National
Geographic's Anti-Science Stand #1: Fluoride is Good for You
Although it's not written on the front cover, the
National Geographic article on the subject begins by berating
the residents of Portland Oregon for not choosing
to fluoridate
water, and wonders why "reasonable" people doubt science.
I would suggest that reasonable people are not
anti-science but are rather rightly suspicious of schemes to
harm their health and enrich mega corporations.
When you look at the facts around fluoride, it is
evident that it is really a composite of hydrofluorosilicic
acid, sodium fluorosilicate, and sodium fluoride, and an
industrial byproduct considered a toxic hazard by the EPA and
used in rat poison, pesticides and
Big Pharma antidepressant
drugs like Prozac and Paxil.
As I have written about in
Fluoride, Fluoride, Everywhere, studies have shown it leads
to,
-
arthritis
-
diabetes
-
endocrine disruption
-
gastrointestinal
effects
-
hypersensitivity
-
kidney disease
-
male fertility
-
skeletal fluorosis
-
thyroid disease,
...as well as damage to
bone structure and the brain.
It accumulates in the pineal gland
and impairs its functioning, which effectively means it shuts
down our access to higher potential.
Additionally, fluoride is implicated in
cardiovascular disease and cancer which are the 2 highest
leading causes of death in the US. See the
Fluoride
Action Network of Paul Connett by more information
about this toxin.
So, it is pro-science or anti-science, reasonable
or unreasonable, to avoid ingesting an obvious toxin and harming
yourself?
National
Geographic's Anti-Science Stand #2: Man is Warming the
Environment Changing the Climate
It's funny how we were bombarded with the idea
that man was causing global warming until results came in that
man was actually cooling the planet (see the excellent research
of people like John Casey for evidence of this), that the data
was selectively picked (see Ian Pilger and Lord Christopher
Monckton) and that the figures were fudged (e.g. the
ClimateGate emails).
After that, the Controllers decided it would be
better to change the manipulating Orwellian language to
climate change.
It's quite brilliant really: this way
any change in the climate, whether it was warming or cooling,
could be ascribed to "climate change" and blamed on humanity -
you know, that parasite on the planet's surface that Prince
Philip wants to wipe out
by reincarnating as a virus?
I wonder if those who believe in AGW
(Anthropogenic Global Warming) or Manmade Global Warming have
any idea that the elite came up with the idea of using mankind
itself as the global threat against which we are all supposed to
gather behind a One World Government?
Take the 1966
Report from the Iron Mountain,
commissioned by JFK and considered by LBJ as too dangerous to
reveal to the public at the time.
Here is a passage from it where it is discussing
how a Global Government could function without war, and
suggesting the threat could instead be environmental pollution:
"It may be, for instance, that
gross pollution of the environment can
eventually replace the possibility of mass
destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal
apparent threat to the survival of the species.
Poisoning of the air, and of the
principal sources of food and water supply, is
already well advanced, and at first glance would
seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a
threat that can be dealt with only through
social organization and political power."
Or what about the
Club of Rome's
1991 document entitled "The First Global Revolution"?
Here is a
quote from it:
"In searching for a common enemy against whom
we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the
threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the
like, would fit the bill.
In their totality and their
interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat
which must be confronted by everyone together… all these
dangers are caused by human intervention in natural
processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and
behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then is humanity itself."
The great documentary
The Great Global Warming Swindle exposed the lies behind the
very political climate change agenda.
More than
1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have
challenged the man-made global warming claims made by
the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and
shredded its credibility. In truth, it is the National
Geographic which is again anti-science on this
issue.
National
Geographic's Anti-Science Stand #3: Might-Is-Right Evolution
Although
Darwinian evolution may provide a
welcome alternative for some to
the Catholic Church's doctrine
of 'Creationism,' the truth is that we are facing another false
dichotomy where neither side has all the truth.
The theory of
evolution may explain some things well, but it fails to fully
understand the role of cooperation and symbiosis among species
and the ecosystem.
The whole idea of a dog-eat-dog, might-is-right,
survival-of-the-fittest world is totally in line with the way
that the predatorial
elite class thinks.
They view the rest of
humanity and the world as a resource to be used and exploited
for their own personal gain. Devoid of empathy and compassion,
they see this as the rightful and moral way of things.
A closer examination of Darwin reveals that his
father was a 33rd degree Mason, that
Freemasonry (one of the most powerful Secret Societies on
Earth) funded the theory of evolution because it destroyed
people's idea of God and their spiritual sides, and
drew people's attention to lower matters (base level survival)
rather than higher ones (love and harmony).
National
Geographic's Anti-Science Stand #4: We Really Went to the
Moon, Honest
The idea that
we went to the moon in 1969 - in
the way that it was told in the official Government narrative -
is a lingering and ludicrous lie.
We are expected to believe that the astronauts
who went up there only took around 80-100 photos of the entire
event, not to mention the massive discrepancies in shadows and
the failure of anyone to explain at the time how we got passed
the Van Allen radiation belts
with that technology.
Look at the dejected state and massive dose of
amnesia displayed by the astronauts at the
press conference:
Does this seem a likely response by men who had
really just done something as monumental as walk on the moon for
the first time ever? Or men whose lives (and whose families'
lives) had just been threatened if they told the truth?
Why is
there variation in the shadow darkness? Why are there no stars
in the pictures?
In the video footage of the astronauts talking
with Houston control, who is the anonymous 3rd party prompting
the astronauts with what to say?
Check out "A
Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon":
Interestingly,
Neil Armstrong said:
"There are great ideas undiscovered,
breakthroughs available to
those who can remove one
of the truth's protective layers. There are places
to go beyond belief."
Jay Weidner did some
excellent analysis of the faked
(Apollo) Moon Landing and put forth a
convincing theory that it was actually Stanley Kubrick who was
recruited to fake it.
Kubrick later made artistic, opaque
references to this in a future film "The Shining" and tried to
expose the Satanic elite in "Eyes Wide Shut", but conveniently
and mysteriously died of a heart attack before the film's
release.
Whatever really happened on the moon, there is
now copious evidence from various whistleblowers that
a Secret Space Program is in existence and
maintains a fleet of space vehicles which are more than capable
of going anywhere in the Solar System - and beyond...
National
Geographic's Anti-Science Stand #5: Vaccines are Safe and
Effective
The idea that questioning something as
dangerous
and ineffective as a vaccine is anti-science is really quite
absurd.
Again, it is a rational and pro-science position
to take to carefully examine what goes in your body, especially
in your bloodstream (where it bypasses digestion), no matter how
many so-called experts call it "medicine".
Vaccines are loaded
with
tens of dangerous additives (adjuvants) which are known
carcinogens (mercury, formaldehyde) and known to be
highly
harmful to the body (aluminum,
aborted fetal tissue, MSG, etc.).
More and more evidence is coming to light that
vaccines lead to autism and other debilitating autoimmune
diseases. On top of this, those vaccinated undergo a process
called
viral shedding where they are actually contagious and can
infect those around them!
Finally, many studies have shown that
vaccines are not even that effective, such as
this one published in the Lancet which found that
only 1.5 people out of 100 were protected by getting a
flu shot.
National
Geographic's Anti-Science Stand #6: GMOs are Safe and
Wonderful
Finally, the mainstream media wants you to
believe that GMOs are
"safe and wonderful," and that you must be
anti-science if you oppose them.
Yet GMOs are made with
the artificial injecting of the DNA of a completely different,
random species into plant DNA. Some of them, such as Bt corn,
are made to deliberately produce an insecticide poison to kill
bugs - but it keeps doing this inside of you once ingested.
Gilles-Eric Séralini showed with his study that rats fed GM corn
developed horrendous lesions and tumors, and
other studies have shown that GMOs are implicated in a large
number of ailments, such as,
organ failure, autism, allergies,
asthma, sterility, infant mortality, digestive disorders, bowel
disease, Crohn's, constipation, kidney disease, heart disease
and more.
These horrible side effects arise in part because
when we ingest GM food our immune system treats it as a foreign
entity, so it starts attacking it.
Thus GMOs cause inflammation,
the hidden source of many auto-immune diseases (e.g. arthritis,
multiple sclerosis, etc.) and other illnesses like diabetes,
Alzheimer's and cancer.
This is new untested technology, allowing around
6 corporations to potentially control the entire global food
supply at great profit. It's a giant human experiment that could
end up genetically modifying humanity.
Science is supposed to
follow the precautionary principle, yet
profit
trumps precaution here.
So who's really more anti-science - GMOs skeptics
or National Geographic-like GMO supporters?
