Posts Tagged control grid
November 13, 2014
November 11, 2014
In some areas of the world, purposely cutting off someone’s family line is considered to be one of the most wicked things that you can possibly do. But that appears to be precisely what the United Nations is doing. Two UN organizations, the WHO and UNICEF, have just been caught red-handed administering “tetanus vaccines” laced with sterilizing agents to girls and women in Kenya. And as you will see below, this is not the first time that this has happened. Apparently there is a well-coordinated international program to use vaccines to secretly sterilize women in poor countries all over the planet. The United States needs to immediately demand a full investigation of the UN vaccine program, but I wouldn’t count on that ever happening under the Obama administration.
There have always been anecdotal stories of women all over the globe being unable to have children after receiving UN vaccines. But now we have scientific proof. Lab tests that were recently conducted found an antigen that causes miscarriages in the vaccines that were being given to girls and women in Kenya. A story that was posted on Life Site News about this caused shockwaves all over the Internet. The following is an excerpt from that report…
Kenya’s Catholic bishops are charging two United Nations organizations with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus inoculation program sponsored by the Kenyan government.
According to a statement released Tuesday by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, the organization has found an antigen that causes miscarriages in a vaccine being administered to 2.3 million girls and women by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Priests throughout Kenya reportedly are advising their congregations to refuse the vaccine.
“We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen,” Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. “They were all laced with HCG.”
So exactly what is HCG?
The following is how Natural News described what it does…
HCG is a chemical developed by the World Health Organization for sterilization purposes. When injected into the body of a young woman, it causes a pregnancy to be destroyed by the body’s own antibody response to the HCG, resulting in a spontaneous abortion. Its effectiveness lasts for years, causing abortions in women up to three years after the injections.
This is an absolutely horrifying scandal, but the mainstream media is totally ignoring it.
Perhaps that is because they agree with what the United Nations is trying to do.
And should we actually be surprised at what the UN is doing? After all, the UN has publicly declared in writing that it intends to reduce population growth in Kenya…
The United Nations and its oftentimes barbaric population-control apparatus are under fire again after releasing a deeply controversial report claiming that the African population of Kenya is too large and growing too quickly. To deal with the supposed “challenge,” as the UN and its “partners” in the national government put it, international bureaucrats are demanding stepped up efforts to brainwash Kenyan women into wanting fewer children. Also on the agenda: more taxpayer-funded “family-planning” and “reproductive-health” schemes to reduce the number of Africans to levels considered “desirable” by the UN.
Critics promptly lambasted the plot as undisguised eugenics, with some experts calling it a true example of the “war on women.” Among other concerns, analysts outraged by the report noted that the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and the establishment’s fiendish efforts to slash human populations — especially those considered “undesirable” by self-appointed guardians of the gene pool — have a long and sordid history going back decades. Today, the agenda marches on, as illustrated in the latest UN report calling for drastically reduced numbers of Kenyans.
When very evil people tell you that they intend to do something, you should take them very seriously.
And without a doubt, the UN is evil. To use vaccines to secretly sterilize women against their will is almost too wicked to describe with words.
But the UN will keep doing this until we demand that they stop. Back in the 1990s, similar sterilization campaigns using tetanus vaccines were being conducted in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines. The following comes from thinktwice.com…
Here are the known facts concerning the tetanus vaccination campaigns in Mexico and the Philippines:
* Only women are vaccinated, and only the women between the ages of 15 and 45. (In Nicaragua the age range was 12-49.) But aren’t men at least as likely as young women to come into contact with tetanus? And what of the children? Why are they excluded?
* Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) hormone has been found in the vaccines. It does not belong there — in the parlance of the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the vaccine has been “contaminated.”
* The vaccination protocols call for multiple injections — three within three months and a total of five altogether. But, since tetanus vaccinations provide protection for ten years or more, why are multiple inoculations called for?(3)
* WHO has been actively involved for more than 20 years in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG tied to tetanus toxoid as a carrier — the exact same coupling as has been found in the Mexican-Philippine-Nicaragua vaccines.(4)
And these are just the incidents that we know about.
I think that it would be safe to say that wherever the UN is vaccinating people for tetanus all over the world there are probably sterilizing agents in those vaccines.
November 10, 2014
If the CDC’s [Centers For Disease Control] credibility [or lack thereof] hasn’t been teetering on the brink, then it has surely has fallen of the deep-end.
The CDC’s ineptitude was proven – yet again – with the fact that they are admitting that Ebola can now spread through the air, despite them saying not long ago contradictory statements.
Of course, now that Ebola can spread through the air, 250,000 hazmat suits are to be sent to Dallas, TX.
There have many folks attempting to make this alleged pandemic [in which nigh nobody seems to get sick, and seems mostly composed of smoke and mirrors] seem far larger than it really is. Yet, even if it was real, one death in the amount of time that it’s been here, as well as the level of exposure that has taken place [via incompetence, or worse] makes this seem rather weak considering how many other more notables issues such as diseases/prescription drugs that are killing folks in the thousands monthly.
That goes without saying, with flu season among us, and Ebola displaying ‘flu like symptoms’, it surely is quite convenient for vaccines pushers that Ebola’s symptom’s mirror those of the flu.
With that in mind, Johnson & Johnson has recently announced it plans to have 250,000 experimental Ebola vaccines ready to go soon. In conjunction with that, they will push to have 1,000,000 vaccines prepared by next year.
This entire ordeal seems like the dream scenario for vaccine pushers. There is:
a] an alleged virus that can prompt extreme fear [which debilitates the immune system] based on myriad symptoms;
b] which allows for a greater number of [false] possible victims to be established/quarantined;
c] conveniently taking place at the nascent stages of yet another hyped up virus, which mirrors the very symptoms Ebola is claimed to have;
d] being managed in a way that if it such pandemic really is taking place, the government seems to be doing everything possible not to stop, but to allow this to spread;
e] thus allowing Big Pharma/Big Medica to reap untold profits the longer this continues.
That is exactly the point. By this playing out over the long term this allows for calculated [incremental, perhaps, given Ebola’s nigh non-existent spread rate] control and perhaps medical martial law of the populace, whilst simultaneously allowing those who own the patents for the vaccines to make untold millions.
Sure seems to be running like a script, doesn’t it?
In fact, expect a huge propaganda campaign to be launched around thanksgiving, and also during New Year due to travel and such. Would not be surprising seeing a few more ‘probables’ popping up right before those holidays.
Don’t forget the fact that with flu season among us, the amount of false-positives will also be high because of the flue, and also given the inaccuracies of the PCR test
Dream scenario for the vaccine pushers?
Yes indeed. Only if we allow it to be.
November 4, 2014
Last week saw an inter-agency power grab. It begins with the weakening of organic standards—and could end with the term “organic” becoming practically meaningless. Action Alert!
In September, the USDA announced changes to its interpretation of the “sunset” provision in the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), an incredibly important piece of legislation that Congress passed into law in 1990. These changes override the powers of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and make it easier for food producers to use synthetics in organic food production.
The “Sunset” Controversy
Previously, any exemptions from organic standards were set to expire, or “sunset,” on a specific date—unless they were reinstated by a “decisive” two-thirds majority vote of the NOSB. Now it’s just the reverse: a synthetic material can be permitted to remain in an organic food indefinitely unless a two-thirds majority votes to remove it from the exempted list.
Thousands of consumer advocates and environmentalists spoke out against this power grab by the USDA—one that satisfies only the vested interests of large-scale producers trying to increase their profits with an “organic” stamp. ANH-USA was there at the meeting so we could speak out on behalf of consumers and voice our concern about the continuing dilution of organic standards.
The board received a tremendous number of comments about the new sunset process, including these:
- The National Organic Coalition called it a significant reinterpretation of the law, one that redefines the word “sunset” to mean exactly its opposite. The entire concept is now nonsensical, and clearly runs contrary to the intent of the original legislation: “sunset” means that the exemptions “come off,” not “stay on.”
- The Cornucopia Institute said the NOSB is being stripped of its authority so that the USDA can set its own agenda—a naked power grab. Cornucopia is looking at legal action over this change in terminology.
- Consumer Reports says the National Organic Program is becoming less and less discriminatory about sunsets, and doesn’t align with what the law requires, creating a huge gap between what is marketed as organic and what the consumer expects organic to be.
Why the New Sunset Rule Is Dangerous
The shift in power was on clear display at last week’s NOSB meeting when board members voted to allow the continued use of gellan gum, tragacanth gum, sulfurous acid, sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate, and aqueous potassium silicate in organic production. Allowing these synthetic substances in organic production is a clear victory for producers who want to be considered organic without sacrificing their bottom line.
For example, large organic dairy producers such as Stonyfield Organic, Organic Valley, White Wave, and Horizon Organic say gellan gum—a thickening agent—is needed to stop the chocolate flavoring from separating from the milk while the carton sits in grocery stores. Consumer advocate and organic watchdog groups argued that the ingredient simply isn’t necessary and that such synthetic materials should never be allowed in foods that are certified as organic. Board members who advocated removing these items were voted down because of the new interpretation of the “sunset” rule.
At issue is the board’s composition, which has been infiltrated by corporate interests. The make-up of the fifteen-member board is clearly defined by statute, but an executive from Driscoll’s now sits in a seat that should belong to a farmer/grower. Another seat is held by an individual who, when appointed, worked for the country’s largest organic marketing cooperative, CROPP ($928 million in annual revenue).
“We have two members of the current board, both sitting in seats that Congress had designated for someone who must ‘own or operate an organic farming operation’ but who were actually agribusiness employees when appointed to the five-year term on the NOSB,” said Mark A. Kastel, co-director and senior farm policy analyst at Cornucopia.
The voting records of these two agribusiness employees are significantly lower than those of the actual farmer members of the NOSB. In all, of the board’s fifteen members, six are a pro-corporate business voting block, and several others often vote with them. In other words, what we are seeing is a clear case of collusion between USDA and agribusiness.
EPA Gives More Credibility To Industry-Funded Studies Than Peer-Reviewed Science When Approving Pesticide Use
November 9, 2014
A memo from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) highlights the way that this agency gives more weight to poorly conducted, industry-funded studies than to the overwhelming body of evidence showing that pesticides are harmful.
The memo concerns an insecticide named chlorpyrifos (trade name Lorsban), manufactured by Dow Chemical. Until 2000, the chlorpyrifos was widely used in household bug sprays such as Raid. But due to strong evidence that the chemical was poisonous, especially to children, the EPA struck an agreement with Dow that the chemical could continue to be used for agriculture if it were banned from indoor use.
“These data do suggest that inhalation or dermal exposure can lead to life-threatening effects,” the EPA said at the time.
Still harming children’s brains
Dow has been on the defensive about chlorpyrifos for years. Even before restricting the chemical’s use, the EPA fined Dow $876,000 for 327 separate counts of violating the Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide, and Fungicide Act (FIRFA) with regard to chlorpyrifos. FIRFA requires pesticide manufacturers to report all complaints about pesticide poisoning within 30 days.
In 2004, the New York Attorney General’s office fined Dow $2 million for falsely claiming, for decades, that the chemical was safe, even after it was proven otherwise.
Studies have also shown that chlorpyrifos continues to be harmful even in agricultural uses. For example, a 2008 study found that pregnant women exposed to the pesticide gave birth to children with lower IQs, while a 2011 study found that chlorpyrifos-exposed children had reduced problem-solving ability.
“Toxic exposure during this critical period can have far-reaching effects on brain development and behavioral functioning,” said Virginia Rauh of Columbia University, who was not involved in those studies. “Some small effects occur at even very low exposures.”
The CHAMACOS (Center for Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas) study, conducted on farm workers between 1998 and 2011, found that children exposed to organophosphate pesticides (including chlorpyrifos) either before or after birth had lower cognitive abilities. Mothers with higher levels of the chemical in their urine had children with lower IQs and decreased verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory and mental processing speed.
November 9, 2014
As we get closer to the holidays, many people look for ways to cut back on sugar and other indulgences so that when the New Year rolls around, they won’t have to work so hard to lose those extra pounds. While it is a good idea to avoid sugar altogether, using the artificial sweeteners Splenda or Aspartame might be even worse. There are numerous reasons you should avoid the stuff in little yellow packages (or pink, or blue). Here is why.
Donald Rumsfeld, the very same politician who supports GMOs, is perhaps the singular man who got Splenda onto the market after the FDA initially refused it. If you have gotten sick from consuming this toxic substance, you can thank him, along with its makers. Splenda was created by the British company Tate & Lyle along with the pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson.
Perhaps you remember when the Coca-Cola company launched its ad campaign to fight obesity back in the early 80s? This was all part of a ploy to begin the use of aspartame, whose patent was once owned by none other than Monsanto! Ironically, there are numerous studies that show this stuff causes obesity. It doesn’t prevent obesity.
Before they started selling you Splenda, it was called NutraSweet. In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet, as well as Splenda and many other artificial sweeteners. Is Splenda safe? It depends who you ask.
Let’s look at a little timeline, shall we?
- 1901: Monsanto Chemical Works is formed.
- 1976: When Ford loses the 1976 election, Rumsfeld returns to private business life, and is named president and CEO of the pharmaceutical corporation G. D. Searle & Company, during which time he leads the legalization of Aspartame.
- 1977: Monsanto stops producing PCBs.
- 1997: Monsanto businesses are spun off as Solutia Inc.
- 1999: John Hunter is named chairman and CEO.
- 2000: Monsanto’s Pharmaceutical Services Division is created. Monsanto also merges with the drug-maker Pharmacia & UpJohn Inc., which took control of the Searle pharmaceutical operations, and the current Monsanto Co. was incorporated as a subsidiary in October 2000.
- 2002: PCB trial results in sharp drop in stock price.