Saturday, January 25, 2014

The most wanted documentary about GMO

Genetic Roulette - The Gamble of our Lives

The Fukushima Secrecy Syndrome – From Japan to America

by Ralph Nader

Last month, the ruling Japanese coalition parties quickly rammed through Parliament a state secrets law. We Americans better take notice.

Under its provisions the government alone decides what are state secrets and any civil servants who divulge any “secrets” can be jailed for up to 10 years. Journalists caught in the web of this vaguely defined law can be jailed for up to 5 years.

Government officials have been upset at the constant disclosures of their laxity by regulatory officials before and after the Fukushima nuclear power disaster in 2011, operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).

Week after week, reports appear in the press revealing the seriousness of the contaminated water flow, the inaccessible radioactive material deep inside these reactors and the need to stop these leaking sites from further poisoning the land, food and ocean. Officials now estimate that it could take up to 40 years to clean up and decommission the reactors.

Other factors are also feeding this sure sign of a democratic setback. Militarism is raising its democracy-menacing head, prompted by friction with China over the South China Sea. Dismayingly, U.S. militarists are pushing for a larger Japanese military budget. China is the latest national security justification for our “pivot to East Asia” provoked in part by our military-industrial complex.

Draconian secrecy in government and fast-tracking bills through legislative bodies are bad omens for freedom of the Japanese press and freedom to dissent by the Japanese people. Freedom of information and robust debate (the latter cut off sharply by Japan’s parliament in December 5, 2013) are the currencies of democracy.

There is good reason why the New York Times continues to cover the deteriorating conditions in the desolate, evacuated Fukushima area. Our country has licensed many reactors here with the same designs and many of the same inadequate safety and inspection standards. Some reactors here are near earthquake faults with surrounding populations which cannot be safely evacuated in case of serious damage to the electric plant. The two Indian Point reactors that are 30 miles north of New York City are a case in point.

The less we are able to know about the past and present conditions of Fukushima, the less we will learn about atomic reactors in our own country.

Fortunately many of Japan’s most famous scientists, including Nobel laureates, Toshihide Maskawa and Hideki Shirakawa, have led the opposition against this new state secrecy legislation with 3,000 academics signing a public letter of protest. These scientists and academics declared the government’s secrecy law a threat to “the pacifist principles and fundamental human rights established by the constitution and should be rejected immediately.”

Following this statement, the Japan Scientists’ Association, Japan’s mass media companies, citizens associations, lawyers’ organizations and some regional legislatures opposed the legislation. Polls show the public also opposes this attack on democracy. The present ruling parties remain adamant. They cite as reasons for state secrecy “national security and fighting terrorism.” Sound familiar?

History is always present in the minds of many Japanese people. They know what happened in Japan when the unchallenged slide toward militarization of Japanese society led to the intimidating tyranny that drove the invasion of China, Korea and Southeast Asia before and after Pearl Harbor. By 1945, Japan was in ruins, ending with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The American people have to be alert to our government’s needless military and political provocations of China, which is worried about encirclement by surrounding U.S.-allied nations and U.S. air and sea power. Washington might better turn immediate attention to U.S. trade policies that have facilitated U.S. companies shipping American jobs and whole industries to China.

The Obama administration must become more alert to authoritarian trends in Japan that its policies have been either encouraging or knowingly ignoring – often behind the curtains of our own chronic secrecy.

The lessons of history beckon.

Monday, January 20, 2014

Local Chef Takes North Pacific Seafood Off Menu


SANTA BARBARA, Calif. - A Santa Barbara chef is taking extreme measures to keep his customers safe from what said is dangerous seafood.

Robert Perez has been a chef for more than three decades, but it was the nuclear disaster in Japan that changed the way he cooks.

In March 2011, a tsunami triggered by an earthquake rocked the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, causing radioactive materials to leak.

Even though scientists have said that the radiation in the ocean is now low, Perez isn't buying it.

"The way things are heading, we just feel strongly that it is not safe, and I'm not going to consume the fish and I'm definitely not going to provide it to my guests. I just can't do that with a clear conscience," said Perez.

The menu at Seagrass changed slightly two years ago when the restaurant stopped using Japanese seafood. Around a year ago, Hawaiian fish was taken off the menu. Now, all seafood from the San Diego border to Alaska is gone. The change has forced Perez to get his fish from Mexico, the Atlantic or even farther.

"Alpine, New Zealand salmon," said Perez as he unwrapped a piece of fish. "It comes from glacier water."

He believes he's the only chef in the area making such strict choices on his food, because no one really talks about it. "They go, 'Fuku-what?' It's like the F-word. It's like the other F-word, or maybe it's the new F-word," he said.

Scientist think avoiding the seafood is overboard and have said the levels of radiation in fish are less than what people are exposed to from x-rays. Perez said he has to be able to stand behind what he serves, even if people think it's extreme.

"It's easy for people to be convinced that there's no harm right now, and that's part of the problem," he said.

Although it's an adjustment for customers, Perez said he's not trying to stand out.

"That's just part of who we are. And I cook because I want to please people. And I want people to be healthy with my food. I want them to feel good physically and spiritually. So that's my intent, that's the intent I put out there. So if I have a product that I feel uncomfortable with, and I don't care if it's an onion or a piece of meat or a piece of fish, it's all the same. It has to be something that I can stand behind and say, 'Please try this.'"

NY state senator says: psych eval for all little children

by Jon Rappoport

It’s Senate Bill A8186-2013.

It’s been referred to the education committee twice, most recently a week ago. NY State Senator Margaret Markey introduced it in 2013.

Previously, Markey won a few minutes of fame for introducing a bill that would stop all restaurants from using salt in their meals.

AB 8186 requires all public schoolchildren in NY to have two health examinations in elementary grades and two in secondary grades. These exams must include a psychological evaluation, which certifies “that the child is mentally fit to permit attendance at [public] school.”

No certificate, no school.

Aside from the fact that this psych exam is invasive and potentially disturbing to a child as young as five, and aside from the fact that it violates privacy considerations, it’s bogus down to its core, because psychology isn’t a science and never was.

Psychology is, to put it politely, a bunch of morons deciding what mental health is all about.

Using high-sounding terminology, these professionals label patients with conditions, none of which are based on defining physical tests. No blood, urine, or saliva tests. No genetic tests. No brain scans. “Mental health” itself is a linguistic artifact, and bears no relation to life, energy, curiosity, creativity. It’s a phantasmagorical standard, designed to draw in patients.

Attaching psychologists to schools is about as useful as attaching barnacles and mold to a ship.

Historically, as the concept of sin weakened its hold on the population, “new scientists” stepped into the breach with categories of “mental disorders.”

“You’re not bad, you’re ill.”

Here’s the sticking point. Psychologists aren’t entirely stupid. They rely on mental-disorder labels that, to a certain extent, mirror human behavior. For example, a child who is sad and lonely is slapped with a diagnosis of “clinical depression.” The fact is, the child is lonely and sad, and the possible reasons are many. But none of them implies a Condition called clinical depression. There is no Condition.

Researchers, allied with pharmaceutical interests, have trotted out a catch-all term to explain so-called mental disorders: “chemical imbalance” in the brain. The drug companies then supply the drugs that are said to correct the imbalance. Profits soar.

This is non-scientific lying compounded. Researchers have never proved there is a normal baseline for brain chemistry. How then could they have established what an imbalance is?

Can a child have problems? Can he be in trouble? Can he be trouble to other children? Of course. Any reasonably intelligent adult can spot these things. But again, this has nothing to do with a Condition.

And a psych eval conducted by a psychologist on a five-year old, to determine whether the child will be allowed to go to school? Absurd.

You would be much closer to the truth saying a psychologist who is part of that system is crazy, than saying a little boy or girl has a Condition.

So what’s going on with politicians who are trying to impose psychology and psychiatry on children (and adults)? Most politicians are merely ill-informed, and they’re putting their faith in this pseudoscience in the same way that people put their faith in a self-appointed priest class that claims it is the worshiper’s only connection to God.

Politicians, of course, always look for answers that make government larger and more intrusive, because it is government to which a politician is ultimately loyal.

But there are other political animals who are more aware. They understand that the real issue is control. They want to be able to hijack freedom and place populations under the gun.

They want the right to say a dissident, a rebel, an outsider, a critic, someone “who is different” is a threat. And they want to back that up with treatment. Which means re-education, indoctrination, and debilitating drugs.

A kinder, gentler face on the old Soviet psychiatric system.

Why wait until adulthood to impose that system? Why not start early, with a five-year old, whose mind can be tinkered with by professionals?

Understand, if it isn’t clear already, that the government, through licensing, enables and certifies a monopoly on the mind, by stating that psychology and psychiatry are officially approved methods.

What right does government have to make that claim? It has no right.  It has no rational reason to be in that business.

But a politician abandons rationality as soon as he gets a whiff of the power that government affords.

It’s how a nobody immediately becomes a somebody.


Story Leak
by Mikael Thalen

A leading climate change figure has come out against the government’s continued and ridiculous climate change hysteria.

Speaking in regards to Massachusetts’ new $50 million climate change proposal, MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, a leading figure in the climate change movement, pointed out the absurdity of blaming every weather event on global warming and climate change.

“The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,” Lindzen told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”

Although supporting the theory of man-made global warming, Lindzen admitted that rhetoric from the political class and green movement has been nothing more than over-the-top “catastrophism.”

“Even many of the people who are supportive of sounding the global warning alarm, back off from catastrophism,” Lindzen said. “It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe.”

Even more surprising, Lindzen goes on to point out the government’s obvious use of climate change alarmism to push greater state control, even warning over politicians’ use of “crony capitalism.”

“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” Lindzen said.

Lindzen has frequently been attacked by climate alarmists for refusing to give into political pressures regarding climate sThe growing number of failed predictions from the global warming crowd has only cooled the public’s belief in recent years.

From 2007 to 2009, Al Gore hysterically warned that the North Pole would be completely “ice-free” by 2013. Instead, 2013 experienced record breaking cold and major growth in Arctic ice.

Similarly, Gore made desperate warnings over the danger of increased hurricanes during the same time period. Soon after, climate scientists had trouble explaining the record low hurricanes that soon followed.

In his 1992 book “Earth in the Balance,” Gore went on to claim that global warming would soon wipe coastal areas of Florida off the map in as little as a few decades. Sea level statistics taken 18 years later revealed Gore’s predictions to be completely inaccurate.

White House Science Adviser John P. Holdren, who made failed predictions of global cooling in his 1977 book Ecoscience, attempted to blame the recent “polar vortex” on global warming. Researchers soon uncovered a 1974 Time Magazine article that blamed a cold polar vortex on global cooling instead.

Climate change alarmists have become so crazed in their beliefs that some have attempted to equate skepticism with racism, claiming any denial of global warming is a “sickness” in need of “treatment.”

Unsurprisingly, major environmental issues such as the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster seem to be completely ignored by Gore and company. Given the massive amount of money Al Gore has continued to make from generating climate fear, it seems unlikely that any real disaster unable to generate cash will receive proper attention.

Monday, January 13, 2014

'Unequivocal' cell phones cause cancer


Mobiles 'cooking the brain'; brain tumors become children’s number one killer illness; and leaked industry memo admits 'wargaming' the science.

Seek truth from facts with former senior White House adviser Devra Davis, Storyleak editor Anthony Gucciardi, 'cell phone survivor' Bret Bocook, Microwave News editor Louis Slesin, top radiation biologist Dariusz Leszczynski, and Ellie Marks, whose husband Alan's suing the industry for his brain tumor.

Cell phones are "[t]he next public casualty catastrophe."

Monday, January 6, 2014

Why Most People Won't Wake Up - BRAIN DAMAGE to Neocortex


Marijuana Compounds Found to ‘Protect Nervous System’ Against MS

by Elizabeth Renter

Several studies have been conducted focusing on marijuana’s potential to treat and ease symptoms associated with multiple sclerosis – a disease that affects the central nervous system, often causing daily pain and difficulty moving, speaking, and swallowing. A new study adds even more insight into how MS patients can use marijuana, finding that cannabinoids within the vilified healing plant can help treat multiple sclerosis-like diseases by preventing inflammation in the brain and spinal cord.

The study, published in the Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology, set out to see if the anti-inflammatory compounds in marijuana known as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) could be used to treat the inflammation associated with MS.

“Our study looks at how compounds isolated from marijuana can be used to regulate inflammation to protect the nervous system and its functions,” explains Dr. Ewa Kozela. “Inflammation is part of the body’s natural immune response, but in cases like MS, it gets out of hand.”

Using immune cells isolated from paralyzed mice, the researchers used THC or CBD to determine how these compounds affected the production of inflammatory markers, specifically one called interleukin 17 (IL-17). This inflammatory marker is strongly associated with MS and is harmful to nerve cells.

“The presence of CBD or THC restrains the immune cells from triggering the production of inflammatory molecules, and limits the molecules’ ability to reach and damage the brain and spinal cord,” wrote the researchers, finding the amount of IL-17 was far fewer in mice treated with the cannabis compounds.

This isn’t the first clue that marijuana could hold treatment options for inflammatory conditions. It’s already being used, legally or otherwise, by countless people for the treatment of pain and muscle stiffness associated with inflammation.

Likewise, it isn’t the first study looking at the marijuana-MS connection. In 2011, a study found that CBD helps treat MS symptoms in mice by preventing immune cells from attacking nerve cells in the spinal cord. Another study coming to similar conclusions found that:

“The study met its primary objective to demonstrate the superiority of CE (cannabis extract) over placebo in the treatment of muscle stiffness in MS. This was supported by results for secondary efficacy variables. Adverse events in participants treated with CE were consistent with the known side effects of cannabinoids. No new safety concerns were observed”

Mice suffering from MS-symptoms were treated with CBD and went from being partially paralyzed and immobile to walking with a limp. These mice had less inflammation in their spinal cord than those untreated.

Research on CBD is particularly exciting because it offers the benefits of cannabis without the psychoactive effects. In other words, when isolated from other compounds in the plant, it won’t get you “high”. Add to this the fact that there are few, if any, known side effects of treating with CBD and this and other studies are extremely promising.

“When used wisely, cannabis has huge potential,” Dr Kozela says. “We’re just beginning to understand how it works.”

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

Bill Gates Funding Drone Technology to Deliver Vaccines

by Jennifer Hutchinson

I think everyone knows how I feel about vaccines. My calm, (somewhat) rational opinion is this: They are, for the most part, not necessary, not working, and not safe. The lack of science—not to mention common sense—behind the dozens of vaccines injected into our children is beyond appalling.

There are two things, however, that the vaccine program definitely isn’t lacking. One is money. The other is imagination.

Billions of dollars are being spent on developing new vaccines. Improving vaccination rates worldwide. Ensuring that vaccines are available to everyone on the planet. All through phenomenally creative methods.

We have—or soon will have—needle-free vaccines. Vaccines with micro needles. Sublingual vaccines. Vaccine patches. Inhalable powder vaccines. The old Star Trek type of vaccines. Even mail-order vaccines. Vaccines that are easier and faster to produce.

No more accidental needle sticks and cross-contamination of deadly diseases. No more refrigeration or syringes. No more vaccine phobia. No more pain. No more tears.


When it comes to money and imagination, Bill Gates seems to have an endless supply of both. That man is a tough act to follow. In 2010 he announced a $10 billion pledge over the next decade, saying, “We must make this the decade of vaccines.” [1]

One of his latest financial donations is the subject of this article, which is perhaps the most difficult I’ve written for Vactruth. What I read as I was doing my research left me with a lot of unanswered questions and disturbing thoughts.

Thanks to a sizable grant from the Gates Foundation (with oversight from WHO and UNICEF), $100,000 is being provided to 17 different initiatives, for a total of $1.7 million. [2] The purpose is—and I quote Michel Zaffran, Director of project Optimize and Senior Adviser for WHO’s Department of Immunization, Vaccines, and Biologicals—“to ensure new vaccines reach the millions of people in the poorest countries. The time for ‘business as usual’ has passed—it’s time for bold ideas.” [3]

One “bold idea” is unmanned aerial vehicles to quickly and inexpensively deliver vaccines to hard-to-reach areas. The vehicles will be deployed remotely by healthcare workers. The winner of this project is the Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology Division, with five students under the direction of Professor George Barbastathis. [4] Projects that are successful may be eligible for another grant of $1 million. [5]


If you’re wondering how aerial vaccines are possible, all you have to do is consider the technology that is already in place. Let’s look at three examples.

Military drones

Since the Vietnam War, the U.S. has been using modern drones that are operated by a remote control and monitored through a live-streaming screen thousands of miles away from the target area. The vehicles hover silently, undetectable by radar. For more information on the use of drones and their controversy, see Michael Hastings’ article in Rolling Stone. [6] Rabies bait

The oral rabies vaccine is nothing new. In this country, 12+ million doses of Raboral V-RG are dropped from unmanned aircraft every year. Worldwide, more than 100 million doses since the late 1980s. [7] The cost? In the U.S. and Canada, approximately $130 million in a decade. [8]

The ketchup-sized packets, usually dipped in fish oil and coated with fish meal, have been dropped in numerous states. The Texas Department of State Health Services claims to have virtually annihilated rabies in coyotes and foxes, which provides protection for other wildlife, livestock, and domestic animals. Texas has not had a case of human rabies since they began aerial drops in 1995. [9]

If you poke around the Internet a little, you’ll find some “safety” instructions. Basically, the claim is that the bait isn’t harmful for humans or pets (although wildlife is less likely to eat a packet that’s been touched by humans). A few precautions for pet owners: Keep pets inside or tied in the backyard for a week after the bait is dropped. If a domestic animal like a cat or dog eats the bait, avoid coming in contact with the saliva for 24 hours. [10] If you handle the bait, use paper towels or wear gloves. If the vaccine liquid gets on your skin, wash with soap and water, and call the local health department (or the number on the packet). [11]

Sounds relatively safe, right? I thought so, too—until I read the Merial Material “Safety” Data Sheet. It states that the RABORAL V-RG is “potentially hazardous to health if any of the following should occur: ingestion, parenteral inoculation, droplet or aerosol exposure of mucous membranes or if broken skin is exposed to infectious fluids or tissues. All people should avoid contact, but young children, pregnant women, individuals with immune deficiencies or those on steroids should avoid contact with this vaccine.” It also says: “Do not allow undiluted product or large quantities of it to reach ground water, water course or sewage system.” [12]

After further research, I found some adverse side effects. Side effects backed up by lab tests, including “vaccinia virus DNA and rabies virus G protein DNA in papule material and serologic evidence of rabies virus neutralizing antibodies” as well as Simian Green Monkey virus, Epstein-Barr virus capside, and Cytomeglia virus. [13]

South Wales microbiologist Doug Dorst says: “For every fear that biotech propaganda proliferates about deadly diseases and how vaccines prevent them, it is one more lie to incrementally convince the masses that vaccines are effective. … There is a real potential risk to exposure from aerial exposure to aerial DNA virus vaccines. The risk certainly exceeds any benefits …” [14]

If you’ve read my story, you know that the RabAvert rabies vaccine given to my grandson in 2006 wasn’t safe. (Actually, several batches used in that same year were recalled because of a partially inactivated virus.) Many people think “it’s just a rabies vaccine.” My daughter and I know from personal experience that there’s no such thing.


Is an oral rabies vaccine that’s safe for coyotes and raccoons, for example, safe for other animals, such as birds? Does “one size fit all?” How long does the vaccine last?

What about the packets that aren’t consumed? Where do they end up? In our water? In our food? Is that safe?

If the packet ruptures, can it harm plant life and crops?

Can the vaccine create resistance to the rabies virus?

What if a hunter kills an animal, such as a squirrel, who has ingested the bait, and eats it?

West Nile Virus spray

Aerial spraying of pesticides has been going on for decades, especially for the West Nile Virus (WNV). This year the virus has been more prevalent, with half the cases in Texas. WNV can be deadly, but most people who contract it never have any symptoms. Between 1999 and 2008, out of almost 30,000 cases, there were approximately 1,100 deaths. [15]

The financial cost? Spraying one county in Texas cost $1 million. [16] Throw in the cost of testing the safety of a pesticide for years at a price of up to $200 million … well, the financial fallout is unfathomable. [17]

The pesticide kills between 60 and 90 percent of mosquitoes in sprayed areas (depending on which article you’re reading). [18] But there are more than a few people who don’t believe these numbers. A former EPA employee and Director of New England Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Kyla Bennett attempted to acquire the data proving the 60 percent effectiveness rate for mosquitoes carrying eastern equine encephalitis in Massachusetts. She did not get the information she asked for.

The Huffington Post, after being told by the state health department that no one was available to speak, also filed a formal public records request for the data. I don’t know for sure, but I doubt they got the “proof” either. [19]

“Dirt Doctor” radio show host Howard Garrett says the pesticide doesn’t work. His suggestion? Organic pesticides on the ground to kill mosquito eggs and larvae. [20]

All the pesticides, even though they come in different combinations, contain known toxins that don’t just kill mosquitoes. They cause serious damage to fish and other aquatic animals and pets. They’ve been linked to breast and liver cancer and endocrine disruption. They’ve been blamed for the “die off” of bees and potentially disrupting “our natural ecosystem.” [21]

One chemical, according to a study that appeared in the journal Pediatrics, can disrupt brain development in the womb. Another, a weapon used during WWII and described by its manufacturer as “a possible carcinogen,” can damage a child’s nervous system. [22]

“The cure is worse than the disease,” says Organic Sacramento, a nonprofit organization. “You’re spraying poison over thousands of people for the potential of maybe helping a handful of people.” [23]

I can’t help but think of one of the recently proposed causes of autism. Household dust while the baby is in the womb—a cause that is the subject of an NIH-funded research study. I don’t understand how that can possibly be a concern to a government that maintains it’s perfectly safe to inhale aerial pesticides that are sprayed into the environment.


Is a 60 percent effectiveness rate—if that’s indeed true—“effective?” That leaves almost half of the mosquitoes alive and potentially spreading the virus.

What if the spray kills mosquito predators? Wouldn’t we end up with more mosquitoes?

What does the spray do to our crops?

Can mosquitoes and other exposed creatures develop resistance to the virus? Could the WNV spraying be responsible for pertussis outbreaks? [24] After all, cases have doubled in the last year—a year in which a lot of spraying has been going on. [25] If it’s so safe, why, when the Dallas area was going to be sprayed in August, were the pilots instructed to avoid the home of former President Bush? [26]


You could read about drones, the aerial delivery of rabies bait, and pesticide spraying and learn something new with every article. I’ve explored the current technology because the information is relevant to the aerial spraying of vaccines.

I’m certainly not minimizing rabies, but why spend all that money and go to so much trouble for a disease that kills one or two humans a year? It just doesn’t make sense. Not coming from a government that claims far more deaths from childhood diseases, like measles and whooping cough—not to mention the flu.

Would they really do this for rabies for almost 20 years and not have already come up with a similar scheme for these other diseases? I can’t believe that their concern is for wildlife, livestock, and domestic animals. There has to be another reason, another explanation. Maybe …

The rabies virus has been eliminated. Safely. Quickly. Or so we’re told. Assuming that our ketchup packets (or some other food or our water) don’t already contain vaccines, the only obvious next step is using the drones to spray all kinds of vaccines. The MMR, DTaP, flu … No one will even know. There will be no informed consent. No declining vaccine rates—they would literally explode overnight. I’m extrapolating here, but when you think about it, it’s really not that much of a stretch.

What I can’t figure out—what is keeping me awake at night—is why? What’s in it for “them?” Where’s the money? The vaccine industry as we know it is a $2 billion a year business. Will aerial spraying make it even more lucrative? The grant winners got a small piece of the pie. What about the people who remote-control the drones? The people who actually manufacture them? Or those who outfit the drones with the vaccine spray? Is this really about money?

Where’s the quality control? I realize those are words we don’t usually connect with vaccines, but who will be in charge of this program? We all remember past problems—failed freezers, reused syringes, accidental needle sticks, and, of course, the time Baxter Pharmaceuticals shipped live avian flu virus (mixed with vaccine material) to medical distributors in 18 countries. [27] So many opportunities for dangerous, if not fatal, mistakes.

Could this be about power? Control? It’s so easy to scare people. Fear is powerful and controlling. You know, we have this deadly pertussis outbreak. Everybody better get a pertussis vaccine. That is, if they don’t decide to spray them on us. Or maybe they’ll encourage both methods of delivery.

If you do as much research as I’ve done, you’ll end up with your head spinning. Some of my thoughts are unthinkable. Not impossible. Just unthinkable. I used to think that people who suggested vaccines as a means to population control were crazy. Now I’m not so sure.

Take Bill Gates, for instance. At the 2010 TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference, he stated: “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.” [28]


What if one exposure to a toxic chemical isn’t too bad, but after a few years, it might be deadly?

What if combining different pesticides together could add up to a “toxic tipping point?”

What if some effects of vaccine spraying don’t show up immediately but, like the cancers caused by the 9/11 World Trade Center toxins, surface years after exposure?

How many times in the past have we been told that something is safe, but years later we learn that it wasn’t true?

Help me out here. What do you think is behind the aerial spraying of vaccines?