By G.Edward Griffin

Swedish dentist Bernt Herlitz revealed to authorities that after checking the molar teeth of hundreds of migrant children that 80% of the so-called children were actually adults.

Herlitz was quickly fired and now may lose his home.

In June 2016 two migrants were arrested in February for raping a twelve year-old boy at a housing center for unaccompanied migrants in Sweden. The men said they were 15 but social media shows they were born in 1997 and 1971.

The Swedish Migration Agency claims up to 70 percent of child migrants are actually adults.

Read full article here…

By Catherine J. Frompovich

Marvin Herndon, PhD, published another paper regarding global climate issues and ethics wherein he challenges the scientific community “to come clean” regarding their research, journals and ethics relative to weather science, which has garnered many titles: climate change, global warming, weather geoengineering, solar radiation management and who knows what it will become next in apparent attempts to confuse an awakening global population as to what’s been going on with geoengineered weather.

Dr. Herndon believes “Scientists are persons of integrity: They stand for what is right. They tell the truth and ensure that the full truth be known. They do not lie.”  He’s definitely a holdover of “old time” scientists who don’t subscribe to what’s become known as “consensus science,” a pseudoscientific clan-like or religious-like approach to propagandizing special vested interests’ scientific agendas and ‘confirming’ study results for various reasons, e.g., financial gains; go along to get along; not be subjected to peer pressure; or not bear the brunt of being professionally ostracized!

Being an interdisciplinary scientist, Dr. Herndon earned degrees in physics and his PhD in nuclear chemistry.  He’s no dummy!  Additionally, he did post-doctoral work in geochemistry and cosmochemistry at the University of California, San Diego.  As such, Herndon has continued his research into the current hot button climate change issue, since he alleges fake science is being promoted in science journals, which he contends needs to be challenged and corrected.

To illustrate Herndon’s point, he says this in his recently published paper:

Numerous AGU members along with members of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the European Geosciences Union (EGU) have been involved in failing to tell the full truth about climate change. These scientists promote the claim that greenhouse gases, most especially anthropogenic carbon dioxide, are responsible for global warming. They remain silent about the consequences of the daily, near-global aerosol geoengineering that has been taking place since at least the 1990s with growing scope and intensity [4]. Failure to discuss this massive global anthropogenic phenomenon not only negates the validity of these scientists’ assertions about climate change, but, I allege, makes those individuals, and their associated institutions, party to the biggest science scam ever perpetrated. And, as well, party to an activity many may consider to be a crime against humanity and the environment [5].

For 70 years the military interest in controlling the weather has been thoroughly documented [6]. Military experiments advanced from causing rain and snow to inhibiting rainfall by emplacing pollution particles into the atmosphere where clouds form. Eventually, the atmosphere becomes too moisture-laden and torrential rains and storms result. The net effect of the now near-daily, near-global ongoing covert geoengineering activity of emplacing pollution particles into the atmosphere is to contribute to global warming. While some sunlight is reflected back into space by aerosols, the deliberately spread pollution particles also heat the atmosphere and impede heat loss from Earth [4]. The albedo of snow and ice is lowered by certain particulates when they fall to Earth. There is, furthermore, evidence of a covert operation to deliberately melt ice by dispersing pseudo-cryoconite material [7].

However, in this writer’s opinion, this statement by Dr. Herndon is a KEY concern regarding the issue of consensus science not only in climate control but in every aspect and genre of ALL the sciences, specifically microwave technology, medicine, pharmaceuticals and vaccinology:

High-ranking and some other members of the AGU, EGU, and IPCC have been grossly remiss in ignoring the ongoing aerosol geoengineering. Not only are their climate-science results corrupted, but those scientists, who are unwilling to consider the evidence for ongoing climate engineering, demonstrate an absence of concern for human and environmental health.

Dr. Herndon challenges

The draft Geoengineering Position Statement is a tainted document that not only fails to tell the truth but is produced by a panel composed of at least two individuals, Ken Caldeira and Marcia McNutt, who, I allege, have a documented track record of acting to deceive the scientific community and the public about the existence of and the adverse human and environmental health consequences of ongoing tropospheric particulate aerosol geoengineering.

No one has the right to poison the air we all breathe, and no one has the right to hide the health risks from the public.

The ongoing military aerosol geoengineering program has been conducted without public disclosure. 

Dr. Herndon’s insightful concerns reflect those of many conscientious scientists, millions of observant citizens and possibly even some politicians when he says,

Instead of being a body of scientists who are willing and able to provide independent scientific advice to the U. S. Congress, the National Academy of Sciences, I allege, has been corrupted and coopted to serve a political agenda that may be characterized as tyranny against human populations that involves crimes against humanity [5]. As the adverse health consequences of the current ongoing geoengineering become public, perhaps the legal community will instigate class action lawsuits.

No one has the right to poison the air we breathe and no one has the right to deceive the public of the adverse health risks involved in clandestine geoengineering. Not even the military has this right.

https://www.activistpost.com/2017/10/scientist-calls-check-mate-geoscience-misinformation-propaganda.html?

                                                                            By GE-Free Northland

4 October 2017  Media Release

ALARM BELLS RING OVER GE POTATO DECISION BY AUSSIE DOMINATED FOOD REGULATORY BODY

GE-Free Northland is appalled but not surprised by the latest deeply flawed decision by Food Standards Australia NZ, in which the agency approved an American application for six lines of genetically modified potatoes to be sold in NZ and Australia.[1]

FSANZ, an Australia-dominated trans-Tasman regulatory body [2], has a track record of approving controversial genetically engineered food ingredients for importation into New Zealand.

“By being part of FSANZ, New Zealand has relinquished its food sovereignty. The new government must prioritize withdrawing from FSANZ and tightening up the GE labelling laws in NZ,” said Martin Robinson, spokesman for GE-Free Northland.

“The controversial imported processed GE potatoes will not be labelled, thus undermining consumer “right to know” and traceability,” said Robinson.

New Zealand’s GE labelling laws are inadequate—exemptions to labelling include imported GE oils, sweeteners, food additives, and animal feed.

The NZ Minister for Food Safety has let down NZ consumers yet again by failing to require a thorough public safety evaluation.

Substantive submissions by GE-Free NZ, the Soil & Health Association Aotearoa NZ, and Physicians & Scientists for Global Responsibility Charitable Trust (NZ) highlighted many independent studies and feeding trials that show harm from eating GE foods, which FSANZ has ignored. [3]

The decision states, “No public health and safety concerns have been identified in relation to food derived from the potatoes developed by the Applicant.” That false statement is worse than misleading and breaches a “duty of care” to the consumer. FSANZ openly acknowledges it does not require feeding trials or genomics testing.

“GE-Free Northland demands full and comprehensive labelling, to ensure that consumers who chose to avoid GE food can do so,” said Robinson.

FSANZ dismissed submitters’ legitimate concerns and rejected all requests for feeding trials. New Zealand submitters have no standing to challenge the agency’s decision.

NZ fast food outlets and restaurants will need to be vigilant to avoid purchasing imported GE potatoes.

GE-Free Northland asks supermarket chains such as Foodstuffs and Progressive to ensure that their in-house brands remain GE free.

GE-Free Northland also urges all fast food outlets to ban the use of imported GE potatoes, because such products would put their customers at risk. There is no evidence that these GE potatoes are safe to eat and considerable evidence that they are not safe.

We support comprehensive GE labelling of all imported foodstuffs to protect “consumer right to know” and traceability. We are aware that highly qualified scientists, epidemiologists, and other food safety experts continue to argue as to whether GE food is safe to eat on a very high technical level.

New Zealand is a GE-free food producer with no commercial GE crops or transgenic / cloned animals. All fresh fruit and vegetables, and all certified organic products are GE-free. Most products with simple ingredients that have no commercial GMO version overseas will also be GE-free. With this latest decision FSANZ has increased the risk to consumers, and Kiwis must now be even more vigilant when purchasing takeaways, processed food, or beverages.

References: [1] A1139 Approval Decision www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/applications/Documents/A1139_Approval%20Report.pdf [2] The board of FSANZ www.foodstandards.gov.au/about/board/Pages/default.aspx [3] GE FREE NZ/ Soil & Health Association Aotearoa NZ joint submission to A1139 www.gefree.org.nz/assets/A1139-GM-Potato-Application-Joint-Submission-GE-Free-NZ-and-Soil-Health.pdf [4]Progressive Enterprises- “Signature Range”   Foodstuffs- “Pams”

see also: www.gefreepolicy.com

http://web.gefreenorthland.org.nz/press-releases/ge-free-northland/00206-alarm-bells-ring-over-ge-spud-decision-by-aussie-dominated-fo

Food Standards Australia NZ www.foodsafety.govt.nz/elibrary/industry/Agreement_Between-Member_States.pdf

Millions of women undergo them annually, but few are even remotely aware of just how many dangers they are exposing themselves to in the name of prevention, not the least of which are misdiagnosis, overdiagnosis and the promotion of breast cancer itself. 

A concerning study published in the Annals of Family Medicine titled, Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography, brings to the forefront a major underreported harm of breast screening programs: the very real and lasting trauma associated with a false-positive diagnosis of breast cancer.[1]

The study found that women with false-positive diagnoses of breast cancer, even three years after being declared free of cancer, “consistently reported greater negative psychosocial consequences compared with women who had normal findings in all 12 psychosocial outcomes.”

The psychosocial and existential parameters adversely affected were:

• Sense of dejection
• Anxiety
• Negative impact on behavior
• Negative impact on sleep
• Degree of breast self-examination
• Negative impact on sexuality
• Feeling of attractiveness
• Ability to keep ‘mind off things’
• Worries about breast cancer
• Inner calm
• Social network
• Existential values

What is even more concerning is that “[S]ix months after final diagnosis, women with false-positive findings reported changes in existential values and inner calmness as great as those reported by women with a diagnosis of breast cancer.”

In other words, even after being “cleared of cancer,” the measurable adverse psychospiritual effects of the trauma of diagnosis were equivalent to actually having breast cancer.

Given that the cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography is at least 50%,[2] this is an issue that will affect the health of millions of women undergoing routine breast screening.

The Curse of False Diagnosis and ‘Bone-Pointing’

Also, we must be cognizant of the fact that these observed ‘psychosocial’ and ‘existential’ adverse effects don’t just cause some vaguely defined ‘mental anguish,’ but translate into objectively quantifiable physiological consequences of a dire nature.

For instance, last year, a groundbreaking study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that, based on data on more than 6 million Swedes aged 30 and older, the risk of suicide was found to be up to 16 times higher and the risk of heart-related death up to 26.9 times higher during the first week following a positive versus a negative cancer diagnosis.[3]

This was the first study of its kind to confirm that the trauma of diagnosis can result in, as the etymology of the Greek word trauma reveals, a “physical wound.” In the same way as Aborigonal cultures had a ‘ritual executioner’ or ‘bone pointer’ known as a Kurdaitcha who by pointing a bone at a victim with the intention of cursing him to death, resulting in the actual self-willed death of the accursed, so too does the modern ritual of medicine reenact ancient belief systems and power differentials, with the modern physician, whether he likes it or not, a ‘priest of the body.’; we must only look to the well-known dialectic of the placebo and nocebo effects to see these powerful, “irrational” processes still operative.

Millions Harmed by Breast Screening Despite Assurances to the Contrary

Research of this kind clearly indicates that the conventional screening process carries health risks, both to body and mind, which may outstrip the very dangers the medical surveillance believes itself responsible for, and effective at, mitigating.  For instance, according to a groundbreaking study published last November in New England Journal of Medicine, 1.3 million US women were overdiagnosed and overtreated over the past 30 years.[4] These are the ‘false positives’ that were never caught, resulting in the unnecessary irradiation, chemotherapy poisoning and surgery of approximately 43,000 women each year.  Now, when you add to this dismal statistic the millions of ‘false positives’ that while being caught nevertheless resulted in producing traumas within those women, breast screening begins to look like a veritable nightmare of iatrogenesis.

And this does not even account for the radiobiological dangers of the x-ray mammography screening process itself, which may be causing an epidemic of mostly unackowledged radiation-induced breast cancers in exposed populations.

For instance, in 2006, a paper published in the British Journal of Radiobiology, titled “Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme,” revealed the type of radiation used in x-ray-based breast screenings is much more carcinogenic than previously believed:

Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times – but possibly as much as six times – more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays. Since current radiation risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography X-rays are underestimated by the same factor.[5]

Even the breast cancer treatment protocols themselves have recently been found to contribute to enhancing cancer malignancy and increasing mortality. Chemotherapy and radiation both appear to enrich the cancer stem cell populations, which are at the root of breast cancer malignancy and invasiveness. Last year, in fact, the prestigious journal Cancer, a publication of the American Cancer Society, published a study performed by researchers from the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center showing that even when radiation kills half of the tumor cells treated, the surviving cells which are resistant to treatment, known as induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSCs), were up to 30 times more likely to form tumors than the nonirradiated breast cancer cells. In other words, the radiation treatment regresses the total population of cancer cells, generating the false appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumor, eventually leading to the iatrogenic (treatment-induced) death of the patient.[6]

What we are increasingly bearing witness to in the biomedical literature itself is that the conventional breast cancer prevention and treatment strategy and protocols are bankrupt.  Or, from the perspective of the more cynical observer, it is immensely successful, owing to the fact that it is driving billions of dollars or revenue by producing more of what it claims to be fighting.

The time has come for a radical transformation in the way that we understand, screen for, prevent and treat cancer. It used to be that natural medical advocates didn’t have the so-called peer-reviewed ‘evidence’ to back up their intuitive and/or anecdotal understanding of how to keep the human body in health and balance. That time has passed. GreenMedInfo.com, for instance, has over 35,000 abstracts indexed in support of a return to a medical model where the ‘alternative’ is synthetic, invasive, emergency-modeled medicine, and the norm is using food, herbs, minerals, vitamins and lifestyle changes to maintain, promote and regain optimal health.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/hidden-dangers-mammograms-every-woman-should-know-about#_ftn1

© [Article Date] GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

References

[1]John Brodersen, Volkert Dirk Siersma. Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Ann Fam Med. 2013 Mar-Apr;11(2):106-15. PMID: 23508596

[2] Rebecca A Hubbard, Karla Kerlikowske, Chris I Flowers, Bonnie C Yankaskas, Weiwei Zhu, Diana L Miglioretti. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18 ;155(8):481-92. PMID: 22007042

[3]Research: Some Diagnoses Kill You Quicker Than The Cancer, April 2012

[4]30 Years of Breast Screening: 1.3 Million Women Wrongly Treated, Nov. 2012

[5]GreenMedInfo.com, How X-Ray Mammography Is Accelerating the Epidemic of Breast Cancer, June 2012

[6]GreenMedInfo.com, Study: Radiation Therapy Can Make Cancers 30x More Malignant, June 2012