The psychiatric agenda destroys creative children

The assault on childhood intelect is vitally important for the NWO. They have been trying and succeeding with Fluoride in the water systems but have now been exposed and this threat is largly eliminated in Europe (with the exception of Ireland and certain areas of the UK).

Nearly all sodas, soft drinks, and energy drinks, consumed by young people, contain large amounts of damaging chemicals (excitotoxins) and the negative effects of EMF (mobile phones and wifi in general) on growing brains is well documented.

A comprehensive collection of serious incidents pertaining to the consumption of SSRI compounds and other antidepressants can be found at http://www.ssristories.com

Please note that the chemical name for ‘Prozac’ is Floxetine and is almost entirely made up of Fluoride with a few fillers added! 

23/6/2015
By Jon Rappoport
“Take a child who wants to invent something out of thin air, and instead of saying no, tell him he has a problem with his brain, and then stand back and watch what happens. In particular, watch what happens when you give him a toxic drug to fix his brain. You have to be a certain kind of person to do that to a child. You have to be, for various reasons, crazy and a career criminal.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
First, here are a few facts that should give you pause:
According to NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness), “More than 25 percent of college students have been diagnosed or treated by a professional for a mental health condition within the past year.”
NAMI: “One in four young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 have [we claim] a diagnosable mental illness.”
According to healthline.com, 6.4 million American children between the ages of 4 and 17 have been diagnosed with ADHD. The average age for the child’s diagnosis is 7.
BMJ 2016;352:i1457: “The number of UK children and adolescents treated with antidepressants rose by over 50% from 2005 to 2012, a study of five Western countries published in European Neuropsychopharmacology has found.”
Getting the picture?
Children are being diagnosed and dosed with toxic drugs at a staggering rate.
But, as I have shown in many past articles, NO so-called mental disorder is based on a lab test. No blood, saliva, genetic, brain test. ALL 300 or so official mental disorders are defined by menus of behaviors concocted by committees of psychiatrists.
On that foundation, the diagnoses and the drugs are handed out.
Let’s look at just one of the drugs: Ritalin (or any similar ADHD medicine). After a creative child is seen fidgeting in class, looking bored, studying what he wants to study, ignoring classroom assignments, focusing on what interests him, he is diagnosed with ADHD. Then comes the drug.
In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published an important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].
Scarnati listed a large number of adverse effects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.
For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:
* Paranoid delusions
* Paranoid psychosis
* Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
* Activation of psychotic symptoms
* Toxic psychosis
* Visual hallucinations
* Auditory hallucinations
* Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
* Effects pathological thought processes
* Extreme withdrawal
* Terrified affect
* Started screaming
* Aggressiveness
* Insomnia
* Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
* Psychic dependence
* High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
* Decreased REM sleep
* When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
* Convulsions
* Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.
Under this chemical assault on the brain, what are the chances that a creative child will go on in life to become an innovator, rather than a victim of psychiatric drugging?
Make a list of your favorite innovators. Imagine them as bored distracted children sitting in classrooms…and then diagnosed, and then hammered with drugs prescribed by a doctor.
This is happening now.
The institution of psychiatry is making it happen.
What about the consequences of diagnosing clinical depression in larger numbers of young children? What about the antidepressant drugs?
Here is just a sprinkling of information about antidepressants, from a huge body of literature:
Psychiatrist Peter Breggin: February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) reports on “six depressed patients, previously free of recent suicidal ideation, who developed `intense, violent suicidal preoccupations after 2-7 weeks of fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment.’ The suicidal preoccupations lasted from three days to three months after termination of the treatment. The report estimates that 3.5 percent of Prozac users were at risk. While denying the validity of the study, Dista Products, a division of Eli Lilly, put out a brochure for doctors dated August 31, 1990, stating that it was adding `suicidal ideation’ to the adverse events section of its Prozac product information.”
An earlier study, from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases people on Prozac developed what is called akathesia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Dr. Peter Breggin comments that akathesia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.'”
The well-known publication, California Lawyer, in a December 1998 article called “Protecting Prozac,” details some of the suspect maneuvers of Eli Lilly in its handling of suits against Prozac. California Lawyer also mentions other highly qualified critics of the drug: “David Healy, MD, an internationally renowned psychopharmacologist, has stated in sworn deposition that `contrary to Lilly’s view, there is a plausible cause-and-effect relationship between Prozac’ and suicidal-homicidal events. An epidemiological study published in 1995 by the British Medical Journal also links Prozac to increased suicide risk.”
When pressed, proponents of these SSRI antidepressant drugs (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) sometimes say, “Well, the benefits for the general population far outweigh the risk.” But the issue of benefits will not go away on that basis. A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”
In wide use. This despite such contrary information and the negative, dangerous effects of these drugs.
There are other studies: “Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine treatment,” published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991, vol.30), written by RA King, RA Riddle, et al. It reports self-destructive phenomena in 14% (6/42) of children and adolescents (10-17 years old) who had treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac) for obsessive-compulsive disorder.
July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.” All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”
September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor. The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.
For money, for profit, for status, for control, there exists a professional class called psychiatrists. They approach children—particularly creative children who refuse to fall into lock-step with a regimented program of learning—as outliers, as ill, as strange, as maladjusted, as threats to the system. And this professional class takes action. Diagnose the children, drug them, bring them back into line, make them “normal,” reduce their curiosity and independence and drive and will power.
Instead of using overt physical force, they use relatively invisible chemical force.
Under the banner of caring, they perform, on the young, a scientific ritual of sacrifice, a rite of passage into the dead world where they, the elite rulers, exist.

PSYCHEDELICS AND PLANT MEDICINES DISPEL THE CHEMICAL IMBALANCE THEORY OF DEPRESSION

Dylan Charles, Editor

Waking Times
Depression is now the number one worldwide cause of disease and disability, according to the World Health Organization. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-5), the psychiatric industry’s bible, defines depression as the near daily existence of at least 5 of the following 9 conditions:

1. Depressed mood or irritable most of the day, nearly every day, as indicated by either subjective report (e.g., feels sad or empty) or observation made by others (e.g., appears tearful).
2. Decreased interest or pleasure in most activities, most of each day

3. Significant weight change (5%) or change in appetite

4. Change in sleep: Insomnia or hypersomnia

5. Change in activity: Psychomotor agitation or retardation

6. Fatigue or loss of energy

7. Guilt/worthlessness: Feelings of worthlessness or excessive or inappropriate guilt

8. Concentration: diminished ability to think or concentrate, or more indecisiveness

9. Suicidality: Thoughts of death or suicide, or has suicide plan

(Proposed (not yet adopted) anxiety symptoms that may indicate depression: irrational worry, preoccupation with unpleasant worries, trouble relaxing, feeling tense, fear that something awful might happen.) [Source]

Diagnosis using this array of possibilities is highly subjective and hardly scientific, and the DSM-5 recommends treatment with pharmaceutical antidepressants, supportive psychotherapy, best guesses, trial and error, observation, hope and luck.
Antidepressants aim to correct chemical imbalances in the brain by adding reactive chemicals to the body, an approach based on the theory that depression is the result of deficiencies in certain chemicals. This theory is tested by tinkering with brain chemistry while looking for signs of decrease in the aforementioned symptoms.
This model is not at all unanimously agreed upon, but it dominates our treatment of depression, although it is just a guess, as admitted in the DSM-5 itself:
The undoubtable success of various antidepressants has focused attention on the biogenic amines: given that all antidepressants have effects on either noradrenergic or serotoninergic functioning, it appears reasonable to assume that there is a complementary disturbance in these amines in patients with major depression. Despite enormous research effort, consistent findings implicating these amines have been difficult to obtain. One exception is the finding that, in patients with major depression currently in an SSRI-induced remission, a depletion of tryptophan, the dietary precursor of serotonin, is generally followed by a rapid relapse of depressive symptoms. [Source]
The chemical imbalance theory is weak, but worse than that it’s one-dimensional, focusing on body chemistry alone without consideration of the emotional complexities of the human psyche and of life itself.

Research into the use of the psychedelic drugs ecstasy, ketamine, LSD, and psilocybin, and the use of shamanic plant medicines ayahuasca and iboga, takes us even further in dispelling the myth of the chemical imbalance theory. Patients, as well as many ordinary people who have experienced these substances, commonly report dramatic breakthroughs in their mental health, with even low doses.
The commonality in these substances is that they have a distinct psychoactive element, drastically altering ordinary consciousness. Ayahuasca, for example is gaining in renown for its ability to treat depression by inducing a deeply meaningful and personal spiritual experience that offers insight into one’s behavior and past experiences, helping them to develop a more healthy relationship with themselves.
“A 2016 review of observational studies of regular users found reductions in dependence and substance use; a preliminary 2015 study for depression treatment found 82 percent reductions in depression scores; and another 2016 review found that short-term use was associated with “improved planning and inhibitory control,” with potential antidepressive and anti-addiction applications.” [Source]
The African plant medicine iboga works in a very similar manner, and can reprogram self-defeating and self-destructive patterns of thought in a single shamanic ceremony by sending the patient on an intense personal journey of introspection and connection to the higher dimensions of themselves, even allowing them to communicate directly with their own soul.

These substances work by affecting other components of the multi-dimensional human being, and as these concepts fall far outside of the purview of the scientific method, they are easily dismissed by the type of empirically minded scientists involved in projects like creating the DSM-5. Never-the-less, the psychedelic experiences mentioned here can be highly effective, offering compelling evidence that depression is at least for some, a spiritual condition, and as such the chemical imbalance theory is incomplete.
The chemical imbalance theory is critical to the domination of depression treatment by the pharmaceutical industry, but as research proceeds, and as people continue to relay their personal experiences in healing themselves with the aid of these consciousness expanding substances, we have more and more evidence to suggest that the pharmaceutical treatments may not be the best or only option for treating depression.

The tribe that poisons itself (an alagorical tale)

From Natural News June 13th 2017

Scientists discover nearly-extinct ancient tribe that ritually poisons its own food and trashes its ecosystems (but there’s a catch)
Scientists have stumbled upon an astonishing discovery of an ancient tribe living on a remote Pacific island that ritually poisons its own food and trashes its food-producing ecosystems.

According to Dr. Eugene Navaroski from the Technical Institute of Ancient People, this nearly extinct tribe was discovered to engage in the most astonishing self-destructive behaviors:
The tribe has a rudimentary monetary exchange system based on clam shells which are used in barter.
The elders of the tribe have created revenue streams where they collect clam shells in exchange for toxic chemicals harvested from poison plants. These chemicals are required to be sprayed on all foods consumed by the tribe and are said to “ward off evil pests.”

The tribe suffers from very high rates of cancer, liver disorders and brain disorders due to the routine consumption of poisons that are added to the foods (in order to make the elders wealthy with clam shells).

The poisons added to the food supply survive human digestion and are urinated out of the body where they poison the local ecosystems, causing widespread ecological toxicity and mass animal die-offs.

The ecological toxicity is causing an island-wide food supply collapse, which the elders blame on “evil pest spirits,” thereby justifying their mandate that toxic poisons must be added to all foods in order to scare away the evil pests.

Scientists have observed that as disease spreads across the tribe and ecological damage destroys the sustainability of the food supply, the elders are sitting on massive mounds of clam shells and believe they are “rich.”

The tribe has been dubbed the “Suicide Tribe” by scientists who say they’ve never witnessed such shortsighted, self-destructive behavior in human societies before.

But wait: YOU are part of this tribe, too!

Now, allow me to pull back the veil on this allegory and reveal the greater truth: There is no such tribe on a remote Pacific island. There is no “Technical Institute of Ancient People” and Dr. Eugene Navaroski is a fictional name. In truth, the “tribe” is modern Western civilization which routinely poisons its entire food supply with pesticides and herbicides in order to make certain corporations “rich.”
The “elders” are the pesticide corporations like Monsanto, Bayer and DuPont who collect profits from the mass poisoning of the food, thinking they are “rich” corporations while their own children are dying from cancer and their lands are being decimated for generations to come.
The suicide tribe is us! You are part of it. Every time you buy non-organic products are the grocery store, you are financially subsidizing this suicide cult and contributing to the destruction of the ecosystem.
Earth is the “island.” And we are destroying it with tens of millions of pounds of toxic chemicals sprayed on our lands and food every year. We are poisoning ourselves while poisoning the planet, and the global food supply is collapsing while our children are stricken with cancer, obesity, neurological disorders and diabetes.
Everyday Americans are eating deadly poison in their food while thinking their 401K investment retirement funds are “growing wealth” because they are invested in shares of Monsanto or DuPont. They think they’re getting rich while they’re actually poisoning their world for generations to come. Meanwhile, media outlets push the poison in the name of “science,” collecting money from wealthy corporate advertisers to push more poison propaganda onto the world, claiming our growing population needs more pesticides, more glyphosate and more GMOs to “feed the world.”
Their piles of clam shells are growing larger and larger while the food-producing soils of our world grow smaller and smaller. Our people are dying, our soils are being poisoned, aquatic ecosystems are collapsing and yet corporate executives think they are “wealthy.”
Welcome to the suicide cult of modern human civilization, where people buy and eat poison every single day, thinking they are “safe” from pests while they are dying of cancer and destroying their world.

Flat Earth Debate – Deconstructing the Strawman Argument

Deliberately misrepresenting your views is a standard form of attack that will be leveled against you when you express the heretical belief that maybe the world’s not a ball. If you cite the lack of curvature they will point out that there’s no way it’s flat because the water would flow over the edge.

Confronted with the eminent falsifiability of their beloved globe, they often retreat into denial, ignoring your facts and focusing instead upon some ridiculous facet of a Flat Earth model nobody takes seriously. This is a deliberate form of deflection which allows them to censor your message by conflating it with nonsense. You will never hear Joe Rogan (a controversial American talkshow host. ed ) say, “Someone please explain to me how the curvature is determined.” Nope. He’ll rant and rave about how the evil Flat Earthers need to be tied to stakes and burned. This is an intentional act of sabotage. Straw man arguments are meant to claim victory in a debate and change the subject.

However, most of the time people employ this method unintentionally. It comes from a lack knowledge about the topic which, to be fair, is totally understandable. This article is intended to assist the Flat Earth Reformer in this regard. So usually when they come at you with strawman attacks it is because they are ignorant about the Flat Earth model and therefore they don’t actually know what they are arguing against. They don’t know the claims you make and so they can’t argue against those.

Use strawman arguments as a chance to correct the record. Sometimes people are just responding to their conditioning. All of us went through the indoctrination process. We all went to elementary school where we were shown a globe and we were told people used to believe that if you kept sailing the same direction you would go over the edge, and then the kids would all laugh because that’s a laugh line. It’s a straw man mischaracterization of the Flat Earth that was handed to us when we were little, so obviously the first time someone encounters this topic as an adult they’re going to revert to what they know.

“Wait a minute,” they’ll say, “everybody knows the world’s a ball. We figured that out five-thousand years ago. I was told about this in the second grade, so if you think the world is flat, then why hasn’t anyone gone over the edge?” Debate won. At least that’s how they see it.

What you have to do is deconstruct the strawman argument because when people first hear of Flat Earth they imagine a frisbee floating in space and they ask, “…if Earth is flat then why isn’t the sun lighting up the entire surface at once. Wouldn’t we have night and day uniformly? Because a sphere, obviously shields half the surface.”

So that’s a fairly straightforward and logical comment, but what they miss here is that this is not what we think the Flat Earth looks like. We reject heliocentrism altogether so these distant stars you see, and the distant sun 93 million miles away, does not apply to any Flat Earth model. And to be clear, there are several competing models. There isn’t a consensus yet.

Perhaps the enforcers of the globe-matrix have the ideal, accurately represented map of the Flat Earth but we certainly don’t. We do have common points of agreement, namely the lack of curvature and the eminent falsifiability of the globe, but we’re still seeking the best explanations. Unlike globers, we don’t pretend to know everything.

The absence of consensus doesn’t invalidate it. Consensus has nothing to do with science. A new discovery by an individual may actually change what the majority believes. It’s not as though all discoveries are made by every scientist at the same time. New information by individual or minority opinion is always what upsets the status quo.

Because there isn’t a fully agreed upon model, strawman arguments tend to fail anyway. They should always be met with some facet of the debate that is agreed upon, like the fact that there is no stellar parallax. Or that lakes are flat.

It should also be mentioned that none of us believe in outer space and that the only time we have ever seen it is in the movies and in NASA computer animations. The crew on the International Space Station NEVER EVER EVER take a handheld camera and look around outside the window. We have to rely on their testimony that it’s “oh so beautiful.” Well, the reason why they can’t show us space is because it doesn’t exist, or at least not in the way it’s been described.

The Flat Earth model rejects SPACE itself, which is what many people who are deeply indoctrinated into the spherical Earth model don’t get. They can’t think outside the Globe. We reject orbiting spheres, the vastly overstated distances to the stars, the moon, and the so called planets. We see the heliocentric system as a farcical model and recognize that “space” is as real and as provable as “Heaven.” We have to rely on priests and true believers who have crossed over to the other side.

Another straw man argument that was leveled against me recently went like this “Hey, wait a minute, if the world was flat , then the same constellations would be visible from any point on the surface, at all times. Yet, if you’re on the southern hemisphere, there are constellations you can’t see that you can see from the northern hemisphere. How do you explain that?”

Of course this means that the curvature of the globe is occluding the view of those constellations on the other side of the hump. That explanation only makes sense if you’re looking at the stars and their distances through the lens of the heliocentric model. It’s a straw man argument because Flat Earth rejects the distances involved in the heliocentric model.

If the stars are not trillions of miles away, but are instead just a few thousand miles away, than any constellation that you see from the northern “hemisphere” will not be visible a few thousand miles to the south because it will be over the visible horizon from the distant observer.

Besides, It hasn’t even been established that light itself can been seen from 25 trillion light-years away. The existence of light-years and the entire cosmology predicated upon the existence of light-years has been called into question.

Also note that the straw man argument also applies to the stereotype used to attack Flat Earthers when there aren’t any around. In the absence of a visible Flat Earth movement, the enemy will have free reign over the narrative. This is why people generalize about Flat Earthers. We’re described as a bunch of trolls who aren’t serious. Or we’re nutcase homeschoolers, dinosaur deniers, global warming deniers, who inhabit the shallow ends of our gene pools.
The way we deconstruct that particular strawman, the misrepresentation of who and what Flat Earthers are, we have to be seen and heard. When a creep like Joe Rogan launches a strawman attack against all Flat Earthers, you can rest assured that we’re in the process of witnessing the gradual acceptance of a self-evident truth. First they ignore it, then they attack it, then they pretend to have known it all along.

So this tactic boils down to these two approaches to deconstructing their strawman arguments:

Call them out for “getting everything wrong,” and correct the misrepresentations of Flat Earth.

Advocate for the truth. Be an agent of change as we deconstruct the Globe Paradigm. Become the visible vanguard of the Flat Earth Reformation. This will negate their attempts to define us.

fed1.jpg

Organic foods backed by landmark report – warning that agricultural pesticides far more dangerous than was thought.

The review examines scientific evidence about the impact of organic food on human health.
 Laura Donnelly, health editor  – Daily Telegraph

2 JUNE 2017 • 9:30PM

 Consumers should consider going organic because pesticides on foods are far more dangerous than was thought, causing damage to the human brain, a major study suggests.

The research, published by the European Parliament, warns of the “very high costs” of current levels of exposure to pesticides – especially for children and pregnant women.
It could result in new limits on pesticide levels or changes to labelling of foodstuffs, under EU laws which require the UK to review its policies by next year.
The report says low level exposure to pesticides could harm children’s brain development CREDIT: ALAMY
The landmark study suggests that the damage caused by pesticides across the EU amounts to at least £125bn a year, based on the loss of lifetime income from such damage.  

The report warns of increasing evidence that residues from insecticides are damaging the brain, and reducing the IQ of the population. And it raises concerns that the chemicals could also cause cancer and damage to the reproductive system.
The research, commissioned by the European Parliament, is a review of existing scientific evidence about the impact of organic food on human health.
At least 100 different pesticides are known to cause adverse neurological effects in adults
European Parliament report

It says previous attempts to assess the impact of pesticides have disregarded too much of the research, raising concerns that regulation of insecticides has been inadequate.

The study was carried out by the parliament’s Scientific Foresight Unit, led by the Swedish University of Agricultural Scientists.
“At least 100 different pesticides are known to cause adverse neurological effects in adults, and all of these substances must therefore be suspected of being capable of damaging developing brains as well,” the report states.
“Such adverse effects are likely to be lasting and one main outcome is cognitive deficits, often expressed in terms of losses of IQ points. The combined evidence suggests that current exposures to certain pesticides in the EU may cost at least € 125 billion per year, as calculated from the loss of lifetime income due to the lower IQs associated with prenatal exposure.”
It goes on to describe the calculation as “almost certainly” an underestimate as it does not consider the possible contribution made by pesticides to conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer.
The researchers recommend limiting exposure to non-organic fruit and vegetables – and say particular care should be taken by pregnant women and children.
Several practices in organic agriculture, in particular the low use of pesticides and antibiotics, offer benefits for human health
Professor Axel Mie

“The evidence reviewed in this report shows that a decreased exposure from the general population is desirable from a human health perspective in light of the findings from epidemiological studies that indicate very high costs of current levels of pesticide exposures,” the report says.

Previous attempts to assess the risks have not taken proper account of epidemiological studies, which look at the health of whole populations, instead of just limiting themselves to scientific trials, it suggests.
“Of major concern, these risk assessments disregard evidence from epidemiological studies that show negative effects of low-level exposure to organophosphate insecticides on children’s cognitive development, despite the high costs of IQ losses to society,” it states.
And it raises concerns that risk assessment of pesticides is inadequate, failing to properly examine any increased risk of cancer, as well as impacts on the body’s hormones and nervous system.
Milk from organic cows could be nutritionally better CREDIT: CHRISTOPHER FURLONG /GETTY IMAGES
“There are concerns that this risk assessment is inadequate at addressing mixed exposures, specifically for carcinogenic effects as well as endocrine-disrupting effects and neurotoxicity. Furthermore, there are concerns that test protocols lag behind independent science studies from independent science, are not fully considered and data gaps are accepted too readily,” the authors warn.

Lead author, Assistant Professor Axel Mie said: “Several practices in organic agriculture, in particular the low use of pesticides and antibiotics, offer benefits for human health”.
“Policymakers should support the use of such practices and their introduction in conventional agriculture, and make sure that organic agriculture continues to serve as a laboratory for the development of future healthy food systems.”
Under an EU Directive on the sustainable use of pesticides, member states are required to public a national plan to reduce risks from pesticides every five years, with the UK required to update its restrictions by 2018.
US studies have shown women’s exposure to pesticides during pregnancy, measured through urine samples, were associated with negative impacts on their children’s IQ and neurobehavioral development. A study looking at structural brain growth found the grey matter was thinner in children whose mothers had high exposure to organophosphates, which are used widely in pesticides.
Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director said: “This report is great for organic farmers and everyone who eats organic food. Organic food sales have been growing strongly for five years, and a key reason that people buy organic food sales is that they feel it is better for them and their family – that is why more than half the baby food sold in the UK is organic. This new, independent, scientific review confirms people are right.”
Dr Chris Hartfield, senior regulatory affairs adviser at the National Farmers Union, said: “ Pesticides are among the most stringently regulated products in the world, with rigorous independent safety assessments and scientific studies carried out to ensure that any residues that remain on food pose no risk to people. It is important to point out that this European Parliament report makes it quite clear that our understanding in these areas is limited, the evidence is not conclusive, and the significance of the findings for public safety is unclear.”

Al-Gore-rhythm. How to scam humanity!

An up-date to this mornings post. (ed)

Break out the CO2 bubbly; Al Gore is crying in his beer

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
By Jon Rappoport
“All right, contestants, listen carefully. Here’s the final question. The winner will be awarded three years living in a hut with no electricity or heat and he’ll dig for tubers and roots so he can eat—thus contributing to a decrease in global warming. All right, here is the question: Whose private jet spews more CO2? Al Gore’s or Leo DiCaprio’s?”
With Trump’s historic rejection of the Paris climate treaty, Al Gore is deep in a funk.
But don’t weep for Al. He can still amuse himself counting his money. Yes, Al’s done very well for himself hustling the “settled science” all these years, shilling for an energy-depleted Globalist utopia.
Al knows actual science the way a June bug knows how to pilot a spaceship.
Every movement needs such men.
Consider facts laid out in an uncritical Washington Post story (October 10, 2012, “Al Gore has thrived as a green-tech investor”):
In 2001, Al was worth less than $2 million. By 2012, it was estimated he’d piled up a nice neat $100 million in his lock box.
How did he do it? Well, he invested in 14 green companies, who inhaled—via loans, grants and tax relief—somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion from the federal government to go greener.
Therefore, Gore’s investments paid off, because the federal government was providing massive cash backup to those companies. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
For example, Gore’s investment firm at one point held 4.2 million shares of an outfit called Iberdrola Renovables, which was building 20 wind farms across the United States.
Iberdrola was blessed with $1.5 billion from the Federal government for the work which, by its own admission, saved its corporate financial bacon. Every little bit helps.
Then there was a company called Johnson Controls. It made batteries, including those for electric cars. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management (GIM), doubled its holdings in Johnson Controls in 2008, when shares cost as little $9 a share. Gore sold when shares cost $21 to $26—before the market for electric-car batteries fell on its head.
Johnson Controls had been bolstered by $299 million dropped at its doorstep by the administration of President Barack Obama.
On the side, Gore had been giving speeches on the end of life as we know it on Earth, for as much as $175,000 a pop. (Gore was constantly on the move from conference to conference, spewing jet fumes in his wake.) Those lecture fees can add up.
So Gore, as of 2012, had $100 million.
The man worked every angle to parlay fear of global-warming catastrophes into a humdinger of a personal fortune. And he didn’t achieve his new status in the free market. The federal government helped out with major, major bucks.
This wasn’t an entrepreneur relying exclusively on his own smarts and hard work. Far from it.
—How many scientists and other PhDs have been just saying no to the theory of manmade global warming?
2012: A letter to The Wall Street Journal signed by 16 scientists said no. Among the luminaries: William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
And then there was the Global Warming Petition Project, or the Oregon Petition, that said no. According to Petitionproject.org, the petition has the signatures of “31,487 American scientists,” of which 9,029 stated they had Ph.Ds.
Global warming is one of the Rockefeller Globalists’ chief issues. Manipulating it entails convincing populations that a massive intervention is necessary to stave off the imminent collapse of life on Earth. Therefore, sovereign nations must be eradicated. Political power and decision-making must flow from above, from “those who are wiser.”
Globalists want all national governments on the planet to commit to lowering energy production by a significant and destructive percentage in the next 15 years—“to save us from a horrible fate.”
Their real agenda is clear: “The only solution to climate change is a global energy-management network. We (the Globalist leaders) are in the best position to manage such a system. We will allocate mandated energy-use levels throughout the world, region by region, nation by nation, and eventually, citizen by citizen.”
This is the long-term goal. This is the Globalists’ Holy Grail.
Slavery imposed through energy.
Al Gore has done admirable work for his bosses. And for himself. As a past politician with large name recognition, he’s promoted fake science, tried to scare the population of Earth, and financially leveraged himself to the hilt in the fear-crevice he helped create.
Ask not for whom the bells toll. They toll with delight. They’re attached to cash registers. And Al has stuck his hands in and removed the cash.
He might be crying in his beer today, after Trump rejected the Paris climate treaty, but Al’s also thinking about how he can play to the Left that’s so outraged at Trump’s decision. More speeches, more “inconvenient truth” films, maybe a summit with Leo DiCaprio and Obama.
Yes, there’s still money in those hills…quite possibly more money than ever.

Historic: Trump rejects Paris Climate Treaty.

Sometimes, somewhere on this planet a politician makes a wise decision! The climate change/warming nonsense/hoax/scam is a dangerous distraction from real environmental issues. The perpetrators have taken a serious body blow and about time too!

By Jon Rappoport
June 1, 2017, a day that will live in infamy for the liar, thieves, and killers of the new international economic order. They will see it as infamy, because their plan to sink the economy of America into a final death rattle has been rejected by Trump.

 Fake climate science has been the lynchpin, justifying orders to cut CO2 emissions—but make no mistake about it, cutting emissions means cutting energy production in almost all countries of the world. THAT’S THE GLOBALIST TARGET. ENERGY PRODUCTION.

 Get that one straight. The Globalist “utopia” isn’t a trillion solar collectors or a trillion windmills—it’s lights going out all over the world.

 It’s LOWER ENERGY PRODUCTION.

 That’s the monster hiding in the closet. That’s the outcome arch-Globalists are determined to foist on the planet, because that’s the society they want to control—poverty-stricken, abject, shuffling along a bleak path to nowhere.

 Trump just stuck a knife in that scheme.

 Yes, I fully understand the devil is in the details, but it is up to people everywhere, who have active brain cells and can see through the climate hoax, to take this opportunity to reject, publicly, the whole climate agenda.

 CO2 is not the enemy.

 Do the research yourself and see if there is any way these so-called scientists can assess, now or in the past, THE TRMPERATURE OF THE WHOLE PLANET.

 The science is settled? There is no room for argument?

  Dyson, physicist and mathematician, professor emeritus at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, Fellow of the Royal Society, winner of the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, the Fermi Award: “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies [in climate change models] between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the [climate change] models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago… I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this [climate change] issue, and the Republicans took the right side…” (The Register, October 11, 2015)

 Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel-prize winner in Physics (1973), reported by Climate Depot, July 8, 2015: “Global warming is a non-problem…I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.”

 Green Guru James Lovelock, who once predicted imminent destruction of the planet via global warming: “The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact, I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change.” (The Guardian, September 30, 2016)

 And these are but a tiny fraction of the statements made by dissident scientists who reject manmade global warming.

 But regardless, never lose sight of agenda based on this “settled science.”

 VASTLY LOWER ENERGY PRODUCTION FOR PLANET EARTH.

 And at the same time, truly viable forms of energy production (e.g., water turbines, hydrogen), that could be brought online with but a fraction of previously chiseled government subsidies for oil and nuclear, are sitting on the shelf gathering dust—BECAUSE THE MODEL OF SCARCITY FOR THE PLANET IS WHAT THE GLOBALIST EMPIRE DESIRES.

 Until such time as that model is destroyed, Earth needs energy, all the energy it can produce.

 The climate criminals, working for Globalism Central, staged their Paris “Treaty” to try to torpedo that production. Obama signed on in Paris, knowing full well he was committing a criminally unconstitutional act by disregarding the vote of the US senate, a vote that was needed to confer legitimacy to the agreement.

 There is nothing binding about the Paris “Treaty.” Nothing.

 And today, Trump squashed it.

 Might he re-enter negotiations and give away some of what he’s just taken back for America? Anything’s possible. But for now, the Paris Accord is a dead duck here in the US.

 Trump is going to catch a new version of Hell for what he’s just done. But if enough Americans, and people around the world, realize the true implication of this historic day, and proclaim it, they’ll win. We’ll win. Each one of us.

 Don’t give up. Don’t give in.

Use this link to order Jon’s Matrix Collections.

Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
You can find this article and more at NoMoreFakeNews.com.


No More Fake News, Encinitas, Encinitas, CA 92024

SafeUnsubscribe™ growersark@gmail.com

Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider

Sent by info@nomorefakenews.com in collaboration with

Constant Contact

Try it free today