Truth Frequency Radio

Oct 03, 2012

Americans May Be Getting Poorer, But At Least We Are Getting Fatter And Sicker

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
Oct 3, 2012

I know, there really isn’t any good news in that headline. Americans are steadily getting poorer, fatter and sicker and yet most people continue to operate under the delusion that things are somehow going to get better.

Sadly, not only are we not better off than we were four years ago, the truth is that things have been getting worse for a very long time. Median household income in the United States has declined for four years in a row, and it has fallen by more than $4000 overall since Barack Obama has been in the White House. Yet the media insists that we are in the midst of an “economic recovery”. A higher percentage of Americans are obese or severely obese than ever before, and Baby Boomers are much sicker than their parents were at the same age. Yet we are supposedly a “health conscious” nation. Technology is advancing faster than we have ever seen before in human history, but the life expectancy of poor Americans has dropped significantly in recent years. So exactly what in the world is going on here?

It seems like there is a health food store or a vitamin store on almost every corner, and yet as a whole we are in much worse condition than our parents were. The following is from a recent news story by the CBS News affiliate in Washington D.C.….

Obesity among baby boomers is more than double the rate of their parents at the same age, and boomers with three or more chronic conditions was 700 percent greater than the previous generation.

But it isn’t just the Baby Boomers that are obese. Sadly, obesity has become a raging epidemic in America and all of the numbers show this.

For example, a study by the RAND corporation discovered that the percentage of Americans that are severely obese rose from 3.9 percent in the year 2000 to 6.6 percent in 2010.

That is a huge increase in just a decade.

And the numbers are even more sobering when you look at the percentage of Americans that are just obese (rather than being severely obese).

As I wrote about the other day, 36 percent of all Americans are considered to be obese, and it is being projected that by 2030 that number will rise to 42 percent.

To put that in perspective, it is important to note that only 13 percent of all Americans were obese back in 1962.

Sadly, not only are we getting fatter, many of us are also living shorter lives.

In a previous article, I quoted a CBS News story that discussed recent research which shows that the lifespans of poor Americans have been dropping rapidly in recent years….

Overall life expectancy has dropped for white Americans who have less than a high school diploma to rates similar to those of the 1950s and 1960s, new research finds.

The study found non-Hispanic white men without a diploma lived on average until 67.5 in 2008, three years less than they did in 1990. The drop in lifespan was even bigger for non-Hispanic white women with low education: They live five years shorter than 1990 rates, from 78 years old to just 73.5.

Why are people not living as long?

Well, our lifestyles certainly are not helping things. The average American watches 28 hours of television every single week. That is not conducive to a long and happy life.

But of course a lot of other factors are at play as well.

When you don’t have a lot of money, you can’t afford to eat healthy and you can’t afford to go see the doctor much.

Unfortunately, average Americans have steadily seen their incomes drop even as the cost of living has continued to go up. The following is from a recent article posted on….

Since 2009, the middle 20% of American households saw their average incomes drop 4%. In 2011 alone, they fell 1.7%. The poorest 20% have fared even worse under Obama, Census data show. Their incomes have dropped more than 7% since 2009, and are now lower than they’ve been at any time since 1985, after adjusting for inflation.

Median household income (adjusted for inflation) fell in 41 U.S. states between 2000 and 2011.

So which state saw the worst decline in median household income during that time period?

Would you be surprised to hear that it was Michigan?

Between 2000 and 2011, median household income in Michigan dropped by a whopping 18.9 percent.

I have written extensively about how Detroit is a perfect example of where most of the rest of the country is headed. The manufacturing facilities are being torn down and Detroit has become a rotting shell of what it once was.

You can see 30 pictures of the ruins of Detroit right here, and you can view a great video of a homeless man giving a very creepy tour of Detroit’s abandoned Michigan Central Station right here.

So what part of the country do you think has done the best over the past decade?

If you guessed Washington D.C. you would be correct.

Median household income in Washington D.C. increased by 18.1 percent between 2000 and 2011.

Of course this “prosperity” for the D.C. area can be directly attributed to the explosion in the growth of the federal government.

Members of Congress and government workers are living the high life at your expense, and much of it is being done with borrowed money that we expect our children and our grandchildren to repay.

You would be absolutely shocked to learn what goes on at some of these federal agencies. For example, the following was revealed by a former Social Security Administration employee recently in the Baltimore Sun….

It is not uncommon to see employees taking lunches lasting up to two hours. Often, a day at the office is nothing more than seeing people sleep at their desks or watch movies on their computers. With a few exceptions, employees with goals and expectations of some sort are nowhere to be found inside the walls of SSA.

I once saw an older employee take 10 smoke breaks in one afternoon and do absolutely no work when he was at his desk. He told me he was just waiting it out until he could get more retirement money. Several elderly individuals literally died right at their desks because they refused to retire. A lack of professionalism was obvious in the way the employees dressed and most apparently in their juvenile, non-professional language.

Would you like to have a job where you can sleep at your desk, take two hour lunches and watch movies on your computer all day?

If so, then working for the federal government might be for you.

Full Article


Extremely Important: Fluoride Treatment – 5 Ways to Detox Fluoride

By Lisa Garber
October 2, 2012

toothbrushtoothpaste1 235x147 Extremely Important: Fluoride Treatment   5 Ways to Detox FluorideIt should be outrageous to think that the very water we drink is poisoned—but the water actually is.

Although calcium fluoride is found naturally in underground and ocean water, the sodium fluoride added to the public water supply is virtually toxic, a wolf in the sheep’s garb of improved dental health. (The West Virginia University Rural Health Research Center says that fluoride doesn’t even prevent cavities; vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids are better allies for that.)

Even the federal government is calling for lower levels of fluoride in public water after a Harvard study confirmed fluoride’s lowers IQ.

So needless to say, it is extremely important to know of fluoride treatment methods.

In the wake of even more horrifying findings like fluoride’s link to the cardiovascular and cancer epidemic (causing at least 10,000 cancer deaths since 1977), it’s imperative that we learn how to defend ourselves against systematic and casual envenoming of our water.

Here are 5 methods for fluoride treamtnet – ways to detoxify your body of fluoride.

Fluoride Treatment – Iodine

While too much iodine is linked to hypothyroidism, so is too little. The good thing about iodine is that it increases urine irrigation of sodium fluoride as calcium fluoride.

Although it does take some calcium with it (calling for an adjustment in diet or calcium supplementation), iodine and lecithin both remove fluoride from the body.


Though originally from Africa, tamarind is a staple in Ayurvedic medicine that can be made into a tea or tincture that pushes fluoride out in urine.

Liver Cleanse

Because the liver is responsible for clearing toxins out of the body, it makes sense to go through a liver cleanse to detox from fluoride.

You can do a standard cleanse at home over a week or so; just be sure to undergo a safe and trustworthy cleanse per instructions.

If the cleanse is absolutely not for you (although you can read up on 5 reasons you should do it today), you can cleanse your liver daily with these liver cleansing foods. Cleansing the liver is essential for fluoride treatment.

Full Article

The Dark Side of Breast Cancer (Un)Awareness MonthSayer Ji, Contributor

Activist Post

The history of Breast Cancer Awareness Month’s surprising origins is a matter of the public record:

NBCAM was founded in 1985 as a partnership between the American Cancer Society and the pharmaceutical division of Imperial Chemical Industries (now part of AstraZeneca, maker of several anti-breast cancer drugs). The aim of the NBCAM from the start has been to promote mammography as the most effective weapon in the fight against breast cancer. ~ Wikipedia

If you doubt Wikipedia as a reliable source, visit the NBCAM website and try to contact them. It will be AstraZeneca that you will required to connect with, as evidenced by the screenshot below:

AstraZeneca, manufacturer of the blockbuster breast cancer drugs Arimidex and Tamoxifen, founded the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month in 1985, in partnership with the American Cancer Society, in order to promote the widespread adoption of x-ray mammography, whose horrors we have documented elsewhere.

Sadly, Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a time of increasing awareness not of the preventable causes of breast cancer, but of the breast cancer industry’s insatiable need to both raise money for research into a pharmaceutical cure, and to promote its primary means of “prevention”: early detection via x-ray mammography.

On first account, a pharmaceutical “cure” is as unlikely as it is oxymoronic. Drugs do not cure disease anymore than bullets cure war. Beneath modern medicine’s showy display of diagnostic contraptions, heroic “life-saving” procedures, and an armory of exotic drugs of strange origin and power, it is always the body’s ability to heal itself – beneath the pomp and circumstance – that is truly responsible for medicine’s apparent successes. Too often, in spite of what medicine does to “treat” or “save” the body, it is the body which against invasive chemical and surgical medical interventions, silently treats and saves itself.

If it were not for the body’s truly miraculous self-healing abilities, and the ceaseless self-correction process that occurs each and every moment within each and every cell, our bodies would perish within a matter of minutes. The mystery is not in how our body succumbs to cancer; rather the mystery is in how, after years and even decades of chemical exposure and nutrient deprivation our bodies prevail against cancer for so long.

The primary causes of breast cancer: nutritional deficiencies, exposure to environmental toxicity, inflammation, estrogen dominance and the resultant breakdown in genetic integrity and immune surveillance, are entirely overlooked by this fixation on drug therapy and its would-be “magic bullets.”

Billions of dollars are raised and funneled towards drug research, when the lowly turmeric plant, the humble cabbage and the unassuming bowl of miso soup may offer far more promise in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer than all the toximolecular drugs on the market put together. (To view several dozen substances, visit our Breast Cancer page)

When it comes to the breast cancer industry’s emphasis on equating “prevention” with “early detection” through x-ray mammography, nowhere is the inherently pathological ideology of allopathic medicine more clearly evident. Not only is the very ionizing radiation used to discern pathological lesions in breast tissue one of the very risk factors for the development of breast cancer, but the identification of the word “prevention” with “early detection,” is a disingenuous way of saying that all we can do to prevent breast cancer is to detect its inevitable presence sooner than would be possible without this technology.

If women succumb to the idea of prevention as doing nothing but waiting for the detection of the disease, many will find a similarly deranged logic reemerge later when the self-fulfilling prophecy of prevention-through-doing-nothing is fulfilled and “treatment” is now required. “Treatment,” when not strictly surgical, involves the use of very powerful chemicals and high doses of ionizing radiation which “poison” the cancer cells.

The obvious problem with this approach is that the application of either form of death energy is not suitably selective, and in the long run, many women die sooner from the side effects of toximolecular “therapy” than from the cancer itself. Why is the obvious question never asked: if exposure to the genotoxic and immune system disabling effects of chemicals and radiation is causative in breast cancer, then why is blasting the body with more poisonous chemicals and radiation considered sound treatment?

The answer to this question has much more to do with ignorance than it does an intentional desire to do harm. But the results are the same: unnecessary pain, suffering and death.

Faced with a situation where medieval notions of prevention and treatment of breast cancer are the norm, it is no wonder that when polled over 40% of women believe they will contract breast cancer sometime in their life – well over three times their actual risk. After all, have any of them been given a sense that there is something they can do to actually prevent their disease other than “watchful waiting”?

Obfuscating the real preventative measures available to women to combat breast cancer, and all cancers for that matter, trusted “authoritative” sources like the Susan G. Komen Foundation publish irresponsible statements like this:

It is unclear what the exact relationship is between eating fruits and vegetables and breast cancer risk…little, if any link was found between the two in a pooled analysis that combined data from eight large studies.

Have we really come to the point where the commonsense consumption of fruits and vegetables in the prevention of disease can so matter-of-factly be called into question? Do we really need randomized, double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that our bodies can benefit from the phytonutrients and antioxidants in fruits and vegetables in the prevention of cancer?

Another atrocious example of this conspiracy against identifying the obvious causes and cures for diseases like breast cancer is the National Breast Cancer Foundation’s website. Go to the bottom of their homepage and type in “carcinogen” in their site wide search box. This is what will appear on the results page:

Your search – carcinogen – did not match any documents. No pages were found containing “carcinogen”.

On Susan G. Komen’s website the term only emerges twice, and both in the context of denying the likliehood of there being a connection between smoking and breast cancer.

If you can remove the reality of carcinogenicity by erasing from the mind’s of would-be cancer sufferers the word carcinogen, and thereby conceal the link between environmental and dietary exposures of a multitude of toxins, then the obvious “cure” these massive organizations are vacuuming in billions of dollars of donations every year to find, namely, the removal of carcinogens and detoxification of the system, will never be discovered.

Examples like these make it increasingly apparent that orthodox medicine, and the world view it represents, is approaching a theoretical end-time perhaps most accurately described as Pharmageddon.

Full Article

Inhofe Seeks Hearings Addressing the EPA’s Monstrous “Illegal Human Experiments”

By Andrew W. GriffinRed Dirt Report, editor
October 2, 2012

OKLAHOMA CITY – Just days after Red Dirt Report featured a story out of St. Louis, Mo. addressing the shocking revelation that the U.S. Army was conducting secret experiments on citizens of that city without their knowledge in the 1950’s -by spraying toxic substances on them – we learn that potentially deadly human experimentation is taking place this very day – and sanctioned by the U.S. government, no less!

While those Cold War-era tests – some believed to include radiological substances, primarily on lower-income, inner-city folks – took place more than 50 years ago in St. Louis, Corpus Christi, Texas and elsewhere, we learn that the Environmental Protection Agency is currently being sued in federal court for “conducting illegal life-and-health-threatening scientific experiments on human subjects,” according to a report from September 24th.

And Oklahoma’s senior senator, Tulsa’s Jim Inhofe, is demanding further answers from the EPA, in the meantime. Hearings are likely in coming weeks.

Suing the EPA and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is The American Tradition Institute Environmental Law Center.

This is in response to illegal human experiments involving the 2009 KINGCON study and the 2010 OMEGACON study and exposure to lethal levels of particulate matter.

The court document and lawsuit, The American Tradition Institute Environmental Law Center v. United States Environmental Protection Agency and Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator can be read here.

In the court documents, it notes, for instance, that one plaintiff, asthma-sufferer Landon Huffman, participated in human experiments several years ago that he was led to believe would “help people with asthma.”

Huffman, the documents note, “was not informed that the pollution EPA was forcing into his lungs could actually cause him to have an asthma attack. Nor was he ever given anything from EPA that would possibly relieve his asthma.”

One “obese woman with hypertension and pre-experiment evidence of cardiac irritability” was placed in a gas chamber and exposed to small particles “at levels far above what the EPA had published as safe.” She was later hospitalized.

Clearly these poor people were seen as expendable by this out-of-control government agency.

A medical ethicist named Dr. John Dale Dunn looked at the post-experiment results and was stunned by what he learned.

Said Dunn: “I am outraged and saddened to know that highly trained and expert physicians would be involved in scandalously unethical and immoral professional research, subjecting humans to toxic or lethal levels of small particles.”

Two other plaintiffs, Steven J. Milloy and Dr. David Schnare, had relatives in Nazi concentration camps. Milloy’s uncle, Zoran Galkanovic, who was incarcerated at the Mauthausen concentration camp, “was forced to … identify those individuals at the concentration camp too ill to work, knowing they would subsequently be executed.”

Located in Austria, the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp was known for unspeakable horrors that included all sorts of gruesome and deadly medical experiments.

Camp physician Hermann Richter “surgically removed significant organs – e.g., stomach, liver, or kidneys – from living prisoners solely in order to determine how long a prisoner could survive without the organ in question.”

It is because of what happened to his family member that Milloy has “(a)ccepted as a family responsibility the fight against any government who subjects its citizens to inhumane treatment.”

Dr. Schnare, meanwhile, worked for the EPA for 33 years and was shocked to learn of the illegal human experimentation by the EPA. He told the American Tradition Institute, based in Burke, Va., that he is a plaintiff because he “abhors current governmental experimentation on humans for the purposes of determining the effect of poisons.”

One new study, called CAPTAIN, is currently ongoing at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, believe it or not. CAPTAIN, according to court documents, “imposes a risk of immediate death from an acute exposure” to dangerous particulates.

The plaintiffs are seeking an end to CAPTAIN and other sinister experiments taking place in the Tarheel State and elsewhere, via the federal courts.

Meanwhile, the EPA scientists, it was revealed, conducted some potentially lethal experiments in Durham, North Carolina. “order(ing) human subjects be placed into a gas chamber and exposed to a lethal gas.” In this case, diesel exhaust.

Three days ago, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a ranking member on the Committee on Environment and Public Works, wrote a letter to that committee’s chairwoman, U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), addressing this shocking lawsuit.

Writes Inhofe, in his letter dated September 28th: “As I understand from the complaint, the EPA exposed dozens of human subjects, many of whom were health-impaired (e.g. asthma, metabolic syndrome, elderly) to concentrated high levels of substances like fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and diesel exhaust, which EPA has previously and officially determined can kill people and cause cancer.”

Inhofe continues: “It also appears that the EPA researchers failed to inform the institutional review board and the study subjects of its official views concerning the lethality and toxicity of PM2.5 and diesel exhaust.”

Inhofe also tells Boxer that he would like the committee, which is responsible for EPA oversight, to “conduct hearings on this matter in the upcoming ‘lame-duck’ session.”

Inhofe also says that the EPA “may be held criminally liable for its conduct.”

We hope to have more on this story in the coming weeks.

Researcher Says Army Scientists Secretly Sprayed Cities with Radioactive Particles for Years

By Madison Ruppert
October 1, 2012

According to Lisa Martino-Taylor, a sociologist, the United States military carried out top secret experiments involving the spraying of radioactive particles on residents of St. Louis, Missouri for years.

This is hardly surprising given the fact that the entire United States is currently engaged in a massive human experiment when we already know that the results will be nothing short of horrific.

Let’s also not forget that we continue to support the use of dangerous substances and technologies, even though we know that disaster is a certainty.

It is public knowledge that the government sprayed zinc cadmium sulfide particles – which are supposedly harmless – over St. Louis, but Professor Martino-Taylor says that her research indicates a radioactive additive was also mixed in with the compound.

The targets of these experiments were primarily minorities and low-income communities – again, hardly surprising given the U.S. government’s history of conducting brutal tests on disadvantaged populations – who had no clue that they were being subjected to dangerous chemicals from 1953-1954 and 1963-1965.

Martino-Taylor’s research uncovered photographs showing just how these particles were distributed as well as detailed descriptions of how the public was exposed to these substances in the name of keeping America safe.

In Corpus Christi, Texas the chemical was dispersed over large portions of the city from airplanes while in St. Louis, the U.S. Army placed chemical sprayers on schools and public housing projects, among other buildings, as well as on station wagons for mobile spraying.

Even local politicians were kept totally out of the loop with St. Louis residents simply being told that the Army was testing smoke screen technology to protect American cities from a potential Russian attack.

“The study was secretive for reason,” said Martino-Taylor to St. Louis’ KSDK. “They didn’t have volunteers stepping up and saying yeah, I’ll breathe zinc cadmium sulfide with radioactive particles.”

“It was pretty shocking. The level of duplicity and secrecy. Clearly they went to great lengths to deceive people,” she said.

Personally, I find this level of duplicity and secrecy far from shocking given that we are talking about the American government here.

Martino-Taylor had to file hundreds of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to get a hold of the once-classified documents confirming the spraying program.

Her research determined that the greatest concentration of spraying was focused on the Pruitt-Igoe housing complex, which is located northwest of downtown St. Louis in the Carr Square neighborhood.

This complex, which was destroyed in 1972, housed some 10,000 people with low incomes, an estimated 70 percent of which were children under the age of 12.

“This was a violation of all medical ethics, all international codes, and the military’s own policy at that time,” Martino-Taylor said.

The earlier evidence emerged in the 1990s when then-Congressman Richard Gephardt called on the Army to open their records and given an explanation for their testing in St. Louis.

“We want to make sure nothing went on that would harm anyone, and that all the fact[s] are out on the table,” Gephardt said at the time.

The documents which were eventually released revealed that the United States Army actually placed sprayers on various buildings, although the Army continued to insist that the chemicals were totally safe.

Martino-Taylor’s research shows that this is far from the truth.

“There is a lot of evidence that shows people in St. Louis and the city, in particular minority communities, were subjected to military testing that was connected to a larger radiological weapons testing project,” said Martino-Taylor.

Martino-Taylor’s findings link the program to U.S. Radium, a company infamous for being hit with lawsuits over their workers getting contaminated by radiation.

“US radium had this reputation where they had been found legally liable for producing a radioactive powdered paint that killed many young women who painted fluorescent watch tiles,” Martino-Taylor said.

The U.S. Army does, in fact, admit that they added a fluorescent substance to the compound they sprayed, but the details of the radioactivity of the added substance remains completely secret and likely will for quite a while.

The documents uncovered by Martino-Taylor show that the Army never so much as conducted a single follow-up study to see if the compound they sprayed did long term damage to the people unwittingly subjected to their experimentation.

“Through this case study, the author explores how a large number of participants inside an organization will willingly participate in organizational acts that are harmful to others, and how large numbers of outsiders, who may or may not be victims of organizational activities, are unable to determine illegal or harmful activity by an organization,” Martino-Taylor wrote.

Indeed, hopefully this case will help strengthen the now massive body of evidence which proves that “our” government, in fact, regularly treats us like nothing more than lab rats, cannon fodder and collateral for loans.

Note from End the Lie: Please support our work and help us start to pay contributors by doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

See Martino-Taylor’s interview below:


This article originally appeared on End the Lie

Scientists Warn Geo-Engineering Can Kill Billions of People

Cassandra Anderson
October 2, 2012

Geo-engineering is an umbrella term for deliberate climate intervention that includes spraying the sky with aerosols to reflect solar radiation away from Earth in order to cool the planet and to save the environment and humanity from the effects of supposedly man-made global warming. There is evidence that this program has already been implemented for many years using unidentified chemical aerosols, known as chemtrails.

A geo-engineering/ chemtrails experiment using a balloon to spray sulfur particles into the sky to reflect solar radiation back into space is planned for New Mexico within a year by scientist David Keith. Keith manages a multimillion dollar research fund for Bill Gates. Gates has also gathered a team of scientist lobbyists that have been asking governments for hand-outs to for their climate manipulation experiments with taxpayer money.

Geo-engineering is touted as a last-ditch effort to save people and the planet from global warming. But the truth is that geo-engineering can alter rain cycles leading to droughts and famine that could result in billions of deaths!

Therefore, Bill Gates appears to be using his concern over global warming to cloak his real intent of controlling weather and/or depopulation.

Mount Pinatubo Model for Geo-Engineering Drought, Famine & Death

The Mount Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines erupted in 1991, spewing 22 million tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the upper atmosphere/stratosphere. A 2008 study from Rutgers University based a model on Mount Pinatubo sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and applied it to geo-engineering; the scientists said that they expected overall global cooling, but some regions would experience an increase in greenhouse gases and warming, as was recorded after Pinatubo erupted.

Based on the SO2 volcanic model, the scientists reported that geo-engineering aerosols sprayed in tropical or Arctic regions are likely to disrupt African and Asian/Indian summer monsoons, threatening the food and water supply for billions of people!

Full Article

Big Government conspiracy theories become reality: Fluoride, cancer, chemicals and more

S. D. Wells
Natural News
Oct 1, 2012

What if you just found out that cancer in America began when food processing plants became prominent and people moved closer to the industrial plants, where the jobs were, just after World War II? And what if you found out from a very “reliable source” that the U.S. government knew this processed food would cause cancer? Would you believe it, or would you call the people who do believe it conspiracy theorists? Does it seem so RADICAL of a concept, like some outrageous and malicious plan to make money at the expense of people’s lives and livelihood? Or is it just paranoia, now being spread by the nightly news? (

What if CNN, Dateline NBC, 60 Minutes, or some other network prime time “mainstream news” program did a HUGE NATIONAL STORY about how fluoride in public water is causing Alzheimer’s, Osteoporosis and Arthritis, and nearly every city and county in America would be removing it from the public water supply starting first thing Monday? Then you found out the very next morning that your town or city was not on that list, because your mayor just switched from a job at a chemical company, and he or she is “all for fluoridated water.” Are you worried? Do you run out a buy expensive filters at the hardware store for your sinks, for your showers, for everything? ( Does it seem so RADICAL of a concept, like some horribly unethical plan to make money off people’s sickness? Or is it just paranoia, now being spread by the ever so popular nightly news? (

Then you start thinking, wait a second, could people go to jail for coming up with this idea, of fluoridating the water, or did they already go to jail for MASS MURDER? Maybe it’s time to do a little homework for yourself, especially since it’s now all over the news. (

A company called IG Farben worked closely with the Nazi regime and the SS, functioning like a war driving machine, donating some 80 million Reichsmarks in return for chemical, pharmaceutical and petrochemical industries which were seized by Hitler from the occupied countries. IG Farben then used huge investment capital from the one and only John D. Rockefellerand his Standard Oil Company to fund the creation and use of Zyklon B pesticide to gas millions of Jews to death. Scientists from IG Farben went on to work for the United States in major capacities, from designing rockets to DESIGNING FOOD CHEMICALS AND CHEMOTHERAPY (It began as “Project Paperclip”).(

Toxic water was a planned conspiracy

A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives just two years ago confirmed that fluoridated water causes brain damage in children. The study was the 24th one on the same subject, and the results were SO EVIDENT that experts thought it could be the end of water fluoridation. The fluoride levels in the children’s blood were so high, if the study had reached the nightly news, America would be up in arms, demanding action.

Getting paranoid yet? Or what if the word paranoia itself needs to be redefined? Maybe the dictionaries should redefine the political correctness of the word paranoid in order to fit in with modern day insanity when it comes to buying toxic food instead of Mother Nature’s untainted organic food and “medicine.”

Full Article

Kids Get 7 Trillion Calories of Sugar from Cancer-Causing Beverages Each Year

Lisa Garber
Activist Post

Soda and sugary beverages make up 15 to 25 percent of the daily recommended caloric intake for children aged 2 to 19. That’s almost 300 calories a day and 7 trillion calories a year of sugar, one of cancer’s favorite substances.

Keeping Soda from KidsDr. Steven Gortmaker, Director of the Harvard School of Public Health Prevention Research Center, recently presented these statistics at the Obesity Society’s Annual Scientific Meeting in San Antonio.

Amidst protests from consumer rights die-hards and the beverage lobby, Gortmaker is urging the government to keep away sodas and sugary drinks from children, in the vein of Boston’s 2004 ban of selling sodas at public schools. According to Gortmaker, the kids’ calorie consumption has gone down by 45 calories, “just the level you need to start flattening out the obesity epidemic, if not to start turning it all around.”

Beverage Lobby Doesn’t CareMayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on the sale of sugary drinks in containers bigger than 16 ounces in New York City is still fresh on the public’s mind. The beverage lobby—with the $24 billion in sales made to children fresh on their mind—expressed its displeasure thusly:

We know, and science supports, that obesity is not uniquely caused by any single food or beverage. Thus, studies and opinion pieces that focus solely on sugar-sweetened beverages, or any other single source of calories, do nothing meaningful to help address this serious issue.


Soda and Sugary Drinks Linked to Diseases

The beverage lobby is not wrong in stating that not one single source of calories is responsible, but they must be part of the dialogue in helping Americans regain healthy weights. Sodas are often sweetened in the United States with GMO corn-derived and mercury-containing high-fructose corn syrup—a sugar that a UCLA study recently pegged as feeding pancreatic cancer cells more rapidly than glucose or sucrose. Soda may also harnesses another cancer-causing chemical called caramel food coloring, which could be causing lung, liver, and thyroid cancer.

What’s more, soda and sugary drinks are linked to obesity on a genetic level. Parents might think about cutting back, too.

Regular consumption of sugary beverages may amplify the genetic risk of obesity. In addition, individuals with greater genetic predisposition to obesity appear to be more susceptible to harmful effects of SSBs on BMI, say the authors.

And in the midst of all this trash-talk on soda, people are wonder: Is diet soda bad for you? Unfortunately, going sugar-free doesn’t help either, since artificial sweeteners feed cancer cells as much as other sugars Additionally, these artificial sweeteners like aspartame are linked to kidney health decline, heart attack and stroke, obesity, and damaged DNA.

The bottom line? We owe our future generations more than our own instant gratification.

Additional Sources:
The Daily Mail
UCLA Newsroom

Explore More:

CORRECTED-UPDATE 1-US Supreme Court rejects appeal on airport scanners

Mon Oct 1, 2012 3:27pm EDT

(Corrects first name of blogger in second paragraph)

* Blogger challenged full-body scanners at checkpoints

* Critics fear scanners can emit too much radiation

By Jonathan Stempel

WASHINGTON, Oct 1 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider a Michigan blogger’s challenge of the use of full-body scanners and thorough pat-downs at airport checkpoints.

Without comment, the court declined to take up Jonathan Corbett’s complaint that the Transportation Security Administration’s use of the screening techniques violated passengers’ protection against illegal searches under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The TSA had in October 2010 directed the use of the scanners, sometimes known as advanced imaging technology, which some critics fear could emit too much radiation.

In addition, the TSA authorized enhanced pat-downs, which could include the touching of genitals, buttocks and breasts, for passengers unwilling to go through the scanners. Passengers who rejected both procedures would not be allowed to fly.

Corbett, who maintains the “TSA Out of Our Pants!” blog, complained that the TSA lacked unilateral authority to adopt the procedures.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta had rejected Corbett’s case, saying a lower court correctly concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to review a TSA order.

The case is Corbett v. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-1413. (Reporting By Jonathan Stempel in Washington, D.C.; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick and M.D. Golan)

Barbarism: Doctors Now Encouraging Patients to Remove Body Parts to ‘Prevent Cancer’

Anthony Gucciardi
Activist Post

Glorified as a heart warming ‘preventative’ trend by the mainstream media, doctors are now recommending that patients who are found to be ‘more susceptible’ to certain cancers based on genetic testing actually surgically remove body parts that could be affected. It sounds insane and beyond barbaric (as it is), but apparently the mainstream medical community thinks it is quite the heroic feat to perform bodily mutilation in the name of phony cancer prevention.

In a recent CNN article entitled “My preventive mastectomy: Staying alive for my kids,” a mother removes both her breasts and ovaries despite not testing positive for cancer. Stating that she did so at the urging of her gynecologist, Allison Gilbert, surgically removed her ovaries in 2007 and her breasts earlier this year. Gilbert explains how she decided to remove her breasts and ovaries after her doctor highly recommended doing so despite the fact that nutrition and lifestyle actually can alter your gene expression dramatically:

The decision to have surgery without having cancer wasn’t easy, but it seemed logical to me. My mother, aunt and grandmother have all died from breast or ovarian cancer, and I tested positive for the breast cancer gene.

Nutrition is Known to Dramatically Affect Gene Expression

This new trend signifies a complete and utter failure to recognize legitimate science regarding the effective prevention of cancer through nutrition and lifestyle. In fact, research has repeatedly shown that what you eat directly affects your genes. As information from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology shows, nutrition can create or alleviate inflammation levels through altering gene expression. Inflammation, of course, has been linked to a long list of diseases — including cancer.

As a lead researcher from the study explained:

This affects not only the genes that cause inflammation in the body, which was what we originally wanted to study, but also genes associated with development of cardiovascular disease, some cancers, dementia, and type 2 diabetes — all the major lifestyle-related diseases.

Beyond this information, we know that countless natural substances are highly effective in the prevention of cancer across the board. Super nutrients like vitamin D, spices like ginger and turmeric, and antioxidant-rich superfoods have all been shown in peer-reviewed research to fight cancer at a genetic level. As researchers at Jefferson’s Kimmel Cancer Center found, antioxidants help to both prevent and fight cancer:

Now we have genetic proof that mitochondrial oxidative stress is important for driving tumor growth, said lead researcher Michael P. Lisanti, M.D., Ph.D.

Apparently Gilbert’s gynecologist was completely unaware of this research, or perhaps the other several thousand pieces of information that exist on the subject. But sadly it is not just Gilbert’s doctor who is recommending patients chop off their breasts, ovaries, and other areas of the body that present a ‘genetic risk’ of cancer. Sadly, this trend is not only far-reaching but being touted in the media through laughable sources like CNN as a heart warming and touching display of affection for friends and family.

Current Health Paradigm Promotes Sickness, Surgery, and Death

And even as patients like Gilbert experience the life-crushing results of listening to their ignorant and downright unqualified doctors who originally insisted they mutilate their bodies unnecessarily, they unfortunately continue to re-assure themselves that they made the right decision.

Psychologically, it is similar to why many E-mail scams succeed in which fake princes and princesses ask for you to send them money overseas. Once you have sent a phony Prince John thousands of dollars overseas, you are almost forced to believe the lie. After all, if you accept it as a lie, then you have lost. It is much easier to believe that Prince John exists and is having trouble sending you the millions promised than to accept you have been scammed.

Gilbert details the aftermath of her ‘preventative’ surgery in which she removed her breasts and was thrown into menopause at age 37 with severe side effects, yet explains how she still believes that the surgery was the right decision:

The most difficult part of the operation came in the months that followed: I was thrust into menopause at 37. Despite age-inappropriate night sweats and hot flashes, I was relieved to have the surgery…

What this practice is in reality, however, is the result of a horrendous medical system that has engulfed the United States. Costing over ten times the amount spent in 1980, United States healthcare costs currently near $2.6 trillion as of 2010 as disease rates continually climb and the life expectancy among the poor who eat processed foods are being reduced across the board. It’s time to escape the old health paradigm of sickness, barbaric body part removal, and pharmaceutical medication.

Explore More:

American Government Forces Re-Start of Japanese Nuclear Reactors
October 3, 2012

Americans Are Largely Responsible for Japan’s Ongoing Nuclear Policy

Archaic nuclear reactor designs such as those used at Fukushima – built by American company General Electric – were chosen because they were good for making nuclear bombs. The U.S. secretly helped Japan develop its nuclear weapons program starting in the the 1980s. Therefore, the U.S. played a large role in Japan’s development of nuclear energy, albeit indirectly.

After the Fukushima disaster – in an effort to protect the American nuclear industry – the U.S. has joined Japan in raising “acceptable” radiation levels. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also signed a pact with her counterpart in Japan agreeing that the U.S. will continue buying seafood from Japan, despite the fact that the FDA is refusing to test seafood for radiation in any meaningful fashion. So U.S. actions are helping to protect a pro-nuclear policy in Japan.

Indeed, mainstream Japanese newspaper Nikkei reports that it was President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton who have pressured the Japanese to re-start that country’s nuclear program after the Japanese government vowed to end all nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.

Ex-SKF reports:

Japanese media has been saying for some time that it was the US government who pressured the Noda administration to drop the “zero nuke by 2030″ (which morphed into “zero nuke sometime in 2030s) from its new nuclear and environmental policy decision. Tokyo Shinbun reported it a while ago, and now Nikkei Shinbun just reported it with more details. There is no news reported in the US on the matter.

The difference of the Nikkei Shinbun’s article is that it names names: President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

It’s hard for me to believe that this president has time for trivial matters like actually governing the affairs inside and outside the US in the election year (he must be very busy right now preparing for the big “debate”), but that’s what Nikkei Shinbun wants us to believe. The article also mentions Secretary of State Clinton pressuring the Noda administration officials by strongly indicating it was the wish of President Obama and the US Congress that Japan scrap that silly nuclear energy policy.

And then, one added twist: the Nikkei article has disappeared. [Washington’s Blog has located a version of the article cached by Google.]


Here’s Nikkei article:

The US request that Japan continue nuclear power plant is “the President’s idea”

2012/9/25 0:12

It has been revealed that the United States government was strongly urging [the Japanese government] to reconsider its policy of “zero nukes in 2030s” which was part of the energy and environmental strategy of the Noda administration, as “President Obama wishes it”. [The US objection] was based on the fear that the framework of Japan-US cooperation for non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear energy might collapse [under the new policy]. [The Noda administration] eventually shelved the cabinet decision, but this ambiguous resolution may cause further trouble in the future.

According to the multiple government sources, as the Noda administration was moving in August toward explicitly putting down “zero nuke” in the official document, the US strongly requested that Japan reconsider the “zero nuke” policy, saying the request was “the result of discussion at the highest level of the government“, indicating it was the Obama administration’s consensus, from the president on down.

On September 8, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda met with the US Secretary of State Clinton during the APEC meeting in Vladivostok in Russia. Here again, representing the US president, Secretary Clinton expressed concern. While avoiding the overt criticism of the Noda administration’s policy, she further pressured Japan by stressing that it was President Obama and the US Congress who were concerned.

The Noda administration sent its officials, including Special Advisor to Prime Minister Akihisa Nagashima, to the US on an urgent mission to directly discuss matters with the high-ranking White House officials who were frustrated with the Japanese response. By treating the new strategy as only a reference material, the Noda administration averted the confrontation with the US with the “equivocal” resolution (according to the Japanese government source) which allowed the US to interpret the Japanese action as shelving the zero nuke policy.

(According to Former Deputy Energy Secretary Martin,) the US government thinks that “The US energy strategy would be more likely to suffer a direct damage” because of the Japan’s policy change toward zero nuclear energy. It is because the Japanese nuclear policy is closely linked also to the nuclear non-proliferation and environmental policies aimed at preventing the global warming under the Obama administration.

In the Atomic Energy Agreement effective as of 1988, Japan and the US agreed to a blanket statement that as long as it is at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, reprocessing of the nuclear fuel is allowed without prior consent from the US. Japan’s most important role [in the agreement] is to secure the peaceful use of plutonium without possessing nuclear weapons.

The current Japan-US agreement will expire in 2018, and the government will need to start preliminary, unofficial discussions [with the US] as early as next year. There is some time before the expiration of the agreement, but if Japan leaves its nuclear policy in vague terms the US may object to renewal of permission for nuclear fuel reprocessing. Some (in the Japanese government) say “We are not sure any more what will happen to the renewal of the agreement.”