Leading World Bank Demographer: Vaccination Campaigns Part Of Population Reduction Policy
On October 2nd a retired demographer at the World Bank admitted that vaccination campaigns are an integral part of the World Bank’s population policies. John F. May, the Bank’s leading demographer from 1992 to 2012, told the French web journal Sens Public (and in turn transcribed by the think-tank May works for) that vaccination campaigns, especially in so-called “high-fertility countries”, are means to achieve population reduction in those countries. May:
“The means used to implement population policies are “policy levers” or targeted actions such as vaccination campaigns or family planning to change certain key variables.”
Defining “population policy” as “a set of interventions implemented by government officials to better manage demographic variables and to try to attune population changes (number, structure by age and breakdown) to the country’s development aspirations”, May continues to explain that the World Bank is taking up the lead role in achieving general population reduction.
It is not the first time that World Bank officials boast about their willingness to implement strict population control policies in the Third World. In its 1984 World Development Report, the World Bank suggests using “sterilization vans” and “camps” to facilitate its sterilization policies for the third world. The report also threatens nations who are slow in implementing the bank’s population policies with “drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom.”:
“Population policy has a long lead time; other development policies must adapt in the meantime. Inaction today forecloses options tomorrow, in overall development strategy and in future population policy. Worst of all, inaction today could mean that more drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom, will seem necessary tomorrow to slow population growth.”, the report states.
Some of those steps are now being taken.
A study published in Human and Experimental Toxicology in May of 2011 concluded that “nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.” (page 8).
After an in-depth study into the effects of vaccine-coverage in relation to mortality rates among infants, the authors Neil Z. Miller and Gary S. Goldman came to this disturbing conclusion and advised that “a closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential.”- but naively concluded that “All nations—rich and poor, advanced and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.”
The authors cannot be expected to know that, actually, that the desired goals are exactly being achieved. Their final point is significant in this regard, that they obviously were not working on the notion that vaccines were harmful and obviously drew their final conclusions on the basis of the idea that the increase in high mortality rates among infants were unintended. The opposite is the case. The World Health Organization, the World Bank, The UN environmental department, the UN Population Fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and all the other arms of the creature we call the scientific dictatorship are closing in on all of humanity with mass-scale vaccination programmes and genetically engineered food.
Where the mantra used to be “to combat global warming, we need a one world government”, now it sounds something along the lines of “when we wish to eradicate poverty, we must have a global government and reduce human numbers, by the way.” Any pretext will do. More recently it were oceans in need that prompted the World Bank to initiate a global “alliance”. The same argument can of course be applied and is being applied to every other possible calamity.
Following this line of reasoning will inevitably bring you to pretexts under which global population control can be sold. Want to reduce victims of drunk driving? Reduce human numbers. Looking to cure cancer? Reduce the birthrate so less people will die as a result of it. The scientific community has joined the effort, attempting to sell population reduction to stop poverty and disease worldwide.
Under the guidance of Ban Ki-moon’s top advisor, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, several studies have been published which call for mass population reduction in the name of poverty-reduction. In 2009 Sachs and his protégé’s Pejman Rohani and Matthew H. Bonds wrote the paper Poverty trap formed by the ecology of infectious diseases. They write that the “poverty trap may (…) be broken by improving health conditions of the population.”
The question that arises, of course, is how to improve “health conditions”. In another study from 2009 Bonds and Rohani say:
““(…) the birth of a child in the poorest parts of the world represents not only a new infection opportunity for a disease, but also an increase in the probability of infection for the rest of the susceptible host population. Thus, epidemiological theory predicts that a reduction in the birth rate can significantly lower the prevalence of childhood diseases.”
Earlier that same year, Bonds wrote a dissertation entitled Sociality, Sterility, and Poverty; Host-Pathogen Coevolution, with Implications for Human Ecology. The study concludes that the best way to eradicate poverty and disease is to, well… eradicate humans.
“We find that, after accounting for an income effect, reducing fertility may result in significantly lower disease prevalence over the long (economic) term than would a standard S-I-R epidemiological model predict, and might even be an effective strategy for eradicating some infectious diseases. Such a solution would make Malthus proud”, Bonds writes.
“(…) the new model, which accounts for an economic effect, predicts that a reduction in fertility may be significantly more effective than a vaccine. It also illustrates that a sustained vaccination policy would be more likely to eradicate a disease if done in conjunction with decreased reproduction.”
“This model”, Bond continues, “is likely to understate the true benefits of reduced fertility because the effect of reducing the birth rate is to reduce the flow of susceptible for all diseases, which is the equivalent of a vaccine for all infectious diseases at the same time.”
If you eradicate the human, you eradicate the disease- problem solved:
“Infectious diseases, however, continue to be most significant in developing countries, which experience relatively rapid population growth. The effect of this influx of children on the persistence and dynamics of childhood diseases, as well as on the critical vaccination coverage, is reasonably well-established (McLean and Anderson, 1988a; Broutin et al., 2005). But it is now warranted to turn this framework on its head: can fertility reduction be an integral element of a disease eradication campaign?”
The answer to that question is given by Bill Gates in 2010 when he promoted using vaccines to lower the population by 10 to 15%:
Disease and poverty, intertwined as they are, can therefore be eliminated by mas-scale fertility reduction. The religion of the scientific dictatorship in a nutshell.
It wasn’t the first time that Mr. Sachs called for global coordination in regards to population control. In a September 2009 UN press release, Sachs not only lamented human activity on the planet, but argued for scientists and engineers to take the steering-wheel in this process:
“We’re in the age of this planet where human activity dominates the earth’s processes. Humanity has become so large in absolute number and in economic activity that we have overtaken earth processes in vital ways to the point of changing the climate, the hydrologic cycle,” he told the UN Conference on Trade and Development.”
“We don’t necessarily need diplomats around the table”, Sachs continued. “We need engineers around the table, scientists around the table. We need to put the cards down and have a new kind of process.”
What kind of model does Sachs envision for his usurping utopia? He stated in an Economist publication in 2000:
“The model to emulate is the Rockefeller Foundation, the pre-eminent development institution of the 20th century, which showed what grant aid targeted on knowledge could accomplish.”
I don’t have to remind readers that it was the Rockefeller Foundation that funded and developed vaccines designed to reduce your fertility, and intended to distribute these vaccines on a mass-scale.
In his commentary The Specter of Malthus Returns, Sachs gives an adequate description of Agenda 21 without actually mentioning the UN plan for wealth redistribution and global population reduction:
“We will need to rethink modern diets and urban design to achieve healthier lifestyles that also reduce consumption. And to stabilize the global population at around eight billion, we will have to help Africa and other regions in speeding their demographic transition. We are definitely not yet on such a trajectory. We will need new policies to push markets down that path and to promote technological advances in resource saving. We will need a new politics to recognize the importance of a sustainable growth strategy and global cooperation to achieve it.”
As Paul Joseph Watson reported in his September 2010 article Global Tax Scam Shifts From Climate Change to Poverty, the pretexts under which the ongoing effort to establish a world government is moving forward is undergoing a transformation. The focus has now drifted away from the thoroughly debunked global warming myth to poverty-reduction. As usually is the case, once the pretext is sold to the unsuspecting, the eugenicists move in to “reduce fertility.” Global government, in other words, to facilitate global scientific dictatorship.\
Top Scientist: Fluoride Already Shown to Cause 10,000 Cancer Deaths
Water fluoridation is a highly controversial topic, with many individuals voicing massive concern over the practice. In contrast, some stick to the concept that there isn’t any association between fluoride and any real negative effects. Fluoride, however, is indeed a toxic substance, and has been tied with numerous health complications in well-established research. Fluoride can be found in many water supplies, toothpaste, and even food at alarming levels. While it may sound shocking to many, some research is even drawing a close connection between fluoride and an increased cancer risk.
Yiamouyiannis documents research showing that fluoride increases the tumor growth rate by 25% at only 1 ppm, produces melanotic tumors, transforms normal cells into cancer cells and increases the carcinogenesis of other chemicals. For the original references to these studies, refer to Yiamouyiannis’ pamphlet, Lifesavers Guide to Fluoridation.
In 1997, it was shown that fluoridation caused about 10,000 cancer deaths in epidemiological studies by Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the Cytochemistry Section at the National Cancer Institute and Yiamouyiannis. Despite the findings occurring in 1997, they were not reluctantly released until 1989. After analyzing the study results in rats, it was found that animals who drank fluoridated water:
Showed an increase in tumors and cancers in oral squamous cells.
Developed a rare form of bone cancer called osteosarcoma.
Showed an increased in thyroid follicular cell tumors.
Developed a rare form of liver cancer known as hepatocholangiocarcinoma.
Other research resurfaced by Dr. Dean Burk, former chief of cytochemistry at the National Cancer Institute for 30 years, also shows that fluoride increases the cancer death rate. Dr Burk refers to a study conducted which compares the 10 largest U.S. cities with fluoridation and the 10 largest without. What researchers found was that following fluoridation, deaths from cancer went up immediately- in as little as a year.
To reduce fluoride levels to a the greatest degree, activists must demand that the government stop fluoridating the water supplies. Water fluoridation has not only been linked to an increased cancer risk, but a decreased IQ in children. In fact, the findings forced the government to call for lower fluoridation levels nationwide. Until water fluoridation comes to a halt, the easiest way to reduce fluoride exposure is to invest in a reverse osmosis water filtration system. Drinking distilled water for 3-6 months may also reduce the soft tissue fluoride levels, but not bone levels. Soft tissue fluoride levels cause the greatest health problems.
New Scientific Evidence Forces Government to Reverse Its Stance on Fluoride in the Water Supply
Why are some states simply ignoring the latest studies, and passing new laws that will hurt your teeth and harm your health? Action Alert!
Water fluoridation was introduced to the United States in the 1940s as a way to use waste product from the manufacture of aluminum, a waste product that was expensive to dispose of and which was harming cattle and farmland. Since then, the federal government has taken the stance that the fluoridation of drinking water, which conveniently disposed of the waste, is vitally important to help prevent tooth decay; the CDC called it one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century. But the the latest scientific studies have finally made the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) change their tune on how much fluoride is safe.
The data indicates that dental fluorosis—damage to the teeth from fluoride, ranging from lacy white markings or spots on the enamel to staining and pitting of the tooth surface—happens when fluoride levels are too high. Water is only one of several sources of fluoride. Other common sources include dental products such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, prescription fluoride supplements, fluoride applied by dental professionals, and exposure through our food, which is often sprayed with fluoride-based pesticides.
Today the fluoride in your water mostly comes from the phosphate fertilizer industry—but it’s still toxic waste, containing other byproducts such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. And two studies show that fluoride increases the accumulation of lead in bone, teeth, and other calcium-rich tissues, transporting heavy metals into areas of your body they normally would not be able to go—like your brain.
Another study revealed that prolonged, high intake of fluoride can increase the risk of brittle bones, fractures, and crippling bone abnormalities. Longtime readers may recall our 2008 article on the effects of fluoride on teeth and bones (harming kidney patients worst of all); we also noted that fluoride is a known neurotoxin, and can have detrimental effects on the thyroid, which could affect intelligence.
Moreover, fluoride can combine with other chemicals in the water to make them even more harmful. For example, when chloramines combine with the fluoride in water, they work together to extract lead from old plumbing systems, which leads to the accumulation of lead in the water supply.
EPA and HHS now recommend the level of fluoride in drinking water to be set “at the lowest end of the current optimal range”—that is, no more than 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water instead of the current recommended range which goes as high as 1.2 milligrams.
Despite studies so compelling that the federal government has started back-pedaling, the states of New Jersey and Vermont are attempting to mandate the fluoridation of water supply. Unfortunately, the New Jersey bill is very close to being passed. By contrast, Illinois and New Hampshire have introduced bills to prohibit fluoride in drinking water.
In New Jersey, both S959 in the Senate and A1811 in the Assembly are on red alert—they have been reported out of committee and are already on the floor, so they can be voted upon at any time. These bills mandate the fluoridation of water. At minimum, this is a freedom of choice issue—citizens should be able to choose whether they want to ingest fluoride or not. Write your legislators and ask them to oppose these bills—take action now!
In Vermont, H615 (currently in the Health Care Committee) contains many provisions to do with oral care—so we are specifically opposing section 108a, which mandates fluoridation of water. It requires that any municipality, government agency, or other entity that owns or controls a water system shall maintain fluoride in the water supply. Write your representative and request an amendment to strike out that part of the bill—take action now!
In New Hampshire: HB1529 would amend current law to say, “No fluoride, nor any chemical containing fluoride, shall be introduced into the public water supply,” as well as other specific provisions against the the use of herbicides within ten miles upgradient (that is, uphill) from a water intake of a domestic water supply. Write your representative and express your strong support for this bill—take action now!
In Illinois: HB5383 would do one thing: repeal the current fluoridation mandate. The bill is now in the Environmental Health Committee. Write your representative and express your strong support for this bill—take action now!
Scientists say sugar is as toxic as alcohol – and there should be a drinking age for soda
Sure, sugar’s bad for you. But should we establish a drinking age for sugary sodas? According to UC San Francisco pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig, the answer is emphatically yes. He says that added sweeteners have health effects comparable to alcohol and tobacco, and should be regulated accordingly. In a comment piece for the journal Nature, Lustig and his colleagues argue that the state should selectively block access to sugar, using some pretty stiff rules.
For years, Lustig has advocated against added sugar, specifically sweeteners that include fructose. In the recent opinion piece, Lustig and his colleagues Laura A. Schmidt and Claire D. Brindis point out that fructose and other sugars can cause liver toxicity, among other chronic diseases. They write:
A little is not a problem, but a lot kills – slowly. If international bodies are truly concerned about public health, they must consider limiting fructose – and its main delivery vehicles, the added sugars HFCS and sucrose – which pose dangers to individuals and to society as a whole.
To restrict sugar, the researchers start with ideas drawn from existing alcohol and tobacco restrictions. They suggest establishing taxes on “sweetened fizzy drinks (soda), other sugar-sweetened beverages (for example, juice, sports drinks and chocolate milk) and sugared cereal.” In addition, they advocate that we reduce the availability of sugar, particularly to children. This restriction would make it more difficult for vending machines to sell sweet drinks and sugary snacks in schools and in workplaces, building on already existing regulations that have removed sodas from some schools.
But there are even bigger steps to be taken in limiting the availability of added sugars. Lustig et. al. write:
States could apply zoning ordinances to control the number of fast-food outlets and convenience stores in low-income communities, and especially around schools, while providing incentives for the establishment of grocery stores and farmer’s markets. Another option would be to limit sales during school operation, or to designate an age limit (such as 17) for the purchase of drinks with added sugar, particularly soda. Indeed, parents in South Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, recently took this upon themselves by lining up outside convenience stores and blocking children from entering them after school. Why couldn’t a public-health directive do the same?
Refusing to allow fast food restaurants in certain areas? Banning children from convenience stores? I just can’t see anyone accepting changes this radical. Do the researchers really think that people will sit back and let the government take away pastries, candy, and soda? Over our pudgy dead bodies. Surprisingly, the researchers don’t see sugar cravings as their biggest obstacle.
Regulating sugar will not be easy – particularly in the ‘emerging markets’ of developing countries where soft drinks are often cheaper than potable water or milk. We recognize that societal intervention to reduce the supply and demand for sugar faces an uphill political battle against a powerful sugar lobby, and will require active engagement from all stakeholders.
So the scientists think the biggest problem with regulating sugar is the sugar lobby*. But even without the lobbyists, would people ever cede their right to eat sweets?
Though sugar undoubtedly causes disease, I have a hard time accepting that we’ll see the establishment of sugar regulations. And it’s not just because the populace would rise up in protest.
One impetus for tobacco and alcohol regulations is protecting others. Tobacco can cause cancer in the smoker and those who are exposed to second-hand smoke. Alcohol is not only an addictive substance that can poison the body in large enough quantities, but also impairs judgment to the point where a drinker might, say, get into a car and plow into another vehicle or a pedestrian. The government doesn’t regulate these substances just to protect the smokers and drinkers, it does so to protect others from the smokers and drinkers. Unless we discover that sugar hurts the people who watch us eat it, strict restrictions may be a long time coming.
*Not to be confused with a candy-filled receiving room, the sugar lobby is actually very powerful. Even if it’s hard to take seriously when you picture the lobbyists working out of gingerbread offices.
Influenza or the flu is a respiratory infection caused by a virus that can be contagious. Symptoms include chills, fever, nausea, runny nose, sore throat, head and body aches, fatigue and loss of appetite. Symptoms can last from 12 hours to two to three days. It is only dangerous for people who are immune compromised which is often the elderly. When people die from the flu it is usually because of other illnesses or complications. Many people in the holistic community believe that the flu “symptoms” are a sign of internal toxification and a body that is out of balance.
Every year, thousands of people show symptoms of the flu. It seems to run in a cycle starting in the fall and continuing thru ought the winter until spring. There are many different strains of flu virus and therefore, as people travel the globe we are always getting exposed to new viruses. Children will usually complain of body aches and stop eating like they normally do. They will often run a fever of 102 degrees and sleep often through the day. The fever will spike during the night and ease up during the day.
There have been studies showing that there is a correlation between lack of sunshine, Vitamin D3 deficiency and the incidence of flu. Many people prepare themselves as they go into the winter months by taking vitamin and mineral supplements, herbs and by getting plenty of rest and eating a good healthy diet rich in vegetables.
There is no treatment once you have the flu other than keeping hydrated, bed rest and perhaps pain medication for the aches and pains. There are many herbs that may help you as well as essential oils and detoxing baths. The fever is part of the immune system process to “burn” any bacteria and viruses that cannot live in high temperatures.
The seasonal flu vaccine used to be recommended for the elderly. In 2003 the American Academyof Pediatrics and the Center for Disease Control began to recommend it for children under the age of five as well. It is now recommended every year for every man, woman and child from the age of two throughout the rest of life as the result of the exaggerated H1N1 Flu pandemic of 2009. That pandemic was predicted to kill millions of people and ended up being a very mild flu season for most countries. This is a political vaccine with no scientific basis that will make millions for the flu manufactures and cause health problems for thousands. How does a person sift through the conflicting information provided? As a 30+ year independent vaccine researcher, I hope these facts will help you decide if you or your children will receive the seasonal flu vaccine.
The first H1N1 flu vaccine of 2009 has proven to cause many unwanted side effects. Between the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) inWashington and other reliable sources, the side effects are causing problems one might see in a horror film. Not only was the vaccine rushed to the market, it was based on flawed reports from the Center of Disease Control and the World Health Organization.
It is common knowledge that flu vaccines have always had the potential to cause serious side effects. Each year pharmaceutical companies release new flu shots that are virtually untested. They combine various flu virus strains based on an educated guess and then recommend the shot to everyone, including children and pregnant mothers. According to the CDC Vital Statistics Report 1999 – 2003, influenza death for children under the age of 5 skyrocketed as the government began to implement the flu vaccine for the children. From 1999 to early 2002, death rates were declining from 25 down to 10 per year, then in the latter half of 2002 the CDC mandated the flu vaccine for children, and the death rate climbed from 25 deaths per year in 1999 to over 90 in 2003! Death is a pretty bad vaccine side affect!
1999 — – 29 deaths
2000 — – 19 deaths
2001 — – 13 deaths
2002 — – 12 deaths
2003 — – 90 deaths (Year of mass vaccinations of children under age 5 years)
2004 — Unreported
2005 —- Unreported
2006 — – 78 deaths
2007 — – 88 deaths
2008 — 116 deaths (40.9% vaccinated at age 6 months to 23 months)
Pregnancy and Miscarriages
What other side effects did we see with the H1N1 flu shot in 2009-2010? According to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), there were 178 miscarriages after mothers received the H1N1 flu vaccine and 70 other documented from reliable sources. Considering that only 10% of all adverse events get reported, we know that the true numbers were much worse. According to testimony before the CDC advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV), Thursday, October 28, 2010 presented by Dr. Renee Tocco, on behalf of the National Coalition of Organized Women, (NCOW) the number of miscarriages were as high as 3,587 nationwide. Miscarriages, a pretty bad vaccine side effect!
Dr. Renee went on to testify that the H1N1 flu pandemic was based on false information from the Center of Disease Control and the World Health Organization. They claimed the pandemic in April 2009 was based on 56 maternal deaths saying it was a “Never before seen virus”. (This virus was in three flu vaccines given to thousands of people from 2006 forward: FluMist, Focetria (swine flu) and Fluvarin all contain the H1N1 virus.) They also stated the following: “In spite of the 178 VAERS fetal-death-associated influenza vaccine reports, the FDA has approved seasonal flu vaccines for the 2010 – 2011 flu season that, in addition to another “A” strain and a “B” strain of influenza, contain the “same” level of the “same” 2009-A-H1N1 viruses that were present in the 2009 – 2010 pandemic “swine flu” vaccines and has again approved several Thimerosal-preserved flu-shot formulations that may be given to pregnant women without a prominent “Warning: Contains Mercury” caution on the vial.” It is very clear that the Center for Disease Control is not about protecting people but focused on pushing unsafe vaccines on the unsuspecting public.
In 2010, Dr. Alicia Siston studied the 56 women who died supposedly from the H1N1 flu. Her study was referenced at this hearing, showing that most of these deaths were “Unconfirmed” as being H1N1 related deaths despite the fact that the CDC had tests that could have verified for certain that these were H1N1 related. The CDC used the deaths of these women to push their agenda…flu vaccines for every American, without sufficient reason.
Influenza Package Inserts
Every vaccine has risks, even the manufactures of vaccines admit that some recipients will die or be injured. Unfortunately, for the injured or the families of the dead, the manufactures are completely protected from all liability. The following is from a vaccine package insert admitting that it can be dangerous for many, that is was untested for safety in pregnancy and no studies were completed showing how it may affect the nursing baby:
Section 8- “This medication should not be used if you have certain medical conditions. Before using this medicine, consult your doctor or pharmacist if you have: history of allergy to egg or egg products, immune deficiency (e.g., agammaglobulinemia, HIV infection, leukemia, lymphoma, other cancers or radiation). Also avoid close contact with people who are immune-compromised (e.g., HIV infection, cancer therapy) for at least 21 days. This medication is not recommended for use during pregnancy. It is also not known whether FLUVIRIN® or FluZone can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. It is not known whether this drug passes into breast milk. Consult your doctor before breast-feeding.”
How is it that airports offer the flu vaccine, local drug stores, grocery store pharmacies and many other places where they do not have your medical records? Are doctors telling pregnant women that their unborn children may be at risk? Are they telling moms that the vaccines they are injecting may also contain (Thimerosal) that can potentially harm the unborn developing brains and be dangerous for them too? What happens if the Thimerosal passes into the breast milk of nursing moms?
Forced Influenza vaccines
According to the book, Make an Informed Vaccine Decision by Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, “In the fall of 2005 John Hopkins University initiated a campaign to mandate influenza vaccination for all health care workers. However, despite free and easy access to the vaccine, only 40% voluntarily get one; 30% are afraid of catching the flu from the vaccine itself. A survey reported by the Associated Press found that doctors and nurses are the least likely to be vaccinated. In fact, 70% of all doctors and nurses do not get the annual flu vaccine.”
All major hospitals and other medical facilities are now requiring that all employees subject themselves to flu shots or they will be fired from their jobs! Imagine working as a nurse for 25 years only to be told that you no longer have the right to choose what drug you must take to keep your job. This is a direct violation of personal rights and overrides many state laws that give people the right to choose. It will not stop there…soon it will be the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus) vaccine because of the pertussis outbreaks across the country. What vaccine will be required next, the cancer or AIDS vaccine? I am encouraging nurses and doctors to unite and fight these unlawful mandates. Perhaps when we have numerous law suits in the courts, hospitals and other medical facilities will stop acting like a medical mafia.
You now must decide who you are going to trust for your information and health care recommendations. I encourage people to thoroughly investigate all medications and vaccines before they agree to inject them. I know it can be very confusing as conflicting information is everywhere. Ultimately, it is your right to choose what your family does.
As a 30-year vaccine investigator, I know the dedication and time involved to make informed vaccine decisions. I personally no longer trust the CDC, the FDA and the current medical establishment that recommend routine vaccines for all people. They have failed to protect our families, and no longer represent the people. The medical industry is fueled by greed and special interest groups, and unfortunately many aspects of our government are highly influenced or perhaps even controlled by pharmaceutical companies.
Flu Mist: The nasal vaccine has never been studied to see if the viruses can penetrate the nasal cavity membrane between the sinus and the brain (barrier). When the CDC was asked if this had been studied by Dr. Mark Geier, their response was “No”.
Common Flu Vaccine Ingredients include:
Egg protein – causes egg allergies.
Formaldehyde – Formalyn (formalin) is a 37 percent solution of gaseous formaldehyde which includes methanol. Known toxin used in embalming.
Polysorbate 80 – shown to cause infertility in mice.
Sodium Chloride and Calcium Chloride.
Monosodium Glutamate (MSG): C5H8NNaO4, a Stabilizer MSG – man-made excito-toxin.
Potassium phosphate – a soluble salt which is used as a fertilizer, a food additive and a fungicide.
Thimerosal a form of mercury still found in some multi-vile vaccines.
Polyoxidonium – Synthetic polymers and nanomaterials display selective phenotypic effects in cells and in the body that affect signal transduction mechanisms involved in inflammation, differentiation, proliferation, and apoptosis.
Squalene – An oil based adjuvant that has never been approved in the United States as safe, can cause blindness, autoimmune dysfunction and can inhibit sperm production. More than two dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers from ten different laboratories throughout the U.S., Europe, Asia, and Australia have been published documenting the development of autoimmune disease in animals subjected to squalene-based adjuvants. Novartis will make a flu vaccine using MF59 consisting of squalene.
Tween 80 – A study (December 2005) discovered that Tween80 can cause anaphylaxis, a sometimes fatal reaction characterized by a sharp drop in blood pressure, hives, and breathing difficulties.
Human Diploid Tissue – organ and tissue from aborted baby tissue is now used in manufacturing many vaccines.
Contraindications for administering the various flu vaccines the manufactures package insert are dismissed. The package inserts claim the following:
MedImmune – Fluzone
8. USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS
Fluzone and Fluzone High-Dose
“Pregnancy Category C: “Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Fluzone or Fluzone High-Dose. It is also not known whether Fluzone or Fluzone High-Dose can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. Fluzone or Fluzone High-Dose should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.”
Pregnancy Category B: “A developmental and reproductive toxicity study has been performed in female rabbits at a dose approximately 20 times the human dose (on a mg/kg basis) and has revealed no evidence of impaired female fertility or harm to the fetus due to Fluzone Intradermal. There are, however, no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women. Because animal reproduction studies are not always predictive of human response, Fluzone Intradermal should be used during pregnancy only if clearly needed. Healthcare providers are encouraged to register women who receive Fluzone Intradermal during pregnancy in Sanofi Pasteur Inc.’s vaccination pregnancy registry by calling 1-800-822-2463.”
8.3. Nursing Mothers
“It is not known whether Fluzone or Fluzone Intradermal is excreted in human milk. Because many drugs are excreted in human milk, caution should be exercised when Fluzone or Fluzone Intradermal is administered to a nursing woman.”
8.4. Pediatric Use
“Safety and effectiveness of Fluzone in children below the age of 6 months have not been established. Safety and immunogenicity of Fluzone was evaluated in children 6 months through 8 years of age. [See Adverse Reactions (6.1) and Clinical Studies (14.1).]”
“Safety and effectiveness of Fluzone High-Dose in persons <65 years of age have not been established.”
“Safety and effectiveness of Fluzone Intradermal in persons <18 years of age have not been established. In a clinical trial, 97 infants and toddlers 6 months through 35 months of age and 160 children 3 years through 8 years of age were enrolled to receive two injections of Fluzone Intradermal. Infants and children in a control group received two injections of Fluzone. Fluzone Intradermal was associated with increased local reactogenicity relative to Fluzone. The size of the study was not adequate to reliably evaluate serious adverse events or the immune response elicited by Fluzone Intradermal relative to Fluzone.”
8.5. Geriatric Use
“…in two observational studies of Fluzone in 118 adults 19 through 59 year.”
Flu Mist – MedImmune- Here is some points of interest taken from the package insert: 5.7 Limitations of Vaccine Effectiveness- “FluMist may not protect all individuals receiving the vaccine.” 8.1 Pregnancy
“Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with FluMist. It is not known whether FluMist can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity. FluMist should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed. The effect of the vaccine on embryo-fetal and pre-weaning development was evaluated in a developmental toxicity study using pregnant rats receiving the frozen formulation. Groups of animals were administered the vaccine either once (during the period of organogenesis on gestation day 6) or twice (prior to gestation and during the period of organogenesis on gestation day 6), 250 microliter/rat/occasion (approximately 110-140 human dose equivalents), by intranasal instillation. No adverse effects on pregnancy, parturition, lactation, embryo-fetal or pre-weaning development were observed. There were no vaccine-related fetal malformations or other evidence of teratogenesis noted in this study.”
8.3 Nursing Mothers
“It is not known whether FluMist is excreted in human milk. Therefore, as some viruses are excreted in human milk, caution should be exercised if FluMist is administered to nursing mothers.”
8.4 Pediatric Use
“Safety and effectiveness of the vaccine has been demonstrated for children 2 years of age and older with reduction in culture-confirmed influenza rates compared to active control (injectable influenza vaccine made by Sanofi Pasteur Inc.) and placebo [see Clinical Studies (14.1)]. FluMist is not approved for use in children <24 months of age. FluMist use in children <24 months has been associated with increased risk of hospitalization and wheezing in clinical trials [see Warnings and Precautions (5.1) and Adverse Reactions (6.1)].”
Charts used with permission from Raymond Obomsawin, PhD. Researcher and Neil Miller.
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm Package inserts for all flu vaccines
For more information purchase Mary Tocco’s “Are Vaccines Safe?” DVD
Recommended reading available in our store if you want additional information on this and other vaccines:
Make an Informed Vaccine Decision for the Health of Your Child
Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD MPH with Neil Z. Miller
Vaccination Social Violence and Criminality
Harris Coulter PhD.
The Virus and the Vaccine, The story of a Cancer Causing Monkey Virus
Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher
THE SV-40 VIRUS: HAS TAINTED POLIO VACCINE CAUSED AN INCREASE IN CANCER
United StatesCongress House of Representatives
This information provided as educational material only and not to be construed as medical advice.
It is up to the parent to decide if they want to vaccinate.
(CBS/AP) Trace levels of medicines and personal care products have been detected in New York City’s drinking water.
The city’s Department of Environmental Protection drew samples from three upstate watersheds between March and December last year and analyzed them for 72 compounds, including antibiotics and prescription drugs.
The DEP said the tests detected 14 drugs and personal care products at least once but that none was found at levels that would pose a risk to the city’s 9 million residents.
And you thought Fluorideof the water supply was your biggest risk!
“For most of these detected compounds, a person would have to drink at least tens of thousands of glasses of water a day to get one effective dose of the substance or to meet a toxicity threshold,” the DEP said in a statement.
Not everyone agreed with the DEP’s assessment of risk.
Although the level for each contaminant detected might be too low to pose a threat to health, “we cannot be assured that the final mix is safe,” Dr. Olga Naidenko, a scientist with the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog organization, told CBS News in an email.
The study follows one done in 2009 that also detected tiny amounts of pharmaceuticals and personal care products, including penicillin and the insect repellent DEET, in the city’s drinking water.
The initial study was prompted in part by an Associated Press investigation that found pharmaceuticals in drinking water of dozens of the country’s major water providers, serving 41 million people.
Human health risks from trace pharmaceuticals are unclear, and the federal government does not regulate their levels in drinking water.
The DEP said it monitors about 250 contaminants in the city’s water.
New Study: Fluoride Can Damage the Brain – Avoid Use in Children
NEW YORK — “The prolonged ingestion of fluoride may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system,” concludes a review of studies by researchers Valdez-Jimenez, et al. published in Neurologia (June 2011), reports New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).
The research team reports, “It is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain fluoride, particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride.” (1)
“Fluoride can be toxic by ingesting one part per million (ppm), and the effects are not immediate, as they can take 20 years or more to become evident,” they write.
Most fluoridating U.S. public drinking water suppliers add fluoride chemicals to deliver 1 ppm fluoride (equal to about 1 milligram per quart) intending to benefit teeth and not to purify the water.
“Fluoridation clearly jeopardizes our children and must be stopped,” says attorney Paul Beeber, President, NYSCOF. “We can actually see how fluoride has damaged children’s teeth with dental fluorosis; but we can’t see the harm it’s doing to their brains and other organs. No U.S. researcher is even looking,” says Beeber.
Valdez-Jimenez, et al. describe studies that show fluoride induces changes in the brain’s physical structure and biochemistry which affects the neurological and mental development of individuals including cognitive processes, such as learning and memory.
“Fluoride is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, which may cause biochemical and functional changes in the nervous system during pregnancy, since the fluoride accumulates in brain tissue before birth,” they write.*
Animal studies show fluoride’s toxic brain effects include classic brain abnormalities found in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, Valdez-Jimenez’s team reports.
A different research team (Tang et al.) reported in 2008 that “A qualitative review of the studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ.” (Biological Trace Element Research) (2)
In 2006, the U.S. National Research Council’s (NRC) expert fluoride panel reviewed fluoride toxicology and concluded, “It’s apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.” And, “Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.” (3)
On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the “Top Ten Common Household Toxins” and described fluoride as both “neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed.” (4)
Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., was the first U.S. scientist to find evidence that fluoride damages the brain. She published her animal study in a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal in 1995 (5) and then was fired for doing so.(6)
Vyvyan Howard, M.D., Ph.D., a prominent fetal toxicologist and past-President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, said that current brain/fluoride research convinces him that we should stop water fluoridation.
Many communities have stopped or rejected fluoridation in the past several years – the most recent is Fairbanks, Alaska. This year, seven New York City Council Members co-sponsored legislation to stop fluoridation in NYC.
*Translated from Spanish using Google Translation
Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, 516-433-8882 [email protected]
Silver Spring, MD /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – CoMeD – While the United Nations (UN) actively questions the use of vaccines containing a neurotoxic mercury compound, the Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs (CoMeD), a Maryland-based, non-profit organization, is urging the UN to ban it.
In mid-March, governments were asked to send the UN secretariat “information on mercury use in pharmaceuticals, especially vaccines.” The request was made in preparation for the United Nations Environmental Programme’s third intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC3) on mercury, scheduled for this fall. The purpose of the INC meetings is to develop a legally-binding, global mercury treaty by 2013.
CoMeD was pleased by this call for information because CoMeD provided scientific data about health hazards caused by mercury in vaccines to various international delegates at the second INC meeting in January in Chiba, Japan.
Since then, CoMeD has publicized new studies proving that the mercury in vaccines and dental amalgams, or “silver” fillings, is associated with neurological diseases such as autism in children and Alzheimer’s disease in adults.
One study from the University of Brazil recognizes vaccines as essential but suggests that the use of Thimerosal, a mercury-based compound sometimes used as a vaccine preservative, be reconsidered. Recent articles in Folia Neuropathologica, Middle East Current Psychiatry, the Journal of Immunotoxicology, the Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, and the Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology confirm the toxicity of the dose of mercury in Thimerosal-preserved vaccines.
In humans, Thimerosal is recognized to cause cancer, genetic mutations and birth defects. In 1999, the U.S. Public Health Service and American Academy of Pediatrics jointly called for its removal from U.S. vaccines “as soon as possible.” Thimerosal has since been replaced by the much less toxic compounds, like 2-phenoxyethanol (2-PE), in preserved vaccines licensed for U.S. use by the FDA since 2001. Though most doses contain Thimerosal, flu shots are now strongly recommended for pregnant women and children.
A CoMeD analysis has shown that replacing Thimerosal, a compound that is 50% bioaccumulative mercury by weight, with 2-phenoxyphenol in all vaccines, including the flu shot, is both economical and safer. Additionally, CoMeD has sued the FDA for its failure to comply with the law and enforce preservative safety regulations.
Furthermore, vaccine-safety proponents are encouraging those who are responsible for international vaccination campaigns to heed the overwhelming evidence that human health risks are linked to mercury and other vaccine ingredients.
Rev. Lisa K. Sykes, President of CoMeD, is warning groups including the Global Alliance for Vaccines, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to stop spreading mercury to other continents: “While Thimerosal has been removed from most vaccines in the United States, pharmaceutical companies and the World Health Organization continue to dump mercury-laced vaccines on developing countries. No ethic can justify providing prosperous nations with mercury-free vaccines while endangering children in poor nations by exposing them to this neurotoxin.”
SOURCE Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs (CoMeD)
Copyright  PR Newswire. All Rights Reserved.
A United Nations forecast of the possible movement of the radioactive plume coming from crippled Japanese reactors shows it churning across the Pacific, and touching the Aleutian Islands on Thursday before hitting Southern California late Friday.
U.S. Calls Radiation ‘Extremely High;’ Sees Japan Nuclear Crisis Worsening (March 17, 2011)
U.S. Urges Wider No-Go Area Around Nuclear Plant (March 17, 2011)
In Europe and China, Japan’s Crisis Renews Fears About Nuclear Power (March 17, 2011)
The Lede Blog: Japan Earthquake and Tsunami: How to Help (March 11, 2011)
Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and, at worst, would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States, even if hints of it are ultimately detectable. In a similar way, radiation from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 spread around the globe and reached the West Coast of the United States in 10 days, its levels measurable but minuscule.
The projection, by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, an arm of the United Nations in Vienna, gives no information about actual radiation levels but only shows how a radioactive plume would probably move and disperse.
The forecast, calculated Tuesday, is based on patterns of Pacific winds at that time and the predicted path is likely to change as weather patterns shift.
On Sunday, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it expected that no “harmful levels of radioactivity” would travel from Japan to the United States “given the thousands of miles between the two countries.”
The test ban treaty group routinely does radiation projections in an effort to understand which of its global stations to activate for monitoring the worldwide ban on nuclear arms testing. It has more than 60 stations that sniff the air for radiation spikes and uses weather forecasts and powerful computers to model the transport of radiation on the winds.
On Wednesday, the agency declined to release its Japanese forecast, which The New York Times obtained from other sources. The forecast was distributed widely to the agency’s member states.
But in interviews, the technical specialists of the agency did address how and why the forecast had been drawn up.
“It’s simply an indication,” said Lassina Zerbo, head of the agency’s International Data Center. “We have global coverage. So when something happens, it’s important for us to know which station can pick up the event.”
For instance, the Japan forecast shows that the radioactive plume will probably miss the agency’s monitoring stations at Midway and in the Hawaiian Islands but is likely to be detected in the Aleutians and at a monitoring station in Sacramento.
The forecast assumes that radioactivity in Japan is released continuously and forms a rising plume. It ends with the plume heading into Southern California and the American Southwest, including Nevada, Utah and Arizona. The plume would have continued eastward if the United Nations scientists had run the projection forward.
Earlier this week, the leading edge of the tangible plume was detected by the Navy’s Seventh Fleet when it was operating about 100 miles northeast of the Japanese reactor complex. On Monday, the Navy said it had repositioned its ships and aircraft off Japan “as a precautionary measure.”
The United Nations agency has also detected radiation from the stricken reactor complex at its detector station in Gunma, Japan, which lies about 130 miles to the southwest.
The chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Gregory B. Jaczko, said Monday that the plume posed no danger to the United States. “You just aren’t going to have any radiological material that, by the time it traveled those large distances, could present any risk to the American public,” he said in a White House briefing.
Mr. Jaczko was asked if the meltdown of a core of one of the reactors would increase the chance of harmful radiation reaching Hawaii or the West Coast.
“I don’t want to speculate on various scenarios,” he replied. “But based on the design and the distances involved, it is very unlikely that there would be any harmful impacts.”
The likely path of the main Japanese plume across the Pacific has also caught the attention of Europeans, many of whom recall how the much closer Chernobyl reactor in Ukraine began spewing radiation.
In Germany on Wednesday, the Federal Office for Radiation Protection held a news conference that described the threat from the Japanese plume as trifling and said there was no need for people to take iodine tablets. The pills can prevent poisoning from the atmospheric release of iodine-131, a radioactive byproduct of nuclear plants. The United States is also carefully monitoring and forecasting the plume’s movements. The agencies include the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy.
On Wednesday, Steven Chu, the energy secretary, told Congress that the United States was planning to deploy equipment in Japan that could detect radiation exposure on the ground and in the air. In total, the department’s team includes 39 people and more than eight tons of equipment.
“We continue to offer assistance in any way we can,” Dr. Chu said at a hearing, “as well as informing ourselves of what the situation is.”
U.S. shows growing alarm over Japan nuclear crisis
By Jeff Mason and Tom Doggett Jeff Mason And Tom Doggett – Wed Mar 16, 7:14 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States showed increasing alarm about the nuclear situation in Japan on Wednesday and urged its citizens to stay clear of an earthquake-crippled power plant — going further in its warnings than Japan itself.
As operators of the Fukushima plant pledged to try again to use helicopters to douse overheating reactors, U.S. officials warned about the risks of getting anywhere near the area and relied on their own officials for details about the danger.
“The situation has deteriorated in the days since the tsunami and … the situation has grown at times worse with potential greater damage and fallout from the reactor,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.
U.S. officials took pains not to criticize the Japanese government, which has shown signs of being overwhelmed by the crisis, but Washington’s actions indicated a divide with the Japanese about the perilousness of the situation.
The State Department recommended that U.S. citizens within 50 miles of the plant leave the area or stay indoors.
Japan’s government has asked people living within 12 miles to evacuate and those between 12 miles and 18 miles to stay indoors.
The top U.S. nuclear regulator cast doubt on emergency workers’ ability to cool overheating reactors, saying radiation levels may give them “lethal doses” of radiation.
“We believe that around the reactor site there are high levels of radiation,” said Gregory Jaczko. “It would be very difficult for emergency workers to get near the reactors. The doses they could experience would potentially be lethal doses in a very short period of time.”
An official at Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said on Thursday morning local time that the level of radiation detected at the plant had fallen steadily over the past 12 hours.
The U.S. military has ordered its forces to stay 50 miles away from the plant, the Pentagon said. There are at least 55,000 U.S. forces in Japan and offshore assisting the relief operation.
“All of us are heartbroken by the images of what’s happening in Japan, and we’re reminded of how American leadership is critical to our closest allies,” President Barack Obama said in Washington.
“Even if those allies are themselves economically advanced and powerful, there are moments where they need our help, and we’re bound together by a common humanity,” he said.
High radiation levels prevented a helicopter from dropping water into the stricken Japanese plant’s No. 3 reactor to cool its fuel rods after an explosion damaged the roof and cooling system. Operators planned to try again on Thursday.
The State Department’s warning to U.S. citizens was based on new information collected by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy and other U.S. sources.
The United States is trying to deploy equipment in Japan that can detect radiation exposure at the ground level, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a congressional hearing.
The detection system is part of the 17,200 pounds (7,800 kg) of equipment and 39 personnel from the Energy Department sent to Japan, he said. The department has also provided equipment to monitor airborne radiation.
The United States is deploying additional radiation monitors on Hawaii and other U.S. islands even though it does not expect harmful levels of radiation to reach U.S. soil, environmental regulators said.
Chu declined to tell lawmakers, when asked, whether he was satisfied with Japan’s response so far to its nuclear crisis, which began after last Friday’s devastating 9.0 magnitude earthquake and resulting tsunami.
“I can’t really say. I think we hear conflicting reports,” Chu said.
“This is one of the reasons why (the United States is) there with boots on the ground, with detectors in the ground, not only to help assist (the) Japanese power company and the Japanese government but also for our own sake — to know what is really happening.”
Beyond the risk to workers at or near the damaged nuclear plant, one scientist, Dr. Ira Helfand, warned of possible widespread contamination of people and land.
“We need … to focus on the radioactive isotopes being dispersed at some distance from the plant, because this is going to cause a whole different set of health problems,” Helfand, past president of the anti-nuclear group Physicians for Social Responsibility, said in a telephone briefing.
The Obama administration has maintained its support for expanding U.S. use of nuclear energy despite renewed fears about its safety after the events in Japan.
But U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that the nuclear crisis raised questions about the use of nuclear energy in the United States.
“What’s happening in Japan raises questions about the costs and the risks associated with nuclear power, but we have to answer those. We get 20 percent of our energy right now in the United States from nuclear power,” she said in an interview with MSNBC in which she emphasized the need for a comprehensive U.S. energy policy.
(Additional reporting by Ayesha Rascoe, David Morgan, Andrew Quinn, Paul Eckert, Matt Spetalnick, Alister Bull, Patricia Zengerle, Steve Holland, Deborah Zabarenko and Phil Stewart; Editing by Peter Cooney)
U.S. radiation experts try to decipher reports from Japan
By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY
Updated 7h 37m ago |
The Japanese government’s radiation report for the country’s 47 prefectures Wednesday had a notable omission: Fukushima, ground zero in Japan’s nuclear crisis. Measurements from Ibaraki, just south of Fukushima, were also blanked out.
Radiation experts in the USA say that the lack of information about radioactivity released from the smoldering reactors makes it impossible to gauge the current danger, project how bad a potential meltdown might be or calculate how much fallout might reach the USA.
Japanese nuclear experts are hard at work gathering information, said Fred Mettler, the U.S. representative for the United Nation’s committee on the health effects of radiation. “They’re monitoring and evaluating and watching the meteorology,” he said. “They need to know what the dose rates are in various places, what direction the (radiation is) moving in and what’s causing it.”
Conflicting accounts of the radiation levels emerged in Tokyo and on Capitol Hill. Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said Wednesday that the radiation detected at the Fukushima plant had fallen steadily over the past 12 hours. But U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) chief Gregory Jaczko told a House energy subcommittee earlier in the day that radiation levels at the Fukushima plant were “extremely high.”
The chief of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, told reporters he will visit Japan to obtain “firsthand information” about the crisis and prod the Japanese government to provide more. Experts from the NRC, led by Charles Casto, were to arrive in the country on Wednesday.
Given accurate readings, U.S. experts can develop computer models of radiation released from the crippled reactors, factoring in prevailing winds, altitude and rainfall, said Owen Hoffman, a radiation expert from SENES Oak Ridge Inc., a consulting firm that calculated risks from Cold War nuclear tests.
One agency equipped to predict where the fallout may travel is the Department of Energy’s National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The center has tracked radiation emitted by the meltdowns at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Ukraine’s Chernobyl in 1986.
History may offer hints of what’s to come. At Three Mile Island, near Harrisburg, Pa., only a small amount of radiation was released before the meltdown was controlled. Chernobyl spewed radiation for days, which rode wind currents worldwide.
Radioactive iodine falls from the plume in rainfall and settles on the grass, where it’s eaten by cows and builds up in their milk. Decades after Three Mile Island, no cancers or deaths have been conclusively linked to the U.S. disaster. Researchers have logged 6,000 thyroid cancers in survivors of Chernobyl, all in people who were younger than 18 when they were exposed. That’s about one-third of the 14,000 projected to occur.
Thyroid cancer is a major risk because the thyroid needs iodine to make thyroid hormone, which regulates metabolism. For those downwind of Chernobyl, the highest dose exceeded 1 gray, a measure of the radioactivity absorbed in the thyroid.
Children who drank commercial milk during the Cold War nuclear tests received about one-tenth of that, on average, Hoffman said. That was enough to boost their thyroid cancer risk to one in 100, more than twice the usual risk.
The Chernobyl meltdown also contaminated vast tracts of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and northern Europe with radioactive cesium. “There are still limitations on the export of sheep from Cumbria, in the U.K., and reindeer from Scandinavia,” Hoffman said. Cesium also contaminated fish from Scandinavia’s northern lakes.
Cesium is absorbed by plants and works its way through the food chain, getting into meat and milk. Unlike radioactive iodine, which has a short half life, cesium lingers in the environment. “Radioactive iodine will be gone in a month,” Hoffman said. “Cesium’s going to be around for decades.”
VIENNA, March 17 (Reuters) – Low concentrations of radioactive particles from Japan’s disaster-hit nuclear power plant have been heading eastwards and are expected to reach North America in days, a Swedish official said on Thursday.
In Washington, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) said radioactivity would disperse over the long distance and it did not expect any harmful amounts to reach the country.
“We expect the United States to avoid any levels of harmful radiation,” NRC spokesman Joey Ledford told Reuters. “We do not anticipate any threat to American interests.”
The Swedish official, research director Lars-Erik De Geer of the Swedish Defence Research Institute, was citing data from a network of international monitoring stations set up to detect signs of any nuclear weapons tests.
Also stressing the levels were not dangerous for people, he predicted particles would eventually also continue across the Atlantic and reach Europe.
“It is not something you see normally,” he said by phone from Stockholm, adding the results he now had were based on observations from earlier in the week. But, “it is not high from any danger point of view.”
De Geer said he was convinced they would eventually be detected over the whole northern hemisphere.
“It is only a question of very, very low activities so it is nothing for people to worry about,” De Geer said.
“In the past when they had nuclear weapons tests in China … then there were similar clouds all the time without anybody caring about it at all,” he said.
De Geer said the main air movement in the northern half of the globe normally went from west to east, but suggested the direction occasionally changed and at times turned.
In Geneva, the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said on Thursday that a “northwesterly winter monsoon flow prevails over the eastern and northern part of Japan” and that this was expected to remain the case until around midnight GMT.
The New York Times earlier said a forecast of the possible movement of the radioactive plume showed it churning across the Pacific, and touching the Aleutian Islands on Thursday before hitting southern California late on Friday.
It said the projection was made by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO), a Vienna-based independent body for monitoring possible breaches of the test ban.
The CTBTO has more than 60 stations around the world which can pick up very low levels of radioactive particles such as caesium and iodine isotopes.
It continuously provides data to its member states, including Sweden, but does not make the details public.
De Geer said he believed the radioactive particles would “eventually also come here”.
The New York Times said health and nuclear experts emphasized radiation would be diluted as it travelled and at worst would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States.
In a similar way, radiation from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 spread around the globe and reached the west coast of the United States in 10 days, its levels measurable but minuscule. (Additional reporting by David Morgan in Washington; editing by Diana Abdallah)
Swedish Government: Radiation To Cover Entire Northern Hemisphere
The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones’ Facebook Infowars store
Paul Joseph Watson
March 17, 2011
Swedish Government: Radiation To Cover Entire Northern Hemisphere 170311top2
Suggesting that levels of radiation leaks from the stricken Fukushima plant are being grossly underreported by Japanese authorities, a Swedish government agency told Reuters today that not only will the radiation reach North America, but it will subsequently cover the entire northern hemisphere.
“Lars-Erik De Geer, research director at the Swedish Defense Research Institute, a government agency, was citing data from a network of international monitoring stations established to detect signs of any nuclear weapons tests,” reports Reuters.
“Stressing that the levels were not dangerous for people, he predicted the particles would continue across the Atlantic and eventually also reach Europe.”
De Geer said he was “convinced it would eventually be detected over the whole northern hemisphere,” according to the report, adding that radioactive particles would “eventually also come here,” referring to Europe.
De Geer’s prognosis arrives on the back of a study of data by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, which confirmed that the radioactive plume from Fukushima would reach the Aleutian Islands on Thursday before hitting southern California late on Friday. The CBTO has a network of radiation monitors deployed globally that can detect radioactive particles such as caesium and iodine isotopes.
Experts are correct in assuming that the initial waves of radiation will be low, but expect levels to rise in subsequent days as the effects of the three blasts to impact the Fukushima facility, which occurred on Saturday, Monday and Tuesday, manifest themselves in the form of increased radiation injected into the atmosphere.
“Naturally, with the credibility of every government around the world shot, it is no surprise that most consumer Geiger counter stores are sold out of inventory at this point, at virtually all price points,” writes Tyler Durden.
As we reported earlier, having confidence in the trustworthiness of governments globally who have habitually lied about the true threat posed by radiation, notably after the 3 Mile Island accident and the Chernobyl disaster, is somewhat less than wise.
However, at least the Swedes can be trusted to know a thing or two about detecting radiation. While the Soviets were furiously engaged in a cover-up of the Chernobyl disaster which occurred on April 26 1986, Swedish workers at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant were the first ones to detect the fallout from the accident two days later on April 28.
It was only after the workers failed to find the source of any radioactive leak at their own plant that the true horror of what had happened 1,100 km (680 miles) away in the western Soviet Union began to unravel.
The whole planet is united in hoping that Japanese technicians find some way to restore power and water cooling system to the Fukushima plant before that terrible scenario has any chance of repeating.
Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)
The video below shows how far the radiation clouds from Chernobyl spread across Europe, smothering virtually the entire continent within 7 days. Although agencies like the WHO and the IAEA claimed that only 9,000 people died as a consequence, more contemporary studies have shown that nearly a million people have been killed from cancers caused by the disaster over the course of the last 25 years.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.
“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.”
–Orlando Battista, Chemist.
Upon first learning that a “new database” on fluoride levels in foods and drinks had been published in October, 2004 by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), I dropped what I was doing and rushed to look at the publication. A sense of hope welled in me – hope born from hope that perhaps at last, those governing what is left of our “government” had finally come to their collective senses, and were finally “fessing up” to the 60-year-old charge that graft, incompetence and lies are behind the mass-medicating of Americans via our drinking water – a scheme that was a mistake from the very beginning. It is an ongoing mistake that has resulted in so much disinformation pertaining to fluoride that this toxic substance has now been poured into most of America’s water, it is in our foods, in household goods, in the air and it is in a growing number of drugs that Americans take daily.
I was scarcely able to wade through the emailed press release and then the introduction of this latest report, before once again feeling the curious sensation that seems to accompany the reading of most government publications – that odd feeling which occurs when my eyes roll upward in exasperation. The confession has not yet come; it is still a long way off. But this was at least one small step for us all into the direction where ignored truth has patiently awaited discovery for over a half a century. It is in embarking upon this path that the education of the American public regarding fluorine, fluoride, organofluorides and fluorinated products can finally take place.
It is within the first three or four sentences of the press release, titled, “Tracking Fluoride in the National Food Supply,” that we catch a glimpse of what this report is really all about. In reality, it is about the accumulating consequences of deliberately contaminating America’s water supply with the industrial waste product commonly referred to as “fluoride.”
“For more than half a century,” the opening remarks of the press release state, “to prevent tooth decay, small amounts of fluoride have been added to many U.S. municipal water supplies. That fluoride, as well as naturally occurring fluoride from wells and other water sources, subsequently finds its way into water-based beverages and foods.”
Moving onto the introduction of the study, we discover what our “Adequate Intake” of fluoride is. According to various professional studies, and as can be seen in the Physician’s Desk Reference, (PDR), “there is no evidence that fluoride is an essential nutrient for humans.” Despite this, an “Adequate Intake” has been determined for us by those who are promoting pharmaceutical-grade fluoride products, and promoting the industrial waste fluoride that is being added to our drinking water.
The promoters have determined that in order to “prevent dental caries,” our “Adequate Intake” for their product has been set (by them, and those partnered with them) at 0.01 mg a day for infants up to six months, and it is 0.05 mg/kg for infants and children older than six months. The dose for adults is simply 3 mg a day for women, and 4 mg a day for men – one size fits all per gender. Whether we are toothless or not, the promoters have been assuring us for over fifty years that fluoride added to our drinking water will “prevent dental caries.”
In order to “prevent dental fluorosis,” however – the mottling and discoloration of the teeth that is considered by the American Dental Association to be a “purely cosmetic” problem – the USDA quotes from the Institute of Medicine (which is also promoting fluoride), stating that the Tolerable Upper Intake Level for fluoride ingestion is capped off at “10 mg a day” for everyone over the age of eight.
Unfortunately, dental fluorosis is one of the only clearly visible signs of fluoride poisoning (other than death due to catastrophic fluoride accidents) that is medically recognized in this country. The Upper Intake Level for preventing problems that are far more serious than dental fluorosis – problems that are internal, systemic and may not be clearly visible or even recognized in this country at this time – are not even mentioned.
In addition, according to information that can be found on the American Dental Association’s website, dental fluorosis is the result of an “intake of too much fluoride while the enamel is forming before teeth erupt.” Therefore, for those of us whose teeth have already erupted, monitoring them for signs of fluoride poisoning in the post-eruption years of our lives is apparently of questionable benefit.
In keeping all attention deflected away from overall health and focused with tunnel vision only upon the pre-erupted tooth, no mention is made of the other problems that systemic ingestion of various fluoride compounds via skin, mouth and nose have been associated with, such as thyroid malfunction, altered mental status including depression and violent, uncharacteristic behavior, memory problems, gastrointestinal problems, cardiac arrhythmias, liver problems, bone problems, and joint, tendon and muscle problems, including rhabdomyolysis.
The USDA then states that similar suggested dosages and upper limit levels of fluoride ingestion have also been endorsed by the American Dental Association and the American Dietetic Association, as though the mere mention of such names commands immediate and unquestioned respect and suggests something akin to authoritarian infallibility.
Both of the above ADA groups, however, are unyielding fluoride promoters, which, in and of itself, indicates neither group has been doing any real homework.
It is the American Dental Association – a professional association of dentists – that staunchly backs the systemic, mass-medication of Americans under the claim that this drinking-water maneuver will “reduce cavities.” And yet, one might reasonably think that after waiting for sixty years for any signs of the miraculous dental health claim to occur, we might have seen something by now that would favorably back up this aging, empty promise. The promised results have not yet occurred. In fact, in 2000 the Surgeon General issued the “first ever” call to action due to increasing dental problems in the U.S., although we are now, as a country, completely inundated with fluoride.
Kentucky would have been a very good place to set up camp and watch for the long-awaited dental miracle to happen, because Kentucky was 100% “optimally fluoridated” in 1992, and remained over 96% “optimally fluoridated” in 2000, in spite of eight more years of patient but meaningless miracle-waiting.
Despite this grand level of fluoridation, in a 2002 article in the Cincinnati Enquirer it was noted that, “In Kentucky, nearly half of the commonwealth’s 2- to 4-year-olds have cavities.” This is approximately twice the national average.
In 2003 the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) gave Kentucky a “Fifty Year Award,” which is an award given to states in recognition of their community water fluoridation. In 2002, however, in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC named Kentucky as the top state in the U.S. in which residents had lost all of their teeth. According to the CDC report, 42% of Kentucky’s adults are completely edentulous.
Given the steady flow of fluoride coursing through Kentucky and its residents and given the over half-century-old promise of dental benefits, one might have realistically expected a very different dental score for this state that has complied so thoroughly with the demands and pressures to become “optimally fluoridated.”
The little-known truth, however, is that this edentulous outcome and problematic score is exactly what might be expected from a highly fluoridated population.
Fluoride is known to precipitate and exacerbate periodontal disease, because it stimulates the body’s production of prostaglandins. The wording in a patent claim filed in the U.S. Patent office in 1996 for a topically applied fluoride product clearly states this fact –
“The term periodontal diseases relates to conditions in which the gingiva and underlying alveolar bone are attacked…We have found that fluoride, in the concentration range in which it is employed for the prevention of dental caries, stimulates the production of prostaglandins and thereby exacerbates the inflammatory response in gingivitis and periodontitis.”
In order to prevent the fluoride-induced periodontitis from occurring, the above claim for a patent describes a product that also delivers a dose of an NSAID (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) to counteract the expected problems caused by the delivery of fluoride.
One cannot help but wonder if this might be the real reason behind the national push for Americans at risk of heart attacks to take one aspirin a day to help prevent further cardiac problems. Aspirin is categorized by Merck as one of the NSAIDs that relieves inflammation by blocking prostaglandins. According to the FDA, prostaglandins appear to be associated with heart attack.
Sadly, and in keeping with this question, the leading cause of death in Kentucky is heart attack. Also falling into place is the fact that Kentucky is among the top five states in which the people are suffering from and struggling with one of the highest percentages of obesity in the United States. Fluoride – as cannot be stated often enough – interferes with the functioning of thyroid hormones. Sadly, however, very few physicians appear to be currently aware of this.
Because influential groups such as the American Dental Association continue to make their unproven medicinal claim about water fluoridation while at the same time demanding that all Americans be subjected to this dental treatment via their drinking water regardless their age or existing medical conditions, it is time for the rest of the medical community to begin taking a serious look at the potential problems associated with fluorine and fluoride compounds, the most serious problem being the complete lack of awareness and education pertaining to the toxicity of this substance.
Studies on the effects of systemic ingestion of fluoride via drinking, breathing and bathing in it are medically indicated and long overdue. The suggestion that “the dose is the poison” is also overdue for an overhaul. Fluorine readily attaches to other substances, not only altering biochemical properties, but at times potentiating toxic effects many fold.
Fluoride is known to interfere with the functioning of thyroid hormones, it is a neurotoxin, it is a potent liver toxin, it has been found to be grossly accumulating within the pineal gland, it is associated with cancer, it is the substance that turns Sarin into a deadly nerve gas, and when it is added to water, it can eat its way through a titanium container. According to the PDR, “Fluoride absorbed from the stomach appears to be absorbed as hydrofluoric acid.” According to a study on its toxicity that can be found on eMedline, “Once absorbed, fluoride binds calcium ions and may lead to hypocalcemia.”
Clearly, this is not a substance that the majority of an entire nation should be forced to swallow, bathe in, inhale, cook with, and ingest via their drinking water on a daily basis.
The other group mentioned by the USDA above as endorsing the “fluoride Adequate Intake” levels, is the American Dietetic Association. According to information that was located on their website on November 13, 2004, this group not only joins hands with the other ADA in promoting fluoride via mass-medication, but it is also endorsing the USDA’s “Food Pyramid,” despite published evidence indicating the Food Pyramid is a deliberately altered fraud. The Food Pyramid is, in fact, so fraudulent, that no one who truly values their health or the health of their family should be following the dietary recommendations contained within it.
The deliberately altered Food Pyramid encourages Americans to consume as the primary base of their diet, the “Bread, cereal, rice and pasta group: 6-11 servings” a day.
The correct, actual and true suggested servings for whole grain cereals and grains had actually been capped-off at 2 to 4 servings, maximum, with the 4 serving’s level set aside for larger, physically active males. Baked goods, crackers, etc., had been removed from the “daily” area, and placed into the “occasional treat” area. The real suggested base of our diet before the behind-the-scenes switch took place was 5 to 9 servings a day of fresh fruits and vegetables.
My information about the alteration of the real Pyramid has been obtained directly through personal discussions with Luise Light, M.S., EdD., the nutrition expert who was recruited by the USDA to create the Food Pyramid. It was she and her team who actually created the real Food Pyramid.
Dr. Light and her team were later stunned to find that their Pyramid had been completely altered prior to its being given to the unassuming American public. Instead of the fresh fruits and vegetables that the team of nutrition experts had suggested as the base of our diet, the base had been switched to “6 to 11 servings” of starchy foods daily. It was a switch that created a potential windfall profit for industries marketing such refined goods, as well as a windfall profit for those who would profit from treating the problems caused by such a diet.
“In fact,” Luise stated, “the health consequences of encouraging the public to eat so much refined grain, which the body processes like sugar, was frightening!”
Perhaps it is at this point that we should pause for a moment and consider that it has been individuals holding key government positions who have permitted and promoted the mass-medication of Americans via fluorinated drinking water, and individuals holding other government positions who have told us to eat “6-11 servings” of starch a day. It is time for Americans to begin asking questions, and to take an active role in protecting their own health.
Add to the daily overload of starch, a daily dose of fluoride, which is known to interfere with thyroid functioning, and one has the perfect recipe for creating an entire nation of formerly robust people who are now struggling with their weight, their teeth, their bones, their depression, their inflamed GI tracts, and so on. Add to that picture the push on soy products, which also interfere with thyroid functioning, and one might begin to understand why there is an epidemic of obesity and diabetes in the United States.
The conditions, however, are being blamed on lifestyle, laziness, lack of personal willpower, too much computer time, lower education. Blame is attached to everything but the real, underlying cause.
Strangely synchronistic, it was while I was looking at the “causes” suggesting the victims are somehow to blame for their problems, when I received an email from a veterinarian whose observations indicate the problem has nothing to do with laziness, computers or educational status. She stated that when she moved from a rural area served by well-water to the fluoridated area where her new practice is currently located, she observed numerous dogs and cats in that new practice being medicated for hypothyroidism. She had not seen this in her previous practices.
“The latest diagnosis of hypothyroidism in a dog here was just last week,” wrote Mary Emerick, DVM, adding, “Diabetes in both dogs and cats seems more prevalent here, and more so within the last 5 years.”
In addition to the animals being subjected to the same water that their owners are receiving, some commercially prepared animal foods now contain soy and grains.
To this picture of a nation of people – plus their pets – in need of medications, enter now the pharmaceutical industry, one of the most profitable industries on the face of the earth.
With the agrochemical corporations forming partnerships with the pharmaceutical corporations, and pharmaceutical corporations now somehow openly partnered with the government, itself, (“Homeland Health”), a large and unhealthy picture begins to take shape. It is a picture we should look at very carefully, because it represents a growing corporate entity that is powerful but without conscience. It is this insatiable entity that is deciding for us what we shall eat and drink, how we will be medicated with or without our consent, and it now even appears to be venturing on, unchecked, into spiritual realms, wherein its gods of choice have been chosen.
Immediately following the parroted endorsements mirrored by the two fluoride promoters – the ADA and the ADA – the following statements are then made, based in part on an article found in the Journal of the American Dental Association: “Fluoride works primarily via topical mechanisms to inhibit demineralization, to enhance remineralization, and to inhibit bacteria associated with tooth decay.”
A statement suggesting the exact opposite of the above claim that fluoride works “to enhance remineralization,” can be found on Chapter 3, Page 54 of the Surgeon General’s 2004 study on bone problems in the United States, (Table 3-3, American Society for Bone and Mineral Research). We find here, in the Surgeon General’s study, that fluoride has been placed into a well-deserved category reserved for substances that are known to cause “Direct impairment of mineralization.”
More importantly, however, is the statement that fluoride works “primarily via topical mechanisms.”
“Topical,” means applying something to the surface.
If this is the mechanism by which fluoride primarily works, then where is the prudence, the soundness of judgment, the practical intelligence of putting this HAZMAT toxic waste into our drinking water under the false and tired claim that it is good for us – and worse, telling us that it is good for our children?
It is not natural or normal for an entire nation of people – and their pets – to be suffering to such an extent that the United States is now requiring the largest amount of pharmaceuticals on Earth in order to treat its symptoms on a daily basis.
Happiness, joy, compassion and well-being are normal states of existence for the human being.
Unfortunately, our normalcy has been traded in for anxiety, depression and the long list of warning signs now plaguing this country as our bodies and our minds have become “optimally fluoridated.”
It is also not normal for an entire nation of children to be suffering from heartburn and gastrointestinal disorders. Yet, according to a 2002 report by Reuters, the number of drugs used to treat heartburn and other gastrointestinal disorders in children alone has “increased by 660 percent over the past five years.” Small stomachs are not meant to be absorbing hydrofluoric acid.
While some hopeful studies have suggested that perhaps fluoride might be of some use in the treatment of osteoporosis (surely it must be useful for something other than making bombs, rat poison, insecticides, nerve gas and nuclear reaction), other studies have found that the bone produced by fluoride “has an abnormal texture and is less mineralized and relatively less strong.” Reports have found, “An increased fracture incidence was observed.” A Dutch study also states, “Fluoride often causes upper gastrointestinal complaints and a lower extremity pain syndrome, which is caused by stress fractures.”
In one study in the Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 164: 1525-1530, No. 14, July 26, 2004, “National Trends in Osteoporosis Visits.1988-2003,” the authors discovered that, “The number of physician visits for osteoporosis increased 4-fold between 1994 (1.3 million visits) and 2003 (6.3 million visits), whereas it had remained stable in prior years.”
Now, with Americans thoroughly riddled with fluoride due to a sixty-year-old medical experiment that never produced its promised results – now, with most of the entire nation currently suffering from gastrointestinal complaints, mood and sleep disturbances, bizarre aches and pains, elevated blood pressure, bone density problems, cancers, heart problems, liver problems, kidney problems, dental problems, thyroid problems and obesity, attention is finally being paid to the cumulative effects of fluoridating the water supply.
Because fluoride is foolishly added into drinking water rather than prescribed individually as are other medications that may cause severe allergic symptoms in some individuals, and may be contraindicated in many others, it should not come as too great a surprise to learn that the American food supply is also now riddled with fluoride. In fact, this inevitable development has been known for some time, and yet the corporate entities now partnered with, and masquerading as our government have blindly ignored this. Giving credence to the charge that they are without conscience, they have continued on in their efforts to “optimally fluoridate” 100% of America by every means possible. Fluoridating the current two-thirds of the nation is not enough to satisfy them. They want the whole country.
The new National Fluoride Database lists the amounts of fluoride found in selected foods and beverages in micrograms per 100 grams. (One hundred grams is about 3.5 ounces – a few swallows. Most popular beverages come in 12-ounce containers.) Among the most concentrated sources of fluoride in this database is brewed tea, which is calculated at 381 mcg/100g, when brewed in the “South.” Other geographical oddities can also be observed because some areas of the US are more “optimally fluoridated” than others.
While drinking a Pepsi in the West will only add 13 mcg of fluoride per 100g to one’s daily “Adequate Intake,” drinking a Pepsi in the South will add 45 mcg of fluoride/100g. Drinking a Coca-Cola in the West is calculated at 36 mcg of fluoride/100g, while having a Coke in the South will result in 57 mcg of fluoride/100g added to the human being. Drinking a Sprite in the West will add 29 mcg of fluoride/100g, while a Sprite down South will add 59 mcg of fluoride/100g. This is potentially troublesome because those living in hotter climates (i.e., the “South”), might normally be expected to consume more beverages, including the ever-popular beverage of the South – iced tea.
Of the baby foods tested, all but two of the products were positive for fluoride contamination. The worst was “apple and cherry juice,” at 67 mcg/100g.
All of the baked products, breakfast cereals and cereal grains and pastas were positive for fluoride contamination. Oddly, however, the majority of the testing that was done on this group – the starch group – took place back in the 1980s, indicating that fluoride contamination has been known, quietly acknowledged and studied since at least the 1980s. Nationwide fluoridation has increased overall since the 1980s, however, not decreased. This means that the rates of contamination in our foods are ostensibly much higher now.
We need a database showing us the contamination rate of the starch group in the current century rather than what it was in the 1980s. This is especially important, since some poor souls are still attempting to follow the fraudulent Food Pyramid’s advice to consume “6 to 11” servings of starch daily.
Of the bottled waters, Dannon’s “Fluoride to Go” was predictably among the highest, with fluoride at 78 mcg/100g. However, another unnamed, carbonated, fruit-flavored water topped even the “Fluoride to Go” with 105 mcg of fluoride in it. Other bottled waters ranged from 2 mcg up to 34, but calcium content was not included in this study. The calcium content would be of great importance because some of the spring waters contain generous amounts of calcium. According to statements found in this USDA report, calcium plays an important role in blocking the absorption of fluoride.
For the most part, according to this Database, fresh fruits and vegetables contain the least amounts of fluoride. However, it appeared in this report that cooking the products resulted in greatly increased levels. For instance, “carrots, raw” contained only 3 mcg of fluoride versus “carrots, cooked” containing 47 mcg fluoride/100g. How or why this occurred was not explained in the report. It is not known, for instance, if the laboratory was using nonstick cookware that was also releasing fluoride into the foods during the heating process, or if it was the municipally fluoridated water that caused the increased fluoride content – or perhaps it might have been a combination of both. Cooking times were also not mentioned, and this is also of importance because lengthy cooking times with fluoridated water will result in more concentrated amounts of fluoride being left behind in the boiling water as the pure vapor or steam escapes.
Perhaps the most important observation about the National Fluoride Database is what is missing from it.
One cannot look only at our drinking water, our foods, our nonstick cookware, our inundation with pesticides and fertilizers, our ever-present plastics and our ever-present air pollution – and assume that we have covered all of the bases regarding our potential exposure to toxic levels of fluoride.
One must also look at the growing number of fluorinated pharmaceutical products that have been widely prescribed, including, but certainly not limited to: Lariam, Cipro (ciprofloxacin), Crestor, Flonase, Lipitor, Luvox, Diflucan, Lexapro, Paxil, Lescol, Prozac, Stelazine, Haldol, Levaquin (levofloxacin), Celexa, Celebrex, Prevacid, Zagam, Tequin, Halfan, Propulsid, Advair Diskus, Flovent, Baycol, Avelox, Redux, Trovan, Casodex and so on. Some of the above named pharmaceuticals have already been removed from the market due to side effects.
According to a recently released study showing data gathered by the government on trends and healthcare in the US, 44 percent of Americans take prescription drugs, and 17 percent of the population takes three or more prescription drugs. Between the study range of 1994-96 and 2000-02, the number of doctor’s visits by school-aged children requiring antidepressants rose from 1.1 million to 3.1 million. It would be particularly helpful for the physicians and patients to know the amounts of fluoride contained in their medications, as well as the “bioavailability” of the fluoride. Bioavailability would indicate the amount, rate, extent and degree to which the drug or its metabolite actually reaches the circulatory system.
In looking at fluoroquinolones, for instance, a group of fluorinated antibiotics, information appears that warrants further study and further questions.
The chemical name of the fluoroquinolone known as levofloxacin is: “(-)-(S)-9-fluoro-2 ,3-dihydro-3-methyl-10-(4-methyl-1-piperazinyl) -7-oxo-7H-pyrido[1,2,3-de]-1, 4-benzoxazine-6-carboxylic acid hemihydrate.” Its empirical formula is C18 H20 FN3 O4 1/2 H2O. Its molecular weight is 370.38. The atomic weight of fluorine (F) is approximately 19. A 750 mg dose of the above was looked at for the purpose of finding out how much F would be contained in a high dose.
According to professionals, the formula for determining this would be:
19/370.38 = 0.0512986 X 750 = 38.47.
This means there are 38.47 mg of F in one 750 mg dose of levofloxacin. The question that must then be asked is: what is the bioavailability of all that F? Is it safely bound so that it cannot be metabolized into free F ions in the body?
Another of the fluoroquinolones is ciprofloxacin. It is “1-cyclopropyl-6-fluoro-1, 4-dihydro-4-oxo-7-(1-piperazinyl)-3-quinolinecarboxylic acid.” Its molecular weight is 331.4. Its empirical formula is C17 H18 FN3 O3. Again, a 750 mg dose was looked at to see the amount of F it contained.
Therefore, 19/331.4 = 0.0573325 X 750 = 42.99.
Even the fluoride promoters have decided that our “Tolerable Upper Intake Level” of F should be capped-off at 10 mg a day if we are over eight years of age. The PDR takes a slightly different view, and specifically states, “Intakes of fluoride of higher than 4 milligrams daily for adult males and 3 milligrams daily for adult females are not recommended.”
It would appear, therefore, that a dose of F nearing 43 mg might be something worthy of notice. It is certainly a dose in which we, the potential recipients, are deserving of answers. Again, the first question that must be asked pertains to the bioavailability of F. Have actual tests been done to see what the levels of F are in the blood or urine after ingestion of ciprofloxacin?
It appears that one such study was actually done in 1995 by the Department of Pediatrics at All India Institute of Medical Sciences. What they found was, “After the first dose of ciprofloxacin (10 mg/kg), serum fluoride levels increased at 12 h in 15 of 19 (79%) patients; 24-h urinary fluoride excretion was higher on day 7 compared with basal values in 16 of 18 (88.9%) patients.” They concluded their study stating there is a need for further studies to evaluate the tissue accumulation of fluoride and its potential to cause toxic effects.”
According to Michael Connett of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), “The findings of this study heighten the importance of testing other fluorinated drugs to see if they, too, could increase the body-burden of F in a similar manner.”
While studies of carefully measured doses of medications might show us how much F we can expect to receive from them, finding the dose we can expect to ingest via mass-medicated drinking water is next to impossible to determine at this time.
We might know that a person taking ciprofloxacin can expect to have an elevation of F in their systems. Before even sitting down to a typical American breakfast of starch, sugar and fluoride, however, the overall intake of the day’s fluoride quickly becomes utterly impossible to determine for anyone who dares to start the day off with an “optimally fluoridated” shower or bath.
Although it has been known since 1932 that people with overactive thyroids could be effectively treated by bathing in water containing a fluoride compound, it is still not clearly known – or apparently even of concern – how much of the fluoride from municipal waters we are absorbing via our skin and inhalation while showering and bathing. In addition, people suffering from diabetes also suffer from excessive thirst. The amount of water actually ingested that has been “optimally fluoridated” by a toxic waste never approved by the FDA, is unknown.
Upon reaching this point in this paper that is focused on fluoride and its associated toxicities, we have covered not only the known toxic effects of fluoride, but we have also covered nine of the principles contained within the Nuremberg Code of medical ethics. The paragraph below pertains to the tenth and final principle of medical ethics.
Those administering the fluoride to the public in the United States of America are not medical or scientific experts, and many of them do not even know what the “optimum dose” is. A two-year study published in 2001 examined the knowledge level of operators controlling both small and large water plants. The two-year study found that only 64 percent of plant operators knew the correct fluoride concentration to be added for their plant. In small plants, however, “Only one-fourth of operators were able to maintain the fluoride concentration to within 0.1 mg/L of the optimal concentration.”
There are ten principles contained in the Nuremberg Code of medical ethics. The fluoridation of America’s water is in violation of all ten.
The USDA’s National Fluoride Databank gives us clear evidence now showing us that we have contamination of fluoride on a national level. Immediate countermeasures should be taken in all communities that are adding to this contamination problem. An immediate moratorium should be responsibly announced banning the deliberate addition of further fluoride wastes to our drinking water.
Fluoridation has been an uncorrected mistake for almost sixty years. An uncorrected mistake of this magnitude is better described as a national disgrace.
The Nuremberg Code
Permissible Medical Experiments
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
“Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182.. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.”
* * * * * * * * *
Mary Sparrowdancer is an investigative journalist, a spiritual seeker of the truth, and is the author of “The Love Song of the Universe,” published in 2001 by Hampton Roads. Her ongoing studies have included bacteriology, microscopic analysis, hematology, electroencephalography, ornithology, veterinary studies pertaining to wild animals and biblical translations from Latin, Hebrew and Greek. She was a wildlife rehabilitator for a number of years, during which she cared for over 20,000 wild birds and animals, including endangered species. She and her two children reside in Tallahassee, Fl(u)orida.
I wish to thank the following people for their time and patient assistance:
Valerie Guernsey, D.O., psychiatrist specializing in adolescent behavior; Luise Light, M.S., EdD, nutrition expert recruited by the USDA to create the Food Pyramid; Michael Connett of the Fluoride Action Network, an international coalition working to broaden public awareness on fluoride’s impact on human health and the environment; Dr. J. William Hirzy and Dr. James Murphy of the EPA NETU 280 headquarters professional employees union, who along with many other government professionals are completely opposed to fluoridation; Arthur Evangelista, former investigator for the FDA and head of the Public Health and Medical Fraud Research Cooperative, dedicated to accurate public health education and exposing corporate and regulatory malfeasance or corruption; Mary Emerick, DVM who took time to alert me to hypothyroidism in dogs and cats in the fluoridated area of her clinic; Diane Heather Phillips, MB, BS, BSc for her kind help pertaining to F; Wade Frazier, whose educational writings are a must-read, and can be seen here, http://www.ahealedplanet.net/home.htm; and to “CJ,” who first alerted me to the fluoride problem.
* * * * * * * * *
REFERENCED and CITED WORKS, and SUGGESTED LINKS and READING
Fluoride Action Network –
Parents of Fluoride-Poisoned Children –
Journal, International Society for Fluoride Research –
USDA National Fluoride Data Base of Selected Beverages and Foods. October, 2004. (11/2004)
ADA, Dental fluorosis “purely cosmetic,” ADA Statement on Enamel (Dental) Fluorosis, 1/2004. (11/2004)
“Bread, ce real, rice and pasta group: 6-11 servings,” undated instructions from Food Pyramid, in article titled, “Take the First Step to Eating Right” as found on the American Dietetic Association’s website. (11/13/2004)
“The Battle of Darkness and Light,” by Mary Sparrowdancer. A fluoride expose that is a permanent feature on the front page pf the website of Jeff Rense. 12/2003. (11/2004)
ADA, 2003 Community Fluoridation Awards, “Fifty Year Awards.” 5/2004. (11/2004)
National Conference of State Legislatures. “Who Knows.” Interview with Representative Glenn Donnelson of Utah. (11/2004).
Department of Pediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, “Safety of ciprofloxacin therapy in children.” 1995. (12/2004)
National Conference of State Legislatures. “Investigation of the Possible Associations between Fluorosis, Fluoride Exposure, and Childhood Behavior Problems.” “Fluoridation Knowledge Level of Water Plant Operators.” (12/2004)
Just when we thought that buying “Organic” was safe, we run headlong into the deliberate poisoning of our organic food supply by the FDA in collusion with none other than the folks who brought us Aspartame. NutraSweet, a former Monsanto asset, has developed a new and improved version of this neurotoxin called Neotame.
Neotame has similar structure to aspartame — except that, from it’s structure, appears to be even more toxic than aspartame. This potential increase in toxicity will make up for the fact that less will be used in diet drinks. Like aspartame, some of the concerns include gradual neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage from the combination of the formaldehyde metabolite (which is toxic at extremely low doses) and the excitotoxic amino acid. (Holisticmed.com)
But surely, this product would be labeled! NOT SO!!! For this little gem, no labeling required. And it is even included in USDA Certified Organic food.
The food labeling requirements required for aspartame have now been dropped for Neotame, and no one is clear why this was allowed to happen. Neotame has been ruled acceptable, and without being included on the list of ingredients, for:
USDA Certified Organic food items.
Certified Kosher products with the official letter k inside the circle on labels. (Janet Hull)
Let me make this perfectly clear. Neotame does not have to be included in ANY list of ingredients! So, if you buy processed food, whether USDA Certified Organic or not, that food most likely will contain Neotame because it is cost-effective, and since no one knows it is there, there is no public backlash similar to what is happening with Aspartame. A win/win situation!
But that’s not all. Just love chowing down on that delicious steak? Well, that cow most likely will have been fed with feed containing…..you guessed it…..Neotame! A product called “Sweetos,” which is actually composed of Neotame, is being substituted for molasses in animal feed.
“Sweetos is an economical substitute for molasses. Sweetos guarantees the masking of unpleasant tastes and odor and improves the palatability of feed. This product will be economical for farmers and manufacturers of cattle feed. It can also be used in mineral mixture,” said Craig Petray, CEO, The NutraSweet Company, a division of Searle, which is a part of Monsanto. (Bungalow Bill)
Why would we feed animals food that is so distasteful that we would have to mask the unpleasantness with an artificial sweetener? Most animals will not eat spoiled, rancid feed. They know by the smell that it is not good. Enter Sweetos (Neotame). Just cover up the unpleasant tastes and odors, and you can feed them anything you want to, courtesy of the oh, so considerate folks at Monsanto and company.
But of course, Monsanto is no longer associated with NutraSweet. In the time-honored tradition of covering its assets, Monsanto has a proven track record of spinning off controversial portions of its company that generate too much scrutiny, such as it did with the Solutia solution.
Says the Farm Industry News, “Monsanto, which has long resided in the crosshairs of public scorn and scrutiny, appears to have dodged at least one bullet by spinning off its industrial chemical business into a separate entity called Solutia a couple of years ago. Solutia has since been hammered by lawsuits regarding PCB contamination from what were once called Monsanto chemical plants in Alabama and other states” (Source Watch)
So what is the solution to this problem? Buy local organic food, know your local farmer, and don’t buy processed foods whether they are labeled “Organic” or not. This requires a drastic change in lifestyle that most will not want to make. For those who choose to ride the wheel of chance by succumbing to this genocidal adulteration of our food supply by those who stand to profit from our sickness and early demise, my only comment is….it is your choice. But for those of us who have decided to fight this battle one bite at a time by hitting these sociopaths in the pocketbook where it hurts……viva la revolucion!