Coincidence? Monsanto patented glyphosate as an “antibiotic” drug, claiming weed killer is medicine

Image: Coincidence? Monsanto patented glyphosate as an “antibiotic” drug, claiming weed killer is medicine
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 23, 2017

While you’d be hard pressed to find anyone willing to use a known herbicide for medicinal purposes, that hasn’t stopped Monsanto from patenting the star ingredient of their flagship herbicide, Roundup, as a type of antibiotic. In 2003, the corporate giant first submitted a patent for glyphosate as a parasitic control-type antimicrobial agent — or, in other words, a type of antibiotic.

The patent was granted in 2010, and you can view it here. Monsanto patented the combination of glyphosate and polyvalent anion oxalic acid as a method for preventing and treating pathogenic infections like malaria. As the patent explains, parasites from the phylum of Apicomplexa are often responsible for diseases in humans and other animals — and glyphosate is capable of inhibiting the growth of these parasites.

This patent certainly brings even more concerns about the impending Bayer-Monsanto merger, but  more importantly, it raises a significant question: is glyphosate contributing to the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

Study finds glyphosate causes antibiotic resistance

Recent research has revealed that the herbicide could indeed be a contributing factor to the “superbug” epidemic that is being seen around the world. Scientists from the University of Canterbury in New Zealand have piloted new research that shows glyphosate is not just an herbicide, but a potential vector for antibiotic-resistant disease.

The study is the first of its kind. Professor Jack Heinemann, from the university, says that while herbicides may be tested for their ability to kill bacteria, they are not tested for what other effects they may have on microbes.

“We found that exposure to some very common herbicides can cause bacteria to change their response to antibiotics. They often become antibiotic resistant, but we also saw increased susceptibility or no effect. In most cases, we saw increased resistance even to important clinical antibiotics,” Heinemann commented.

The professor went on to explain that their results were so surprising that they enlisted another researcher from a different institution to conduct the same exact experiments in a different environment and without knowing exactly what she was adding to the bacteria, to help ensure the validity of their findings. The research conducted at Massey University yielded the same results as that done by the University of Canterbury.

According to the researchers, the effects they uncovered would be relevant to people and animals who are exposed to pesticides used in similar concentrations to that of what was tested. While the amounts used by the team were of greater concentration than what is currently supposed to be allowed in food — as we all know, the amount of glyphosate residue in and on food often surpasses what is deemed “permissible.” [RELATED: Keep up with the latest herbicide scandals at Glyphosate.news]

As antibiotic resistance continues to grow, the threat that glyphosate poses simply cannot be ignored. The effects of herbicides like glyphosate can have on bacteria are very real — especially given the chemical’s tendency to be intentionally misused by farmers as a desiccant.

Does glyphosate alter healthy bacteria in the gut, too?

Pathogenic bacteria are not the only microbes susceptible to the ill effects of glyphosate. The bacteria that reside in the human gut can also be harmed by the toxic herbicide. The very same shikamate pathway that glyphosate uses to target weeds and pathogenic bacteria species is the same pathway it would use to destroy the friendly and beneficial bacteria that inhabit the intestinal microbiome. This, of course, would come with its own host of adverse health effects.

There is no reason to believe that if glyphosate is capable of killing or altering one type of bacteria, that it would not harm other bacteria via the same pathway. Some research has already alluded to the potential for glyphosate to wreak havoc on the human digestive system. Given that the microbiome is of great importance to overall human health, findings such as this are not surprising: if glyphosate is killing off intestinal bacteria, it stands to reason that may be the first point of disease. Furthermore, some research has shown that glyphosate is capable of altering gut bacteria in other animals — for example, in 2014 German scientists found that glyphosate negatively affected the gut bacteria of cows.

It seems that the more we learn about glyphosate, the more dangerous it becomes.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NaturalHealth365.com

SustainablePulse.com

GMOFreeUSA.org

FoodDemocracyNow.org

Agrigator.nz

New Zealand Government Preparing To Drown Whole Country In Fluorides

: DOSSIER COMPLET SUR LE FLUOR ET FLUORIDE DE SODIUM DANGER ...
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
March 16, 2017

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

From The NZHerald, 3/13/16—my comments are in CAPS:

“MPs are expecting furious opposition to proposals on fluoridated drinking water as public hearings kick off this week.”

“The first select committee hearings will be held tomorrow on the Government’s plan to transfer the responsibility for fluoridating water from councils to district health boards (DHBs).” [TRANSFER THE DECISION FROM LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO LARGER FEDERAL ENTITIES—A TAKEOVER.]

“In a rare move, Parliament’s Health Committee has agreed to hear from every individual or organisation that asked to make an oral submission.”

“In total, 60 organisations and 140 individuals are expected to give presentations, and the committee will be broken up into sub-committees in order to hear them all.” [IN OTHER WORDS, THE FULL COMMITTEE WON’T HEAR ANY INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION—A CLUE THAT THE “TOLERANCE” FOR EVERY POINT OF VIEW IS JUST A SHOW.]

“’The committee felt that hearing from everyone on this was important’, committee chairman and National MP Simon O’Connor said.”

“’It’s a passionate topic. People feel very strongly about it and we thought … the best way to manage that was to allow them to be heard’.” [YES, HEARD, BEFORE BEING IGNORED. THE COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY MADE UP ITS MIND.]

“Most of the submissions to the committee were against the law change, O’Connor said.”

“At present, territorial authorities decide whether to fluoridate the local water supply.” [JUST AS IT SHOULD BE.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled — and apparently uncontrollable — exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products…For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.”

“We have also taken a direct step to protect the [EPA] employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water…the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.”

“The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.”

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

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

Quite clear.

The mainstream press has refused to cover this story in any significant way for 17 years.

The federal government of New Zealand doesn’t care about any of this.

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

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.

Science and Alternative Facts: About fluoridation, false dilemmas and fake news

Science and Alternative Facts: About fluoridation, false dilemmas and fake news
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Karen Spencer
March 15, 2017

Undeterred by mounting evidence proving the dangers of fluoride, power, prestige, and paychecks continue to motivate fluoridationists.

Despite the fact that the prestigious international 2015 Cochrane panel, like the 2000 York panel, found the fluoridation literature to be of abysmally poor quality, at high risk of bias, and with no evidence of safety…

Despite the fact that those panels had low confidence in a very small dental benefit that translates to maybe some children, not all, having one fewer cavity during childhood…

Despite the fact that there is robust evidence that fluoridation worsens the symptoms of inflammatory diseases, disrupts thyroid function, endangers the health of kidney patients, accelerates destruction of water pipes and in so doing increases lead in the water, and is linked to increased learning disabilities…

Despite the fact that fluoridation is a false dilemma, that the only scientifically proved dental benefit is from topical use of fluoridated toothpastes, rinses, and varnishes and that any who still want to consume it can do so cheaply without fluoride being added to municipal water…

Despite all this, fluoridationists have mounted a marketing campaign to promote fluoridation mandates based on a hundred year old dental myth.

Incongruously, at the center of this scheme is the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Fluoridation is a profitable business for some, and over the years too much organizational prestige and too many paychecks have become inextricably linked with fluoridation promotion in the network of government regulatory agencies. Consequently, our tax dollars are being used to create marketing materials that incentivize states to fluoridate using Medicaid monies in a move that most harms the health of the very population Medicaid is supposed to serve. Lobbyists are presenting these materials to state politicians while public relations experts are planting pro-fluoridation articles in the press.

Fluoridationist organizations also have apparently created curriculum targeting college students that encourage students lobby for fluoridation based on the disinformation in marketing materials. Moreover, citation cartels are manufacturing fraudulent reports and studies that misrepresent both historical and scientific fact. These unprincipled papers are widely promoted by vested interests in popular press using biased language. They are aided by self-important bloggers with decidedly prejudiced points of view. Talk about anti-science and dishonest media.

This astroturfing effort is further supported by an organized troop of trolls who overwhelm social media with vitriol that dismisses arguments, denies science, denigrates opponents, distracts the public, and disrupts conversation about the real health risks of fluoridation policy to consumers.

Consider this:

1.     Fluoridation is linked to preterm births and preeclampsia possibly due to “placental fluorosis”

2.     Fluoridation depresses thyroid hormones, which in the fetuses of pregnant women, bottle-fed infants, and young children can result in permanent cognitive-behavioral deficits, i.e. it rewires the brain to cause learning disabilities

3.     Fluoridated water can inflame rashes like eczema and psoriasis, making even bathing painful for the afflicted who include both the very young and the elderly

4.     Fluoridation policy has caused permanent dental damage to approximately half our adolescents, with higher rates and worse severity among the poor and non-white populations. Many of these disfigured teeth will require veneers and crowns with age

5.     Fluoride concentrations in the water have little relationship to dose which is determined by individual consumption over time based on age, size and health status

6.     Fluoride is only partially excreted by kidneys. In a healthy adult, 50% of fluoride consumed is stored primarily in the bones where it replaces calcium. These bones become more brittle over the years. Fluoride also causes inflammation and the symptoms of arthritis. Retention is higher during childhood, old age, and periods of ill health

7.     Fluoride is an enzyme poison that has profound impact on cellular function

8.     Fluoridation chemicals are mostly corrosive, acidic, and contaminated waste products harvested from industry smokestacks. Despite any seals of approval from the NSF, a contracted service which tests a sample about once every 3 years, the contents in the bags of chemicals added to our water supplies every day are a witches’ brew of toxins that cause sinister chemical reactions when they come in contact with metal

9.     Fluoridation policy has been rejected by EPA scientists since the 1980s as unsafe, although EPA management continues to allow the practice through legal doublespeak that only focuses on politically set contaminant threshold levels (MCL/MCLG)

10.  Fluoride contaminant thresholds set by the EPA were found to be not protective of human health in 2006 by the National Research Council who also advised that at that time they could find no science that proved fluoride in drinking water was safe at any concentration. That panel of experts also stated that it was reasonable to anticipate adverse effects from fluoride consumption among vulnerable populations at much lower water concentrations. Those ill effects would include gastrointestinal disease, endocrine disorders, kidney damage, and skeletal deterioration. The EPA has failed to take action.

Fluoridation policy is politics pretending to be science. It protects corporate health not consumer health. Fluoridationists are motivated by power, prestige, and paychecks. They ignore actual science and the voices of thousands of dentists, doctors, toxicologists, research scientists, consumer advocates, environmentalists, and civil rights leaders who have concluded that although there may be benefit to brushing your teeth with the stuff if you have no medical contraindications, spit, don’t swallow.

A few expert quotes

Dentist: “If teeth are the only reason why you like fluoride, you better come up with a different reason. Fluoride hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc.” – Michael Taras, DMD, FAGD (2015)

Doctor: “Right now we have 1 in 6 children in the U.S. with neurodevelopmental brain disease, including ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorders, low IQ and behavioral disorders, and 1 in 8 women who will develop thyroid disease. These two epidemics tell us that chemicals like fluoride and lead, both developmental neurotoxins and endocrine disruptors, have no place in our public water.” – Angela Hind, MD (2015)

Toxicologist: Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis and mutagenicity and other effects.” – Dr. Wm. Marcus, EPA Senior Scientist (1998)

Researchers: “Consequently, although the World Health Organization continues to support F schemes for caries prevention despite a lack of scientific proof, the F schemes are not able to improve the crystal quality but rather contribute adversely to affect tooth development and increases the risk of developing postmenopausal osteoporosis.” – Mitsuo Kakei, Masayoshi Yoshikawa and Hiroyuki Mishima (2016)

EnvironmentalistLove Canal taught us the lesson that health, environment, and justice are inextricably linked. We oppose water fluoridation as it harms our health, it harms the environment, and is a textbook case of environmental justice harm affecting low income and families of color.” – Lois Gibbs, founder Center for Health, Environment & Justice,  Nobel Peace Prize nominee (2015)

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
_________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES

  1. Follin-Arbelet B, Moum B, Scand J. Fluoride: a risk factor for inflammatory bowel disease? Gastroenterol. 2016 May 19:1-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27199224
  2. Martín-Pardillos A, Sosa C, Millán Á, Sorribas V. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. Toxicology. 2014 Apr 6;318:40-50. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
  3. Butler JE, Satam M, Ekstrand J. Fluoride: an adjuvant for mucosal and systemic immunity. Immunol Lett. 1990 Dec;26(3):217-220. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
  4. Loftenius A, Andersson B, Butler J, Ekstrand J. Fluoride augments the mitogenic and antigenic response of human blood lymphocytes in vitro. Caries Res. 1999;33(2):148-155. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
  5. Fluoride and the skin. Fluoride. January 1977. Vol.10:1. http://www.fluorideresearch.org/101/files/FJ1977_v10_n1_p001-044.pdf
  6. Spitttle B. Allergy and hypersensitivity to fluoride. Fluoride. 1993; Volume 26; Pages 267-273. http://fluoridealert.org/studies/spittle-1993/
  7. Zhang S, Zhang X, Liu H, et al. Modifying effect of COMT gene polymorphism and a predictive role for proteomics analysis in children’s intelligence in endemic fluorosis area in Tianjin, China. Toxicol Sci. 2015 Apr;144(2):238-245. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
  8. Main D. Fluoridation may not prevent cavities, scientific review shows. Newsweek (Tech and Science). 29 June 2015. http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251
  9. National Research Council. Fluoride in drinking water: A scientific review of EPA’s standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571
  10. Carton RJ. Review of 2006 USNRC report on fluoride in drinking water. Fluoride. 39(3)163-172. July-September 2006. http://www.fluorideresearch.org/393/files/FJ2006_v39_n3_p163-172.pd
  11. Diesendorf M. The mystery of declining tooth decay. Nature. 07/1986; 322(6075):125-129. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19639179_The_Mystery_of_Declining_Tooth_Decay
  12. Gandhi D, Naoghare PK, Bafana A, Kannan K, Sivanesan S. Fluoride-induced oxidative and inflammatory stress in osteosarcoma cells: Does it affect bone development pathway? Biol Trace Elem Res. 2017 Jan;175(1):103-111. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27234253
  13. Kakei M, Yoshikawa M, Mishima H. Fluoride exposure may accelerate the osteoporotic change in postmenopausal women: Animal model of fluoride-induced osteoporosis. Adv Tech Biol Med. 2016, 4:1. http://www.esciencecentral.org/journals/fluoride-exposure-may-accelerate-the-osteoporotic-change-in-postmenopausal-women-animal-model-of-fluorideinduced-osteoporosis-2379-1764-1000170.pdf
  14. Pain G. Fluoride is a developmental nephrotoxin – coming to a kidney near you. Technical Report. Researchgate. January 2017. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313025968_Fluoride_is_a_developmental_Nephrotoxin_-_coming_to_a_Kidney_near_you
  15. Coplan MJ, Patch SC, Masters RD, Bachman MS. Confirmation of and explanations for elevated blood lead and other disorders in children exposed to water disinfection and fluoridation chemicals. Neurotoxicology. 2007 Sep;28(5):1032-1042. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17420053
  16. Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts. Neurotoxicology. 2007 Sep;28(5):1023-31. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17697714
  17. Sawan RM, Leite GA, Saraiva MC, et al. Fluoride increases lead concentrations in whole blood and in calcified tissues from lead-exposed rats. Toxicology. 2010 Apr 30;271(1-2):21-26. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20188782
  18. Malin AJ, Till C. Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association. Environmental Health 2015;14:17. http://www.ehjournal.net/content/14/1/17/abstract
  19. Mullenix PJ. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2014 Apr-Jun;20(2):157-166. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
  20. MacArthur JD. Placental fluorosis: Fluoride and preeclampsia. Townsend Lett. 2015;382:74-79. http://www.townsendletter.com/May2015/placental0515.html
  21. Gesser-Edelsburg A, Shir-Raz Y. Communicating risk for issues that involve ‘uncertainty bias’: What can the Israeli case of water fluoridation teach us? Journal of Risk Research. August 2016. Pages 1-22. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13669877.2016.1215343
  22. Gutowskaa I, Baranowska-Bosiackab I, Goschorskab M, et al. Fluoride as a factor initiating and potentiating inflammation in THP1 differentiated monocytes/macrophages. Toxicology in Vitro. Volume 29, Issue 7, October 2015, Pages 1661-1668. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887233315001605
  23. Calgary fluoride study fatally flawed; Key data omitted. Fluoride Action Network. 25 Feb 2016. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/calgary-fluoride-study-fatally-flawed-key-data-omitted-300226151.html
  24. Fu X, Xie FN, Dong P, Xio Rl. High-dose fluoride impairs the properties of human embryonic stem cells via JNK signaling. PLoS ONE. 11(2):e014881957. February 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293797103_High-Dose_Fluoride_Impairs_the_Properties_of_Human_Embryonic_Stem_Cells_via_JNK_Signaling?origin=publication_list
  25. Perkin MR, Craven J, Logan K, et al. The association between domestic water hardness, chlorine and atopic dermatitis risk in early life: A population-based cross-sectional study. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Published online April 28, 2016. http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(16)30187-7/abstract
  26. Jianjie C, Wenjuan X, Jinling C, et al. Fluoride caused thyroid endocrine disruption in male zebrafish (Danio rerio). Aquat Toxicol. 2016 Feb;171:48-58. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26748264
  27. Kurdi MS. Chronic fluorosis: The disease and its anaesthetic implications. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2016. 60:3;157-162. http://www.ijaweb.org/article.asp?issn=0019-5049;year=2016;volume=60;issue=3;spage=157;epage=162;aulast=Kurdi
  28. MacArthur, JD. Pregnancy and Fluoride Do Not Mix: Prenatal Fluoride and Premature Birth, Preeclampsia, Autism. 2016. http://www.johndmacarthur.com/reports/pregnancyfluoridedonotmix.html
  29. Isaacson RL. My fluoride position. 2007.  http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~isaacson/fluoride.html
  30. A Plan to Transform the Empire’s State Medicaid Program. New York State Department of Health. 2016. http://www.health.ny.gov/health_care/medicaid/redesign/docs/mrtfinalreport.pdf
  31. Fluoridation advocacy: Pew’s contributions and lessons that emerge. Children’s Dental Health Project. July 2015. https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cdhp-fluoridation/CDHP_FlouridationAdvocacyReport_FINAL.pdf
  32. Brockovich E, Bowcock R, Kohn MD. Letter to the National Governors Association. April 27, 2016.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/brockovich-2016.pdf
  33. Brockovich E, Ingram WA, Matthews DP, et al. Letter to the Institute of Medicine. April 27, 2015.  https://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/LetterIOM_2015.04.27.pdf
  34. Young A. Letter to Nathan Deal et al. October 6, 2016. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2016andrewjyoung/10/prweb13768202.htm
  35. Spencer K. Letter to Salem State University. September 7, 2016. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/SalemState2016.09.07.pdf

 

EPA under pressure to dump fluoride from water supply

Image: EPA under pressure to dump fluoride from water supply

Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 15, 2017

Fluoride is an ubiquitous chemical that has penetrated public water supplies across the United States. The CDC reports that about two-thirds of the population has fluoridated public water. And for those of us served by community water systems, that number climbs up to about 74 percent.

Historically, fluoride been added to water in the name of preventing tooth decay and cavities. However, it is now widely known that fluoride is not an essential nutrient in any sense, and therefore is not actually necessary to keep teeth healthy.

While proponents of fluoride continue to say that it is “safe and effective,” detractors of fluoride say that there are several substantial issues with the substance’s addition to public water. And finally enough people have woken up to the dangers of fluoride to begin putting pressure on the EPA to put a halt to this controversial practice.

Fighting against fluoride

A coalition of environmental, medical, and health groups, along with Fluoride Action Network, are urging the EPA to end fluoridation of the public water supply. The coalition has presented the EPA with a petition, featuring some 2,500 pages of scientific documentation of fluoride’s ill effects on human health.

The document explains that “the amount of fluoride now regularly consumed by millions of Americans in fluoridated areas exceeds the doses repeatedly linked to IQ loss and other neurotoxic effects; with certain subpopulations standing at elevated risk of harm, including infants, young children, elderly populations, and those with dietary deficiencies, renal impairment and/or genetic predispositions.”

Beyond the negative health effects of fluoride, there is also a rather concerning, almost “Big Brother-esque” feel to public water fluoridation. The concept of the government practicing mass medication on the majority of the U.S. population is quite frightening, if you stop to think about. There is no way to obtain consent from every individual when it’s in the water supply and often, no way of escaping it. Furthermore, putting fluoride in the water prevents controlled dosage. Some people drink more than others, and there are plenty of other avenues of exposure besides water.

The EPA could put an end to mass fluoridation of the U.S. population, through the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which grants them the ability to forbid the use of a chemical that puts public health at risk. Fluoride certainly fits the bill — the petition notes that the EPA’s own guidelines would encourage fluoride prohibition.

Collective Evolution explains that the petition states the EPA’s Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment reveals that fluoride can be neurotoxic, and that the “reference dose” needed to offer protection from such neurotoxicity is “incompatible with the doses now ingested by millions of Americans in fluoridated areas.”

The petition also notes that swallowing fluoride actually provides little to no benefits to humans, rendering the risk associated with fluoride consumption completely and entirely unnecessary. The petition also states “there is little justification in exposing the public to any risk of fluoride neurotoxicity, particularly via a source as essential to human sustenance as the public drinking water and the many processed foods and beverages made therefrom.” (RELATED: Learn how to protect yourself from Fluoride poisoning)

Research shows fluoride is toxic

The EPA has reportedly requested that the National Resource Council (NRC) review the data. Back in 2006, the NRC concluded that fluoride can indeed inhibit brain function. Research published in the journal Lancet Neurology has even confirmed that fluoride is one of 12 substances known to cause developmental neurotoxicity. And in 2012, Harvard scientists concluded that children exposed to fluoridated drinking water had lower IQs.

Another pitfall of water fluoridation is the development of dental fluorosis. Mild fluorosis is characterized by white streaks on the teeth, while more severe cases feature brown stains, pitting, and broken enamel. This is the stuff they are putting in the water supposedly to protect teeth — and yet, it actually destroys them. The CDC reported in 2010 that 41 percent of children between the ages of 12 and 15 had some form of dental fluorosis. That alone should be enough to tell you (and the EPA) that fluoride doesn’t belong in the water supply.

Will the EPA finally be compelled to do their jobs and ban water fluoridation? Who knows.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

WaterOnline.com

Collective-Evolution.com

FluorideAlert.org

LiveScience.com

I Was Sprayed With Insecticide Flying to Australia: Linked to Brain Tumors, Parkinson’s

spray1-696x928-1

Source: TheMindUnleashed.com
Cassius Methyl
March 7, 2017

Last week I took a flight from California to Australia.

spraying 1111

After a long 14 hour flight, everyone stood up and eagerly anticipated leaving the plane. Instead of getting off, we were informed that the plane would be sprayed with a “non toxic” insecticide.

insecticide

I quickly grabbed my thick jacket, put my hood over my head, covered my face and made sure every breath I took was filtered through the jacket. Flight attendants walked up and down the isles, spraying the luggage bins and the passengers almost directly.

I waited for about 10 minutes while they made us sit in the fumes. I heard a few people cough. When we finally got up to leave the plane, a flight attendant asked me if I was ok because I was covering my face and I said “of course, just avoiding breathing this, it’s toxic.”

He matter of factly responded “it’s non toxic.” I replied “of course it’s toxic, everything that is an insecticide is toxic.”

What I should have showed him is that flight attendants like him have gotten brain tumors and Parkinson’s Disease, and sued the government for mandating use of insecticide on flights.

According to a December 2013 article from the Daily Telegraph titled “Landmark legal case will probe the link between Parkinson’s disease and insecticide sprays used on long-haul flights”:

“LONG-haul flight attendants who have been forced to spray insecticide through aircraft cabins every time they landed in Australia fear the chemicals may have given them Parkinson’s disease.

And experts have warned any frequent international flyer exposed to repeated doses of insecticide within an enclosed aircraft cabin could also face the same risk.

Former Qantas steward Brett Vollus has been diagnosed with the disease, which can leave victims immobile, speechless or with tremors, and is preparing to launch a legal action against the Commonwealth government, which enforces the need for spraying to prevent disease.

Mr Vollus, 52, worked as flight attendant with Qantas for 27 years up until May this year and was referred to a neurosurgeon as the symptoms of Parkinson’s began to kick in.

Checks also uncovered a malignant brain tumour.”

The former flight attendant Brett Vollus continued:

“We all blindly sprayed this insecticide as we landed in Australia after every long-haul flight. Why wasn’t I warned that it could give me this disease?

This is a nightmare that has ruined my life. I am very keen to start a legal action and if it can help others I am happy to lead the way.”

It’s oddly difficult to research online exactly what insecticides are sprayed on flights. The practice is decades old, with the infamous pesticide DDT being sprayed on flights to Australia from the 1940’s to 70’s .

According to Mother Jones:

“Exposing travelers on domestic flights to dangerous chemicals is not new. From 1944 until the late 1970s, airlines sprayed DDT on their planes, sometimes even while passengers were on board.

And from 1986 to 1996, Northwest Airlines used Bolt, a pesticide that contains chlorpyrifos, a potential nervous system poison. In 1994, the Journal of Pesticide Reform reported that chlorpyrifos may cause symptoms ranging from nausea to convulsions, and may also produce birth defects and other genetic damage in humans.”

The most detailed info I could find about what exactly is being sprayed comes from the first hand experience of a passenger, published at Health Nut News in an article titled “Woman removed by 6 Policemen off her flight for questioning what was being sprayed on her.” Reading from it:

“The most common pesticides used on airplanes are the synthetic pyrethroids permethrin and d-phenothrin (they kill insects by attacking their nervous systems) and studies have linked permethrin with Parkinson’s disease. But remember, the World Health Organization says it’s just fine.

Since the spraying began, passengers have reported flu-like symptoms, sinus issues, rash/hives, headaches, and swollen joints- and that’s just some of what’s been reported; far more serious issues like acute respiratory problems and anaphylactic shock have also occurred. But don’t worry, the WHO says there is no evidence that spraying insecticide in enclosed spaces, onto people, is dangerous.”

spray1-696x928-1

The Australian Department of Agriculture and Water Resources is the agency responsible for overseeing the spraying of insecticide on flights. An Australian government entity that regulates and influences pesticide use is called the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority.

Sometimes the passengers sit in toxic fumes for the duration of a flight, instead of being sprayed for minutes at the end. According to Traveler:

“What happens now is the Department of Agriculture grants approval to airlines to perform their own disinfection treatment. Disinfection spraying is carried out at the last overseas airport before departure for Australia.

Treatment takes place after catering has been loaded, with the airconditioning system switched off, the overhead bins open and before passengers have boarded. If the required disinfection has not been carried out, the aircraft will be sprayed on arrival prior to passenger disembarkation.”

Another recently developed pesticide in Australia is being hyped as a non toxic alternative, Sero-X. It is made from peptides that naturally occur in a plant. This is probably not going to be sprayed on airplanes though.

In concept it sounds like a viable alternative to neonicotinoids or organophosphates, but if you know the history of pesticides you might find it hard to believe in something like that.

Please share this with any person flying to Australia, because it benefits us to know exactly what we ingest, and how bad ideas become a routine aspect of life we are coerced into accepting.

Read More At: TheMindUnleashed.com

Image credit: Wiki, NT, NH365, TL, Source

No study exists to show that vaccine ingredient Thimerosal is safe

Image: No study exists to show that vaccine ingredient Thimerosal is safe

Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan Huff
February 21, 2017

You probably caught the big news last week that President Trump’s new commissioner on vaccine safety, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has issued a formal challenge: if anyone can find even a single credible study out there showing that the mercury derivative Thimerosal, which is added to influenza and other vaccines, is safe, then he or she will receive $100,000 in cash. Well, a good chunk of time has passed since this offer was issued and, sure enough, nobody has claimed the prize because no such study exists.

It’s something we’ve been saying here at Natural News for a long time about the chemicals that millions of people are injecting into their children. It’s also the subject matter of the critically-acclaimed documentary film Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe, which the Tribeca Film Festival pulled from its lineup at the behest of the militant vaccine mafia. But all this censorship and bullying hasn’t stopped the truth about the dangers of vaccine ingredients like Thimerosal from spreading. (RELATED: See how current law prevents parents from suing vaccine manufacturers for injury at AgeOfAutism.com)

In a recent joint letter issued by Kennedy and De Niro to American journalists, the duo reiterates the World Mercury Project’s $100,000 challenge, urging journalists, reporters, columnists, editors, network anchors, on-air doctors, news division producers, and anyone else out there with sway and influence to take them up on the offer. By simply doing the type of digging that journalists used to do before they became co-opted by special interest corruption, today’s journalists have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to bank some serious cash, should they be so willing and brave.

“Despite the cascade of recent science confirming that thimerosal is a potent neurotoxin that damages children’s brains, the American media has fiercely defended the orthodoxy that mercury-based vaccines are safe,” Kennedy and De Niro write in their open letter. “We believe that even a meager effort at homework will expose that contention as unsupported by science.”

If nobody claims $100,000 prize, this will prove that mercury in vaccines is NOT safe

Much of the problem lies in the fact that today’s faux journalists are told what to do by their higher-ups in a way that keeps critical information like vaccine safety out of the limelight. The public tends to believe what these faux journalists say — or in this case, don’t say — because, surely someone would get the scoop if given the opportunity, right? Unfortunately, this isn’t the case, and there is far more censorship going on than many people would choose to believe.

That’s what makes this Thimerosal challenge so important: it forces the hand of the powers that be to either put up or shut up. If there’s evidence out there that mercury derivatives are safe in childhood vaccines, then somebody is going to present it to jump on that $100,000. If this evidence doesn’t exist and nobody claims the cash, then it will be apparent to everyone that agencies like the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have been lying to the public as whistleblowers like Dr. William Thompson have been claiming.

“Journalists, we have discovered — even science and health journalists — don’t always read the science!” the joint letter adds. “On the vaccine issues, many of them have let government and industry officials tell them what the science supposedly says. Instead of questioning, digging and investigating, journalists, too often, have taken the easy course of repeating the safety assurances of the pharmaceutical industry and the regulators at CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, which they have good reason to doubt.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

EcoWatch.com

Pittsburgh.CBSLocal.com

WorldMercuryProject.com

YouTube.com