Stanford Anti-Organic Study Plays into UN Codex Alimentarious Outline for Global Depopulation [video included]
by Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
September 10, 2012
Globalist-funded researchers at Stanford University have created a propaganda study to assert that the nutritional values of organic food are not more than conventionally grown and GMO food. The study claims that the price hike of organic food combined with the researcher’s allegation that organic food supporters over-blown health benefits result in “no advantages of organic meat and produce”.
Dr. Dena Bravata, lead author of the study and affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy, explained : “When we began this project, we thought that there would likely be some findings that would support the superiority of organics over conventional food. I think we were definitely surprised.”
The summation of the study: organic food is a marketing scheme to coerce people into paying higher prices for the same quality food. The study says: “The evidence does not suggest marked health benefits from consuming organic versus conventional foods although organic produce may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and organic chicken and pork may reduce exposure to antibiotic resistant-bacteria.”
Claiming that the supposition of the study was to inform the public on the nutritional value of conventional versus organic food, Bravata asserts that there was no outside financing that would have created a bias.
Bravata believes that organic food bears no more nutritional value nor have more beneficial vitamins over conventional and GMO produce and meat.
In a two year study , scientists from Washington State University found that “organically grown strawberries were far more nutritious than their chemically grown counterparts.”
John Reganhold, lead researcher and professor, states that with all the data they have collected, and comparing chemical methods of growing food as juxtaposed with organic techniques, the actual way in which the food is grown effects the nutritional value of the food. Use of pesticides and chemicals create dangerous food laced with carcinogenic properties.
Dr. Ingram Olkin, co-author of the negative organic study has worked as a purveyor of propaganda in favor of tobacco corporations . Olkin also has chaired at the Stanford Department of Statistics; he created the multivariate Logistic Risk Function statistical algorithms which legitimizes lying within statistical information with use of complex mathematical equations.
In addition, Stanford has multiple ties to GMO giants such as Monsanto of whom they receive funding from that totals an estimated half billion dollars.
Susan J. Colby, chief executive officer for the Clayman Institute for Gender Research, previously served as co-president for Monsanto’s Sustainable Development sector.
Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who attended Stanford University during 1965 – 1966, worked for Monsanto as a client and has Monsanto lobbyists working on his campaign for President.
Residue from pesticides measured from organic produce compared against conventionally grown food, using the same data collected by Stanford researchers, showed that they omitted findings that proved the organic food is scientifically proven to be healthier because of the lack of exposure to pesticides.
According to the study, the consumption of pesticides is less of a risk as imagined. Because the Environmental Protection Agency lays down guidelines, the exposure of humans to pesticide consumption may be less when ingesting organic food, but its benefits are negligible.
In the data gathering for the Stanford study, the researchers purposefully excluded previous studies and research that did not “meet their criteria for scientific rigor”.
The USDA guidelines on food safety are based on the UN’s Codex Alimentarious , a global scheme to control the world’s food production and dissemination. On December of 2009, the accord of global implementation of Codex was established.
The oversight of Codex is given to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) by the UN. In 1194, Codex declared nutrients to be defined as toxins and dangerous for human consumption.
Codex demands that all dairy cows across the globe be treated with Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone (rBGH.2). Furthermore, all animals grown for human consumption must be treated with sub-clinical antibiotics and must be injected with endogenous growth hormones .
According to epidemiological projections based on data provided by the WHO and FAO estimated that these restrictions on nutrition would cause a minimum of 3 billion human deaths. These people who be literally starved to death because of the lack of nutritional value of the food they are forced to consume.
This scheme of depopulation through basic denial of nutrients and minerals necessary for human health could begin the process of global human population reduction.
Studies like the anti-organic research conducted by Stanford play right into the schemes of the global Elite for 90% global depopulation.
Nanotech, Terra-Forming, Transhumanism, and You
by Ann Gordon, RN, Contributor
Activist Post
September 8, 2012
Many things are being altered right before our eyes, mostly without our consent, or knowledge. These changes are coming from well-funded and classified experiments, accidents, and new science, often with creepy ‘modern’ agendas driving them. This sort of broad-scale change is unfolding in nearly every facet of our lives. But the signs and symptoms already indicate that our health may suffer as a result.
Let’s start with food for example. The bio-availability of the nutrients in our food seems to be getting interrupted. Could it be the irradiation or modification of foods? Some believe that the reason for the obesity problems could actually be a lack of nutrition, a slow starvation, because the nutrition cannot get into the cells.
Weather modification is nothing new, and researchers claim that the residues from spraying create toxic effects on our health, plants, and animals. We seem to be ingesting experimental aerosolized air, tainted water (with fluoride, pharmaceuticals, etc.), faked food, and untested medicines. Asthma cases are soaring, as are mysterious flu-like symptoms. But that is only the tip of a very chilling future according to many thinkers.
Hollywood is helping us to be de-sensitized to words, through popular movies. For example, many science fiction movies feature flesh eating zombies (mutated humans), and terra-forming earth. Academic futurists are talking about Transhumanism, and popular magazines illustrates how a future man might physically appear.
Transhumanism, a new and growing movement, is asserting claims to augment ‘natural humans’, replacing them with a technological ‘advanced’ artificial intelligence, fueled by nanotechnology and bio-engineering. As change accelerates, we are hearing the term ‘die off’, and shrug it off to natural ‘extinctions’. The skies are often white, not blue, as the weather experiments, (race to control the weather, or other motives), become extreme. Sadly, as we get desensitized, we accept a new normal.
Yet, Terra-Forming the environment (geo-engineering) and changing the nature of man needs some forethought. If the skies are sprayed with aerosols, as many documents note, (to reflect the sunlight preventing warming), serious consequences seem obvious. Ultimately, are we hurting ourselves and future generations?
We have already created plastic antibodies. We have smart pills, smart chicken, smart water, smart washers, and a smart grid. Smart is a marketing word, like the new modern, but often with an altered brew. Today, we get artificial (plastic) body parts, and create new life in vitro, (cellular engineering).
In short, we’re already ingesting new chemicals, plastics, nano particles, while being bombarded 24/7 by invisible electromagnetic frequencies (ELF’s). We are told everything is safe, but is it? How do you feel?
Transhumanism looks into the future for man decades, based on today’s technologies. We already have cryonics (preservation of cells).
Virtual reality already mimics reality, and soon will include our sense of touch, (haptics). It is suggested that people might prefer the virtual reality of the future to reality.
Sophisticated biotechnology combined with nanotechnology will become so convenient and tiny, that the everyday person will want to implant them (for convenience or prestige). New vaccines are on the horizon for countless ailments, with needle-less creative ways to ingest them. Yum.
Before embracing all new technologies sold to us to improve our lives, it might be wise to take a very close look at the non-monetary price you will pay especially when linked to potential harmful side effects. Start with what you can do for you or your loved ones and learn what you are putting into your bodies willingly.
This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo. Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.
Questioning The Dalai Lama: Who Would The Buddha Vaccinate?
by Sayer Ji, Contributor
Activist Post
September 6, 2012
In the photograph above, taken on Jan. 10th, 2010, you will observe the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, administering bivalent oral polio vaccine (bOPV) to an infant at the Mahabodhi Temple Complex in the Indian state of Bihar, Buddhism’s holiest site – the very place where Guatama Buddha is believed to have attained enlightenment approximately 2500 years earlier.Click to view the Reuters video: Dalai Lama launches polio vaccine.
During this globally televised and deeply symbolic event, the Dali Lama vaccinated not one but two infants, ostensibly as an expression of compassion, as well as to lend his visible support for India’s National Immunization Day, and for the larger Global Polio Eradication Initiative, whose duplicities and failures we have covered elsewhere.
The 14th Dalai Lama, mind you, is not only the exiled political leader of Tibet, but is believed by his devotees to be the living and breathing manifestation of the bodhisattva of compassion, Avalokiteśvara – and as a bodhisattva, an expression of enlightenment. It is therefore no small thing for him to be personally administering vaccines to infants, on the very spot that the Buddha was believed to have attained enlightenment.
The Dalai Lama Abandoned Buddhist Ethical Principles In Vaccinating Infants
The concept of doing no harm is fundamental to Buddhist teaching, as it is within other Indian religions (Hinduism, Jainism), and is known as ahimsa, literally “the avoidance of violence – himsa.” One would not, for example, justify killing an animal in order to save one’s own life, which is one reason why Buddhists are vegetarians.
Nor would one justify the killing of one child in order to save 1,000,000, as is often done by regulators in evaluating the costs/benefits of vaccines (which are known on rare occasion to maim or kill) to society as a whole. Simply, do no harm. This principle is no more open to negotiation to a Buddhist than Jesus being the Son of God is open to negotiation to a Christian.
The Dalai Lama himself once said
If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them. [emphasis added]
The principle of nonviolence, or ahimsa, when applied to the environmental chemical exposures and medical interventions can be related to the precautionary principle, which states if an action has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, the burden of proving that it is safe falls on those taking the action.
It was the precautionary principle, in fact, that lead the United States Public Health Service and American Academy of Pediatrics to determine that thimerosal (methylmercury) should be removed from vaccines as “a purely precautionary measure,” despite what they said was a lack of convincing evidence of toxicity. By 2001, thimerosal was removed from almost all routine childhood vaccines in the US (it is still found in multi-dose vaccines targeted against flu and tetanus).
Not only has most of the existing vaccine safety research been funded by the manufacturers of vaccines themselves (or scientists directly funded by them), but much of the safety-checking occurs only long after a vaccine has been released onto the market and the general population has already been exposed to its risks, i.e. the most accurate vaccine safety (or lack thereof) information is ascertained through post-marketing surveillance studies, and adverse events reporting by the public.
In other words, the precautionary principle is disregarded in favor of the “weight of evidence” standard, which puts the burden of proving a medical intervention to be unsafe on those who are, or already have been, exposed to potential harm — and often without being made fully aware of the true risks beforehand, which is essential for the medical-ethical principle of informed consent.
Moreover, vaccines clearly violate the principle of ahimsa in at least two ways: 1) all vaccines require harm to animal and/or human life (e.g. fetal tissue for diploid vaccines) in order to develop them. 2) All vaccines have serious, and sometimes lethal unintended, adverse health effects — for unequivocal proof of this, view the “side effects” panel on any vaccine insert where the manufacturer is legally required to list them. The question therefore is not whether vaccines will do harm, rather, how many will be harmed and to what extent.
In the case of oral polio vaccine, the known risk of polio-vaccine induced paralysis is weighed against the theoretical benefits of the polio vaccine. Contrary to the precautionary principle, the standard is to determine “an acceptable level of harm [himsa]. If only a ‘small percentage’ of infants receiving the vaccine are expected to become paralyzed or die as a result of vaccination, then the vaccine is considered justifiable and will be approved for use. This, of course, violates the Buddhist ethical principle ahimsa discussed above.
The Dalai Lama Launched The New Bivalent Polio Vaccine In India Which Carried Far Higher Risks
Sadly, the Dalai Lama did not only personally vaccinate two Indian infants on Jan. 10th, 2010, but he also officially launched the new bivalent oral polio vaccine (bOPV), which according to a 2011 article published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, was found in a Hungarian population to result in over 4-fold higher risk of paralysis than the monovalent 3 oral polio vaccine, and a 70-fold higher risk of paralysis than the monovalent 1 oral polio vaccine, to which it was compared.
Even more disturbing is the finding that as many as 47,500 cases of polio-vaccine associated paralysis may have occurred in Indian infants and children in 2011 alone, following the launch of the “new and improved” vaccine. Adding insult to injury, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative claimed that polio was all but eradicated that year and that vaccine-induced cases of polio are exceedingly rare, if not altogether unworthy of mention.
Oral polio vaccine was phased out of use in developed countries because of its lack of safety. In fact, oral polio vaccine has been the #1 cause of polio paralysis in developed countries like the US since 1973. [i] The vaccine is associated with a phenomenon known as “reversion,” where the vaccine itself causes polio paralysis, also known as vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP). This is why a more expensive inactivated form (IPV) is now being used in countries that can afford it, and why the more dangerous form continues to be given to the poorer nations who can not afford a non-infectious vaccine.
Vaccination Violates Fundamental Medical-Ethical Principles Within Buddhism
One does not have to point to oral polio vaccine, specifically, to reveal the profound moral problems associated with vaccination. According to their religious beliefs, Buddhists are vegetarians, and there is not a single vaccine which is vegetarian. All vaccines have been created from cultured human, animal tissue and/or blood products.
Furthermore, vaccine development, historically, has depended on vast animal cruelty and aborted fetal tissue to produce vaccine antigen. (The GlaxoSmithKline bivalent oral polio vaccine launched by the Dalai Lama, in fact, was “propagated in MRC5 human diploid cells,” according to the WHO Dossier. The MRC5 cell line was derived from the lung tissue of a 14-week old male fetus by J.P Jacobs in 1966).
Also, if compassion towards the sick and poor is the impulse behind global, universal vaccine campaigns, why is there not equal emphasis and economic support for improving sanitation, hygiene and nutrition? Billions of dollars have been expended to provide billions of doses of oral vaccine to Indian infants and children, not a penny of which has gone towards improving their immunity from the ground up, as it were.
We can assume that the Dalai Lama is not familiar with these facts, and is simply trusting the official position statements concerning vaccine safety and effectiveness put out by organizations like the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, which he has allowed himself – by accident or intention — to become an official emblem of. See photo on their website here.
But, if this is the case, the Buddha himself advised against sheer faith in the knowledge of others:
Do not believe anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many…Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders…But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
What is so difficult to comprehend is how a political and spiritual leader with the equivalent of a Ph.D. in Buddhist studies (he attained the scholarly rank of Geshe), could fail to understand and/or abide by fundamental medical-ethical Buddhist principles, especially when concerning the health and well-being of the most vulnerable: poor and often sick infants.
The Buddhist scriptures actually reinforce the perspective that you simply can’t vaccinate people out of poverty, environmental chemical exposures or suboptimal nutrition. For example, according to the Medicine Buddha Sutra, two of the 12 fundamental vows of the Medicine Buddha, known as Sangay Menla in Tibetan tradition, are #3: “To provide the sentient beings with whatever material needs they require” and #11 “To relieve those who suffer from terrible hunger and thirst.” In other words, hungry folks need food, homeless folks need shelter, in order to be healthy.
To the Dalai Lama, ‘Science’ may be more important than Buddhist teachings. In his book, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, The Dalai Lama penned:
If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.
His statement reminds me of another, made by Dr. Isaac Golden: ‘To someone whose god is science, vaccination makes sense. But to someone whose god is God, it is appalling.’
The Dalai Lama, of course, has created controversy for his penchant for veal, and his belief that abortion may be appropriate if the unborn baby is ascertained to be determined to be “retarded.” So, given his characteristically non-Buddhist beliefs, his support of vaccination is not all that surprising. It is, however, none the less disturbing.
The problem, of course, with the argument that Science trumps Buddhist morality (or any non-violent moral tradition), is that vaccinology is more pseudo-science than science. There is, for instance, a shocking lack of scientific evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of flu vaccines — and this, according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s many meta-analyses on the subject. And yet, the WHO, the CDC, and myriad governmental health agencies around the world spout an endless stream of pseudo-scientific propaganda to the contrary. Even basic tenets, such as the antibody-based theory of vaccine-induced immunity have been called in to question, if not altogether disproved. Also, there is a growing body of research indicating that routine vaccines can cause well over 200 different adverse effects, including death. This is the science, mind you, speaking — not opinion, or mere belief.
Your body is precious. It is our vehicle for awakening. Treat it with care. ~ the Buddha
Resources
[i] Strebel PM, Sutter RW, Cochi SL, et al. Epidemiology of poliomyelitis in the United States one decade after the last reported case of indigenous wild virus-associated disease. Clin Infect Dis 1992;14:568-79.
This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo. Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.
Cargill and Others Behind anti-Organic “Stanford Study”
Anti-organic “study” is not news, rather, coordinated propaganda campaign.
by Tony Cartalucci
September 5, 2012 – Harry Wallop of the London Telegraph ends his anti-organic food editorial with the following sentence:
“Tomorrow, the baby is going to get an extra dollop of pesticide-sprayed carrots.”
Whether or not Wallop is as brain-addled as he leads on to being, the point of his editorial is to encourage similar attitudes amongst the Telegraph’s readership, attempting to manipulate public perception in the wake of a recent Stanford University “study” regarding organic food.
Image: Conflict of interest? Strange that Stanford University is partnered with agricultural giant Cargill and just so happens to come out with a study that suggests organic food is no better than its big-agri competition. According to Stanford University, Cargill has donated at least 5 million dollars for the creation of a Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE). Cargill’s website has a page describing its partnership with Stanford which can be found here. Cargill and many others also are listed as donors by Standford University in their 2011 Annual Report (page 38, .pdf).
Whether or not readers of the Telegraph will put their own health and that of their children at risk for the sake of protecting big-agri’s bottom line and the faltering paradigm that big-agri products are safe for human consumption simply because Harry Wallop thinks its good to feed his baby with pesticide-sprayed carrots remains to be seen.
The London Telegraph, when not fabricating news to support England’s latest imperial adventures overseas, is at the forefront of many of the largest corporate-financier funded lobbying campaigns. Recently, someone has splurged, and splurged big on anti-organic food lobbying built atop a suspect Stanford study.
A Flawed “Study”
When entire news cycles are dominated by headlines built on a single university study, with editorials attempting to hammer in big-agri talking points, a lobbying effort is clearly afoot.
Two news cycles have already been dedicated to trashing organic food. Organic food is free of pesticides and genetic manipulation, both of which are proven to cause learning disabilities, decreased IQ, sterility, and a myriad of other health problems including a wide variety of cancers.
This most recent anti-organic food campaign began with a Stanford study (and here) out of its Center for Health Policy (a subsidiary of Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies), examining the nutritional value of organic food versus non-organic. Food with pesticides on it had nearly the same nutritional value, the study claims, as organic food – completely skipping over the whole point of eating organic.
Indeed, the nutritional value would be similar – but the entire point of eating organic is not because of vastly superior nutritional value, but to avoid the “extras” included with products from big-agri corporations.
The Stanford study intentionally dismisses concerns regarding the presence of pesticides by simply claiming levels were within legal tolerances. No discussion was made on whether legal tolerances equated to safe tolerances, nor was there any mention made of the harmful effects of genetically modified organisms (GMO) or other controversial food additives found in non-organic food products.
So why the strawman argument?
A Corporate-funded “Study”
The Stanford Center for Health Policy states the following on its own website:
“The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) relies on support from its friends, as well as from national and international foundations and corporations, for the funding of the Institute’s research, teaching and outreach activities.”
The Center for Health Policy is a subsidiary of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). So who are these “friends,” national and international foundations and corporations funding the research of FSI and its subsidiary, the Stanford Center for Health Policy?
Image: From Stanford Center for Health Policy’s own website it is admitted that ” national and international foundations and corporations” fund its research and “outreach activities.” This confirms the suspicions of an increasingly aware public who saw the “study” as biased, contradictory of both logic and ethics, and the result of insidious corporate-funding.
According to FSI’s 2011 Annual Report (page 38, .pdf) Agricultural giant Cargill, British Petroleum (BP), the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation (heavily invested in both Cargill and big-agri giant Monsanto), the Ford Foundation, Google, Goldman Sachs, the Smith Richardson Foundation, and many other corporate-financier, Fortune 500 special interests.
Image: From Stanford’s 2011 FSI Annual Report (page 38, .pdf), of which the Center for Health Policy is a subsidiary, is funded by Cargill, the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation (heavily invested in both Cargill and big-agri giant Monsanto), and a myriad of other Fortune 500 corporate-financier special interests. The report at face value is throwaway propaganda, but its funding reveals a more insidious, coordinated effort to manipulate public perception, stretching across academia, mass media, government, and big business. (click image to enlarge)
That none of this is mentioned, and the lack of independence and transparency involved in the study and its presentation to the public, overturns the credibility of both Stanford, and the Western media machine that so eagerly shoveled the results out to the public. Combined with the fact that the study itself is flawed, and the concerted, disingenuous nature with which it is being promoted to the public, a premeditated public relations campaign, bought and paid for by Stanford’s FSI sponsors, most notably Cargill and the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation is self-evident.
What to Do?
Quite obviously, one should continue eating organic. Additionally, the duplicitous nature exhibited by academia, the mass media, and the vast corporate interests overtly driving them both, demands from us to redouble our efforts at implementing full-spectrum boycotts aimed at big-agri as well as other Fortune 500 corporate-financier monopolies. This includes other processed food makers such as Pepsi and Coca-Cola, Kraft, and the myriad of subsidiaries they maintain.
We should also redouble our efforts at supporting local farmers, attending and contributing to local farmers markets, and investigating the possibility of growing, if only a small percentage, our own herbs, fruits, and vegetables.
Freedom and self-determination come from economic independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency. The most fundamental form of economic independence is having a safe, secure, and local food supply operated for, by, and of the people. Cementing this emerging paradigm, in spite of the crass, juvenile, even criminally irresponsible editorials like that of the Telegraph’s Harry Wallop, and multimillion dollar “studies” subsidized by Cargill and the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation, is the first step on extending this paradigm shift to other areas required for maintaining and advancing modern civilization.
3MIN News Sept 6, 2012: Starwater, Earthquakes, Gamma Burst [video]
Suspicious0bservers
September 6, 2012
STARWATER: http://youtu.be/LiC-92YgZvQ
TODAY’S LINKS
Magnetic Earth & Sun: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/mms-sir.html
Triton Ocean: http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/4997/does-triton-have-a-subsurface-ocean
Drone Ready: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/06/us-aircraft-usa-northrop-grumman-id…
Colombian Protests: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/photo/2012-09/06/c_131832166.htm
Plant Methane: http://www.mpg.de/6341338/methane_production-fungi
ALL Quakes List: http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/seismologist.php
…
[Potent News Editor’s note: He said Hurricane Leslie might be coming to Nova Scotia so I found the following picture.]
[UPDATE: I didn’t realize this at the time, but I think this picture is updating itself automatically. If I’m not mistaken, last time I saw it they were predicting the hurricane was going to arrive more east than this. Here‘s where I got the picture you see below.]
Is There Really a Difference Between Organic and Conventional Food? [video]
Natural Society
September 4, 2012
Is there really a difference between organic and conventional food? A new ‘study’ has hit the mainstream media declaring that there is not, however it is fatally flawed.
In this video, I explain how the study failed to accurately address key aspects of what makes organic food truly healthy, and how the very few aspects that they did analyze actually lean towards organic food being the clear choice.
For solid links to publications and sourcing, please checkout my full article: http://naturalsociety.com/ridiculous-study-claims-organic-same-as-conventional/
The study authors failed to identify the fact that organic food items do not contain things such as: GMOs (genetically modified organisms), artificial sweeteners, higher concentrations of bisphenol-a (BPA), cloned material (rBGH), and much more. They also fail to mention in the titles of the mainstream reports that the study actually revealed that organic food contained less pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, and antibiotics.
The researchers also failed to mention that the herbicides and pesticides used in conventional food items are oftentimes much more dangerous, with Roundup in particular (the #1 herbicide in the US created by Monsanto) being linked to conditions such as infertility, DNA damage, and cancer.
There certainly is a distinct difference between organic food and conventional, and it takes a bit of digging to realize that this study ‘proving’ that there isn’t really does not examine many essential factors when reaching such an inaccurate conclusion.
Earth Changes Intensify: Deagle- RadChick-Morrison 8.30.2012 [video]
RadChick
September 1, 2012
Interview on the Nutrimedical Report from Friday, August 30, 2012 with Dr Bill Deagle, Christina Consolo (RadChick) and GeoScientist-Engineer Ann Morrison.
Recent earth changes/climate issues (sinkhole, Hurricane, tritium leaks, artic melt, geological and electromagnetic disturbances, seismic activity, bouy indicators and large earthquakes in weird places) and survival tips discussed.
PN 