The Cruel Autism Trick Played On Vaccine-Damaged Children

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 10, 2017

I’ve covered this subject in various ways. Here I’m going to use a Q & A format to highlight vital points.

Q: What do people need to know about names for diseases?

A: A disease-label of any kind is something you need to look at the way you’d look at a scorpion on your porch.

Q: Why?

A: Because the label is meant to make you think there is a specific condition.

Q: Isn’t that the case?

A: Not necessarily. For example, autism.

Q: Isn’t autism a specific condition?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Well, start with this. There is no defining diagnostic test for autism. No defining physical test. No blood test, saliva test, urine test, brain scan, genetic assay.

Q: That’s impossible.

A: It’s true.

Q: How can that be?

A: Autism is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the bible of the psychiatric profession. The definition of autism is basically a menu of behaviors. There is no defining diagnostic test. You’ll find, in the official lexicon, other names for various so-called “developmental neurological disorders,” too. And none of them in the DSM have defining diagnostic tests, either.

Q: What are you driving at? Are you saying autism is some kind of illusion, that there is no damage or problem?

A: Of course not. Of course there is damage.

Q: So what is your point?

A: If a parent applies to the US federal vaccine court, for compensation, because her child was severely damaged by a vaccine, and if she or her doctor calls that damage “autism,” there is almost no chance the government will award her compensation.

Q: Why?

A: Because the government is committed to saying, come hell or high water, vaccines don’t cause autism. But if that same parent says her child developed “encephalopathy”—a generalized term meaning a condition that adversely affects the structure or function of the brain—her chances of receiving compensation increase by a small percentage.

Q: Even if she says a vaccine caused the encephalopathy?

A: Yes. It’s all a word game, and if the parent doesn’t know how to play it, she’ll almost certainly lose.

Q: That’s ridiculous.

A: Indeed it is.

Q: If none of these neurological disease-labels in the DSM has a specific and defining diagnostic test, then why doesn’t the parent just tell the vaccine court, “My child’s brain was damaged by a vaccine”?

A: Because the rules demand that she present evidence that the vaccine caused a known and officially accepted disease condition with a disease label.

Q: But the truth is, the vaccine caused brain damage.

A: Truth is not the goal of the government’s game.

Q: Are you saying there is no such thing as autism?

A: I’m saying there is no conclusive evidence for the existence of autism as a specific condition. Otherwise, there would be a defining diagnostic test for it, and there isn’t. There are various causes for neurological and brain damage. When a vaccine is the cause, it should be called VACCINE DAMAGE, and compensation should be awarded on that basis. Period. Stop the fiddling and game playing.

Q: But the government doesn’t want to admit that vaccines cause severe damage.

A: That’s why they play their word games.

Q: What are some causes for neurological damage?

A: A blow to the head, a fall, almost drowning in a pool, oxygen deprivation at birth, severe and long-term nutritional deficits, toxic pesticides, toxic medical drugs, vaccines.

Q: Why are these and other causes hidden under fancy medical names?

A: Because, for example, for each disease-name, drugs can be developed and sold.

Q: What are some names for neurological disease or damage?

A: Fragile X syndrome, Asperger, Rett syndrome; Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, Intellectual Disability, autism.

Q: Are there overlaps of symptoms?

A: Yes.

Q: Is it possible that any of these could be caused by vaccines?

A: The actual DAMAGE that is at the heart of these disease-labels could be caused by vaccines. Or other factors. Each child must be assessed uniquely.

Q: You’re suggesting that, in a sane world, parents and doctors and government officials would call vaccine damage VACCINE DAMAGE, and forget all the rest of it.

A: Neurological vaccine damage, yes. Because that’s what it is. You can say, “Well, we think this group of nerve cells is affected or that group is affected, or possibly this part of the brain is affected or that part,” but when a vaccine is the cause, it’s vaccine damage, plain and simple.

Q: Any other medical tricks people should be aware of, relating to autism?

A: Yes. Researchers can say they know vaccines don’t cause autism, because there are children diagnosed with autism who have never been vaccinated. That assertion is a hoax. The label and the definition of autism are worthless, to begin with, because there is no specific test that invariably diagnoses autism. Instead, as I keep saying, vaccine damage is real and it should be labeled as such. Then, there is no argument about what is and isn’t autism, or what does and doesn’t cause it. There is just naked straightforward truth.

Q: So when a doctor tells a parent, “Your child has autism…”

A: He’s really saying, “Your child has suffered some kind of neurological damage. We have a general label for it. Autism. The label doesn’t tell us what caused your child’s damage.”

Q: But the doctor wouldn’t admit that.

A: No, he wouldn’t.

Q: Suppose he did admit that. Suppose all doctors admitted that.

A: Then there would be a whole new world. Doctors would be tasked with trying to find out what caused the damage in each child. And in talking to a parent, who was there and saw the radical change in her child after vaccination, a doctor would realize that a vaccine was the cause.

Q: It sounds like the government is leading a parent with a vaccine-damaged child into a blind alley with its vaccine court.

A: That’s right. The parent is seeking compensation to pay for her child’s care. The court is essentially saying, “If you claim your child was damaged by a vaccine and call that damage autism, even though the word “autism” is just a meaningless label, we’ll deny compensation. We’ll deny it because we’ve arbitrarily decided that vaccines can’t cause autism.”

Q: This is pure insanity.

A: Yes, cruel insanity.

Q: Let me see if I can sum all this up. First, we have a meaningless label called “autism.” It’s meaningless because there are no defining diagnostic tests for autism. Therefore, there is no proof that autism is a specific condition, beyond the fact that a child has been neurologically damaged in some way. But most people, and the government, and the medical system, ALL BUY INTO THE IDEA THAT AUTISM IS REAL AND SPECIFIC…AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT TURNS AROUND AND SAYS: A PARENT WHO IS SEEKING COMPENSATION FOR VACCINE DAMAGE, ON THE BASIS THAT A VACCINE CAUSED HER CHILD TO “DEVELOP AUTISM,” WON’T BE COMPENSATED, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF THAT ANY VACCINE CAUSES AUTISM. THE GOVERNMENT IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING: THERE IS NO PROOF A VACCINE CAN CAUSE A CONDITION WHICH HASN’T BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST.

A: Yes, that’s correct.

Q: This is even crazier than I thought it was.

A: You can add in one more factor. There are parents with vaccine-damaged children, and these children have been diagnosed with autism. If you tell these parents there is no proof that autism exists, and their child simply has devastating neurological vaccine damage, they will protest. They’re caught in a situation they don’t fully understand, and they’re determined to hold on to the idea that their child “has autism.” They want that label to be applied to their child. For them, it provides an “explanation” for what happened to their child. They won’t let it go. And THEN, they will go to the federal vaccine court and ask for compensation, not realizing that if they use the word “autism,” that’s doom. The court will deny their claim.

Q: It’s like being caught in a maze.

A: That’s exactly what it is.

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.

Public health nightmare: Lead poisoning in Fresno, CA

Source: RT
April 4, 2017

Children in Fresno, California, are suffering from lead poisoning at levels nearly three times higher than their counterparts in infamous Flint, Michigan. Their elevated blood-lead levels are due not to the water supply, but to outdated homes coated in lead-based paint. RT America’s Brigida Santos reports.

Report: Toxic heavy metal debris found in vaccines

Image: Report: Toxic heavy metal debris found in vaccines
Source: NaturalNews.com
Amy Goodrich
March 27, 2017

The dangers of vaccines are real, yet most Americans refuse to believe this distressing fact. While the pharmaceutical industry, medical experts, and the government keep reassuring us that the shots are safe, real life cases and science are telling a different tale. Unfortunately, there has been widespread fraud in the safety reports of vaccines that favor industry. While some vaccine victims are scarred for life, others do not even live to tell their story.

Writing for EcoWatch, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a resolute defender of the environment and anti-vaxxer, reported on a new landmark study that found metal debris and biological contamination in every human vaccine tested. Since the very compelling and disturbing truth was brought to light, the study should have a direct impact on public health policies and vaccine industry procedures, according to Kennedy.

Dr. Antonietta Gatti, who led the study, told EcoWatch in an interview that their interest in vaccine contaminants started by accident about 15 years ago when they were asked to analyze samples of an anti-allergy vaccine that was causing painful swellings around the injection site and persistent red weals.

When they examined weal and vaccine samples, they found solid particles that should not have been there. The researchers were shocked by the impurities they found.

“We had never questioned the purity of vaccines before. In fact, for us the problem did not even exist. All injectable solutions had to be perfectly pure, and that was an act of faith on which it seemed impossible to have doubt. For that reason, we repeated our analyses several times to be certain. In the end, we accepted the evidence,” said Dr. Gatti.

This finding prompted the researchers to further investigate whether the debris problem was a one-case scenario or if more vaccines were affected. For their new study, published in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination, Dr. Gatti and her team examined 44 samples of 33 different vaccines. Using highly sensitive technology — an Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope equipped with an x-ray microprobe — the researchers scanned the samples for solid contaminants.

The hidden truth that’s never mentioned on safety labels

Next to toxic levels of brain-damaging aluminum salts, the researchers also found red blood cells of unknown origin and foreign, inorganic debris in aggregates, clusters, or free particles in every single human vaccine sample they tested.

Further investigation revealed that the debris was composed of lead, stainless steel, chromium, tungsten, nickel, iron, zirconium, hafnium, strontium, antimony and other metals. Only one sample – an animal vaccine – came back clean.

As noted by the authors of the study, these contaminants were not declared by the manufacturers on the label and should not be found in any vaccine. In one vaccine, GSK’s Fluarix vaccine for children above three years, the scientists found 11 metals, and aggregates of metals, that have previously been associated with cases of leukemia.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

NHF to Take Toxic Pesticides at Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues in Beijing

NEWS RELEASE:  "NHF TO TACKLE TOXIC PESTICIDES AT CODEX COMMITTEE ON PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN BEIJING"
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
National Health Federation
March 20, 2017

NHF needs your support as we speak for consumers, manufacturers, health care professionals, and YOU.

200,000 deaths a year are correlated with pesticide exposure through a $40 billion a year pesticide industry.

Join the National Health Federation, www.thenhf.com,  to end this nonsense! NHF will attend the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues April 23-29, 2017, in Beijing, China. NHF will fight for the elimination and/or reduction of pesticide Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) in our food, water, and food production animals – even bees. And even organic produce has allowable pesticide residues!

If you are not familiar with Codex and its impact on your life and/or business, please learn more about Codex here. Codex Alimentarius (Latin for “Food Code”) sets international standards and guidelines for food, beverages, and nutritional supplements; and in a way that can even supersede national sovereignty!

NHF will fight for the elimination and/or reduction of maximum residue levels on over 45 dangerous pesticides, some of which have been withdrawn from the market, are being used as contraband, used off-label, or have been reintroduced under a new trade name.

Bayer CropScience pulled this sneaky move introducing Aldicarb back into the market with a name-change after withdrawal because of the chemical’s high toxicity. Potatoes, citrus, cotton, and other crops are polluted with this product literally labeled “Poison” (as are birds, bees, and wildlife, and pesticide-contaminated drinking water).

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Aldicarb is “one of the most acutely toxic pesticides registered.” A “Restricted Use Pesticide” Aldicarb was implicated in the largest case of pesticide food poisoning documented in North America. It’s back under a new name: Temik. The Georgia cotton farmers weren’t under any misconception with the sneaky name change saying, “We are glad to have Aldicarb back!”

The EPA admitted Aldicarb didn’t meet food safety standards, noting that children and infants in particular were at risk. Children between the ages of one to five can ingest 300 percent more than the EPA’s “level of concern!” Bayer CropScience’s actions demonstrate a lack of concern for health.

In debating 45 pesticides at Codex, NHF is fighting against pure greed and a willingness to sacrifice our lives, health, and even our continued existence as these pesticides’ compounding and accumulating use are a toxic burden that we can no longer bear. Neither can our Planet.

Studies have proven Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) and pesticide exposure in general correlates directly with:

  • diabetes and pre-diabetes development
  • birth defects
  • hormone dysfunction
  • immune, organ, and respiratory system damage
  • reproductive system damage
  • Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, and nervous system damage
  • cancer
  • shortened lactation
  • spontaneous abortion
  • developmental and carcinogenic effects
  • gut dysfunction
  • allergies
  • hypersensitivity
  • endocrine disruption
  • learning disabilities, behavior and attention problems, and increased aggression
  • poor gross and fine motor coordination
  • and more

When food-production animals are fed pesticide-tainted feed and pesticide-contaminated water, then problems are exacerbated when we consume that meat.

NHF needs your support as we speak for consumers, manufacturers, health care professionals, and YOU.  Will you consider leveraging your need and your right to safe food, beverages, protection of our nutritional supplements (handled at other NHF’s attendance at other Codex Committees) by donating today?

NHF will present scientific data in comments submitted prior to the plenary session as well as during the week-long session. We will help Codex Delegates to understand NHF’s position and commitment to health and health freedom, to people, to the Planet!

NHF’s aim at CCPR is to reduce human, animal, and plant exposures to pesticides worldwide. NHF faces Monsanto front-groups such as CropLife, DowDupont, and giants such as Bayer’s CropScience, and ChemChina who don’t care about health but seek to increase sales and distribution globally of these toxic products regardless of the destruction across all lines.

Please come alongside us in this fight for health and health freedom! We cannot do it without your help. Please join NHF today!

Currently over 50% of the toxic compounds that NHF will address at CCPR are the subject of a public-health concern. NHF states that they all are A MAJOR THREAT TO GLOBAL LIFE. Some if not many of these names are familiar to those who have led a more conventional life full of bug sprays, weed killers, and other toxic household products. Many among us have lost loved ones to cancers brought on by these toxic products. Is this our future? Is this the future for YOUR family? Not if NHF can speak for those who cannot speak at Codex, leveraging your position by carrying YOUR VOICE where it counts, and putting an end to this nightmare.

As you explore some of NHF’s past history and accomplishments please be aware that we don’t have an easy path, we have international opposition and have had to reconstruct our website (a process which is still ongoing) but we expect the recent work of NFH to be reflected soon in those web pages.

NHF is on a mission, as it has been for more than 62 years now, to protect and preserve the health and health freedom of 7 billion souls on this Planet that is currently being destroyed on all counts. Join NHF now and do not leave the website before your voice is carried to the seat of power internationally at Codex to let them know you are not going to stand for the further destruction of our health and our Planet. NHF will be speaking for you as we have faithfully for decades now. But as we’ve always said, we cannot do it without YOU!

Read more At: GreenMedInfo.com
_________________________________________________________

Please support our mission by joining today or making a donation

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