“Worst coverup in the history of the military”, SECRET SHOTS

All military personnel who are headed to combat are required to take vaccinations.

Are these shots leaving some soldiers deathly ill?


Great Example Why You Simply Can’t Believe That Cell Phones and WiFi Devices Are Safe

Source: Dr. Mercola

fluoroscope, cell phone dangers, radiation, x-rays, cell phone radiation, radio wavesLinked below is an old advertisement for a “shoe-fitting fluoroscope” — essentially, an X-ray machine used to look at the bones of your foot in order to judge your shoe size.As little as 60 years ago, these devices were pervasive and thought to be harmless. But by the early 1950s, a number of professional organizations had issued warnings about the continued use of shoe-fitting fluoroscopes — some thirty years after they were invented and routinely used. Today we know how risky and carcinogenic X-rays can be. One shoe model received such a serious radiation burn from a shoe-fitting fluoroscope that her leg had to be amputated.

Dr. Mercola Dr. Mercola’s Comments:
I hope that it will take us less than thirty years to recognize the major danger resulting from exposure to the explosion of information carrying radio waves around us — especially from cell phones, but also from WiFi, WiMax, BlueTooth, and other wireless devices. But I am not hopeful as the telecommunications industry is even more powerful than the drug industry, and they simply do not want this information widely known.Unless you live in some unbelievably remote location, the odds are you’re being bombarded with radio waves that can devastate your body.

The shoe fluoroscopes emitted ionizing radiation but exposure to them was relatively infrequent; only a few times a year. This is quite unlike your exposure to information carrying radio waves where you are likely receiving exposure 24-7.

Why Your Cell Phones Are Dangerous

Let me be VERY clear. The danger from most land-based portable phones, cell phones and WiFi routers is not from the magnetic radiation or the microwave carrier wave from which typical SAR ratings are given on phones. Unless you have massive exposures like you might expect in a microwave oven, these thermal effects are insignificant.

Nearly all the biological damage comes from the modulated signals that are carried ON the carrier microwave. These modulated information carrying radio waves resonate in biological frequencies of a few to a few hundred cycles per second, and can stimulate your cellular receptors causing a whole cascade of pathological consequences that can culminate in fatigue, anxiety and ultimately cancers.

This is a MAJOR problem because in the last few years we have had an exponential increase in exposure to these waves. It took from 1984 to 2004 to reach the first billion cell phones, the second billion took just 18 months, the third billion took only nine months and the fourth billion just six months.

And this does not at all factor in your major exposure to WiFi routers (wireless internet), which are now pervasive. Since there is a lag time of five to 20 years before many of these effects become clinically apparent, now is the time to act before you or your family suffer the damage.

History is Repeating Itself Right in Front of Your Eyes

Depending on your age, you might even remember getting your shoes fitted with one of these fluoroscopes. For many, it’s a vivid childhood memory, as these high-tech shoe-fitters had infiltrated small-town America even before 1930. Yet, it wasn’t until about 1949 that people began asking questions about the radiation doses it was delivering.

The fact that these machines were in wide-spread use throughout the United States before any attention was given to the potential health hazards from its x-ray radiation says a lot about the enduring wish for new technologies to be harmless. How come no one seemed to care about safety testing before unleashing them on the public? Especially since there were warnings about hazards from x-rays within the medical practice?

Today, thanks to declassified government documents, we know quite a bit about how powerful segments of the U.S. Government were – and most likely still are – actively engaged in suppressing information that might cause you to worry about radiation hazards of all kinds. Back then, they suppressed information about radiation fallout from bomb testing and from the work done by certain defense industries, and the radiation exposure from living near these facilities, for example.

The danger of industrial fluoride waste from the bomb- and aluminum industries is another giant cover-up that resulted in the U.S. government-backed water fluoridation policy.

Based on Dr. George Carlo’s accounts of his failed attempts to issue public warnings about the real dangers of cell phone radiation, things have not changed much. And clearly, the wireless industry has no interest in shedding so much as a glimmer of light on the subject.

Are You Already Suffering the Effects and Don’t Even Realize it?

Numerous studies claim there is no biological impact of RF radiation within the cell phone range. Still, researchers in different countries, in different laboratories, are finding disturbing results that point to far greater health implications than anyone is ready for.

Unfortunately, most people fail to correlate common symptoms and health problems to their exposure to cell phones and other radio frequencies, perhaps because these conditions can so easily be attributed to other causes (including so-called “unknown” causes) as well.

Take a look at these common illnesses and ailments, which have all been scientifically linked to cell phone information carrying radio waves:

  • Alzheimer’s, senility and dementia
  • Parkinson’s
  • Fatigue
  • Headaches
  • Sleep disruptions
  • Altered memory function, poor concentration and spatial awareness

Although cancer and brain tumors are most often cited as the potential health risks from cell phone radiation, as you can see, cancer is not the only, or most common danger that you and your cell-phone toting children face.

Be Careful — Most Headsets Actually Increases Your Health Risk

For some time, the standard recommendation to reduce your radiation exposure was to use a headset. It was thought that since radiation decreases exponentially over the distance between you and the phone, this would solve the problem.

But, newer investigations, and the emergence of wireless earpieces (like Bluetooth) turns this idea upside-down. These headsets may actually intensify your exposure to harmful radiation because the headset itself acts as an antenna, which is now inserted directly into the ear canal. And “wired” headsets are usually little better, since the wire itself can act like an antenna and transmit dangerous radiation to your head. In fact, testing has indicated that your cell phone headset may actually raise the amount of radiation emitted by more than 300 percent!

It’s vital that you know the pros and cons of cell phone headsets—especially now that laws requiring “hands-free” cell phone headsets while driving are going in effect all over the U.S.

The British Independent Group on Mobile Phones suggested that headsets are an ideal solution only if they were used with filters to stop the headset wire from acting as an effective antenna. One solution is an air tube headset. These conduct sound, but prevent any radiation from traveling up the wire to your brain.

More Safety Tips to Limit Your Exposure

To date, there are few alternatives to ensure complete safety, but there are some common sense recommendations:

  • Limit the amount of time you spend on the phone.
  • Limit your exposure to WiFi routers. Find out where they are located in your work environment and stay away from them.
  • If you have any land based (non-cellular) portable phones, do NOT use anything other than the 900 MHz phones as the Gigahertz phones stay on continuously, blasting you with information carrying radio waves 24/7.
  • Use the speakerphone instead of putting the phone to your ear; this is probably one of the single most important steps you can take other than not using your cell phone.
  • Use a wired headset to limit your exposure to the cell phone—ideally, an air tube headset which conducts sound but prevents any radiation from traveling up the wire to your brain. Also make sure the wire is SHIELDED which prevents the wire from acting as an antenna which could attract more information carrying radio waves directly to your brain.
  • Limit calls inside buildings.
  • Use the phone in open spaces as often as possible.
  • Limit use by children and preadolescents.

Related Articles:

Cell Phones ‘May Trigger Alzheimer’s Disease

Cell Phones: How Risky are They Really?

How Cell Phones May Cause Autism

The Best Source for Chemtrail Stories, Explanations and Pictures

The bioterrorism of every country in the world against it’s citizens through chemtrails continues to proliferate with NO MAINSTREAM MEDIA COVERAGE. Thanks to Jim Gregorich for the link to Strange Days Strange Skies. Visit this site now for the most comprehensive information, explanations and photos on the health effects of chemtrails that I’ve ever seen.

PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 “CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM” “The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies. The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States].” -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375

Also see our post on chemtrail videos

From Strange Days Strange Skies:

Enlarge photo 48


The incidence of Asthma has tripled in young women and doubled in young men since the chemtrail spraying started in the mid 1990’s. Asthma rates are continuing to rise world wide.


Enlarge photo 9

Will a man-made synthetic, self-replicating, nano pathogen be the cause of a new global pandemic that may forever change the future of mankind? It sounds like some kind of science fiction horror invading from another planet. Self replicating nano machine pathogens floating unobserved through the air silently invading their unsuspecting human hosts. Once they establish a beach head in the human body they exhibit a type of group intelligence allowing them to communicate & invade all parts of the body including the brain. This story may be accessed on the front page of bariumblues.com

Enlarge photo 47

YOU ARE NOW BREATHING ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE, NANO-PARTICULATES OF ALUMINUM AND BARIUM AND CATIONIC POLYMER FIBERS WITH UNIDENTIFIED BIOACTIVE MATERIAL: “We the people have not been warned, advised or consulted but are certainly vulnerable to the outcomes.” chemtrailshallofshame.com “Biologic components have been reported in airborne samples that include: modified molds, desiccated red blood cells and exotic strains of bacteria” Welcome to the brave new world of toxic barium skies, weather control, mind control and population control through the use of chemtrails modulated with electromagnetic frequencies generated by HAARP.

Our health is under attack as evidenced by the skyrocketing rates of chemtrail induced lung cancer, asthma and pulmonary/respiratory problems. Our natural environment and planetary weather systems are under attack resulting in freak lightening strikes, bizarre weather, 20% less sunlight reaching the Earth’ surface, the alarming, nearly complete collapse in certain areas of the west coast marine ecosystem and the creation of some of the largest tornadoes and hurricanes on record.

Our skies are increasingly hazed over with fake barium/ aluminum particulate, ethylene dibromide chemtrail clouds. Whether in the atmosphere or in the Ocean this added particulate matter is a hazard to the health of every living thing on this planet. My health and the health of my family has already been drastically affected. There is a main-stream media blackout on this subject so the only way to get the word out is by word of mouth.

Click Here for amazing pictures and information on chemtrails and their effect on your health

Why 75% of Doctors Would Refuse Chemotherapy on Themselves

Since this post has generated a lot of comments and traffic, I’m adding a solution to the post rather than just posting about the problem. For information on natural solutions to cancer please visit Dr. Lorraine Day’s website and be sure to read the information on her Questions and Anwers page. Dr. Day cured herself of cancer using natural therapies and she is a medical professional. Also see my post on Questioning Chemotherapy.

From Cancer Therapy:

The great lack of trust is evident even amongst doctors. Polls and questionnaires show that three doctors out of four (75 per cent) would refuse any chemotherapy because of its ineffectiveness against the disease and its devastating effects on the entire human organism.

This is what many doctors and scientists have to say about chemotherapy:“The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors.” (Allen Levin, MD, UCSF, “The Healing of Cancer”, Marcus Books, 1990).

“If I were to contract cancer, I would never turn to a certain standard for the therapy of this disease. Cancer patients who stay away from these centers have some chance to make it.” (Prof. Gorge Mathe, “Scientific Medicine Stymied”, Medicines Nouvelles, Paris, 1989)

Dr. Hardin Jones, lecturer at the University of California, after having analyzed for many decades statistics on cancer survival, has come to this conclusion: ‘… when not treated, the patients do not get worse or they even get better’. The unsettling conclusions of Dr. Jones have never been refuted”. (Walter Last, “The Ecologist”, Vol. 28, no. 2, March-April 1998)

“Many oncologists recommend chemotherapy for almost any type of cancer, with a faith that is unshaken by the almost constant failures”.(Albert Braverman, MD, “Medical Oncology in the 90s”, Lancet, 1991, Vol. 337, p. 901)

“Our most efficacious regimens are loaded with risks, side effects and practical problems; and after all the patients we have treated have paid the toll, only a miniscule percentage of them is paid off with an ephemeral period of tumoral regression and generally a partial one” (Edward G. Griffin “World Without Cancer”, American Media Publications, 1996)

“After all, and for the overwhelming majority of the cases, there is no proof whatsoever that chemotherapy prolongs survival expectations. And this is the great lie about this therapy, that there is a correlation between the reduction of cancer and the extension of the life of the patient”. (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)

“Several full-time scientists at the McGill Cancer Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)

“Doctor Ulrich Able, a German epidemiologist of the Heidelberg Mannheim Tumor Clinic, has exhaustively analyzed and reviewed all the main studies and clinical experiments ever performed on chemotherapy …. Able discovered that the comprehensive world rate of positive outcomes because of chemotherapy was frightening, because, simply, nowhere was scientific evidence available demonstrating that chemotherapy is able to ‘prolong in any appreciable way the life of patients affected by the most common type of organ cancer.’

Able highlights that rarely can chemotherapy improve the quality of life, and he describes it as a scientific squalor while maintaining that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered in the world is worthless. Even if there is no scientific proof whatsoever that chemotherapy works, neither doctors nor patients are prepared to give it up (Lancet, Aug. 10, 1991). None of the main media has ever mentioned this exhaustive study: it has been completely buried” (Tim O’Shea, “Chemotherapy – An Unproven Procedure”)

“According to medical associations, the notorious and dangerous side effects of drugs have become the fourth main cause of death after infarction, cancer, and apoplexy” ( Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998)

From Cancer Inform:

“Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy.”
-Dr. Alan Levin

A six- or twelve-month course of chemotherapy not only is a very unpleasant experience but also has its own intrinsic mortality…treatments now avert…perhaps 2 or 3 percent…of the 400,000 deaths from cancer that occur each year in the U.S.”
– Prof John Cairns

Scientific American, 1985

Chemotherapy Report
Do We Need a New Approach to Cancer?

In 1971, President Richard Nixon announced the War on Cancer and promised a cure by the 1977 bicentennial. In each of the 25 years since, more Americans have died of cancer than the year before.
The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has become apparent even to the oncology establishment. Scientific American featured a recent cover story entitled: “The War on Cancer — It’s Being Lost.” In it, eminent epidemiologist John C. Bailar III, MD, PhD, Chairman of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill University cited the relentless increase in cancer deaths in the face of growing use of toxic chemotherapy. He concluded that scientists must look in new directions if they are ever to make progress against this unremitting killer.

Adding its voice, the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, decrying the failure of conventional therapy to stop the rise in breast cancer deaths, noted the discrepancy between public perception and reality. “If one were to believe all the media hype, the triumphalism of the [medical] profession in published research, and the almost weekly miracle breakthroughs trumpeted by the cancer charities, one might be surprised that women are dying at all from this cancer” it observed. Noting that conventional therapies — chemotherapy, radiation and surgery — had been pushed to their limits with dismal results, the editorial called on researchers to “challenge dogma and redirect research efforts along more fruitful lines.”

John Cairns, professor of microbiology at Harvard University, published a devastating 1985 critique in Scientific American. “Aside from certain rare cancers, it is not possible to detect any sudden changes in the death rates for any of the major cancers that could be credited to chemotherapy. Whether any of the common cancers can be cured by chemotherapy has yet to be established.”

In fact, chemotherapy is curative in very few cancers — testicular, Hodgkin’s, choriocarcinoma, childhood leukemia. In most common solid tumors — lung, colon, breast, etc. — chemotherapy is NOT curative.

In an article entitled “Chemotherapy: Snake-Oil Remedy?” that appeared in The Los Angeles Times of January 9, 1987, Dr. Martin F. Shapiro explained that while “some oncologists inform their patients of the lack of evidence that treatments work…others may well be misled by scientific papers that express unwarranted optimism about chemotherapy. Still others respond to an economic incentive. Physicians can earn much more money running active chemotherapy practices than they can providing solace and relief…to dying patients and their families.”

Dr. Shapiro is hardly alone. Alan C. Nixon, PhD, Past President of the American Chemical Society wrote that “As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.”

In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than three quarters of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. Of the 79 respondents, 64 said they would not consent to be in a trial containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug. Fifty-eight found all the trials unacceptable. Their reasons? The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.

Famed German biostatistician Ulrich Abel, PhD, also found in a similar 1989 study that “the personal views of many oncologists seem to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public.”

Breast cancer activist Rose Kushner wrote that by 1981 “indiscriminate, automatic adjuvant chemotherapy was replacing the Halsted radical mastectomy as therapeutic overkill in the United States.” Thomas Nealon, MD, Professor of Surgery at New York University School of Medicine, concluded in 1990 that “The treatment of this tumor now has slipped from too much surgery to too much adjuvant therapy.”

Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives. In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemotherapy use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths.

Oncologist Albert Braverman, MD, wrote in 1991 that “no disseminated neoplasm (cancer) incurable in 1975 is curable today…Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure.”

Why the growth in chemotherapy in the face of such failure? A look at the financial interrelationships between a large cancer center such as Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and the companies that make billions selling chemotherapy drugs is revealing. James Robinson III, Chairman of the MSKCC Board of Overseers and Managers, is a director of Bristol-Myers Squibb, the world’s largest producer of chemotherapy drugs. Richard Gelb, Vice-Chairman of the MSKCC board is Chairman of the Board at Bristol-Myers. Richard Furlaud, another MSKCC board member, recently retired as Bristol Myers’ president. Paul Marks, MD, MSKCC’s President and CEO, is a director of Pfizer.

Nationwide Revolt Against Dangerous Vaccines Accelerates

From Prison Planet:

Concerned parents across the U.S. are leading a nationwide revolt against unnecessary, untested and dangerous vaccines as CDC records show a growing amount of religious exemptions on vaccine forms, following a media blitz by Jenny McCarthy in which she blamed a vaccine for causing her son’s autism.

Far from the biased and prejudiced context in which the Associated Press headline framed it – ‘Parents take a shot at lying on vaccine forms’ – the move comes as a result of increased understanding and education about the dangers of vaccines.

Most recently, actress and model Jenny McCarthy’s appearance on the Oprah Winfrey show and numerous other prime time TV programs has spurred women to seriously investigate the link between autism in babies and young children and vaccinations.

(Article continues below)


McCarthy’s new book, Louder than Words: A Mother’s Journey in Healing Autism, is partly about her contention that her son’s autism was caused primarily by a combined vaccination administered around the age of 18 months.

See the full article and more videos here