foods.
2) Oats are not GMO! While glyphosate might be expected at some concentrations in GM soy and other herbicide resistant crops, very few people are aware that glyphosate is being routinely sprayed on wheat, barley and oat crops as a powerful desiccant, right before harvest.
Organic brands were far cleaner
By comparison, Nature’s Path Organic Instant Oatmeal — produced by a cereal company that meticulously avoids GMOs and toxic agricultural chemicals — showed a final test result of “less than 75 ppb” which could mean essentially zero. For grains, anything below 75 ppb is below the LoD (Limit of Detection) for the ELISA methodology.
The testing was commissioned by the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH-USA), which tested 24 popular breakfast foods and found glyphosate concentrations in 11 of those samples. ANH-USA has also released a video on the subject, entitled “Are You Eating Glyphosate For Breakfast?” (The answer is probably YES…)
“We decided to do this testing to see just how ubiquitous this toxin has become in our environment. We expected that trace amounts would show up in foods containing large amounts of corn and soy,” explained Gretchen DuBeau, executive and legal director of ANH-USA. “However, we were unprepared for just how invasive this poison has been to our entire food chain.”
See the brand names of the products that tested positive for glyphosate
ANH-USA results, found at this link, use generic descriptors of food samples, without their brand names. But Natural News can now exclusively report the brand names behind these foods which tested positive for glyphosate, according to lab results provided to Natural News:
Inflammation can be one of the most damaging things to a body if it continues over long periods of time. But what is the cause of this inflammation and how can we address it? Nutritionist Ann Boroch discusses a key cause of inflammation and how you can start to turn things around. It’s important to know this cause of inflammation
Below follow a diverse set of studies that detail some of the dangers in vaccinations.
The information was found at LearnTheRisk.org
Although most of the links as of this date are currently working, a handful of links below do not work. The links that do not work have strikethroughs running through them. In many cases, was able to find another link that provides the same information, and that particular link is shown below the one that didn’t work. This is so any person gathering data is still able to find said information and sift through it as needed.
If the title of the study has a strikethrough through it, then the information is not provided any longer. The link/data is still shown in order to show the educated reader that there was at one point data in said link, but it has been erased/moved for whatever reason. Hope that helps.
Studies on the Dangers of Vaccine Ingredients:
Adverse events following immunization with vaccines containing adjuvants. Immunol Res, 2013
Review of the United States universal varicella vaccination program: Herpes zoster incidence rates, costeffectiveness, and vaccine efficacy based primarily on the Antelope Valley Varicella Active Surveillance Project data.Vaccine, 2013
Nonfebrile Seizures after Mumps, Measles, Rubella, and Varicella Zoster Virus Combination Vaccination with Detection of Measles Virus RNA in Serum, Throat, and Urine.Clinical and Vaccine Immuniology, 2013
Waning of Maternal Antibodies Against Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella in Communities With Contrasting Vaccination Coverage.Oxford Journals Medicine & Health The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2013
Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in PreAdolescents in a North American Outbreak.Oxford Journals Medicine & Health Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2012
Comparison of the Safety, Vaccine Virus Shedding, and Immunogenicity of Influenza Virus Vaccine, Trivalent, Types A and B, Live ColdAdapted, Administered to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infected and NonHIVInfected. Adults Oxford Journals Medicine & Health The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2000
Study: What is regressive autism and why does it occur? Is it the consequence of multi systemic dysfunction affecting the elimination of heavy metals and the ability to regulate neural temperature? North American Journal of Medical Science, 2009