Aug 03, 2013

As the United States state-sponsored media keep the public distracted with random (and not-so -random) threats about Obamacare and gay marriage, a global PSYOP (complete with diplomatic fallout and media blackout) has been in place since March 15, 2011 concerning the Japanese earthquake of 2011 and the radioactive aftermath of the subsequent events.

Apparently, groundwater contamination at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility was as high last week as it was immediately after the event, and the officials have no idea why.

 Water samples taken at an underground passage below the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant contain alarming levels of radiation which are comparable to those taken immediately after the catastrophe.

TEPCO’s specialists have hit a wall trying to solve the problem of the leaking groundwater, which has persisted since 2011. However, unlike then, they cannot tell what the source of the newfound radioactivity is. The current explanation is that the radioactive water that had been left in the underground trench some two years ago is now mixing with the groundwater, which is in turn contaminating the sea.

The current investigation started back in May, when specialists registered a 17-fold hike in radiation levels compared to December 2012. More tests immediately followed.

In July, scientists found high tritium levels – 20 per cent higher than just two months before. At the beginning of the month, cesium levels also went up by an astonishing 22 per cent from the previous day. The legal limit of 90 becquerels per liter was exceeded by around 22,000 becquerels.

On July 10, scientists warned about possible sea contamination, although they had no evidence at the time.

On Monday, however, TEPCO discovered that radiation levels were rising and falling together with the tide. This has led them to their latest theory – that the leftover trench water from 2011 is indeed mixing with the underground water that flows straight into the Pacific.

Fantastic, right?  I think that world leaders are starting to catch on to the ida that nuclear power just doesn’t work…

Even though the American government has done everything possible to encourage nuclear power – by wholly subsidizing nuclear powerreducing safety standards after Fukushimaforcing Japan to re-start its nuclear programcovering up the severity of the Fukushima accident, raising acceptable radiation limits and agreeing to buy radioactive Japanese seafood – the number of nuclear plants worldwide and percentage of electricity provided by nuclear is declining.

The Economist reports:

The [nuclear] industry’s role in electricity production is continuing to decline, according to this year’s World Nuclear Industry Status Report, a compendium of analysis and data by the activist and expert Mycle Schneider. The number of reactors peaked in 2002 at 444, compared with 427 today. The share of electricity they produce is down 12% from its 2006 peak, largely because of post-Fukushima shutdowns in Japan. As a proportion of all electricity generated, nuclear peaked in 1993 at 17% and has now fallen to 10%. The average age of operating plants is increasing, with the number over 40 years old (currently 31 plants) set to grow quite rapidly.

Am I the only one who sees a big problem, here? The most nuclear power plants have been in the U.S. – and with FEMA’s recent obsessions with buying up storable food supplies and pretty much all of the regions experiencing some kind of major natural disaster in the last 5-10 years – I think it’s safe to say that the U.S. government and the CDC are engaging in a massive cover-up of the radiation problem that is already ensuing in Japan and along the west coast of the United States, and a problem that will only continue to worsen over time, given that our original nuclear facilities are already reaching “old age”, with leaks occurring in some locations so frequently, the DOE doesn’t even write activists – or government officials – back about some of them.

A June 28, 2013 internal Ecology memo listed 14 possible violations that might apply to Hanford’s sluggish response to a leaking container more than 16 months ago. That memo said that the state asked the U.S. Department of Energy five times from February to May 2012 for documents pertaining to the leak. “DOE [the Department of Energy] denied Ecology access to (the appropriate) operating records on those dates,” said the June 28 memo by Ecology Department nuclear waste inspector Kerry Graber.

The problems with the waste barrels are not related to Hanford’s 177 huge underground tanks that hold 53 million gallons of highly radioactive liquids and sludges. The recent discovery of a leak from one of the doube-shell underground tanks angered Gov. Jay Inslee and spurred worries about more tanks leaking at the site.

The 586-square-mile reservation in Eastern Washington is where the United States set up massive reactors and chemical processing plants during World War II to create plutonium for the nation’s early atomic bombs, and continued to do so until 1987. Today, it’s the Western Hemisphere’s most radiologically and chemically contaminated site with huge underground tanks full of radioactive sludge, 180 square miles of contaminated ground water, nine defunct reactors, and countless barrels and containers of various types of contaminated objects and fluids.

Their goal, now that it’s been almost 3 years and people are already starting to die of cancer at odd ages and with odd backgrounds, and politicians in the U.S. having deformed babies, is normalization of these illnesses.

Apparently, living near industrial plants that produce benzene raises your risk for not just leukemia, but non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as well. You may want to check your river advisories before you go fishing and make sure there isn’t any arsenic or PCB’s in those fish. Also, scientists have determined that BPA exposure – one of the most common toxins that build up in the human body – not only affects fertility, but also changes the entire hormonal balance of the human body.

“Because exposure to BPA is so ubiquitous, patients and medical professionals should be aware that BPA may cause a significant disruption to the fundamentals of the human reproductive process and may play a role in unexplained infertility.”

According to a study published July 25, baby mice exposed in the womb to low, not high, doses of bisphenol A (BPA) were fatter and had metabolic changes linked to obesity and diabetes.

Genetically-modified food combined with BPA, fluoride, and the rest of the chemicals in our drinks and foodstuffs breed a “perfect storm” of diabetes, obesity, infertility and especially cancer.

Glyphosate also destroys the beneficial microorganism in the human gut, destroying the human immune system.

What’s pretty ironic is that people in the U.S. seem to think that “only poor people” will be fatter, infertile, and suffering from chemical toxicity ; However, this is not necessarily true. Studies have shown that when people move into a different income bracket, they simply change over one type of toxic accumulation to another, meaning that no one is safe from this crazy eugenics plot:

By comparing the results from 6 separate populations, the researchers have been able to show strong associations between 18 different chemicals and poverty ratings.

Individuals with higher incomes had larger amounts of several toxicants, including urinary mercury, arsenic, caesium and thallium, with diet likely to play a key role in their accumulation.

“The age old adage of ‘you are what you eat’ seems to be true when explaining some of the trends we’re seeing in the data. It’s certainly very likely that fish and shellfish consumption is partially responsible for build-ups in mercury, arsenic and thallium” says Dr Tyrrell.

The use of sunscreen was also found to be an important factor in the accumulation of benzophenone-3, with people from higher socioeconomic groups more likely to use products containing the chemical.

Those with lower incomes were more likely to have build-ups of urinary lead, cadmium, antimony and bisphenol A. Cigarette smoking and a poor diet were amongst the factors likely to lead to the build-up of both lead and cadmium in these groups.

“Long term exposure to chemicals, even in very small quantities, can lead to a number of adverse health effects such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This study has produced a robust analysis of how the accumulation of these chemicals relates to socioeconomic status, giving us an important understanding that will help to inform strategies aimed at improving health” Dr Tyrrell concludes.

Just like in the 1950’s when almost 100 million Americans were admittedly injected with vaccines contaminated with SV-40 (which is a “universal cancer-causing virus”), many Americans cannot seem to come to grips with the fact that the FDA and the CDC are actively engaged in biological and chemical warfare with the population of the world, and continue to believe countless lies about the safety of the products and medical treatments they promote.

While many women in the U.S. don’t even think about what they’re eating while they’re pregnant (by wrongly assuming in ignorance that nothing can cross the ‘cord barrier’ to the fetus anyway and that any weight gain during pregnancy is “natural” and “necessary”, even if it’s over 40 pounds), scientists all across the world have proven that a junk food diet during pregnancy predisposes children to a high fat, high sugar diet for the rest of their lives.

The increased enkephalin level found in those eating an unhealthy diet provides first time evidence that the opioid signaling pathway is less sensitive in junk-food exposed offspring. Reduced sensitivity to opioids means that individuals whose mothers eat too much junk-food during pregnancy and breastfeeding would have to eat more junk foods to get the same positive response, making them more likely to over consume high-fat and high-sugar foods. Lead study author, Dr. Jessica Gugusheff concluded “the results of this study will eventually permit us to better inform pregnant women about the enduring effect their diet has on the development of their child’s lifelong food preferences and risk of negative metabolic outcomes.”

Other first-world countries have followed Russia’s lead in banning GMO’s from their respective countries’ foodstuffs, an indication that something is incredibly wrong with our food supply and other countries are catching on.
Under EU rules, such a ban “can only be taken by a member state in case of an emergency or if a situation poses a major risk” to people, animals or the environment, it said.
U.S. military industrial complex whore magazine, Science Daily, also reported on the GMO argument no one in the U.S. is hearing on mainstream news:

Though common in the U.S., they are largely banned in the 28-nation European Union.Washington wants Europe to ease restrictions on imports of these foods, commonly known as GMOs for genetically modified organisms, but the EU is skeptical they are safe. Intense emotions on both sides of the divide make it difficult to separate between strongly held belief and science….

Most studies show genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption, though it is widely acknowledged that the long-term health effects are unknown….

“Overall, genetic engineering does not get nearly the bang for the buck as conventional breeding” and improved agricultural practices, Gurian-Sherman said. His organization advises caution on GM foods and favors labeling, though it acknowledges the risks of genetic engineering have sometimes been exaggerated….

The U.S. does not require labels on the view that genetically modified food is not materially different than non-modified food. Opponents of labeling say it would scare consumers away from safe foods, giving the appearance that there is something wrong with them….

The U.S is pressing for the restrictions on importing genetically modified food to be eased but there is no sign that the EU’s firm opposition is softening. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said recently that Europe will defend its restrictions in the trade negotiations, which began last month. Some in the U.S. see the European resistance as just another form of protectionism that promotes domestic products over imported ones.

Bringing it back to the core of the issue, however, is how prevalent and “normal” having cancer has become.

Just a few celebrities who have gotten cancer (or at the very least, surgically removed the parts most genetically likely to have cancer later) in the last year:

Eileen Brennan, star of “Private Benjamin” – died July 28, 2013 of bladder cancer

Angelina Jolie, actress and UN whore – double mastectomy in May to “prevent breast cancer” after genetic testing uncovered genes predisposed to breast cancer ; Is apparently thrilled with the results.

Michael Douglas, actor – is credited for raising awareness about the links between oral sex and oral cancer after being diagnosed with “HPV-caused throat cancer”

Dennis Farina, actor most known for his role in “Law & Order” – died a few weeks ago while fighting lung cancer

Sharon Osbourne, actress and wife of musician Ozzy Osbourne – battled colon cancer in 2002, had a double mastectomy to prevent breast cancer

Kathy Bates, actress – Had a double mastectomy after 2nd diagnosis of cancer emerged last year (diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2003)

Judy Blume,  young adult novelist – breast cancer diagnosis/mastectomy in September 2012

Robin Roberts, host of Good Morning America – underwent a bone marrow transplant in September 2012 for a blood condition caused by the radiation treatments she suffered through in 2007 for breast cancer

Roger Ebert, film critic – announced April 2, 2013 on his blog that he was recently rediagnosed with cancer (he previously battled the disease in his thyroid and salivary glands), and will scale back his movie reviews, taking a “leave of presence.”

Sam Simon, ‘The Simpsons’ Co-Creator – stage 4 colon cancer

Other celebs who have entered the “fight cancer” arena include:

Miley Cyrus, Victoria Beckham, Naomi Campbell, and Noah Mills – bared all for “Protect the skin you’re in” campaign

Halle Berry – Ovarian cancer

Lance Armstrong – Disseminating testicular cancer in 1996, now runs the LiveStrong Foundation

Rihanna – Women’s cancer fund

The Jonas Brothers – childhood cancers

Katie Couric – lost husband in 1998 to colon cancer, founded The Jay Monahan Center for Gastrointestinal Health in New York

Eva Longoria – chairperson for Rally for Kids with Cancer.

When you or someone you love has cancer, you may be told any (or even all) of the following:

“You have cancer because you have an STD”

HPV blamed for esophageal cancer – I believe that the role that the human papillomaviridae have on cancerous growth would simply be multiplied in the case of radiation exposure. As Al-Jazeera reported after Michael Douglas’ public announcement:

While there is strong evidence that the human papillomavirus (HPV) – a common virus that is transmitted through skin-to-skin contact including penetrative and potentially also oral sex – can cause some types of mouth and throat cancers, there were some details in the story that weren’t supported by scientific evidence. And there’s still a lot we don’t know about HPV infections in the mouth and oral cancers.

For a start, we don’t know the exact medical details of his cancer and whether it was linked to HPV. There are other risk factors for mouth and throat cancer to take into account, including smoking and drinking alcohol – behaviours Douglas has admitted to. And, perhaps most importantly, HPV is an incredibly widespread infection in the adult population, with most sexually active adults likely to be exposed to it at some point in their lifetime.

There are more than 100 different types of HPV, and around 20 are known as “high-risk”, which means they can go on to cause cancer. HPV vaccines such as Cervarix and Gardasil only protect against a handful of these. In most cases our immune system fights off the infection and you don’t even notice it. But in a very small proportion of people, this doesn’t work properly. And if these people happen to have a high-risk type of the virus, it can hijack the body’s cells and make them grow out of control, eventually developing into cancer.

HPV uncertainties 

Exactly how and who this happens to isn’t fully understood, and research is ongoing. It’s also still not entirely clear whether HPV infections and cancers in the mouth and throat are actually linked to transmission of the virus through oral sex, although these particular cancers are on the increase in the UK and other countries.

Even if this was true, however, there is hope (besides horrifyingly painful butchering, chemotherapy and radiation) to treat “sexually-induced” cancers:

When the researchers carried out in vitro tests by adding fatty acids into the cell cultures, results showed that omega-3 fatty acids induced cell death in malignant and pre-malignant cells in doses that did not affect normal cells.

“You have cancer because you smoke(d)

Ten million high-risk smokers ages 55 and older should get annual imaging scans to detect lung cancer when it is small and can be treated, according to new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Just like above, I’m not dissuaded of the possibility that smoking alone can cause lung cancer. What I’m saying is that radiation exposure combined with other environmental toxins (such as air particulate) or viruses can produce cancer in a great many more people than just either one alone.

Up to 98 percent of human genomic matter is known as “junk” or “dark matter” non-coding DNA, and had for years attracted little interest among scientists who doubted its role in human health and disease. Recent research has begun to identify that part of that non-coding DNA is used by the cell to make RNA such as vlincRNA, highly tissue-specific RNA chains of unusually large lengths, many of which are only found in embryonic or cancerous cells. VlincRNAs found in these two types of cells tend to be expressed based upon genetic signals from ancient viruses that invaded our ancestors’ genome millions of years ago and were gradually “domesticated” over evolutionary time…

“Well, let’s not even call it cancer anymore.”

“The word ‘cancer’ often invokes the specter of an inexorably lethal process,” a working group for the National Cancer Institute wrote in a recent recommendation. “However, cancers are heterogeneous and can follow multiple paths, not all of which progress to metastases and death.”

Basically, cancer is scary, but some kinds may be more boogeyman-in-the-closet scary than serial killer scary….

“To raise awareness and to get people to participate in screening, we have to whip up fear; we must introduce a bit of ‘dis-ease’ into the population,” he said. “In a way, we have to make them feel as if the world may be a more dangerous place and that they ought to be worried about their future.”

The National Cancer Institute working group made several recommendations for the medical community in addressing cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment. One was a change in the terminology doctors use to talk about cancer, especially when the cells they’ve found may not be dangerous.

“Use of the term ‘cancer’ should be reserved for describing lesions with a reasonable likelihood of lethal progression if left untreated,” they wrote.

“You don’t need screening, do ya?”

The American College of Physicians published a new guidance statement Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, asking doctors to explain the limited benefits and “substantial harms” of prostate cancer screening to their male patients before offering them a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test.

PSA screening for prostate cancer is controversial. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of experts, recommends against using PSA screening for all men. Most medical groups recommend that doctors and patients discuss the issue so men can make an informed decision.

This is how we do research on American women in regards to women’s cancers:

The individual risk of endometrial cancer, for example, ranged from 0.5% to 29.5% over the next 20 years – with each woman’s results depending on their exposure to certain risk factors.

The study authors say their findings show that breast, ovarian and endometrial cancer can all be predicted using easily-obtainable information on known risk factors…

Except they only did it on white women….uhhh…..yeeeah, that’s not gonna work. The breast cancer rate for African American women is far higher than for whites, so this study is inherently flawed in its’ approach.

Since the prediction models were developed from studies involving white, non-Hispanic women, the researchers caution that they may not be accurate for women of other ethnicities.

Ironically, women of color are more likely to be altruistic in their support of clinical trials in general, if they believe that the research will be helpful to another person or family dealing with a terminal, chronic, or disabling illness. And yet, they are the ones specifically left out of a breast cancer study involving women at risk of female cancers.

A significant percentage of African-Americans (61%), Hispanics (57%) and Asians (50%) say it’s very important to participate as a volunteer in a clinical trial to improve the health of others, compared to 47% of non-Hispanic whites, according to a new national public opinion poll commissioned by Research!America.

“By the way, ladies, you may not need to have anything removed...period.”

Surgery is not always necessary for women with a type of breast tissue abnormality associated with a higher risk of cancer, according to a new study published online in the journal Radiology.

“You have cancer because you have a tattoo covering it up, or the tattoo/removal process itself caused it.”

Reporting July 31 in the journal JAMA Dermatology, researchers in Germany pointed to the case of a young man who developed melanoma on a pre-existing colored skin lesion (mole or birthmark) within a tattoo during and between phases of laser tattoo removal.

“You have cancer because you’re too tall.”

New research published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention found a surprising correlation between height and cancer risk among postmenopausal women; the taller the woman, the greater her risk for the disease.

“Ah, the internet…where you can find a babysitter, carpet cleaner, or the best treatment for that lung cancer you just can’t seem to shake off…”

Lung cancer patients can now check they are getting the best care available after the launch of a new interactive online map.

Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation (RCLCF) announced the launch today of its Lung Cancer Smart Map, which shows patients how treatment in their area compares against government targets.

Of course, the powers that (shouldn’t) be are completely ignoring/whitewashing the truth that probiotics may actually save patients undergoing chemotherapy for cancer, and that antibiotics can be fatal due to the interference it causes in the intestinal flora of these patients. Also being blatantly thrown to the wayside is the proven data by UCLA showing that radiation treatment for breast cancer can make the cancer much worse, but that natural remedies don’t seem have that same, fatal effect.

The UJCCC study found that radiation actually induced breast cancer cells to form more tumors and malignancy in radiation treated breast cells was likely to be 30 times more probable. While radiation treatments can temporarily regress tumors, this is only the false appearance of eradicating the disease, as the study points out. The treatment may seem to work for a short time, but the ratio of highly malignant cells to benign cells begins to spiral out of control very soon after. This can lead to a treatment-induced death – not from the original appearance of cancer, but from the radiation treatment itself.

Not to mention the fact that “radiation therapy” causes a great amount of damage to the heart, leading to cardiovascular disease later in the patient who “won the fight against cancer”.

Instead, corporations like AstraZeneca have even played games with taxpayer money in order to profit off of…you guessed it: more cancer drugs. It’s gotten so incredibly ridiculous, a measly 4 month increase in life expectancy is considered a shining achievement of Science:

Richart said the median overall survival of patients with melanoma brain metastases is approximately four months whereas in the study, the median overall survival for patients was 8.7 months.

Patients treated with afatinib lived for almost one year (progression-free survival (PFS) of 11.1 months) before their tumour started to grow again compared to just over half a year (PFS of 6.9 months) for those treated with chemotherapy.

The World Health Organization is completely ignoring the data from Iraq showing a rapid rise in cancers and birth defects since Operation Iraqi Freedom first began, with our soldiers wantonly using Depleted Uranium weapons against the Iraqi people.

The joint WHO and Iraqi Ministry of Health Report on cancers and birth defect in Iraq was originally due to be released in November 2012. It has been delayed repeatedly and now has no release date whatsoever.

By March 2013, staff from the Iraqi Ministry of Health announced that this report will show an increase in cancers and birth defects due to the explosions of war. This was broadcasted repeatedly on the BBC.

Therefore we are baffled and alarmed at the WHO’s inability to release any of its findings, despite our urgent request of May 2013, for the WHO to release its report….

The British Medical Journal published an article entitled” WHO suppressed evidence on effects of depleted uranium, expert says” in November 2006. It suggested that earlier WHO reports were compromised by the omission of a full account of depleted uranium genotoxicity.

Additionally, recent revelations by Hans von Sponeck, the former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, suggest that WHO may be susceptible to pressure from its member states. Mr. von Sponeck has said that “The US government sought to prevent WHO from surveying areas in southern Iraq where depleted uranium had been used and caused serious health and environmental dangers.”

But the WHO’s level of evil is only surpassed by that of the U.S. Government. According to a new bill in Congress, H.R. 2685, the Smart Grid Advancement Act of 2013: “Smart Meters for Everyone!”

The new bill, as stated in a recent press release posted on Rep. McNerney’s website, would require virtually all energy utility companies nationwide to implement so-called “smart grid technologies,” which in turn would require the installation of smart meters on customers’ homes and businesses. Smart meters, as you may already be aware, contain wireless communication components that are not only a serious threat to human health, but also a monumental detriment to personal privacy….

“[T]he bill would require appliances with the Energy Star label to include wireless transmitters that cannot be turned off, in order to communicate (and presumably cough up your private data and respond to orders from Big Brother Smart Grid to switch you off at a moment’s notice, as happened to dozens of people in Northern California recently when their not-so-smart-AC program cut off their air conditioning at the height of the recent heat wave,” adds StopSmartMeters.org.

“The bill would also establish a ‘smart grid information center’ that would presumably create pro-smart-grid propaganda at the taxpayer’s expense.”

Landis Gyr recently had a company voicemail message that admitted smart meter technology is part of the NSA’s “PRISM” spying and surveillance program…

H.R. 2685 has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee for consideration, which means this is the first point of contact in effectively killing this bill. StopSmartMeters.org has set up a helpful action page that you can use to contact not only the committee but also the bill’s sponsors and the rest of your Congressmen:
http://stopsmartmeters.org

Let’s not forget about the very real possibility that, like in the 50’s during Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV) research, millions are being exposed to a cancer virus or another softkill weapon meant to induce cancer in healthy individuals.

Reporting this week in the journal Cell, the researchers describe the first compound that directly binds to and blocks Skp2, a protein they previously showed both turns off a cellular defense against cancer and switches on a cancer-feeding metabolic pathway.

Research into metabolic pathways has proven to be enormously helpful to researchers in finding out what they “do” when they “malfunction”:

The pathway that controls mTORC1 activation is also important for metabolic homeostasis (i.e., stability). When the pathway malfunctions, metabolic disorders such as diabetes can result and tumors can progress.

Along with studying proteins and metabolic pathways, research into simple genetics has allowed people (good and bad) in the scientific community to pick apart the human genome, studying not just mutations themselves (or enticingly, how to develop inhibitors for them), but also how to induce cancer in a person already genetically predisposed to it.

“It’s been known for a while that genetic mutations can modify each other’s effects,” said Ian Dworkin, MSU associate professor of zoology and co-author of the paper. “And we also know that the subtle differences in an individual’s genome — what scientists call wild type genetic background — also affects how mutations are manifested.”

My final thought on this issue: Who has control over you, the individual? Who ordains your thoughts, guides your life, and provides you with your amusement and food (bread and circuses)? If the answer for you would be, “the government”, then you seriously need to ask yourself why “the government” is partaking in behavior that can only be termed for what it is: genocide. Studies have shown that true happiness can actually protect your body over many years.

  • Eudaimonic well-being – the type of happiness associated with having “a deep sense of purpose and meaning in life”
  • Hedonic well-being – the type of happiness associated with unmitigated self-gratification.

The study showed that people who had high levels of eudaimonic well-being had low levels of inflammatory gene expression and exhibited a strong expression of antiviral and antibody genes.

The opposite was true for people who had high levels of hedonic well-being – giving high inflammation and low antiviral/antibody expression.

However, this isn’t the “I’m getting everything I want” happy ; This is true happiness and fulfillment in one’s own life, dreams, and accomplishments, and this kind of happiness can’t be given through a pill, needle, or patch. It’s grown totally organic inside of the individual who has an enormous amount of strength, ingenuity, and determination of willpower – and that, my friends, is what the globalists are so afraid of. That spark that drives humans to do more, be more, than they first were is what would bring us out of the chains of bondage and into a new era of beauty and empowerment for humanity.

 

 

 

MORE NEWS IN NEWS >>