Fluoride Exposure in Utero Linked to Lower IQ in Children in NIEHS-funded study

The results of the first ever US government funded study of fluoride/IQ have now been published. A team of researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health found that low levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy are linked to significantly reduced IQ in children, according to a study published on September 19, 2017 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
The study, entitled Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico, was conducted by a team of scientists from University of Toronto, University of Michigan, Harvard, and McGill, and found:

“…higher levels of maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy (a proxy for prenatal fluoride exposure) that are in the range of levels of exposure in other general population samples of pregnant women as well as nonpregnant adults were associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at 4 and 6–12 y old.”

Within hours of it being published, FAN released a video response featuring Chemist and Toxicologist, Professor Paul Connett, PhD.

---

TAKE ACTION NOW:

1. Share FAN’s Facebook and Twitter posts on social media.
2. Share FAN’s webpage on the study with friends, family, co-workers;     particularly expecting mothers.
3. Share the study, the accompanying press release, FAN’s Video, and the Newsweek article with your city councilors and Water Board, urging them to protect the next generation by opposing fluoridation.

More to come…

---

FAN Comment

The study found a very large and significant effect. An increase in urine fluoride of 1 mg/L was associated with a drop in IQ of 5 to 6 points. Such a drop of IQ in the whole population would half the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and double the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).
Most of the Mexican women had urine fluoride between 0.5 and 1.5 mg/L. Studies have found that adults in the USA have between about 0.6 and 1.5 mg/L, almost exactly the same range. From the low end of that range to the high end is a difference of 1 mg/L which is what caused the 5 to 6 IQ point difference in the children of the study mothers.
This new study had fluoride exposures almost the same as what is found in fluoridating countries like the USA. The paper shows the relationship between urine fluoride and IQ in the graph (Figure 2) reproduced here:

The data in this graph has been adjusted for numerous potential confounding factors like sex, birth weight, gestational age, and whether the mother smoked. Other potential confounders had already been ruled out, including lead, mercury, alcohol consumption during pregnancy, mother’s education, mother’s IQ, and quality of home environment.
FAN has redrawn this graph in simplified form to better illustrate the relationship found between mothers’ urine fluoride and childrens’ IQ.

This simplified version of the graph highlights the range of urine fluoride levels common in women in the USA with the blue text and bracket. When comparing mothers at the low end to those at the high end of this range, the subsequent loss of IQ in their children was 6 points. The light red shaded zone around the relationship line is the 95% Confidence Interval and demonstrates that the relationship is statistically significant across the entire range of fluoride exposures.

Important Points:

1.  The loss of IQ is very large.  The child of a mother who was drinking 1 ppm F water would be predicted to have 5 to 6 IQ points lower than if the mother had drunk water with close to zero F in it.
2.  The study measured urine F, which is usually a better indicator of total F intake than is the concentration of F in drinking water.  When drinking water is the dominant source of F,, urine F and water F are usually about the same.  So, the average urine F level in this study of 0.9 mg/L implies that woman was ingesting the same amount of F as a woman drinking water with 0.9 mg/L F.
3.  The range of F exposures in this study is likely to be very close to the range in a fluoridated area of the United States.  The doses in this study are directly applicable to areas with artificial fluoridation.  There is no need to extrapolate downward from effects at higher doses.  The claims by fluoridation defenders that only studies using much higher doses than occur in areas with artificial fluoridation have shown a loss of IQ are squarely refuted by this study.  Those false claims range from 11 times to 30 times higher, but are based on the logical fallacy that it is the highest dose amongst several studies that is relevant, when it is the LOWEST dose amongst studies that is most relevant.
4.  This study was very carefully done, by a group of researchers who have produced over 50 papers on the cognitive health of children in relationship to environmental exposures.  This was funded by the NIH and was a multi-million dollar study.  This was the group’s first study of fluoride, their other studies mostly dealing with lead, mercury, and other environmental neurotoxicants.
5.  This study controlled for a wide range of potential factors that might have skewed the results and produced a false effect.  It was able to largely rule out confounding by these other factors.  The factors ruled out included Pb, Hg, socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol use, and health problems during pregnancy.
6.  This study offers confirmation of previous less sophisticated studies in Mexico, China and elsewhere.  Some of those studies had higher F exposures than are commonly found in the USA, but many did not.  The sole study in a country with artificial water fluoridation (as opposed to artificial salt fluoridation which was likely a main source of F in this new study) was by Broadbent in New Zealand.  That found no association between water F and IQ and was trumpted by fluoridation defenders.  But that study was shown to have almost no difference in TOTAL F intake between the children with fluoridated water and those with unfluoridated water, since most of the unfluoridated water children were given F supplements.
7.  The study authors are cautious in their conclusions, as is common for scientists.  But the implications of this study are enormous.  A single study will never prove that F lowers IQ at doses found in fluoridated areas, but this is more than a red flag.  It is a cannon shot across the bow of the 80 year old practice of artificial fluoridation.


Read more:http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_9-21-17/

Massive corruption and criminal misconduct uncovered at the CDC

Activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose work to expose the connection between mercury-laced vaccines and increased autism rates has earned him wide praise and plaudits, has released a new report which describes a number of criminal acts allegedly committed by employees and consultants working for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The report, produced in conjunction with the World Mercury Project [PDF], is said to contain new evidence of “corruption and scientific misconduct” at the CDC, and that employees and consultants for the government health agency engaged in “questionable ethics and scientific fraud” that has “resulted in untrustworthy vaccine safety science,” a press release noted.
The report’s authors single out Dr. Poul Thorsen, a Danish scientist who has been indicted by U.S. authorities for allegedly stealing millions from the CDC and tainting research to hide the dangers posed by vaccines. Indicted in 2011, Thorsen remains on the loose.
As Natural News reported in August 2014:
Thorsen, as you may recall, was heavily involved in producing a stream of fraudulent studies that supposedly “disproved” the now-evident link between vaccines and autism. The CDC has also continually cited Thorsen’s studies as “evidence” that vaccines are safe, declaring the debate to be over in light of their findings.
In addition to uncovering other information, Kennedy and officials at the World Mercury Project say they have found evidence that Thorsen and his collaborators did not get permission from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to carry out their research, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 and the journal Pediatrics the following year.
“In 2011, the Department of Justice indicted Thorsen on 22 counts of wire fraud and money laundering for stealing over $1 million in CDC grant money earmarked for autism research,” the statement notes. “The product of Thorsen’s work for CDC was a series of fraud-tainted articles on Danish autism rates that, today, form the backbone of the popular orthodoxy that vaccines don’t cause autism.”
After discovering in 2009 that Thorsen never applied for or received IRB approvals, CDC staff failed to report it or subsequently retract the illegitimate studies. Instead, as documents obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests show, CDC supervisors merely ignored the misconduct, essentially covering it up.
As such, today vaccine makers “can put anything they want in that vaccine and they have no accountability for it,” Kennedy told California parents during a screening of the film “Trace Amounts” in 2015. “This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country.” (Related: Vaccination now scientifically linked to learning disabilities in children; vaccinated children show 520% increased risk compared to non-vaccinated.)
Regarding Thorsen’s alleged misconduct, the report says it undermines the legitimacy of his studies, which were relied upon in large part to refute vaccine injury claims filed with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which is run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
In addition, the report says, Thorsen’s ‘findings’ were used in the NVICP’s “Omnibus Proceeding” in which the agency dismissed 5,000 claims by families who said their children developed autism following vaccinations. “These claims, if settled in the claimant’s favor,” the statement says, “would have resulted in payouts totaling an estimated $10 billion.”
In a statement of his own regarding the new information and report, Kennedy, who is chairman of the World Mercury Project, said his organization “calls upon Attorney General Jeff Sessions to extradite Thorsen back to the U.S. to face prosecution. We also call upon Secretary of Health and Human Services Dr. Tom Price to retract the Thorsen-affiliated autism research papers that are the fruit of illegally conducted research.”
The scientific community has long known that mercury in all its forms — including mercury-laced thimerosal, a preservative that is still found in some vaccines — is a neurotoxin and can hinder neurological development.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.
Sources include:
WorldMercuryProject.org
NaturalNews.com

Read more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09-19-massive-corruption-and-criminal-misconduct-uncovered-at-the-cdc-world-mercury-project-issues-call.html

Climate change science implodes as IPCC climate models found to be “totally wrong”

A stunning new science paper authored by climate change alarmists and published in the science journal Nature Geoscience has just broken the back of the climate change hoax. The paper, authored by Myles R. Allen, Richard J. Millar and others, reveals that global warming climate models are flat wrong, having been deceptively biased toward “worst case” warming predictions that now turn out to be paranoid scare mongering.
The paper, entitled, “Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C,” concludes that the global warming long feared and hyped by everyone from Al Gore to CNN talking heads was based on faulty software models that don’t stand up to actual measured temperatures in the real world. In technical jargon, the paper explains, “We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO₂ emissions to about 200 GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6 °C in 66% of Earth system model members.”
In effect, the current global warming software models used by the IPCC and cited by the media wildly over-estimate the warming effects of CO2 emissions. How much do they over-estimate warming? By about 50%. Where the software models predicted a 1.3 C rise in average global temperatures, only a rise of about 0.9 C has actually been recorded (and many data points in that average have, of course, been fabricated by climate change scientists to push a political narrative). In other words, carbon dioxide emissions don’t produce the warming effects that have been blindly claimed by climate change alarmists.
“Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong,” reports the UK Telegraph. “New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.”
In other words, the climate change threat has been wildly overstated. The fear mongering of Al Gore and the government-funded science community can truly only be described as a “junk science hoax.”

Climate alarmists suddenly find themselves admitting they were wrong all along

“The paper … concedes that it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true,” writes James Delingpole. He goes on to say:
One researcher – from the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one – has described the paper’s conclusion as “breathtaking” in its implications.
He’s right. The scientists who’ve written this paper aren’t climate skeptics. They’re longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they’re also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC’s carbon budget.
In other words, this represents the most massive climbdown from the alarmist camp.
Are we about to see climate change alarmists owning up to the fact that real-world data show their software models to be rooted in junk science? The unraveling has begun, but there is so much political capital already invested in the false climate change narrative that it will take years to fully expose the depth of scientific fraud and political dishonesty underpinning the global warming hoax.

Climate change software models were deliberately tweaked to paint an exaggerated doomsday picture in order to scare the world into compliance panic

What’s clear from all this is that IPCC software models were deliberately biased in favor of the worst-case “doomsday” predictions in order to terrorize the world with a fake climate change hoax. But now the fake science is catching up to them, and they’re getting caught in their own lies.
The software models, by the way, were fraudulently programmed with dishonest model “weights” to produce alarming warming predictions no matter what temperature data points were entered into the system.
This is best explained in this Natural News article which goes into great detail, covering the IPCC global warming software modeling hoax:

Hacking the IPCC global warming data

The same left-wing media outlets that fabricated the “Russian hacking” conspiracy, curiously, have remained totally silent about a real, legitimate hacking that took place almost two decades earlier. The IPCC “global warming” software models, we now know, were “hacked” from the very beginning, programmed to falsely produce “hockey stick” visuals from almost any data set… include “random noise” data.
What follows are selected paragraphs from a fascinating book that investigated this vast political and scientific fraud: The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker(Continuum, 2009). This book is also available as an audio book from Audible.com, so if you enjoy audio books, download a copy there.
Here’s what Booker found when he investigated the “hacking” of the temperature data computer models:
From “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by Christopher Booker: (bold emphasis added)
Nothing alerted us more to the curious nature of the global warming scare than the peculiar tactics used by the IPCC to promote its orthodoxy, brooking no dissent. More than once in its series of mammoth reports, the IPCC had been caught out in very serious attempts to rewrite the scientific evidence. The most notorious instance of this was the extraordinary prominence it gave in 2001 to the so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph, mysteriously produced by a relatively unknown young US scientist, which completely redrew the accepted historical record by purporting to show temperatures in the late twentieth century having shot upwards to a level far higher than had ever been known before. Although the ‘hockey stick’ was instantly made the central icon of the IPCC’s cause, it was within a few years to become one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science.
Similarly called into serious doubt was the reliability of some of the other temperature figures on which the IPCC based its case. Most notably these included those provided by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Dr James Hansen, A1 Gore’s closest scientific ally, which were one of the four official sources of temperature data on which the IPCC relied. These were shown to have been repeatedly ‘adjusted’, to suggest that temperatures had risen further and more steeply than was indicated by any of the other three main data-sources.
…Out of the blue in 1998 Britain’s leading science journal Nature, long supportive of the warming orthodoxy, published a new paper on global temperature changes over the previous 600 years, back to 1400. Its chief author was Michael Mann, a young physicist-turned-climate scientist at the University of Massachusetts, who had only completed his PhD two years before. In 1999 he and his colleagues published a further paper, based only on North America but extending their original findings over 1000 years.
Their computer model had enabled them to produce a new temperature graph quite unlike anything seen before. Instead of the previously familiar rises and falls, this showed the trend of average temperatures having gently declined through nine centuries, but then suddenly shooting up in the twentieth century to a level that was quite unprecedented.
In Mann’s graph such familiar features as the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age had simply vanished. All those awkward anomalies were shown as having been illusory. The only real anomaly which emerged from their studies was that sudden exponential rise appearing in the twentieth century, culminating in the ‘warmest year of the millennium’, 1998.
As would eventually emerge, there were several very odd features about Mann’s new graph, soon to be known as the ‘hockey stick’ because its shape, a long flattish line curving up sharply at the end, was reminiscent of the stick used in ice hockey. But initially none might have seemed odder than the speed with which this obscure study by a comparatively unknown young scientist came to be taken up as the new ‘orthodoxy’.
So radically did the ‘hockey stick’ rewrite all the accepted versions of climate history that initially it carried all before it, leaving knowledgeable experts stunned. It was not yet clear quite how Mann had arrived at his remarkable conclusions, precisely what data he had used or what methods the IPCC had used to verify his findings. The sensational new graph which the IPCC made the centrepiece of its report had been sprung on the world out of left field.
…Yet when, over the years that followed, a number of experts from different fields began to subject Mann’s two papers to careful analysis, some rather serious questions came to be asked about the basis for his study.
For a start, although Mann and his colleagues had cited other evidence for their computer modelling of historical temperatures, it became apparent that they had leaned particularly heavily on ‘proxy data’ provided by a study five years earlier of tree-rings in ancient bristlecone pine trees growing on the slopes of California’s Sierra Nevada mountains. ‘Proxies’ used to calculate temperature consist of data other than direct measurement, such as tree rings, stalactites, ice cores or lake sediments.
According to the 1993 paper used by Mann, these bristlecone pines had shown significantly accelerated growth in the years after 1900. But the purpose of this original study had not been to research into past temperatures. As was made clear by its title – ‘Detecting the aerial fertilisation effect of atmospheric C02 enrichment in tree-ring chronologies’ – it had been to measure the effect on the trees’ growth rate of the twentieth-century increase in C02 levels.
Tree rings are a notoriously unreliable reflector of temperature changes, because they are chiefly formed during only one short period of the year, and cannot therefore give a full picture. This 1993 study of one group of trees in one untypical corner of the US seemed a remarkably flimsy basis on which to base an estimate of global temperatures going back 1000 years.
Then it transpired that, in order to show the twentieth-century section of the graph, the terrifying upward flick of temperatures at the end of the ‘hockey stick’, spliced in with the tree-ring data had been a set of twentieth-century temperature readings, as recorded by more than 2,000 weather stations across the earth’s surface. It was these which more than anything helped to confirm the most dramatic conclusion of the study, that temperatures in the closing decades of the twentieth century had been shooting up to levels unprecedented in the history of the last 1,000 years, culminating in the ‘warmest year of the millennium’, 1998.
Not only was it far from clear that, for this all-important part of the graph, two quite different sets of data had been used. Also accepted without qualification was the accuracy of these twentieth-century surface temperature readings. But the picture given by these was already being questioned by many expert scientists who pointed to evidence that readings from surface weather stations could become seriously distorted by what was known as the ‘urban heat island effect’. The majority of the thermometers in such stations were in the proximity of large and increasingly built-up population centres. It was well-established that these heated up the atmosphere around them to a significantly higher level than in more isolated locations.
Nowhere was this better illustrated than by contrasting the temperature readings taken on the earth’s surface with those which, since 1979, had been taken by NASA satellites and weather balloons, using a method developed by Dr Roy Spencer, responsible for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Centre, and Dr John Christie of the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
Surprisingly, these atmospheric measurements showed that, far from warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century, global temperatures had in fact slightly cooled. As Spencer was at pains to point out, these avoided the distortions created in surface readings by the urban heat island effect. The reluctance of the IPCC to take proper account of this, he observed, confirmed the suspicion of ‘many scientists involved in the process’ that the IPCC’s stance on global warming was ‘guided more by policymakers and politicians than by scientists’.
What was also remarkable about the ‘hockey stick’, as was again widely observed, was how it contradicted all that mass of evidence which supported the generally accepted picture of temperature fluctuations in past centuries. As was pointed out, tree-rings are not the most reliable guide to assessing past temperatures. Scores of more direct sources of proxy evidence had been studied over the years, from Africa, South America, Australia, Pakistan, Antarctica, every continent and ocean of the world.
Whether evidence was taken from lake sediments or ice cores, glaciers in the Andes or boreholes in every continent (Huang et ai, 1997), the results had been remarkably consistent in confirming that the familiar view was right. There had been a Little Ice Age, across the world. There had similarly been a Mediaeval Warm Period. Furthermore, a mass of data confirmed that the world had been even warmer in the Middle Ages than it was in 1998.
The first comprehensive study to review this point was published in January 2003 by Dr Willie Soon and his colleague Dr Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. They had examined 140 expert studies of the climate history of the past 1,000 years, based on every kind of data. Some had given their findings only in a local or regional context, others had attempted to give a worldwide picture. But between them these studies had covered every continent. The question the two researchers had asked of every study was whether or not it showed a ‘discernible climate anomaly’ at the time of (1) the Little Ice Age and (2) the Mediaeval Warm Period; and (3) whether it had shown the twentieth century to be the warmest time in the Millennium.
Their conclusion was unequivocal. Only two of the studies they looked at had not found evidence for the Little Ice Age. Only seven of the 140 studies had denied the existence of a Mediaeval Warm Period, while 116 had confirmed it.
On the crucial question of whether or not the twentieth century had been the warmest of the past thousand years, only 15 studies, including that of Mann himself, had unambiguously agreed that it was. The vast majority accepted that earlier centuries had been warmer. The conclusion of Soon and Baliunas was that ‘Across the world, many records reveal that the twentieth century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.’
But if Mann and his colleagues had got the picture as wrong as this survey of the literature suggested, nothing did more to expose just how this might have come about than a remarkable feat of analysis carried out later in the same year by two Canadians and published in October 2003. (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick, 2003, ‘Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy databse and northern hemispheric average temperature series’, Energy and Environment, 14, 752-771. In the analysis of McIntyre and McKitrick’s work which follows, reference will also be made to their later paper, McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005b, ‘The M & M critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere climate index, Update and applications’, Energy and Environment, 16, 69-99, and also to McKitrick (2005), ‘What is the “Hockey Stick” debate about?’, op. cit.)
Stephen McIntyre, who began their study, was a financial consultant and statistical analyst specialising in the minerals industry, and was later joined by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at Guelph University. Neither made any pretensions to being a climate scientist, but where they did have considerable expertise was in knowing how computers could be used to play around with statistics. They were also wearily familiar with people using hockey sticklike curves, showing an exaggerated upward rise at the end, to sell a business prospect or to ‘prove’ some tendentious point.
Intrigued by the shape of the IPCC’s now famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, in the spring of 2003 McIntyre approached Mann and his colleagues to ask for a look at their original data set. ‘After some delay’, Mann ‘arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used’ for his paper. But it turned out not to include ‘most of the computer code used to produce their results’. This suggested to McIntyre, who was joined later that summer by McKitrick, that no one else had previously asked to examine it, as should have been required both by peer-reviewers for the paper published in Nature and, above all, by the IPCC itself. (This account of the ‘hockey stick’ saga is based on several sources, in particular Ross McKitrick’s paper already cited , ‘What is the “hockey stick” debate about?’ (2005), and his evidence to the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs, ‘The Economics of Climate Change’, Vol. II, Evidence, 2005. See also David Holland, ‘Bias and concealment in the IPCC Process: the “Hockey Stick” affair and its implications’ (2007), op. cit.)
When McIntyre fed the data into his own computer, he found that it did not produce the claimed results. At the heart of the problem was what is known as ‘principal component analysis’, a technique used by computer analysts to handle a large mass of data by averaging out its components, weighting them by their relative significance.
One of the first things McIntyre had discovered was that the ‘principal component analysis’ used by Mann could not be replicated. ‘In the process of looking up all the data sources and rebuilding Mann’s data set from scratch’, he discovered ‘quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of various series etc.’ (for instance, data reported to be from Boston, Mass., turned out to be from Paris, France, Central England temperature data had been truncated to leave out its coldest period, and so forth).
But the real problem lay with the ‘principal component analysis’ itself. It turned out that an algorithm had been programmed into Mann’s computer model which ‘mined’ for hockey stick shapes whatever data was fed into it. As McKitrick was later to explain, ‘had the IPCC actually done the kind of rigorous review that they boast of they would have discovered that there was an error in a routine calculation step (principal component analysis) that falsely identified a hockey stick shape as the dominant pattern in the data. The flawed computer program can even pull out spurious hockey stick shapes from lists of trendless random numbers. ’ (McKitrick, House of Lords evidence, op. cit.)
Using Mann’s algorithm, the two men fed a pile of random and meaningless data (‘red noise’) into the computer 10,000 times. More than 99 per cent of the time the graph which emerged bore a ‘hockey stick’ shape. They found that their replication of Mann’s method failed ‘all basic tests of statistical significance’.
When they ran the programme again properly, however, keeping the rest of Mann’s data but removing the bristlecone pine figures on which he had so heavily relied, they found that the Mediaeval Warming once again unmistakably emerged. Indeed their ‘major finding’, according to McKitrick, was that Mann’s own data confirmed that the warming in the fifteenth century exceeded anything in the twentieth century.44
One example of how this worked they later quoted was based on comparing two sets of data used by Mann for his second 1999 paper, confined to proxy data from North America. One was drawn from bristlecone pines in western North America, the other from a tree ring chronology in Arkansas. In their raw state, the Californian series showed a ‘hockey stick’ shape; the other, typical of most North American tree ring series, showed an irregular but basically flat line with no final upward spurt. When these were put together, however, the algorithm emphasised the twentieth-century rise by giving ‘390 times as much weight’ to the bristlecone pines as to the trees from Arkansas.45
In other words, although Mann had used hundreds of tree ring proxies from all over North America, most showing a flattish line like that from Arkansas, the PCAs used to determine their relative significance had given enormously greater weight to those Californian bristlecones with their anomalous ‘hockey stick’ pattern.
Furthermore, McIntyre and McKitrick found that Mann had been well aware that by removing the bristlecone pine data the ‘hockey stick’ shape of his graph would vanish, because he had tried it himself. One of the files they obtained from him showed the results of his own attempt to do this. The file was marked ‘Censored’ and its findings were nowhere mentioned in the published study.
What, however, concerned McIntyre and McKitrick as much as anything else about this extraordinary affair was what it revealed about the methods of the IPCC itself. Why had it not subjected Mann’s study to the kind of basic professional checks which they themselves had been able to carry out, with such devastating results?
Furthermore, having failed to exercise any proper quality control, why had those at the top of the IPCC then gone out of their way to give such extraordinary prominence to ‘the hockey stick data as the canonical representation of the earth’s climate history. Due to a combination of mathematical error and a dysfunctional review process, they ended up promoting the exact wrong conclusion. How did they make such a blunder?’
Continue reading The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker (Continuum, 2009), available at BN.com, Amazon.com and Audible.com.

Conclusion: The global warming “hockey stick” is SCIENCE FRAUD

What all this reveals, of course, is that the global warming “hockey stick” is fake science. As Booker documents in his book, data were truncated (cut off) and software algorithms were altered to produce a hockey stick trend out of almost any data set, including random noise data. To call climate change “science” is to admit your own gullibility to science fraud.
The IPCC, it turns out, used science fraud to promote global warming and “climate change” narratives, hoping no one would notice that the entire software model was essentially HACKED from the very beginning, deliberately engineered to produce the alarming temperature trend the world’s bureaucrats wanted so they could terrorize the world into compliance with climate change narratives.
The Russians didn’t hack the 2016 election, in case you were wondering. But dishonest scientists really did hack the global warming modeling software to deceive the entire world and launch a whole new brand of climate change fascism that has now infected the minds of hundreds of millions of people across the planet. Everything they’ve been told about climate change, it turns, out, was all based on a software hack.

Read more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09-19-climate-change-science-implodes-as-ipcc-climate-models-found-to-be-totally-wrong-temperatures-arent-rising-as-predicted-hoax-unraveling.html

FDA approving cancer drugs without proof that they cure patients or help them live longer

Cancer drugs can cost patients a staggering $171,000 a year, according to the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. But in many cases these cripplingly expensive drugs offer only marginal benefits – with no proof that they improve either survival rates or quality of life.
Now, health advocates – joined by many respected oncologists – are decrying the rush to approve drugs that break patients financially, while doing little or nothing to relieve their suffering. As you continue to read about this (below) – the reality surrounding these cancer drugs will become quite disturbing.

Scam ALERT: Price is unrelated to the performance of these cancer drugs

According to Kaiser Health News, a push by patient advocates for earlier access to cancer medications has led to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approving a new roster of oncology drugs. And few have fulfilled their hoped-for goal – that of allowing patients with limited life expectations to survive for years.
In fact, experts say that overall cancer survival rates have barely changed in the last decade – in spite of all the cancer treatments billed as “cutting-edge” and “state of the art.”
Not only are the vast majority of oncology drugs ineffective – but in many cases, the price of the medication has absolutely no relationship to how well the drug works. For instance, one of the most expensive cancer drugs on the market has one of the worst records when it comes to improving the lives of cancer patients.
Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, has blunt words regarding the FDA’s rush to approval. “We are very concerned about the push to get more drugs improved, instead of effective drugs approved,” Visco emphasizes.

Expert opinion: Most cancer drugs don’t work – despite their soaring costs

Dr. Vinay Prasad, assistant professor of medicine at the Oregon Health and Science University, has long been an outspoken critic of the effectiveness of cancer treatments.
Although cancer drugs do help some patients for a limited amount of time, most patients get little or no benefit from the newer drugs. (The last important cancer drug, Herceptin – acknowledged by many oncologists as a “game-changer” – received approval almost 20 years ago). In fact, Dr. Prasad notes that two thirds of the cancer drugs approved within the past two years present no evidence that they extend survival at all, causing some scientists and researchers to liken cancer treatment to a “lottery.”
And research bears out Dr. Prasad’s assertion. According to a study published in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, 72 different new cancer therapies approved between 2002 and 2014 granted patients an average of a scant 2.1 more months of life – a decidedly disappointing statistic.

JAMA study of 18 approved cancer drugs offered shocking results

The most damning evidence of the ineffectiveness of cancer drugs was a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, in which researcher Diana Zuckerman examined 18 different cancer drugs approved between 2008 and 2012.
After analyzing peer-reviewed findings and FDA review summaries – and calculating the drugs’ annual cost – Zuckerman found that none of the 18 offered a clear benefit, such as tumor shrinkage or progression-free survival. And only one medication – crizotinib, for non-small-cell lung cancer – had data demonstrating that it improved patients’ lives in any way (for example, by reducing pain or fatigue).
In addition, two drugs –peginterferon and cabozantinib – actually did more harm than good. Cabozantinib, the most expensive drug on the market for thyroid cancer, caused patients to score worse on a 5-point scale measuring diarrhea, fatigue, sleep disturbance, distress and memory problems.
And Prasad and Zuckerman are not the only experts to speak out, by far. Dr. Richard Schilsky, senior vice president and CMO at the American Society of Clinical Oncology, says that he questions the value of a therapy when the benefit is small, the toxicity similar to that of previous drugs, and the cost higher.

Cancer trials actually appear to be a pharmaceutical “sleight of hand” trick

Another disturbing aspect of cancer treatment is that people in cancer trials are disproportionately young, giving rise to misleading results. For example, 30 percent of cancer patients are older than 75. Yet, only 33 percent of participants in cancer trials are older than 65, and just 10 percent are over 75 – a clear disparity.
So, a drug that improves survival in liver cancer by three months affords no survival advantage among Medicare patients not involved in the clinical trial. In other words: patients who are older and sicker than those who participate in research studies “give the lie” to the rosy, unrealistic picture often painted by big pharma.
Yet another way to put it: when it comes to success rates of clinical cancer trials, it’s sometimes a case of: “Now you see it, now you don’t.”

Even modest expectations go unmet

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has set goals for newly-approved cancer drugs: extending life or controlling tumors for at least 2.5 months. But, in a study published in JAMA Oncology, four out of five cancer drugs failed to meet these modest standards.
The reason for the minimal standards? The rarity of truly effective cancer treatments.
(That said, there are some successes to point to. For example, the number of patients with advanced melanoma who survive five years after diagnosis has jumped from 5 percent to 40 percent since the development of immune therapies – which stimulate the patient’s natural defenses to fight cancer cells).
But breakthroughs and successes can still be agonizingly rare. “It’s not very often that we come across a transformative treatment,” acknowledges study leader Dr. Sham Mailankody, a myeloma specialist at Memorial Sloan Kettering.
For too many cancer patients today, the latest batch of mainstream cancer treatments involves minimal improvement, serious toxicities, maximal expense – and dashed hopes. These individuals deserve better.
Sources for this article include:
KHN.org
JAMANetwork.com
JAMANetwork.com

Read more: https://www.naturalhealth365.com/cancer-drugs-fda-2290.html

All 8 extreme childhood food allergies are also common ingredients in CDC-recommended vaccines… coincidence?

Food allergy awareness posters in elementary schools list the following 8 food products as the most popular food allergies among children. Allergic reactions from exposure, consumption or injection of these foods can be fatal. Those 8 ingredients include peanuts, nuts, wheat, soy, milk, eggs, fish and shellfish. If your M.D. tells you that your food allergies are hereditary, maybe that’s because your parents were injected with the same food “excipients” when they got their dozens of vaccines growing up. Either you inherited your parent’s allergies, or millions of humans are simply allergic to injecting proteins, foreign animal blood cells, aborted baby blood cells, known carcinogens, and heavy metal toxins directly into their muscle tissue and blood, which would make perfect sense for any normal person with a perfectly functioning immune system.

Exposing the link: Serum sickness and extreme food allergies

Could vaccine food ingredients be the “inexplicable” reason millions of American children can’t even be in the same room where someone else opens a package of nuts? Consider this: Peanut oils were first used as carriers in influenza vaccines in the mid-1960s, thought to enhance the vaccine’s strength. Before that, anaphylactic shock “syndrome” from exposure to nuts was virtually nonexistent. Nobody was fainting and suffering from respiratory distress and experiencing convulsions just because somebody ate a Snickers bar on the other side of the room.
Today, peanut allergy is the #1 cause of death from food reactions, and it’s primarily among children. Coincidence?  The reaction surge kicked into full force in the early 1990s. Is that because the mandated schedule of CDC-approved vaccines for children (before they turn age 7) doubled from the 1980s? It has more than doubled again since then! Take a look.
1980: 20 vaccines
1995: 40 vaccines
2011 – 2017: 68 vaccines (36 of those vaccines are administered before the age of 18 months)
That means nearly all of the vaccines given in the first 7 years of life in 1995 are now ALL given in the first 18 months of life. Maybe we should rename the top 8 food allergies “serum sickness.” Then the root cause would be realized and maybe doctors who actually understand nutrition (naturopaths) could step in and do something to reverse the “epidemic.”
As discovered over 100 years ago by Dr Charles Richet, anaphylactic reactions to certain foods are a result of intact proteins that bypass the digestive system and find their way into the blood. This is a universal trigger for allergic reactions in all animals. Interesting. The initial “sensitization” involves injection, which creates the hypersensitivity, and the later violent and sometimes deadly reaction comes from eating the same food. Dr. Richet worked primarily with eggs, milk and meat proteins.

Bacteria, viruses, pathogens and parasites thrive in egg and milk, and are carried like a time release capsule in peanut oil

Peanut adjuvants in vaccines in America is a huge secret. Vaccine manufacturers are NOT required anymore to disclose all of the ingredients in vaccines, and they are also NOT allowed to be sued by anyone, ever, for injuries from reactions to the injections. The full formula for any vaccine is never revealed on the vaccine insert information page, because the full formula contains “proprietary” information and is protected as intellectual property.
The FDA admits peanut protein traces persist in vaccines today. This is exactly why doctors are directed to inject vaccines intramuscular rather than intravenous, because there’s a better chance of absorption of intact proteins and less chance of a bad reaction. Still, no money has ever been allocated from the National Institute of Health (NIH) or the CDC to study the obvious connection between vaccine food protein excipients and food allergies. (The vaccine industry will never allow the unvaccinated population to serve as a control group for this testing, knowing the results that will be found.) It’s obvious that medical extremism is at an all-time high right now in America. You really have to look out for yourself and your family.

Important considerations regarding food allergies in relation to common vaccine ingredients

Initial warning signs and symptoms of allergic reactions to foods found in vaccines include mouth tingling, itching or metallic taste; also hives. Got wheat allergies? Is the allergy really to wheat or is it to yeast protein and yeast extract, that are both common ingredients in vaccines? Just check experimental jabs like the Cholera vaccine, Hep B, HPV, Meningococcal and Pneumococcal.
Got milk and dairy allergies? Check vaccines for casein derivatives called Miller or Mueller medium, and also lactose in the Hib vaccine. Plus, casamino acids are derived from cow’s milk, such as in DTaP vaccine. Many parents report children’s allergic reaction to the DTaP jab immediately after injection. Also beware because there is hydrolyzed casein in the meningococcus vaccine.
Got soy allergies? Did you know that Soy peptone broth is used in vaccines to enrich salmonella and cultivate microorganisms, including fungi?
Got fish allergies? Some oral vaccines contain fish oil. Allergic to shellfish? Read this informative blog at Cure Zone about the link to certain vaccines.
Got egg allergies? Eggs are in all flu vaccines and the yellow fever jab. Egg proteins are present in the final product also.
Also, children with the following allergies should have their parents check every single vaccine insert, including flu shots, for the following popular allergens that are found in many vaccines or the packaging, vial or syringe stopper: Latex, mercury, gelatin, antibiotics, formaldehyde, fetal cells from abortions, aluminum, MSG (monosodium glutamate), African Green Monkey kidney cells and polysorbate 80.
Vaccines are also now linked to learning disabilities, not just allergies! Look into natural immunity builders that have worked for millennia, including oil of oregano, chaga mushrooms, vitamin D3 and vitamin C. Maybe the secret to immunity and avoiding creating food allergies is to never inject food proteins, heavy metal toxins, gelatin, urea (animal urine) and other known carcinogens (like methyl mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde) into your muscle tissue. This is worthy of much careful consideration.
Learn more at Immunization.news.
Sources for this article include: 
Thedoctorwithin.com
Michigan.gov
CureZone.org
MPBio.com
FoodsMatter.com
Empowher.com
CDC.gov
Immunization.news
VaccineImpact.com
NaturalNews.com
ScienceForums.net

Read more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09-18-all-8-extreme-childhood-food-allergies-are-also-common-ingredients-in-cdc-recommended-vaccines.html

Texas carpet bombs its own hurricane-traumatized victims with neurological poisons sprayed from military planes

The war on humanity continues unabated in Texas, where over one million acres of land are being carpet-bombed with the aerial spraying of neurotoxic chemicals in an effort to kill mosquitoes. Texas authorities are openly lying to citizens, claiming these poisons are magically not poisons at all when they come into contact with humans. Even more alarmingly, Texas authorities are urging their citizens to use other toxic chemicals on their skin — chemicals that are part of a binary weapon system that causes Alzheimer’s and dementia by incurring permanent brain damage (see the science, below).
“U.S. Air Force C-130 cargo planes began spraying insecticides over three eastern Texas counties over the weekend and will expand to other areas over the next two weeks, officials from the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) said,” reports Reuters. “About 1.85 million acres have been treated as of Tuesday, according to the department.”
In effect, the State of Texas is unleashing weapons of mass destruction against its own citizens, generating trillions of dollars in long-term health care costs that financially benefit the drug makers who sell prescription “treatments” for Alzheimer’s, dementia, cancer and other diseases caused by chemical exposure. The aerial bombardment of high-density population centers, it turns out, is a revenue generating activity for the for-profit “sick care” industry that has infiltrated the entire Texas legislature.
“DSHS is working with counties that have requested assistance with mosquito control to coordinate spraying by two state contractors and federal support through FEMA and the U.S. Air Force Reserve,” reports the official DSHS website. “A total of approximately 4.36 million acres has been sprayed across all areas.”
Apparently mosquitoes can “hurt recovery operations” by “swarming residents,” explains a DSHS spokesperson, somehow imagining that Gulf Coast Texas residents have never encountered mosquitoes before. Perhaps this doesn’t qualify as a breaking news alert, but Houstonians have seen mosquitoes before. The fact that mosquitoes fly around in groups is not exactly cause for panic. Announcing that there are mosquitoes in Texas is sort of like declaring there’s snow in Alaska.

Aerial chemtrail spraying and nighttime insecticide fog trucks

The chemtrail spraying of Texas residents is taking place during daylight hours, while insecticide-spewing fog trucks run all night. Military aircraft equipped with chemtrail spraying equipment — something the entire mainstream media still mocks as somehow being a conspiracy theory — are being openly used in this operation.
“The C-130 cargo planes operating from an air force base in San Antonio joined two smaller aircraft that sprayed in south Texas last week,” reports Reuters. “In Jefferson County on the eastern Texas coast, aerial spraying began Sunday and could end Tuesday.”
Thus, the entire mainstream media now confirms that chemtrail spraying is taking place in Texas. Furthermore, military hardware is being used to conduct the spraying operations, which consist of bombarding the population with toxic chemicals. None of this is debated. Yes, the U.S. government is carpet bombing U.S. citizens with neurological poisons. This is all openly admitted by the Texas government.

Photo credit: USAF / MSgt. Bob Barko, Jr.

All this toxic poison is perfectly safe for you to breathe, according to clueless “officials”

By definition, an insecticide is a toxic chemical substance that kills living organisms. If it didn’t kill things, it wouldn’t qualify as an insecticide.
The problem with all such chemicals is that their neurological damage is never limited to the targeted insects they intend to eradicate. Nearly all insecticides end up being toxic to aquatic life, animals and even humans. Similarly, they all persist in the environment for days, weeks or even months. That’s why laboratories like my own lab — CWC Labs — can easily detect pesticide and herbicide chemicals in food crops many months after harvest.
The Texas Department of State Health Services goes to great lengths to lie to the public and tell people they can inhale this insecticide with impunity, stating:
During aerial spraying, a small amount of insecticide is sprayed over a large area, one to two tablespoons per acre. When applied according to label instructions by a licensed professional, it does not pose a health risk to people, pets or the environment. According to the EPA, people may prefer to stay inside and close windows and doors when spraying takes place, but it is not necessary.
Some of the statements made by DSHS are such laughable outright lies that even the scientific community can’t help but mock the deceptions. In one press release, DSHS actually claims that insecticide chemicals magically break down during the night so that honey bees wake up the next morning to a clean, chemical-free world where all the insecticide chemicals sprayed the night before have vanished:
The insecticides dissipate and break down quickly in the environment, and when bees emerge in daylight, they are not affected.
That statement is written by anti-science quacks who work for the government, of course. It’s the same excuse that neonicotinoid manufacturers have used for years, falsely claiming their chemicals don’t harm pollinators either. The State of Texas might as well just issue a press release that proclaims, “We are suspending the laws of cause and effect during the hurricane cleanup effort” because that’s essentially what they are claiming. (Or, even better, declare that “nicotine is not addictive.”)
Texas officials suddenly refuse to believe in the laws of chemistry, you see. Deadly chemicals that are being sprayed in order to kill things now have magical properties that allow Texas bureaucrats to arbitrarily decide which insects those chemicals will kill. This is, of course, practically a belief in pesticide voodoo. (Read Pesticides.news for more coverage on this topic.)
Even when federal officials see a shocking increase in nervous system damage — such as Gullain-Barre syndrome — among people exposed to these insecticide chemicals, the authorities always blame the mosquitoes instead of the chemical.

Texas tells citizens to use the same larvicide that caused the shrunken brains blamed on Zika

Accelerating its war on its own citizens, Texas officials even recommend that people dump larvicide chemicals into standing water, even though it’s those same chemicals that actually caused the “shrunken brains” which were blamed on Zika virus (which turned out to be a total medical hoax).
“People can help control mosquitoes during the recovery effort by dumping out standing water around their homes and businesses and applying a commercially available larvicide in water that can’t be drained,” urges a DSHS press release. “People should also avoid mosquito bites by using an EPA-registered mosquito repellent every time they go outside…”
In other words, in addition to being chemtrail sprayed with C-130 cargo planes that bombard the population with deadly neurotoxins, and beyond the nightly fog trucks that spray yet more toxins on cities, the people of Texas are being told to poison the water around their homes and cover their skin with DEET, another brain-damaging neurotoxin.
As Natural News previously exposed with exhaustive scientific research, the combination of DEET and carbamate-class pesticides generates a binary weapon that bombards human brains with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, effectively causing Alzheimer’s-like symptoms in humans.
This combination of chemicals has accurately been described as a form of chemical warfare waged against the people. See CHEMICAL WARFARE RED ALERT: Zika panic DEET chemical part of a brain damaging binary weapon being carpet bombed across America’s cities. As that article states:

DEET damages brain cells

The DEET chemical is actually N,N-Diethyl-3-methylbenzamide. From a molecular science point of view, it looks like this (courtesy ChemSpider.com):

Note the molecular formula of C12H17NO. This means it has a total of 12 carbon atoms, 17 hydrogen atoms, one nitrogen and one oxygen. (We often use molecular formulas as shorthand in chemistry. This tells you the elemental composition and ratios, but not the bonding configuration or polarity.)
All by itself, the DEET chemical is known to cause damage to nerve cells. Let’s explore that, because DEET is just one part of a binary chemical weapon system that is right now being deployed against the American people… a weapon system engineered to cause mass fear and confusion while even achieving a “behavior modifying” effect as you’ll soon see.

DEET damages brain cells by interfering with enzymatic reactions

Ever wonder how DEET kills insects? It’s an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, meaning it blocks the molecular action of acetylcholinesterase.
Via this Natural News article:
French scientists Vincent Corbel from the Institut de Recherche pour le Developement in Montpellier and Bruno Lapied from the University of Angers headed a team of researchers who studied the mode of action and toxicity of DEET, also known by the chemical name N,N-Diethyl-3-methylbenzamide. “We’ve found that DEET is not simply a behavior-modifying chemical but also inhibits the activity of a key central nervous system enzyme, acetylcholinesterase, in both insects and mammals,” Corbel said in a statement to the media.
What exactly is acetylcholinesterase? “Acetylcholinesterase (AChE, acetycholine acetylhydrolase…) is found in many types of conducting tissue: nerve and muscle, central and peripheral tissues, motor and sensory fibers, and cholinergic and noncholinergic fibers,” says this 2013 science paper in Current Neuropharmocology: “Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors: Pharmacology and Toxicology.”
Blocking AChE causes “disrupted neurotransmission” and other damaging effects to brain cells: “The enzyme inactivation, induced by various inhibitors, leads to acetylcholine accumulation, hyperstimulation of nicotinic and muscarinic receptors, and disrupted neurotransmission.”
According to that science paper, AChE inhibitors work similarly to carbamate and organophosphate pesticides — two classes of chemicals routinely sprayed all over the national food supply — meaning that people who slather their skin with DEET are poisoning themselves with brain-disrupting pesticide chemicals. Says the paper, “In medicine and agriculture, the word ‘organophosphates’ refers to a group of insecticides and nerve agents that inhibit AChE.”
These organophosphates “exert their main toxicological effects through non-reversible phosphorylation of esterases in the central nervous system,” report the scientists. “The acute toxic effects are related to irreversible inactivation of AChE.”
In other words, some classes of AChE inhibitors can cause irreversible damage to the central nervous system.

DEET inhibits nervous system function… that’s how it kills

DEET is an AChE inhibitor. As stated in this science paper entitled “Evidence for inhibition of cholinesterases in insect and mammalian nervous systems by the insect repellent deet”:
Despite the widespread and increased interest in the use of deet in public health programmes, controversies remain concerning both the identification of its target sites at the olfactory system and its mechanism of toxicity in insects, mammals and humans…
…[W]e show that deet is not simply a behaviour-modifying chemical but that it also inhibits cholinesterase activity, in both insect and mammalian neuronal preparations. Deet is commonly used in combination with insecticides and we show that deet has the capacity to strengthen the toxicity of carbamates, a class of insecticides known to block acetylcholinesterase.
These findings question the safety of deet, particularly in combination with other chemicals…
Now you are beginning to grasp the binary weapon of DEET + Carbamates (or OPs). Carbamates are common pesticides sprayed on food crops. They’re also sprayed into the air by your local government as part of their ill-formed mosquito control programs they claim will stop Zika.

DEET is one part of a binary chemical weapon (the other part is carbamate insecticides)

I hope you’re paying close attention to what I’m explaining here, because what the study mentioned above reveals is that DEET is part of a binary chemical weapon system that goes “ballistic” against your nerve cells when combined with certain classes of insecticides (such as carbamates and OPs).
What are carbamate insecticides? They are a class of pesticide chemicals that are right now being sprayed on food crops all across America. Even worse, they’re often used in aerial spraying campaigns in combination with DEET. In effect, this is a chemical binary weapon now being deployed against the American people.
“Deet is commonly used in combination with insecticides and we show that deet has the capacity to strengthen the toxicity of carbamates, a class of insecticides known to block acetylcholinesterase,” says the BioMedCentral science paper linked above.
Adding to the concern, this warning from MDguidelines.com explains, “Over 80% of the pesticide poisonings in the US are caused by organophosphate and carbamate pesticides. These compounds inhibit acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme critical to the control of nerve impulse transmission from one cell to another. When the enzyme is inhibited, there is overstimulation and then paralysis of the secondary cell.”
According to this PDF document from the USGS, “The toxicity of OP and carbamate pesticides is due to the disruption of the nervous system of an invertebrate or a vertebrate through the inhibition of cholinesterase (ChE) enzymes. These enzymes are involved in transmitting normal nerve impulses throughout the nervous system. An acute pesticide dose reduces the activity of ChEs, and nerve impulses cannot be transmitted normally. This can paralyze the nervous system, and it may lead to death, usually from respiratory failure.”
That same report goes on to explain how “More than 100 avian species have been poisoned by these pesticides” and that “Raptors and other bird species become victims of secondary poisoning when they scavenge dead animals poisoned by pesticides or when they feed on live animals or invertebrates that are unable to escape predation because of pesticide intoxication.”
In other words, the carbamates make animals weak and confused, turning them into easy prey. Hmmm… can you think of any other targeted population an evil government might want to make weak and confused so that they can be easily controlled or exploited? Remember, to the government, We the People are nothing more than zoo animals living on tax farms, and they are more than happy to use chemical sprays to keep us all dumbed down and ignorant, just as former slave plantation owners refused to allow their slaves to learn to read.
“Research by Duke University Medical Center pharmacologist Mohamed Abou-Donia, who has spent 30 years studying the effects of pesticides, found that prolonged exposure to DEET can impair functioning in parts of the brain and could result in problems with muscle coordination, muscle weakness, walking or even memory and cognition,” reports Natural News.

The binary weapon formula is DEET + Carbamates

In summary, here’s how the binary chemical weapon works:
DEET + Carbamates = Extreme toxicity, weakness, confusion and loss of cognitive function.
The DEET is now being purchased and deployed by obedient sheeple who stupidly think Zika viruses are going to eat their brains. The Carbamates and OPs are sprayed onto populations via aerial carpet bombing runs and agricultural chemical spraying. If you aren’t eating a 100% organic diet, you are eating carbamates at every meal. These then combine with the DEET chemicals to cause mass mental confusion, weakness, memory loss, fear and neurotransmitter disruption.
Combine this with endless propaganda from a complicit media run by globalists and this is how you end up with people voting for their own enslavement at the hands of tyrants.
The following map, sourced from the USGS, shows the number of avian deaths recorded across U.S. states from OP and carbamate poisoning (from 1986 – 1995). Note how widespread the chemical spraying is? “Organophosphorus and carbamate compounds are used throughout the world as insecticides, herbicides, nematocides, acaricides, fungicides, rodenticides, avicides, and bird repellants,” says the report.

Read more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09-18-texas-carpet-bombs-its-own-hurricane-traumatized-victims-with-neurological-poisons-sprayed-from-military-planes.html

New York Times: Spike the food supply with sterilization chemicals to cause global infertility and depopulation

A November 24, 1969 New York Times feature article authored by Gladwin Hill called for sterilization chemicals to be added to the food supply in order to achieve globalist goals of human depopulation. That article, entitled “A Sterility Drug in Food is Hinted” came with the byline, “Biologist Stresses Need to Curb Population Growth.”
Until the New York Times memory holes the article, you can still find it in the NYT archives at this link, in fact. You can also see a partial photo of the NYT article below.
Most people living today — especially younger people — have no idea that a key agenda of globalism is the elimination of “undesirable” humans from the gene pool. They believe that ideas of “eugenics” and genocide were only carried out by the Nazis, not by American university professors and presidential science advisors. So they have no grasp of the context in which Planned Parenthood, for example, operates today as a depopulation engine to eliminate blacks from society. (Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a black-hating eugenicist whose ideas directly inspired the genocidal goals of the Third Reich.)
The New York Times article, shown below, quotes Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, a depopulation advocate, as well as President Richard Nixon’s chief science adviser, Dr. Lee DuBridge, who said that “population control should be the prime task of every government.” (Read PopulationControl.news for more headlines on this subject.)

Compulsory family regulation run by government

In the article, shown below, Dr. Ehrlich laments the fact that biologists believe, “compulsory family regulation will be necessary to retard population growth.” In essence, he is arguing that the government should be in charge of reproductive rights, determining who is allowed to reproduce and who must be sterilized.
To achieve the sterilization goals, he “urged establishing a Federal Population Commission ‘with a large budget for propaganda,'” reports the New York Times. He also called for, “the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply” in order to cause mandatory infertility.
Dr. Barry Commoner of Washington University in St. Louis added to the discussion:
Can we not invent a way to reduce our population growth rate to zero? Every human institution – school, university, church, family, government and international agencies such as Unesco – should set this as its prime task.

This agenda is already well under way

Most Americans have no awareness that this agenda is well under way. Flu shots, for example, are now scientifically confirmed to cause spontaneous abortions, a form of infertility and population control. This explains exactly why the CDC began pushing for flu shot vaccines during all three trimesters of gestation in expectant mothers.
Sperm viability is also plummeting across the modern world, according to dozens of published scientific studies. One such study — conducted by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem — found that sperm concentrations have plummeted more than 50 percent from 1973 to 2011. According to the abstract of this study as reported in Science Daily:
These findings strongly suggest a significant decline in male reproductive health that has serious implications beyond fertility and reproduction, given recent evidence linking poor semen quality with higher risk of hospitalization and death.

Covert vectors for depopulation that are being pursued right now

The depopulation goals from 1969 are in full force in America today. Some of the vectors for covert sterilization and depopulation now include:

• Covert genetic modification of crops to grow RNA interference fragments that nullify male fertility in humans.
• The continued use of toxic mercury in flu shots in order to cause spontaneous abortions in pregnant women.
• Planned Parenthood abortion centers that target minority communities for eugenics “cleansing” of the gene pool.
• Inoculation of all vaccine recipients with hidden, cancer-causing viruses that are deliberately allowed to contaminate many vaccines. (See the SV40 Simian Virus fiasco affecting 98 million Americans via the polio vaccine.) (Also, read the book “Plague” by Judy Mikovitz.)
• The planned, deliberate use of cancer-causing ingredients in the popular food supply, including sodium nitrite in processed meat, inducing widespread cancer and early deaths (the clueless population then eats itself to death, while enriching the cancer industry).
• Spiking public health vaccines with covert sterilization chemicals, exactly as has been confirmed in African vaccination campaigns that target young black women for sterilization without their knowledge or consent.

If you do not know that mass sterilization efforts are underway right now to eliminate human fertility and drastically reduce the global population, then you are not yet well-versed on reality. Even Bill Gates openly talks about achieving the correct amount of population reduction by using vaccines and other vectors, saying:
The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.
For the sake of preserving the historical record, we are reprinting the NYT article here, knowing that they are very likely to attempt to memory hole this article in another swipe at Orwellian-style revisionist history.
A STERILITY DRUG IN FOOD IS HINTED
Biologist Stresses Need to Curb Population Growth
By GLADWIN HILL
Special to The New York Times
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 24 – A possibility that the government might have to put sterility drugs in reservoirs and in food shipped to foreign countries to limit human multiplication was envisioned today by a leading crusader on the population problem.
The crusader, Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, among a number of commentators who called attention to the “population crisis” as the United States Commission for Unesco opened it 13th national conference here today.
Unesco is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The 100-member commission, appointed by the Secretary of State, included representatives of Government, outside organizations, and the public. Some 500 conservationists and others are attending the two-day meeting at the St. Francis Hotel, devoted this year to environmental problems.
President Nixon’s chief science adviser, Dr. Lee DuBridge, brought up the population question in his keynote speech last night, calling the reduction of the earth’s population growth rate to zero “the first great challenge of our time.”
Godfrey a Speaker
His comments went beyond recent statements of President Nixon, who in a message to Congress stressed the provision of birth control information to underprivileged women.
But the Federal Government’s willingness to come to grips with population limitation was questioned by another speaker, Arthur Godfrey, radio-television star and a conservation campaigner.
“Dr. DuBridge rightly said that population control should be the prime task of every government,” he said. “But is there anyone here – anyone – who thinks that this Administration, or the next of the next, will act with the kind of force that’s necessary?”
Dr. Erlich, who is a biologist said:
“Our first move must be to convince all those we can that the planet Earth must be viewed as a spaceship of limited carrying capacity.”
“I think that 150 million people (50 million fewer that there are now) would be an optimum number to live comfortably in the United States.
‘Alternative to Armageddon’
“Some biologists feel that compulsory family regulation will be necessary to retard population growth. It is a dismal prospect – except when viewed as an alternative to Armageddon.”
He urged establishing a Federal Population Commission “with a large budget for propaganda,” changing tax laws to discourage reproduction and instituting mandatory birth control instruction in public schools.
He also urged “changing the pattern of Federal support of biomedical research so that the majority of it goes into the broad areas of population regulation, environment sciences, behavior sciences and related areas rather than into short-sighted programs on death control.”
If such steps are unavailing, he continued, the nation might resort to “the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply,” with limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery.
Although it might seem that such a program could be started by doctoring foods sent to underdeveloped countries, he said, “the solution does not lie in that direction” because “other people already are suspicious of our motives.”
Economic Pressure Urged
Rather, he suggested,  the United States should stop economic aid to countries that do not try to limit their populations.
Dr. Barry Commoner of St. Louis, Washington University ecologist, in an ensuing discussion period differed with Dr. Ehrlich.
He said that he thought the urge to multiply was rooted in the sense of insecurity. And that the better way to reduce reproduction was by “increasing the well-being of peoples.”
He also opposed chemical strategems on the ground that “every technological trick like that we’ve tried  has caused disaster.”
Recapitulating the environmental problems stemming from population, Dr. Dubridge said: “Do we need more people on the earth? We all know the answer to that is no. Do we have to have more people? Also no.
“Can we reverse the urges of a billion years of evolving life? We can. We know techniques for reducing fertility. We are not fully utilizing them.”
Citing a widespread attitude, he said: ‘We have the right to have as many children as we can afford,’ we say. Do we, today? No.
“Can we not invent a way to reduce our population growth rate to zero? Every human institution – school, university, church, family, government and international agencies such as Unesco – should set this as its prime task.”
Source: The New York Times
Published: November 24, 1969

Read more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09-14-new-york-times-spike-the-food-supply-with-sterilization-chemicals-to-cause-global-infertility-and-depopulation.html

Starving artists? Feds sending millions to billionaires

A new study indicates that contrary to the argument that without federal funding, those “starving artists” just won’t make it, the U.S. government sends millions of dollars every year to organizations that are worth billions.
Michael McGrady writes for the Heartland Institute of a recent audit of the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, which is responsible for the National Endowment of the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, gave more than $441 million to some 3,000 groups in 2016.
Seventy-one of those groups, which received about $20.5 million of the total, already had assets above $1 billion.
Each.
The audit of the agency was conducted and published by Open The Books, a project of the non-profit American Transparency, which aims to limit government by exposing how it spends taxpayer funds.
Adam Andrzejewski, the chief operating officer of American Transparency, said the “argument for public funding of the arts goes something like this: If you eliminate public funding of the arts, then the starving artists will go away, and you need this to have a vibrant culture in our country.”
Get “The Devil in DC: Winning Back the Country From the Beast in Washington” from the WND Superstore to learn how Americans can fight back against the establishment.
McGrady said the audit found that most of the grants don’t go to starving artists.
“They go to well-heeled, asset-rich organizations. In fact, about $8 out of every $10 go to organizations with high assets,” he said.
McGrady also cited Jonathan Bydlak, president of the Coalition to Reduce Spending, who said government bureaucrats use arts subsidies to tell artists what to say and how to say it.
“This opens up the door to all sorts of perverse incentives, and doesn’t exactly support true creativity,” he said.
The study states:
“Every year, celebrities such as Katy Perry, Pharrell Williams, Madonna, Alex Rodriguez and Jennifer Lopez grace the red carpet at the ‘Met Gala,’ a benefit for New York City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. The star power helps the organization raise up to $300 million annual. Since 2009, however, the Met has received federal grants totaling $1.2 million from the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities (NFA-H). The Met can’t argue that it needed the money – it has more than $3.7 billion in financial assets.”
The full report is here.
The report said that in the arts community, there is “a stark contrast between the haves and the have-nots.”
“We found 71 charitable organizations – with at least $1 billion each in assets – received nearly $120 million in federal funding since 2009. Then, there were the ‘starving artist’ organizations – 1,027 organizations with assets under $1 million – that received just $41 million in federal grants (FY2016).”
The report noted President Trump wants to eliminate federal funding for arts and is getting resistance from wealthy arts organizations, raising several questions for the American public:

• “Why are taxpayers funding nonprofits that have assets of at least $1 billion? Do charities have a right to public funding no matter how strong their balance sheet?”
• “If the public purpose is to fund the starving artist, then why are small organizations (less than $1 million in assets) receiving just $1 of every $4 in NFA-H nonprofit grant-making?”
• “Should prestigious universities receive arts and humanities funding despite their billion-dollar endowments?”
• “Who can explain the public purpose in forcing working-class taxpayers to fund arts organizations that obviously don’t need the money?”

The study found there were 71 groups worth more than $1 billion each that got a total of $20.5 million, even though the groups have a cumulative worth of $366 billion.
Then there were 39 groups worth between $500 million and $1 billion each that got $4.8 million, even though their cumulative worth is $27 billion.

read more: http://www.wnd.com/2017/09/starving-artists-feds-sending-millions-to-billionaires/

Here’s the shocking REAL reason why aluminum is added to vaccines

The question of whether or not to vaccinate your baby is one which every new mother must face. Bombarded with conflicting “evidence” about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, many are very confused, afraid to cause long-term damage like autism, but bullied by the mainstream media and medical professionals into believing that failing to vaccinate will result in serious, even fatal diseases.
One of the issues which often crops up in vaccine debates is that of adjuvants. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claims that adjuvants are ingredients added to vaccines to create stronger immune responses in recipients’ bodies. “In other words, adjuvants help vaccines work better,” they insist. The CDC also claims that adjuvants have been safely used in vaccines for many decades.
One of the most commonly used adjuvants is aluminum.
Does the addition of aluminum really “help vaccines work better?” What is the real reason it’s added to vaccines, how does it affect the immune system, and what link is there between aluminum and autoimmune diseases? (Related: Find out all you need to know at Vaccines.news.)
These issues and others were recently addressed in an interview by iHealthTube.com with Dr. Suzanne Humphries, M.D., board certified internist, nephrologist (nephrology is the study of the kidneys and their diseases), and author of Dissolving illusions, rising from the dead.
Dr. Humphries explained that while vaccines do leave an infant with a “super-charged immune system” for a time, this is not a healthy state for the immune system to be in.
There are two types of vaccines, Humphries explained: killed vaccines and live vaccines. Live vaccines simulate the disease in the immune system more successfully than dead vaccines, and have a better influence on the immune system – that is, Dr. Humphries pointed out, if they don’t kill you or give you encephalitis. It is the dead vaccines to which aluminum is generally added as an adjuvant.
Dr. Humphries explained the reason for the addition of aluminum as follows:
“When it comes to these sub-unit, or killed vaccines, the infant immune system just won’t respond to it. … There’s a program in that infant immune system to make that infant anti-inflammatory, and there’s a reason for it, because that infant is becoming acquainted with a world full of microbes. … Imagine if we reacted to all the microbes that we’re getting in our mother’s breast milk, colonizing our gut and landing on our skin and our throats and our ears – we would be an autoimmune nightmare. And so, there’s something called molecular mimicry, which pretty much God put into the system of us relating to the world, in that the proteins in microbes very similarly mimic our own proteins in the blood vessels and the heart and the brain and many different places, depending on which microbe you’re talking about. You throw aluminum into that vaccine and molecular mimicry becomes a problem and that baby’s immune system gets ramped up.”
So, basically, aluminum is added to vaccines to short-circuit a vitally important element of the protective measures of a baby’s immune system.
This temporary super-charging of the immune system does not promote long-term health. What aluminum in vaccines does do, is trigger an allergic response in most people.
Such vaccines also do not build up the immune system to fight disease better.
Humphries cited a study in Denmark which examined hospitalization rates for all sorts of infections in children under the age of 4 who had received either live or dead vaccines. The research team determined that if a killed vaccine had been a child’s last vaccine, it generally had a detrimental effect on their overall immune response to other infections.
As Dr. Humphries noted, “These killed vaccines skew the immune system and make a person more susceptible to other infections. So, while it might protect you from pertussis for a short period of time, you could be susceptible to RSV, croup, or other kinds of infections that could land you in the hospital. So, again, to me that’s not a very good trade off.” (Related: Aluminum and vaccines – what the research reveals.)
And aluminum’s devastating affect on the body’s natural immune defense system helps explain the surge in autoimmune diseases in recent years.
It seems there is one thing new moms can be sure of: Vaccinating your child with a vaccine that contains aluminum as an adjuvant will not strengthen their immune system, may result in an allergic response, could lead to an autoimmune disease, and may make them more susceptible to other infections.
Sources include:
YouTube.com
CDC.gov

read more: http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09-01-heres-the-shocking-real-reason-why-aluminum-is-added-to-vaccines.html