By Dr. Mercola

Ninety percent of news media, be it television, radio, print or online, are controlled by six corporations. As a result, the vast majority of what you read, see and hear is part of a carefully orchestrated narrative created and controlled by special interest groups.

When you combine that with other astroturf and public manipulation schemes that hide the identity of these special interests, the end result is, to use investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson’s term, a Truman-esque fictitious reality, where medical journals, doctors, media and presumably independent consumer groups all seem to be in agreement. The problem is it may all be false.

Attkisson is a five-time Emmy Award-winning anchor, producer and reporter whose television career spans more than three decades. In 2009, she blew the lid off the swine flu media hype, showing the hysteria was manufactured and completely unfounded. At the time, I interviewed her about these findings. I’ve included that fascinating interview below.

Three years ago, she left CBS to pursue more independent venues of investigative journalism, and wrote “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington” — an exposé on what really goes on behind the media curtain.

Why Everyone Must Be Aware of Astroturfing

The featured video is a TEDx Talk Attkisson gave in 2015, in which she discusses the methods employed by special interest groups to manipulate and distort media messages. For example, astroturfing — false-front “grassroots movements” that are in fact funded by political parties or private industry — are now “more important to these interests than traditional lobbying of Congress,” she says. She explains the term “astroturf” thus:

“It’s a perversion of grassroots, as in fake grassroots. Astroturf is when political, corporate or other special interests disguise themselves and publish blogs, start Facebook and Twitter accounts, publish ads and letters to the editor, or simply post comments online, to try to fool you into thinking an independent or grassroots movement is speaking.

The whole point of astroturf is to try to [give] the impression there’s widespread support for or against an agenda when there’s not. Astroturf seeks to manipulate you into changing your opinion by making you feel as if you’re an outlier when you’re not …

Astroturfers seek to controversialize those who disagree with them. They attack news organizations that publish stories they don’t like, whistleblowers who tell the truth, politicians who dare to ask the tough questions and journalists who have the audacity to report on all of it.”

Wikipedia — Astroturf’s Dream Come True

If you’re like most, you probably rely on certain sources more than others when it comes to information. WebMD, for example, dominates for health information, Snopes for checking the latest rumors and Wikipedia for general facts, figures and details.

Attkisson has a great deal to say about Wikipedia, calling it “astroturf’s dream come true.” Wikipedia is advertised as a free encyclopedia, where information is added and edited by the public. Anyone can add to or edit any given Wikipedia page. Or so they say.

“The reality can’t be more different,” Attkisson says, explaining that many pages have been co-opted and are controlled by anonymous Wikipedia editors on behalf of special interests. “They forbid and reverse edits that go against their agenda,” she says. “They skew and delete information, in blatant violation of Wikipedia’s own established policies, with impunity.”

Even the smallest factual inaccuracies are impossible to correct on these agenda-driven pages. As just one example, in 2012, author Philip Roth tried to correct a factual error about the inspiration behind one of his book characters cited on a Wikipedia page. His correction was repeatedly reversed and, ultimately, he was told he was not considered a credible source!

Worse, a study¹ comparing medical conditions described on Wikipedia with published research found that Wikipedia contradicted the medical literature an astounding 90 percent of the time. So, be aware — Wikipedia is NOT the place for accurate and reliable medical information.

Who’s Who and What’s What?

The extent to which information is manipulated is enormous. Let’s say you hear about a new drug for an ailment you have, or your doctor recommends it, and you decide to research it to be on the safe side. Ultimately, you conclude it is safe and effective because everywhere you look, the information seems to support this conclusion. You feel good knowing you’ve done your homework, and fill the prescription. What you don’t know is that:

• Facebook and Twitter pages speaking highly of the drug are run by individuals on the payroll of the drug company
• The Wikipedia page for the drug is monitored and controlled by a special-interest editor hired by the drug company
• Google search engine results have been optimized, ensuring you’ll find all those positive sources while burying contradicting information
• The nonprofit organization you stumbled across online that recommends the drug was secretly founded and funded by the drug company
• The positive study you found while searching online was also financed by the drug company
• The news articles reporting the positive findings of that study sound suspiciously alike for a reason — they’re reiterating information provided by the drug company’s PR department; hence, you will not find any contradictory information there either
• Doctors promoting the drug and making derogatory comments about those who worry about side effects are actually paid consultants for the drug company
• The medical lecture your own personal doctor attended, where he became convinced the drug is safe and efficacious, was also sponsored by the drug company

Learn more: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/10/28/astroturfing-media-manipulation.aspx?utm

By Makia Freeman

The human microchipping agenda has a new face: Nanochips & Smart Dust. What are they? Are you being set up to be a node on the grid? What can you do?

Nanochips and Smart Dust are the new technological means for the advancement of the human microchipping agenda. Due to their incredibly tiny size, both nanochips and Smart dust have the capacity to infiltrate the human body, become lodged within, and begin to set up a synthetic network on the inside which can be remotely controlled from the outside. Needless to say, this has grave freedom, privacy and health implications, because it means the New World Order would be moving from controlling the outside world (environment/society) to controlling the inside world (your body). This article explores what the advent of nanochips and Smart dust could mean for you.

Learn more about:

Different Forms of Control

What is a Nanochip?

What is Smart Dust?

Delivery Systems for Nanochips and Smart Dust

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/nanochips-smart-dust-microchipping/

By Michelle Simmons

Whatever you do or wherever you go, there is a high chance that you will see a person looking down on a glowing screen. Apparently, this is also prevalent in classrooms. Phone use during class lectures distracts students and makes it harder for them to concentrate, resulting to lower academic performance, a study finds.

Researchers at Stellenbosch University analyzed the impact of digital technology, specifically mobile phones, on the capacity of students to concentrate during class lectures. The study was conducted by means of a meta-analysis of previous studies. In addition, the researchers carried out a survey of 1,678 students at a university in South Africa.

“While ever-smarter digital devices have made many aspects of our lives easier and more efficient, a growing body of evidence suggests that, by continuously distracting us, they are harming our ability to concentrate,” said researchers Daniel le Roux and Douglas Parry.

People today use their phones everyday for at least three hours. Those who are born after 1980, especially today’s students, are considered digital natives as they have grown up with digital technology around them and have easily adapted to this environment. They always “media-multitask.”

The researchers warned that the continuous use of blended learning and technology in class have encouraged the use of media during class lectures. As a result, a lot of studies have found that students always use their phones when they are in class.

Contrary to the purpose of media use during lectures, students use their phones to communicate with friends, use social media sites, watch videos, or just browse online for whatever interests them, instead of following the lecture slides or participating in debates about the topic.

According to the researchers, there are two main reasons why this behavior is troublesome for cognition and learning. First, performance on the main task suffers when multitasking.

“Making sense of lecture content is very difficult when you switch attention to your phone every five minutes,” the researchers said.

They added that this is supported by a strong body of evidence which conclude that using media in class is linked to lower academic performance.

The second reason is that it negatively affects the capacity of the students to concentrate on anything for a long period of time.

“They become accustomed to switching to alternative streams of stimuli at increasingly short intervals. The moment the lecture fails to engage or becomes difficult to follow, the phones come out,” they explained.

As a result, some universities in the United States have declared their lectures device-free in an effort to develop engagement, attentiveness, and critical thinking skills among their students.

Indeed, technology makes life easier and more fun in a lot of ways. However despite of these things they offer, the researchers warned that “we should be mindful of the costs.”

Given the findings of the study, published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior, the researchers urged educational policy makers and lecturers to think about the effect of media use on the cognitive function of students.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-22-phone-use-blamed-for-lower-academic-performance-as-students-struggle-to-concentrate.html

By Natural News

Pests have become immune to the poison of modified crops in less than five years, but we still have to eat it.

Last year, farmers around the world planted genetically modified crops like soybeans, corn and cotton across 240 million acres of land that create proteins from the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacterium. Capable of killing pests like beetles and caterpillars, their effects on the environment and human health have long been the subject of much debate.

Those in favor of GMO crops – who tend to also be the ones who benefit from it financially – say that they will end world hunger, but now such lofty proclamations have been deflated as a new study shows that pests are quickly developing resistance to genetically modified crops. In just five years’ time, scientists say that many bugs have gotten to the point where they can simply shrug off the poisons that are created by GM crops.

After looking at 36 cases examining how insects respond to crops that were modified to produce the insect-killing Bt protein, they discovered that bugs developed resistance that made the GM crops substantially less effective in 16 cases. Another three were starting to show “early warnings of resistance.”

They took their data from cases involving 15 different species of pests in 10 countries, including the U.S. China, Brazil, Spain, Mexico, Australia and the Philippines. Their results were published in the journal Nature Biotechnology.

The study also reported that pests’ resistance to Bt crops has been evolving more quickly in recent years as their resistance to already-introduced strains can breed cross-resistance to different Bt proteins that are introduced in future GM Bt crops.

Full resistance is inevitable.

Learn more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-23-bombshell-genetic-modification-proven-ineffective-pests-have-become-immune-to-the-poison-of-modified-crops-in-less-than-five-years-but-we-still-have-to-eat-it.html

By The Gaurdian

Social network says it’s assembled a team to build technology that allows you to ‘think’ commands at your smartphone. But what if you think that’s scary?

Decrying how addictive and attention-sapping smartphones have become was an unexpected way for an executive at Facebook, a company that profits off your attention, to open a talk. But that’s exactly how Regina Dugan, the head of Facebook’s innovation skunkworks Building 8, started her presentation at the company’s developer conference F8 on Wednesday.

Smartphones have been a powerful force in the world but they have had some “unintended consequences” she said.

“[The smartphone] has cost us something. It has allowed us to connect with people far away from us too often at the expense of people sitting right next to us,” she said. “We know intuitively and from experience that we’d all be better off if we looked up a little more often.”

Angrily telling people to put down the “addictive drug that is your smartphone” and honor the conversation in front of them is the “wrong narrative”, she said. “It’s a false choice. This device is important.”

So what is the answer to this very modern affliction? Mindfulness apps? Yoga? A digital detox?

Nope. According to Facebook it’s developing technology to read your brainwaves so that you don’t have to look down at your phone to type emails, you can just think them.

Facebook has assembled a team of 60 people, including machine learning and neural prosthetics experts, to enable such a system. Facebook is currently hiring a brain-computer interface engineer and a neural imaging engineer. Its goal? To create a system capable of typing one hundred words per minute – five times faster than you can type on a smartphone – straight from your brain.

“It sounds impossible but it’s closer than you may realize.”

She highlighted the example of a woman with ALS who had a pea-sized implant that could pick up on signals in her brain to allow her to type eight words per minute using the power of thought.

Facebook will have to develop a system that doesn’t require surgery to implant electrodes.

If the thought that a company that makes almost all of its money from harvesting your personal data could also have access to your thoughts is scary, that’s because it is.

Learn more: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/19/facebook-mind-reading-technology-f8

See also: Facebook and DARPA are in a Race to Read Your Mind http://theantimedia.org/facebook-darpa-race-read-mind/?utm

By Suzanne Humphries, M.D.

I wrote the original 2012 treatment document, based on Hilary Butler’s 30 years of research and my own experience and knowledge of toxin-mediated diseases.

My motivation to find a solution came from watching two young girls that were close to me, suffer from whooping cough. Neither conventional antibiotics nor homeopathic options helped at all. A skilled and revered homeopath was so concerned, that he even said to take the antibiotics. One girl refused and the other promptly vomited up her first dose and their mother was wise enough not to push the antibiotics. I later learned that there is little to no evidence that antibiotics help the severity or duration of cough in such children.

Both of those children recovered from an illness that neither will ever forget. Their excellent baseline health and nutrition no doubt helped them survive without any huge drama. Watching them cough, made me understand why anyone ever wanted to develop a vaccine against whooping cough. The problem is, the vaccine doesn’t work well at all and has toxicity issues. Had I known about the sodium ascorbate treatment, the girls would have had a much easier time of it.

A study of the medical literature showed that there was scientific rationale for such a  treatment, which motivated me start recommending vitamin C in those who have need, and to write the original document. After several years of expanded understanding of whooping cough in babies as young as 2 weeks of age, and older children, I’ve received hundreds of letters of appreciation telling me how the protocol worked for parents using it on their own.

Broader experience and observation has highlighted individual differences and unique situations, and resulted in technique refinements and improvements to the pre-existing write up. New medical literature references have also been added.

You must carefully read every word of this long document. Please do not jump to the protocol if you do not understand the full picture, you may struggle to work out how, when and why to adjust vitamin C dosing. Your child’s health and recovery is worth a few hours of your time to learn.

The information provided here is distilled from a wide body of literature that demonstrates that the ascorbate molecule, in frequent doses, is extremely safe.  Experience shows it to be instrumental in the biochemical recovery from Bordetella pertussis (whooping cough) infection. Natural recovery from whooping cough has advantages for an entire life.

Learn more here: http://healthimpactnews.com/2017/vitamin-c-treatment-of-whooping-cough-where-vaccines-and-antibiotics-have-failed/

By Pesticide Action Network

A new research study from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and two Dutch laboratories shows that 45% of Europe’s top soil contains glyphosate residues, demonstrating the over-reliance of the EU agricultural model on this harmful herbicide chemical. In contrast to what its manufactures purport, glyphosate persists in soils affecting not only soil fertility and crop quality, but also human and environmental health.

The -soon available online- research study by the Dutch University of Wageningen and Rikilt laboratories, jointly with the JRC, reveals that among 317 EU soil samples of arable land, 42% contained AMPA, the most toxic metabolite of glyphosate, while glyphosate was found in 21% of the soils; 18% of the samples had both. The study was conducted in six crop systems along 11 EU member states comprising soils under different geographical and climatic conditions.

A growing body of evidence shows that soil health is one of the main drivers of growing healthy crops that will resist to pest attacks. Glyphosate destroys soil health and leads to more pesticide uses.

Learn more: http://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2017/10/press-release-new-study-glyphosate-persists-and-european-top-soils-are

By Mark Blaxill

The first-ever, peer-review study has been published comparing total-health in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Dr. Anthony Mawson led a research team that investigated the relationship between vaccination exposures and acute or chronic illnesses in home-schooled children.

The vaccinated children had a much higher rate of autism and ADHD, at a rate of 470% higher than those who received no shots.

Vaccinated children were also more vulnerable to allergies and eczema.

Unvaccinated children contract mild childhood diseases more frequently, but their vaccinated counterparts suffer pneumonia and ear infections more frequently.

The finding that vaccination introduces a significant risk for autism is devastating to the vaccine industry and, therefore, will be vigorously attacked.

Learn more here: http://www.ageofautism.com/2017/05/pilot-comparative-study-on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-12-year-old-us-children.html

Those Who Give Vaccines Should Know The Ingredients in Vaccines

By Marco Cáceres for The Vaccine Reaction

The chances are that if you ask most chefs about the ingredients they put into their favorite recipes, they will be able to list for you the name of every single ingredient and the corresponding amounts. That is what you would expect.

By the same token, you would expect most doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other medical workers who administer vaccines would be able to list for you every ingredient in vaccines, along with the corresponding amounts. That is what you should expect.

However, that is not necessarily the case.

Learn more a at http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2017/10/those-who-give-vaccines-should-know-the-ingredients-in-vaccines/

By Carole Novielli

Experts interviewed in the controversial film, “Hush: the Documentary,” which investigates the effects of abortion on women, claim that women aren’t being told the truth about the link between abortion and breast cancer, despite studies that show the claim to be true.

Pro-choice film director Punam Kumar Gill went out of her way to speak with experts on both sides of the debate. “Of all the contested health care risks around abortion, the abortion breast cancer link was especially troubling to me,” she states. According to Gill, at the time the film was produced, there were only five states that required women to be told that there is an increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.

In her team’s attempt to hear all sides, Gill spoke with former abortionist David Grimes, described by her as a “renowned expert” on abortion in the film. Grimes denied a higher risk of breast cancer for women who have had abortions, comparing claims to the contrary to “an old dog that they keep on flogging.” By “they” he means pro-life experts who have published their own studies.

Grimes then claimed that (in his words) the “small group” that “holds these views” tend to “not be physicians” and not “understand what a woman goes through.” He then disdainfully claimed that the “common theme” among these experts is “religiosity.”

But Grimes apparently didn’t do his homework before making those remarks; as the film also showed, there are several highly credentialed experts who believe that an abortion-breast cancer link is evident.

One of those experts is Dr. Joel Brind, a professor of human biology and endocrinology who has studied the topic extensively. Dr. Brind acknowledged that it is his belief that abortion is not good for women or children, and that although women legally have a choice to have an abortion, the choice should be an informed one.

In his research, Brind reviewed 23 studies (a meta-analysis) and, as the film points out, found a “30 percent increased risk of breast cancer for women with abortion histories.” Dr. Brind, along with three other researchers, published these findings in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health in 1996.

Although the group of authors called for additional research on the link, the study concluded in part, “The results support the inclusion of induced abortion among significant independent risk factors for breast cancer, regardless of parity or timing of abortion relative to the first term pregnancy.”

But because Dr. Brind holds a pro-life view on abortion, his work has been largely discounted. “The major criticism against him was because he’s pro-life, his science is questionable, and his findings are part of an anti-abortion agenda to scare women,” the Hush film states.

But, what isn’t mentioned by critics of Brind’s conclusions on the abortion-breast cancer link is that one of Brind’s co-researchers is pro-choice. Brind says he was unaware of this fact until after the research was published because when they did the research, “their personal views on the subject of abortion never came up,” he explained.

Brind told Gill that author Vernon M. Chinchilli only disclosed his pro-choice views on abortion after the study was complete. Brind explained, “We did all this work together. Hours and hours of working together in studying the data and comparing notes and talking about it, and you know what? Whether he or I or anyone else in the group was pro-life or pro-choice – it never came up.”

“This is about science. This is about the effect on women and whether or not abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Period,” he added.

Please view the entire article here https://www.liveaction.org/news/experts-address-link-abortion-breast-cancer-powerful-documentary-film/ and watch Hush: the Documentary

Studies Show Pertussis Vaccine Doesn’t Work

More than 94 percent of kindergarten children have had four to five pertussis-containing vaccines, yet despite high vaccine coverage since the late 1980s, statistics show that reported cases of whooping cough have been rising for decades.

A recent scientific review has concluded the less toxic acellular whooping cough vaccine licensed in the U.S. for infants in 1996 does not work as expected, and confirms the continued spread of the disease among vaccinated populations.

Learn more: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/10/10/pertussis-vaccine-whooping-cough-reemergence.aspx?utm

Time For A Flu Vaccine? Fugetaboutit!

By Dr.Brownstein’s

Another Study Showing Influenza Vaccine Failure

The flu and cold season is upon us. I have already seen numerous patients suffering with upper respiratory illnesses and even weathered my first bout. The CDC and the Powers-That-Be would have you believe that you should receive the influenza vaccine on a yearly basis. They claim that the flu vaccine can save thousands of lives. Of course, I have written to you many times that there is not a single study that has ever supported the claim that the flu vaccine saves any lives. In fact, the history of the flu vaccine shows clearly that it fails nearly all who take it.

Learn more: http://healthimpactnews.com/2017/dr-brownstein-another-study-showing-influenza-vaccine-failure-flu-vaccine-fails-98-of-people-who-receive-it/

By Russel Davis

“Globally, animals receive almost three times as many antibiotics than people, although much of this use is not medically necessary, and many new strains of antibiotic-resistant infections are now common in people after originating in our livestock.”

A recent study published in Science revealed that antimicrobial use in animals raised for human consumption is projected to increase by 52 percent and reach 200,000 tonnes by 2030. Health experts have also cautioned that higher antimicrobial-use may signal the development of new strains of antibiotic-resistant infections, unless regulations are put in place to stem the practice.

A team of researchers at the ETH Zürich, the University of Cambridge, and the Princeton University pooled publicly available data from 37 countries to carry out the study. According to the research team, large quantities of antimicrobials are now being used in modern animal farming to prevent diseases and promote growth. (Related: 70 Percent of antibiotics used on animals slaughtered for food.)

Learn more: https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-09-more-superbugs-on-the-way-antibiotic-use-in-animals-for-human-consumption-expected-to-double.html

By Dr. Mercola

Members in the European Parliament (MEPs) announced that Monsanto officials would no longer be able to meet MEPs, attend committee meetings or even use “digital resources” in Brussels or Strasbourg parliament premises,  banning them from parliament.

The blow came after the biotech giant refused to attend a hearing organized by environment and agriculture committees over allegations that Monsanto engaged in regulatory interference, by influencing studies into the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in their Roundup herbicide.

The Guardian quoted Green party president Philippe Lamberts, who stated, “Those who ignore the rules of democracy also lose their rights as a lobbyist in the European parliament … U.S. corporations must also accept the democratic control function of the parliament. Monsanto cannot escape this.” This is one of the harshest examples yet in terms of a large government body not allowing Monsanto lobbyists to talk to its members going forward.

In the U.S., Monsanto has significant influence on government agencies, but even in the U.K., which was originally more resistant to Monsanto’s genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the company has made a lot of headway in changing their image. That being said, European Commission leaders met in March 2016 to vote on whether to renew a 15-year license for glyphosate, which was set to expire in June that year.

The decision was tabled amid mounting opposition, as more than 180,000 Europeans signed a petition calling for glyphosate to be banned outright. Ultimately, more than 2 million signatures were collected against relicensing the chemical. In June 2016, however, the European Commission granted an 18-month extension to glyphosate while they continued the review. A ruling is expected by the end of 2017, which means the lobby ban could not have come at a more inopportune time for Monsanto.

Learn more: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/10/10/biotech-company-banned-from-parliament.aspx?utm

By G. Edward Griffin

Some of the biggest names in tech are partnering with the Anti-Defamation League to thwart online harassment.

Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft, among others, are joining with the ADL to form a Cyberhate Problem-Solving Lab, the companies and the civil rights group said Tuesday. They’ll exchange ideas and develop strategies to try to curb hate speech and abuse on the companies’ various platforms and across the internet.

“These companies have an added responsibility to do everything within their power to stop hate from flourishing on their watch,” ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement. “We look forward to tackling this pressing challenge together.”

The cyberhate lab comes about seven months after the ADL said it was building a command center in Silicon Valley. And as online harassment continues to grow, tech giants including Facebook and Twitter have been ramping up their own efforts in response to trolling.

Though it’s hard to quantify how pervasive online assaults have become, experts say the number is increasing. Forty percent of internet users have experienced some form of harassment, according to a 2014 Pew Research Center report. The figure jumps to about 65 percent for those between the ages of 18 and 29.

The ADL has said that roughly 19,000 anti-Semitic tweets targeted Jewish journalists between August 2015 and July 2016 and that about 1,600 online accounts were responsible for 68 percent of those tweets. During that same time, 2.6 million anti-Jewish tweets may have been viewed as many as 10 billion times, the hate-monitoring group said.

Read full article here…

Project Veritas covert video exposes Nicholas Dudich, an editor of the NY Times, who said that Youtube’s gatekeepers give preference to NY Times content, and that he can have stories placed on the front page or have them buried. Earnest Pettie, who holds the Brand-and-Diversity lead position at Youtube, was also caught on video describing how he makes it difficult to find news outlets like Alex Jones but almost impossible to miss articles from ‘legitimate news organizations’ who are ‘news partners’ with YouTube.

https://needtoknow.news/2017/10/ny-times-editor-brags-colluding-youtube-push-political-agenda/

By Paul A. Philips

Recently, over 180 medics and scientists sent a document to the European Union appealing for the suspension of the new 5G EMF technology planned to roll out. Essentially, the 11-page document warns that EMF technology is a serious environmental hazard, harmful to life and that the new 5G EMF technology has not been properly tested for safety and has been blindly approved without health evaluation. The medics and scientists call for a proper health evaluation and while being carried out a suspension of 5G.

However, the unconditional push for EMF technology continues. The push involves a number of individuals, particularly those in high places, biased and blinded by money or the want for control, only seeing the EMF technology’s advantages. Flawed ideology and insanity ensues…

In reflection of this, if allowed to continue uncontested, here are 7 ways by which EMF technology seriously threatens not just the health and life of humans, but also endangers the existence of non-human populations through upsetting the delicate balance of life. Remember, without nature’s delicate and intricate balance we will cease to exist.

1. Invisible nature of EMFs

2. Cell phone usage and cancer

3. Other Diseases

4. Schumann resonance and circadian rhythms

5. Bee colony collapse disorder

6. Cryptochromes

7. Lack of acknowledgement to hypersensitivity

Read the full article here that explains each one in detail. https://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/10/7-ways-emf-technology-seriously-threatens-entire-populations.html?

A boy stands on a pile of leather scraps beside a canal in the Hazaribagh neighborhood of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Waste and chromium-laden effluent from unregulated leather tanneries have made Hazaribagh one of the most intensely polluted places on Earth.

The Shocking Environmental and Human Health Impacts of the Leather and Fabric Industries.

It’s not unusual today for people to have closets overflowing with inexpensive clothes they never or rarely wear, only to toss away clothes worn only once or twice. But what they don’t realize is, even though the price tag may not be steep, there are incredible hidden costs and risks to their health and to the environment.

Learn more and watch this amazing video. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/10/11/fabric-leather-industries-health-effects.aspx?utm