11 Year Old Exposes GMO Lies Video

Is Monsanto Using 4-H to Brainwash Your Children About GMOs?

By Dr. Mercola

Monsanto is boasting its partnership with 4-H programs by giving a shout-out to “National 4-H Week.”¹

This is not the first time Monsanto has used its clever propaganda to influence our nation’s youth. The Council for Biotechnology Information widely circulated a Biotechnology Basics Activity Book for kids, a disturbing and brightly colored obvious intent to 'educate' the children.

4-H is the country’s largest youth organization with more than 6 million members in 80 countries around the world, involving children from elementary school age through high school.

The organization is extremely influential to children, impacting their intellectual and emotional development through their numerous programs and clubs. Unfortunately, Monsanto is using its partnership with 4-H as a vehicle to worm its way into your child’s mind in order to influence her developing beliefs and values.

Children are like little sponges, soaking up everything they see and hear, which makes them particularly vulnerable to being sucked in by propaganda.
And the effects could be life-long—at least they’re intended to be. Indeed you’d be hard-pressed to convince an adult, who from childhood was taught the merits of genetically engineered foods, that there’s anything wrong with such alterations of the food supply.  

If your child is involved in 4-H, it would be wise to monitor the messages she’s getting, given this organization’s  corporate sponsors and alliances.

4-H is really the perfect vehicle for Big Ag to manipulate an entire generation, using tactics not that different from the youth indoctrination strategies employed by political extremists in order to gain children’s trust and then “groom” them however they wish.

Think about it—what better way to control the future of our food system than to brainwash 6.8 million impressionable youth into believing that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe and beneficial, if not the answer to all the problems of the world?²

4-H Volunteers are Being Trained by Monsanto

The 4-H Youth Development Organization was originally set up by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to train the rural youth of America in hands-on skills like agriculture and raising animals, including the promotion of responsible animal husbandry and the cultivation of food resources in a responsible, ethical way.

The 4-H emblem, a four-leaf clover, is supposed to symbolize four actions (head, hands, heart, and health) as stated in their pledge:

“I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart to greater loyalty, my hands to larger service and my health to better living, for my club, my community, my country, and my world.”

However, as noble as their original vision is, it remains vulnerable to the influences of its funders. Just as the USDA and other government agencies have a carefully crafted and well established revolving door arrangement with industry, 4-H is increasingly in the grips of the corporations that fund it—specifically, the agricultural, biotech, and junk food industries.

According to its 2012 Annual Report,³ 4-H’s funding comes from a long list of donors that include Monsanto, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Cargill, DuPont, United Soybean Board, Coca-Cola, and Pfizer. It doesn’t take much imagination to predict what sort of agenda 4-H would need to promote to keep its donors happy.

Pro-GMO propaganda would be easy to weave into 4-H’s program since they already occupy the role of teaching children the art of farming, and in their position of authority, children would never question it. Monsanto is now also training tens of thousands of 4-H volunteers, according to an article in 4-Traders:

“In 2007, Monsanto expanded its 4-H volunteerism support by funding state and regional development. More than 52,600 volunteers have attended Monsanto-supported forums and training events in 50 states, three US territories and four Extension regional forums.”

Monsanto Hijacks Government, Education and Science

Corporations like Monsanto are employing increasingly underhanded strategies to spread their self-serving propaganda across broader segments of society. Here are three prime examples:

• Hijacking Government Regulators: Conflicts of interest are rampant in government agencies, which have a revolving door with US federal regulatory agencies like the USDA, FDA, and EPA.
• Hijacking Higher Education: An ever-increasing percentage of funding for research at land grant universities now comes from private corporations, giving big companies a stronger foothold than ever in higher education. Corporations wield power over educational institutions by giving college leaders positions on their corporate boards, and by hiring scientists as paid consultants. As a result, academic freedom has gone out the window, conflicts of interest are rampant, and bias eclipses objectivity.
• Hijacking the Media: Organizations such as Science Media Centre and American Council on Science and Health feature scientific “experts” that are anything but independent, and have undisclosed and far-reaching affiliations with the biotech industry.

Of course, if you are a large corporation trying to control the food supply, the younger you Consider the “Biotechnology Basics Activity Book” for kids, circulated by CBI (Council for Biotechnology Information).⁴ Its colorful pages and friendly cartoon characters spew outright lies about the “benefits” of genetic engineering for health, environment, world hunger and the future of farming.

Monsanto is one of eight biotech companies behind the release of this 16-page children’s activity book, demonstrating just how low it will stoop. CBI claims to promote science-based information but is really just a shill for the biotech industry, for the purpose of advancing the pro-GMO agenda.  Brainwashing children is a new low, even for Monsanto. They’re not satisfied with just poisoning our children’s bodies—now they’re trying to poison their minds as well. And history is quite clear about how easy it is to poison the minds of the young.

Hijacking the Minds of Our Youth

It is difficult to ignore the parallels when looking at how 4-H, the largest American youth organization, is being hijacked by big biotech corporations to fulfill an agenda—the worldwide takeover by GMOs. But when you consider that Monsanto has no problem with poisoning our children, destroying farmers, polluting oceans, and ruining the earth’s topsoil, it seems there is no limit to their avarice.

If the Nazi analogy seems far-fetched, consider that the German people would have felt the same way before they realized what was happening to them. These manipulations can be masterful and insidious. The best way to protect your child from corporate brainwashing is with YOUR watchful eye.

If corporations like Monsanto are successful in hijacking the minds of our youth, they will essentially be in control the decisions and behavior of the next generation—and there is nothing to stop them until a great deal of damage is done to you, your children and grandchildren, and our planet. This is why it is so critical for you to be involved in your children’s activities and take an active role in their education.

Do not fall into the trap of assuming that, just because they are involved with a “reputable” organization like 4-H, that they are getting unbiased and truthful information.

Vote with Your Pocketbook, Every Day

The food companies on the left of this graphic spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two labeling campaigns—in California and Washington State - to prevent you from knowing what’s in your food. You can even the score by switching to the brands on the right; all of whom stood behind the I-522 Right to Know campaign. Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference.

I encourage you to continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and to share what you’ve learned with family and friends. Remember, unless a food is certified organic, you can assume it contains GMO ingredients if it contains sugar from sugar beets, soy, or corn, or any of their derivatives.

If you buy processed food, opt for products bearing the USDA 100% Organic label, as certified organics do not permit GMO’s. You can also print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks.

Alternatively, download their free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications. For more in-depth information, I highly recommend reading the following two books, authored by Jeffrey Smith, the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology:

• Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating
• Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.

For timely updates, join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.

Please, do your homework. Together, we have the power to stop the biotech industry from destroying our food supply, the future of our children, and the earth as a whole.

All we need is about five percent of American shoppers to simply stop buying genetically engineered foods, and the food industry would have to reconsider their source of ingredients—regardless of whether the products bear an actual GMO label or not.

Understanding Dog Dynamics

 

Dogs and Children

By Crystal Wakeman

Animal Rescue World

Humans and Dogs have a history that goes back 100,000 years. This is when scientists say the DNA from domestic dogs and wolves was split.

 Somewhere in these 100,000 years we have forgotten that dogs are not humans. We have also taught our children to humanize dogs.

I believe this is the reason for countless misunderstandings between dogs and children.

 Unfortunately these miscommunications between dogs and humans often result in death for the dog!

I have heard it a million times,

 “the dog bit our kid all of the sudden with no provocation, he turned on us.“

It is highly unlikely that the dog bit with no warning. It is just not a warning that a human might notice. In the world we live in we have lost the natural instincts and language of our natural world.

When we decide to bring a dog into our home we must understand it is time to tap into our instincts, and learn a little bit about dog behavior. A dog is only a dog, they do not understand English or a lot of our behaviors. 

A household can be a confusing, scary place for a dog. We need to show them we are stable enough to run the pack. If a dog believes he/she is to run the pack (the family) we are putting them in charge of a world they do not understand. 

This is totally unfair to the dog. If we let them lead they will become scared and unstable because they do not understand our human households. 

Never introduce a dog to a child until you are sure the dog understands humans are above them in the pack. Make sure the dog will listen to you no matter the situation. If your dog is unreliable wait until you put in the work to teach them you have running the house covered (not the dog’s job).

Make sure their temperament is stable enough to be around children. Last but not least the kids need to know appropriate behavior around the dog. This does not mean shield the dog from kids all together, it means choose the proper time and environment to introduce the dog to children so everyone is safe and secure. 

The first thing to understand is that we should never greet a dog by running up and patting their heads or baby talking. The best habit to get into is to ignore the dog until the dog is calm for at least 10 min.

In some cases you should even wait until the dog stays calm for longer than 10 min, but I will use the 10 min rule as an average. If the dog starts to get worked up (hyper) after you acknowledge them ignore the dog again and add 5 minutes to the original time every time you have to repeat this process.

When we greet our dogs instead of them greeting us we are electing them leader of the pack! Which puts dogs in an uncomfortable position, they feel that they are responsible for running our household!

It is like putting a banker into an operating room and expecting exceptional performance. It is just not going to happen. It is no wonder why there are so many unstable dogs out there. 

The second thing to understand is it is a terrible idea to pet or acknowledge a dog that is an unstable state of mind. Humans often comfort each other by giving hugs or pats on the back however when we do this to our dogs we reinforce a negative state of mind.

The best thing to do with an unstable dog is to ignore them until they get more comfortable. We can use tools to encourage them to move forward however a dog will not move forward if we are reinforcing instability by petting them and putting lots of treats and toys in their face while they scared or unsure. 

Walking our dogs is incredibly important and is a great way to show our dogs all humans in the home are the leaders. I suggest an adult works with their dog before adding children to the walk.

Before you even put a leash on your dog they need to be calm. The leash going on to a dogs collar is a reward. If you reward a hyper exited dog you are setting the mood for the entire walk.

After the leash is on your dog will typically get exited again. Do not move forward until the dog is calm. Every time the dog walks in front of you walk back to the starting point. The dog will get the point, we do not move forward unless I am calm. 

It does not matter if you only walk a couple of blocks in an hour. This exercise is a mental work out for your pooch. Every day your four-legged friend will go further and further until they only follow you. 

Another important thing to keep in mind is that dogs are very aware of how everyone is feeling around them. If you are in a bad state of mind your dog will sense it and try to take over while you are unable to lead. 

Humans are the only animals that follow instability.

Never work a dog when you are having a bad day. Dogs can smell how you felt hours before you even come around. 

The more calm and confident that we are the better our dogs will listen. 

A good way we can test ourselves on our mood and what messages we are sending to our dogs is our body language. Are we walking like leaders? You cannot lead with a slumped over posture. 

We should walk with our heads high, chest out, and relax, dogs can see and smell tension from a mile away. While working with dogs we should always ask ourselves what message are we sending to our dogs through our mental state and body language.

Whenever we feed our four-legged friends it is a good idea to show them all humans in the house eat first. This is an activity for the whole family, kids included. This can be accomplished by simply eating a cracker in front of the dog before he/she eats. 

This should never turn into teasing our dog, or the whole process will lose it’s meaning. We also set the bowl of food on the ground and make the dog sit or down while the dog focuses on the human in charge before he/she gets to eat. The dog must also be calm, and not hovering over the bowl. If the dog is sitting but not calm, wait until the dog is calm.

Once you we are sure we have a dog’s trust and respect we can introduce the dog to children. The first rule is to never allow the dog to invade the child’s space uninvited. 

They need to keep a respectable distance until they are calm and called to the child. Then they will learn to be calm around children while they are in a submissive state of mind. It is a good idea to include children in training and behavioral conditioning activities.

Just as the adults are to ignore the dog for ten minutes the children must too. This shows our dogs the kids are above them in the pack. We have to be aware of our children’s behavior. If they cannot follow the rules they will not be included in the activities.

The children must be disciplined enough to follow the rules. Unstable unruly children will make unstable unruly dogs. Introducing dogs to children is a positive thing when the environment is not chaotic.

Pick a good time and place for this process.

Some dogs are more sensitive than others. It is best to judge each situation differently with each individual dog. Some dogs may not be able to be around children, but I would say most can with the proper introduction and environment. 

Never introduce a dog to a child who does not recognize you as the leader. Any dog being introduced to children should be even-tempered and ready. Everything written here is based on my experience successfully introducing dogs and children, however these are suggestions, if you are unsure consult a behaviorist near you.

What Is A Dog Bite and Epidemic Myths

Article courtesy of:  National Canine Research Council

“What is a dog bite?”: the question seems simple enough. Most of us would describe a dog bite as an incident where a dog deliberately inflicts an injury to a person. However, animal control and public health departments consider any incident in which a dog's tooth or nail breaks a person's skin - regardless of the circumstances or any characterization of the dog's intention - to be an animal exposure that merits their notice.

Based on this definition, animal control and public health departments classify all of the following types of animal exposures as dog bites:

• Nips from playful puppies.

• Scratches from a dog's nail.

• Scrapes from a dog's tooth.

• Accidental bites by dogs.

• Bites from injured or ill dogs receiving assistance or comfort from Good Samaritans (e.g. dogs hit by cars).

• Bites by working K-9 dogs delivered in the performance of police duties.

• Bites delivered to canine professionals such as veterinarians. These may have occurred under extreme duress, such as if the dog was in pain or otherwise unable to control its behavior.  (e.g. a vet tech bitten while removing intubation tube from a dog's throat)

Dog Bites and "Statistics"

Dog bite statistics include a range of types of dog bites. The vast majority are not severe enough to warrant a trip to the emergency room. 

In addition to reporting even the most benign nip, scratch or scrape, dog bite statistics do not provide a complete picture of dog bites. They fail to accurately show which dogs bite, why dogs bite, or describe just how frequently owners irresponsibly allow their dogs to become a problem to people or other animals.

One of the primary functions of animal control agencies is determining whether domestic animals involved in biting incidents have up-to-date rabies vaccinations. This is the primary reason why animal control and public health agencies continue to retain an interest in all animal exposures, regardless of the individual circumstances of individual cases.

Forms used to record an animal exposure, which are often called ‘bite reports’, will usually include space where parties involved or the animal control or health officer can provide a description of the circumstances.

 Did a dog scratch his owner during a playful romp? 

Did a dog chase and bite a child riding a bicycle?

Unfortunately, when animal exposures are tallied up, they may be released to the public as simple bite totals. The circumstances of each incident, and any understanding to be gained from them, have been stripped away. In consequence, bite numbers are not an accurate representation of canine aggression. Like the term ‘dog bite’, which is used to describe a wide range of types of animal exposures, ‘canine aggression’ is a general term applied to range of different, specific behaviors.

The following example illustrates the important point that dog bite reports are not necessarily records of canine aggression per se, and also that bite totals obscure the important point that bites originate from different circumstances.

Consider a report containing separate bites inflicted by four dogs assigned the breed descriptor "A". Each bite is actually the culmination of a different dog’s response to the following individual events:

• Dog One (Breed “A”) jumps up and scratches a child with its nail.

• Dog Two (Breed “A”) is hit by a car and critically injured, and bites the hand of a rescuer.

• Dog Three (Breed “A”) chases a child on a bicycle and nips the child's ankle.

• Dog Four (Breed “A”) lunges and inflicts a serious bite to a child's face after the child comes too close to the dog's food bowl.

Even if the breed descriptor, “A”, were accurate in each of the cases above (which recent studies reveal is unlikely), each of the four incidents is distinct, involving canine behaviors that animal experts would not describe in the same terms.

(It is worth pointing out that in two of these incidents, an owner/parent may not have properly supervised the interaction between a child and a dog. In the other two incidents, an owner has allowed his/her dog to roam, failing to control and contain their pet.)

Breed Labeling and Dog Bites

Bite totals become even more misleading when subdivided by breed descriptors. 

At least half of the dogs in the United States are mixed breed dogs. It is impossible to breed label dogs of unknown history and genetics solely on the basis of their appearance.

Research conducted at two (2) universities has confirmed that attempts to identify visually the breeds in a dog of unknown origin correlate poorly with a DNA analysis of the same dog.[i]  

Further, different observers, even those with considerable experience with dogs, do not agree with each other. Nevertheless, animal controls and shelter workers continue to assign single breed descriptors to dogs likely to be of mixed breed whose origins are unknown.

Even if visual breed identifications were accurate, dog bite totals still would not provide evidence that some breeds or groups of dogs bit more frequently than others. Breed populations within a given jurisdiction are not known. Therefore, incident rates cannot be calculated with any accuracy.  Further, on the basis of samples obtained from veterinary clinics, animal shelters, and dog licensing, we can conclude that the popularity of types of dogs varies from place to place, and changes over time.

The Myth of the Dog Bite Epidemic

The definition of epidemic is: extremely prevalent; widespread, or a rapid spread or increase in the occurrence of something.

The term ‘epidemic’ could have been applied to dog bites in the early 1970’s; however, it is not accurate today.

Late in 1974, a study published in the Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine stated that the number of dog bites reported in New York had increased by 37% between 1965 and 1972.  The article was titled, “Dog Bites: An Unrecognized Epidemic.”[ii] The following February, an Associated Press article appeared in newspapers across the country carrying a similar headline: “Dog Bites – Unrecognized Epidemic in the United States.” The AP story reported significant increases in 10 other American cities besides New York.

The irony is that the “epidemic” began to subside almost as quickly as it arose. Researchers in Baltimore, Maryland, one of the cities included in the AP story, reported that new municipal policies had quickly reversed the ‘epidemic’ trend in that city.  From a peak total of 6,922 in 1972, by 1976 dog bites declined to 4,760.  The decline has continued into the present day.  For all of 2011, there were 719 reported dog bites in Baltimore City.[iii]

There is no national system in the United States for tallying reports of dog bites. 

The often-repeated estimates currently cited to argue that there is still a dog bite "epidemic" derive from two telephone surveys conducted to assess a wide variety of injury risk factors and injuries. The first survey was conducted in 1994. 

 From among the 5,328 persons who responded to this survey, interviewers obtained reports of 186 dog bites participants reported had occurred within the 12 months prior to the interview. (Only 38 of the 186 bitten sought medical attention).  The second survey, conducted between July 2001 and February 2003, returned a result showing that dog bites had declined overall, and had declined significantly among children.[iv]

 Adding to the confusion, none of the survey-derived estimates are consistent with concurrent reports from public health agencies across the United States. In fact, communities from coast to coast report the good, but less publicized news that contrary to the estimates, actual reports of dog bites to public agencies have decreased dramatically since the 1970’s.

Current reports obtained from public health agencies show that there is one reported dog bite for every 2,000+ New Yorkers and one for every 1,365 Chicagoans. The telephone surveys mentioned above, on the other hand, show one bite for every 68 Americans nationwide (310 million Americans divided by 4.5 million dog bites = 1 bite in every 68 people).

 

What might account for this discrepancy?  

The authors of the survey reports themselves underscore that they did not define for survey respondents what they meant by a ‘dog bite’.

 (This is the primary issue with reporting of dog bites by public health officials, as we describe in the preceding paragraphs.) The respondents were only asked if they had been bitten by a dog - not if they had been injured by a dog.

The survey also reported that only 19% of those who responded that they had been bitten by a dog also said that they sought medical attention.  What, then, was the nature of the 81% of incidents for which respondents did not seek medical attention? Two potential answers exist: either the contact with the dog resulted in no identifiable injury, or that injury was negligible.

The Enduring Strength of the Human-Canine Bond

NCRC offers this short report in order to advance a better understanding of how dog bites have been reported over the decades, as well as recognition of the limited and incomplete picture that this dog bite “data” provides.   

Americans have hundreds of billions of interactions with dogs on a daily basis.  The overwhelming majority of interactions between dogs and people are rewarding for both parties. Of the very small number of interactions that result in human injury, many could have been avoided by supervision of infants and small children around dogs; education of children and adults about safety around dogs; and education of dog owners about dog well-being and their responsibilities for the humane care, custody and control of their dogs.

Link Between Autism & Vaccines Video

(NaturalNews) There is systematic suppression in the United States on the truth about the links between vaccines and autism. Drug companies and the federal government have conspired to deny parents of vaccine-damaged children their day in court by creating a kangaroo "vaccine court" that offers no due process whatsoever (and therefore violates the civil liberties of Americans).

Even so, this court has, numerous times, admitted that vaccines have irrefutably damaged children and caused autism. Parents of those children are offered "hush money" to quietly go away after signing an agreement that mandates they never talk to the press about their ordeal.

This systematic suppression of the truth about vaccine-damaged children is revealed in a must-see new video just released by the Canary Party (www.CanaryParty.org) and narrated by actor Rob Schneider, an outspoken advocate of parental rights when it comes to medicine.

10 Vaccine Facts Vaccine Industry Doesn't Want You To Know

(NaturalNews) Prepare to be shocked. Here are 10 outrageous (but true) facts about vaccines the CDC and the vaccine industry don't want you to know:

FACT #1) Yes, mercury is still used in vaccines, and the CDC openly admits it. There is NO safe level of mercury for injecting into a human child. Not even "trace" levels. There is NO evidence of safety for mercury at any dose whatsoever. Any doctor who says the level of mercury in a vaccine is "safe" to inject into a child is only demonstrating their outrageous ignorance of scientific facts.

Mercury is arguably the most neurotoxic element on the entire Table of Elements. It is used in vaccines for the convenience of the vaccine manufacturer at the expense of the safety of the child. Any doctor who injects mercury into a child -- at any dose! -- should be immediately stripped of their medical license.

See the list of studies on the neurotoxicity of mercury at SCIENCE.naturalnews.com, now the largest relational research resource for chemicals, health, nutrients and drugs:

http://science.naturalnews.com/M/Mercury_and...

Those study titles include:

Lactational exposure to inorganic mercury: evidence of Neurotoxic effects.

Neurotoxic action of inorganic Mercury injected in the intraventricular space of mouse cerebrum.

Neurotoxic effects in workers of the clinical thermometer manufacture plant.

Neurotoxic risk caused by stable and variable exposure to methylmercury from seafood.

Additional FACT: There is no "safe" form of mercury as is often ridiculously claimed by vaccine pushers. Both ethyl and methyl mercury are extremely toxic to the human nervous system. Neither should ever, under ANY circumstances, be deliberately injected into a human child at any dose whatsoever.

FACT #2) Injecting any substance into the human body makes it orders of magnitude more potentially toxic because it bypasses the protections of the digestive tract or the respiratory system. Injecting mercury into a human being -- at any dose -- should be globally condemned as a criminal act. That it is currently considered an acceptable act in the field of medicine only condemns the true destructive nature of modern medicine. Under the vaccine doctrine, "First do no harm" has become "Poison children for profit."

FACT #3) For decades, polio vaccines injected into tens of millions of people actually contained hidden cancer viruses (SV40 and others). This was openly admitted by a top Merck vaccine scientist named Hilleman. The CDC recently scrubbed its website of this information in a "revisionist history" purge. Up to 98 million Americans were exposed to hidden cancer viruses in polio vaccines. This is an historical fact. Read more at www.sv40foundation.org

FACT #4) Top virologists working for Merck have blown the whistle and gone public with shocking revelations that claim the company routinely fabricated lab results to claim a 95% efficacy rate of its mumps vaccine in order to continue receiving government contracts on a vaccine that didn't work.

See the False Claims document these scientists filed with the U.S. government here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/documents...

FACT #5) In nearly every outbreak you hear about these days, the majority of the children affected by the outbreak have already been vaccinated against the virus! For example, outbreaks of whooping cough routinely involve children who have already been vaccinated against whooping cough. This is yet more proof that vaccines do not confer immunity.

FACT #6) The claimed history of vaccine "successes" against polio and other diseases is a pure fabrication. This is discussed and exposed in great detail in the powerful new book, "Dissolving Illusions" by Dr. Suzanne Humphries. Click here to see the book at Amazon.com, or click here to visit the website (and view the charts).

FACT #7) The vaccine industry refuses to conduct scientific tests on the health outcomes of vaccinated children vs. unvaccinated children. Why? Because these test would no doubt show unvaccinated children to be healthier, smarter and far better off than vaccinated children in terms of behavioral disorders, allergies and even autoimmune disorders. Check the people you know: Don't you routinely find that the most heavily-vaccinated kids are the ones who get sick all the time? Meanwhile, groups like the Amish who largely refuse to vaccinate their children have near-zero rates of autism.

FACT #8) The U.S. Supreme Court has already declared that the secret "vaccine court" is a higher power than the Supreme Court. The so-called "vaccine court" is granted extraordinary powers to operate utterly outside the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and completely outside the rules of due process and law.

The court itself -- which isn't even a court of law -- is a violation of law and a violation of basic human rights. It must be abolished like Apartheid.

FACT #9) The mainstream media receives a significant portion of its revenues from the very same drug companies selling vaccines. This financial influence results in the media refusing to cover stories about vaccine-damaged children for fear of losing advertising revenues.

This is why the mainstream media frequently features guests and authors who ridiculously claim that all the vaccine damaged children across America do not exist or are "mere delusions" of their parents. These despicable vaccine apologists are intellectual bullies who, like Hitler's minions, relish in aiding and abetting a real-life holocaust that's harming millions of children around the globe.

FACT #10) The CDC openly admits that vaccines contain additives which are known to be potent neutoxic chemicals. Those additives include:

• Mercury (still used as a preservative)
• Aluminum (used as an inflammatory adjuvant)
• Formaldehyde (used to "deactivate" live viruses)
• MSG / Monosodium Glutamate (used to caused immune system inflammation)

All of these substances are toxic to human biology when injected. All of them are still listed on the CDC website as vaccine additives. There is no rational doctor or scientist in the world who can say they believe injecting infants and children with mercury, formaldehyde, MSG and aluminum is somehow "safe," yet doctors inject children with these substances every single day in the form of vaccines.

Doctors who inject children with vaccines are delusional. They are practicing a medical holocaust against humanity while fraudulently calling it "immunization." For the record, vaccination does not equal immunization. Click here to see the book of the same title.

NEW Barrie Trower WiFi Report - Humanity At The Brink

With Deference to all Scientists: this Research Report has been written for all students and non-scientists to understand.

Abstract

As stated by University Researchers, Government Scientists and International Scientific Advisors; a minimum of 57.7% of schoolgirls exposed to low-level microwave radiation (Wi-fi) are at risk of suffering stillbirth, foetal abnormalities or genetically damaged children, when they give birth. Any genetic damage may pass to successive generations.

Wifi ­ a Thalidomide in the Making ­ Who Cares?

Professor John R Goldsmith, International / Advisor Consultant for R.F. Communication, Epidemiology and Communications Sciences Advisor to the World Health Organisation, Military and University Advisor, Researcher; wrote concerning the low level exposure of microwave irradiation (below thermal level) incident upon women:

“Of the microwave-exposed women, 47.7% had miscarriages prior to the 7^th week of pregnancy....”(1)

The level of irradiation incident upon the women was stated, as from, five microwatts per centimetre squared. This level of irradiation may seem meaningless to a non-scientist; however, when I say that it is below what most schoolgirls will receive in a classroom of wi-fi transmitters, from the age of approximately five years upwards, this level becomes more meaningful.

A distinction here must be made and a very important one: schoolgirls are not women. Schoolgirls are children and children are both neurologically and physiologically different from adults. A child’s brain tissue / bone marrow has different electrical conductivity properties than adults due to the higher water content (2) (this renders the Specific Absorption Rate obsolete). Children’s absorption of microwave radiation can be ten times higher than adults. 

Permanent low-level microwave exposure can induce chronic nitrosative and oxidative ‘stress’ thence, damage the cellular mitochondria (mitochondropathy). This ‘stress’ can cause irreversible mitochondrial DNA damage (mitochondrial DNA is ten times more susceptible to oxidative and nitrosative ‘stress’ than the DNA in the cell nucleus). Mitochondrial DNA is irreparable due to its low histone protein content, therefore any damage (genetic or otherwise) can be transmitted to all successive generations through the maternal line. (3)

Hence, we are subjecting each successive female generation to harm. Whether these two ten-fold increases ‘merge’ to become 57.7% or are additional, thence equal 67.7% of those to suffer, is a moot point. Either way we are facing the equivalent of a pandemic. I was invited to present a lecture at Brighton University recently and one Doctor commented on a +60% foetal birth rate damage from exposed farm animals. All mammalian species will of course suffer the same consequence resulting from low-level microwave irradiation. There is very little difference ‘biologically’ between our embryonic cells.

I invite the Reader to peruse my diagram and / or read my simple explanation concerning the microwaving of the ovarian follicles in schoolgirls.

Simple Explanation

Imagine you are five years old, in school and sitting with a wi-fi laptop near your abdomen. Theoretically, your ovaries can become irradiated until you leave school at aged 16-18 years old. When you become pregnant, every one of your follicles (to become eggs) will have been microwaved. Hence, you may or may not deliver a healthy child.

Should you become a pregnant as a student, your embryo (for its first 100 days ­ if it is female) is producing approximately 400,000 follicles (within its ovaries) for future child-birth.

The problem is that these developing follicle cells do not have the cellular protection of mature adult cells. Consequently your ‘Grandchild’ may have had every single follicle cell irradiated and damaged prior to its conception. Therefore when your child becomes an adult (with its irradiated follicles) there is a greater likelihood of its child (your Grand-daughter) suffering the ailments previously mentioned, during conception / embryonic and foetal development stages.

Beyond Belief

The shocking truth is, not only was all of this known and documented long before wi-fi was ever put in front of children, but the dangerous biological effects were concealed (as they are to this day) from the general public, in order to protect the industries profit.

Professor Goldsmith writes:

“.....effects from exposure to RF radiation in certain populations: reproductive effects.....increased spontaneous abortion.....increased incidence of childhood and other cancers.....” (1)

Confirming this with more than 2000 references is the Naval Medical Research Institute in their document: ‘Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (Effects) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation’ highlight ‘......Altered Menstrual Activity / Altered Foetal Development.....’ (4)

The World Health Organization’s ‘International Symposium’ Research Agreement No. 05-609-04 ‘Biological Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation’ emphasizes in its 350 pages: Biological effects, health and excess mortality from artificial irradiation of Radio Frequency Microwaves. Section 28 deals with problems concerning Reproductive Function.

This document was classed as ‘Top Secret’ and its contents withheld by WHO and ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection). (5)

Eldon Byrd, a scientist for the Naval Surface Weapon Centre of the US Navy, in one of his 1986 lectures on the effects of low-level microwaves, is referenced as stating:

‘.....we can alter the behaviour of cells, tissue.....cause up to six times higher foetus mortality and birth defects....’. (6)

Finally, the Mobile Telecommunications Industry carried out a very thorough and exhaustive scientific study on its own product. This industries conclusion was:

Sec. 7 “.....it can be concluded that electro-magnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer.”

“.....Direct damage on the DNA as well as influences on the DNA synthesis and DNA repair mechanisms.....” (7)

(Note I have underscored the relevant words here.)

Note: DNA synthesis is essential for healthy embryonic / foetal / child’s growth.

With these few of the roughly 8000 research articles showing this phenomena; in order to protect this industries’ profit, the United States Defence Intelligence Agency sent a ‘document’ to ‘advanced nations’ describing the problem and suggesting ‘how to deceive the public’.

It read:

“.....if the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavourable effects on industrial output.....exposed to microwave radiation below thermal levels experience more.....” (8)

NB: Industrial output is of course...profit. A very relaxed exposure standard also makes it very difficult to take the industry to court.

This (and two other documents with ref. 8) then continues to list many physiological and neurological dangers from low-level: below thermal, microwave irradiation inc: blood disorders, heart problems, psychiatric symptoms and ‘menstrual disorders’.

*Wi-fi is of course, below thermal low-level microwave irradiation.*

In order to appease the US Government, some Governments adopted the ICNIRP guideline, whereby, the only safety limit is just six-minutes of warming. Which means: if you do not feel too warm in six minutes, wi-fi is deemed to be safe.

No consideration at all has been given to the published ‘below thermal’ cellular interaction as listed by several countries including the United States; which were (and are) known to cause: cancer, severe neuropathological symptoms, foetal defects and literally hundreds of illnesses related to cellular disorders.

Countries following ICNIRP continue to argue that their six minute warming effect is all that is required regarding microwave irradiation.

Should the Reader be wondering whether I am ‘as mad as a box of frogs’ and thinking ‘no government would ever harm its citizens for money, especially pregnant women’; I invite the Reader to investigate Government decisions behind: smoking, asbestos, BSE (mad-cow disease), lead in petrol, experiments on 20,000 UK serving military personnel serving in the 1960’s, thalidomide and of course Agent Orange sprayed over the food crops in Vietnam. To this day, many global birth defects stem from these Government / Government Scientific / Military decisions: with industrial advisors.

If further evidence is required, I invite the Reader to read documents released under the Freedom of Information Act; namely, Operations: Pandora, MK Ultra, MK Chaos, Cointelpro, MK Delta, MK Naomi, MK Search, Bluebird, Artichoke, Chatter, Sleeping Beauty and Grill Flame.

Here, secret experiments carried out by the Military / Government scientists upon unsuspecting civilians, namely: students, servicemen, psychiatric patients, poor, children over the age of 4 years, pregnant women, Muslims, Catholics, prisoners, handicapped, deaf, blind, homosexuals, single women, elderly, school children, ‘marginal groups’ and dissidents; served to increase their knowledge and understanding of; what is commonly known as...Stealth Warfare.

Progress on the study of illnesses caused by low-level microwave irradiation continues to this day. One current study on cancer and neurological harm continues until 2018 and involves women who could be pregnant. (9)

Progress Reports are also fed back to Governmental Scientists:

“.....students will understand the nature of RF...bioeffects research, including human / animal studies.....students will become familiar with current state of knowledge on potential health effects RF, such as cancer, memory loss, and birth defects.” (10)

NB: RF has become a generic term (Radio Frequency) to avoid using the term ‘microwave’. It poses less ‘safety queries’ as the word ‘radio’ itself, which used to refer to ‘long wave radio’ was domestically non threatening.

Intentional Ignorance

Governmental Intransigence forces a moratorium upon the risks of exposure to future generations. Both the Communications Industry and Governmental studies have proved that protein synthesis (the using of chemical structures to ‘build’ the roughly 4050 foetal and 4500 adults designated biological / neurological structures) can be influenced by low-level microwave irradiation. This moratorium seems to spread to organizations either relying on Governmental funding, or for whatever reason; acquiescence. However, not all research departments suppress the truth.

A brilliant paper published by Dundee University confirms that low-level microwave irradiation, unable to cause any heating (thermal) effect, can affect cellular signalling processes. (11)

The Main Risks to Children

These biological processes described as being ‘influenced’ by low-level microwave irradiation may not just damage foetal growth; relying on the same biological processes are:

Blood Brain Barrier ­ requires 18 months to form and protects the brain from toxins. It is known to be effected.

Myelin Sheath ­ requires 22 years to build its 122 layers. It is responsible for all thinking, organ and muscle processes.

Brain ­ requires 20 years to develop (I can assure you, cell phones do not help in its development).

Immune System ­ requires 18 years to develop. Bone marrow and Bone Density are known to be affected by low-level microwaves as are the immune systems’ white blood cells.

Bones ­ requires 28 years to develop ­ as mentioned the moisture content of children makes both the ‘soft bones’ and marrow particularly attractive to microwave irradiation. Bone marrow produces blood cells.

Clearly, our decision makers are overlooking a child illness pandemic hitherto unknown in our 40,000 generations of civilization; which can involve over a half of the World’s exposed mothers / children.

The Very Sad Truth

I have been very honoured to address approximately 40 Royals, Governments, Leaders of Governments, Leaders of Peoples and Government Officials over the years.

My address (text) to one King concerning the numbers of ill children was placed on the internet. (12)

I referenced over 200 cancer / leukaemia clusters in schools (up to the time of data collection) from low level microwave transmitters in schools. There were many different types of cancers, leukaemias, miscarriages and breast cancers of staff. These continue, mostly only recorded locally, to this day.

When this was discussed in the English Parliament (as one of the EU Countries involved), a Minister dismissed it and lied to the House of Commons. My request to prove this lie was denied.

Possibly, the most respected children’s charity in the World: UNICEF, joined forces with the World’s leading authority on the effects of harm from low-level microwave irradiation:

The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: in their research document ‘Health Effect on Children and Teenagers’ found;

85% increase in Central Nervous System Disorders

36% increase in epilepsy

11% increase in mental retardation

82% increase in blood immune disorders and Risk to Foetus. (13)

NB. The Reader may think that the cell phone irradiation is different from wi-fi as it has more power. In fact wi-fi can be more harmful because of its lower power! Low power can enter the body and cause harm. All electromagnetic waves are accumulative. If they are below the body’s threshold to cause activation of the necessary proteins required to defend and repair tissues, the damage accumulates very slowly and is undetectable like a cancer. Think of sunbathing on a cloudy day, you can still burn your skin.

The Good Guys

I have a list of nine countries (some of whom I am working with) who are actively, either taking wi-fi out of schools or in the legal argument-stage of this process. I decline to publically name these countries as my actions may interfere with their legal negotiations.

The Parliamentary Assembly (Assemblee Parlimentaire) Council of Europe Document 12608, published on 6.5.2011 in section 8.3.2. states:

‘.....ban all mobile phones, DECTphones or Wi-Fi or WLAN systems from classrooms and schools.....’

For legal reasons this had to be changed to a ‘wired system is preferred’. However, the meaning is clear.

In a translated document, Professor Yuri Grigoriev of the Russian Committee for Non Ionizing Radiation Protection wrote on 19.6.2012

‘.....recommend the use of wired networks and not networks using the wireless broadband access systems, including wi-fi, in schools and educational establishments.’

A document dated 25.3.2013 (updated from 19.3.2013) by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine wrote a letter to the Los Angeles Unified School District with the following recommendation:

‘.....do not add to the burden of public health by installing blanket wireless internet connections in Los Angeles Schools.’

Just prior to this in December 2012 the American Academy of Pediatrics (representing 60,000 Paediatricians) wrote to Congress requesting more protection from low-level microwave irradiation for children and pregnant women: with regard to wi-fi in schools, they write:

‘.....this is an unprecedented exposure with unknown outcome on the health and reproductive potential of a generation.’ (14)

In 2002, 36,000 Physicians and Scientists etc. signed the ‘Freiburg Appeal’. Ten years hence, it has been re-launched. It specifically warns against the use of Wi-fi and the irradiation of children, adolescents and pregnant women. ‘Freiburg’ is an International Doctors’ Appeal.

The Reader will appreciate that collectively there are approximately 100,000 of the World’s most knowledgeable professionals expostulating this same warning.

As an aside, should the Reader be wondering why I have not mentioned school-boys and whether they can be affected in a similar way to girls: the answer is ‘yes’.

DNA sperm fragmentation from wi-fi levels of irradiation, have been published. (15) It would require many more pages to comment upon this phenomenon and there is already a plethora of data both available and published.

Pulsing / Modulations

During the ‘Cold War’ conflict, whilst I was collating effects from microwave pulses / modulations caused by brain entrainment, resonance (both cyclotronic and circadian), rectification (at boundaries within the body) generated by electrically induced phase transition; it came to my attention that a list needed to be published for all microwave communication systems. (16)

In this Open Letter, I list 1 to 40 Hz (pulses / modulations per second) and their corresponding neurological / physiological response.

In his most explanatorily descriptive paper, Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy writes.....

‘.....For example, Grigoriev et. Al. (2010) showed that 30 days exposure to unmodulated 2450 MHz microwave radiation triggered a small but significant increase in anti-brain antibodies in the blood of rats.....which could then result in an auto immune attack on the brain and / or nervous system. An example of an auto immune disease of the brain is Graves disease in which the pituitary gland (at the base of the brain) is affected.’ (17)

NB. 2450 M Hz is the wi-fi frequency.

If you add the pulse / modulation frequency to the above; fatigue, depression, psychiatric problems (such as anger), loss of appetite and problems with movement can also be induced.

The Bad Guys

With gargantuan profits to be made, it is of no surprise that the English Parliamentary system choose to follow ICNIRP and their well established ‘Active Denial’ policy.

I became familiar with our ‘corruption’ when during the late 60’s ­ 70’s, I was commissioned to investigate (under a programme initiated by Sir William Melvin (1911)) corruption within the hierarchy of the London Metropolitan Police and the non-elected Members of the English Parliament. Should the Reader be dismissive of such actions, I suggest looking at any of our Sunday newspapers over the past 45 years, including now.

When a Reverend lady wrote to a Minister, Nick Gibb MP, concerning Wi-fi in schools, his standard reply (which I have seen many times) stated:

“.....advice given.....by UK Health Protection Agency..... ‘There is no consistent evidence of health effects from RF exposures below guideline levels and no reason why schools and others should not use Wi-fi equipment.” (18)

This letter is designed to deceive (and it is very successful). Look to the words ‘no consistent evidence’. Let me explain please.

If I were to carry out an experiment on every single person who went through the doors of your main airport on any busy day and told them that they must drink one pint of beer and smoke ten cigarettes a day forever; some would react immediately, especially children. Others would react over days, weeks, months and years (many years in some cases). Then there would be those who would thoroughly enjoy the experiment and probably never be ill. That does not mean that alcohol and cigarettes are safe. It shows that people are not homogenous (all alike / identical). In other words, the conclusion of my experiment would be that there is: ‘no consistent evidence’.

Other Ministerial letters usually say: “most of our research” or “most of our scientists” ­ both of which are equally meaningless.

What they never say is: Wi-fi is safe.

It will come as no surprise to the Reader to learn that I have been refused permission to have a face-to-face meeting with my MP, Mr Mel Stride. Hence my Member of Parliament has successfully brought the ‘shutters down’ on any access I may have had to Government. This act by Mr Stride became a ‘feature’ in our West Country newspaper by leading Journalist Paul James. (19)

During my last attempt to contact my MP, his Secretary, Dominic just hung-up the telephone on me.

Years ago, when I started to ‘advise caution’ re microwaving children / pregnant women; the Academic Registrar of my own University (Exeter) forbade me from ever communicating with it, ever again. A similar message came from Dr. Jamie Harle of the Open University (Medical Physics), who said: “Your work is too political.”

Clearly in England, some universities and some parliamentary persons are more afraid of governmental ‘reprisals’ than telling the truth. Regardless of the consequences.

Two Womens’ Stories

The Real Price of Intentional Ignorance and Greed. Those Consequences.

Ten telephone calls a day would not be unusual for me. I even receive calls Christmas Day / Easter Sunday. Two calls which summarize those from women are illustrated below. Both are actual conversations.

1. “.....my daughter had just died. I am holding her hand. She has just had her 11^th birthday and she was number 11 to die since the transmitter for Wi-fi was put near her and others’ desk.....”
2. “.....my child is one of several with cancer / birth genetic problems. These only started after the transmitter was turned on. My worries are two-fold and take every second of my life. Will my child ever marry or find a partner and be happy? What will happen when I die? I know I will die worrying. Regardless of who is to blame, it is me, the Mother who carries guilt and responsibility.....” (20)

I Ask for Readers’ Help, Please.

Imagine 57.7% of all of the schoolgirls with Wi-fi in their classrooms: all day ­ all year ­ all through their school career, in every country using it, in the World!

In just two generations we could have more dead / sick infants than resulted from both World Wars. And, these are not my figures, they come from Government advisors / research.

Advanced requests for this ‘Paper’ have been received from Royalty, Governmental Officers (outside of the UK) and people I will describe as ‘interesting’.

As shutters fall blocking every direction I try to turn, I ask: “Can the Reader succeed in preventing this ‘Pandemic’ where I will fail?”

I have two requests:

1. Would a Royal or Leading Governmental Official please ask the British Prime Minister, face to face, why he told my MP, Mr Stride, that he is ‘too busy’ to see me for just one hour to discuss this issue.
2. If every Reader sends just two copies of this Paper to people who may be able make a decision (preferably influential women); with mathematical progression ­ the original 100 advanced requests will soon land on a desk of somebody who can make a difference.

International Challenge

When I am invited to speak in countries, I invariably end up on the radio / TV news / documentary channels. Thence, I issue a challenge:

I ask for any scientist(s) from industry / government to ‘humiliate’ me live ‘on-air’ with their expert knowledge by answering one question:

“What is the safe level of microwave irradiation for the ovarian follicles during the first 100 days development of the embryo?”

To date, not a single scientist will appear and face me.

I mention this because it is a question the Reader can ask any decision maker, school Principal / Governor etc.

Should any person provide the answer, the next statement is:

“Fine ­ we will send it to a Leading Scientific Journal for independent Peer Review.” (With your research). (21)

The Solution

Education need not suffer if Wi-fi is withdrawn world-wide. We have telephone lines ­ fibre-optic cable.

The argument against these options is the cost. Compared to the future medical costs (forgetting the human cost), phone / fibre-cable shows to be a very cheap option.

Thank you.

Barrie Trower

3 Flowers Meadow

Liverton

Devon TQ12 6UP

United Kingdom

In UK - 01626 821014

World ­ 00 44 1626 821014

September 1^st 2013

(This Paper is copyright free)

Epilogue

Please note ­ I have always worked free of charge and will represent any person in the world without cost. PLEASE SEE ADDENDUM

Addendum ­ Recent Publications

Professors’ / Doctors’ Panagopoulos, Johnasson and Carlo describe in their (June 2013 Published) Paper ­ how man-made electromagnetic waves (as used in the communications industry) can cause interference, hence induced oscillations, from these polarized waves. This in turn, can induce biological alterations and render the SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) obsolete.

They write:

• Man-made electromagnetic waves...they are polarized...
• ....can produce interference effect...This induced oscillation will be most intense on the free particles which carry a net electric charge...a part of its energy...is transferred to the charged / polar molecules of the medium...within biological tissue there will be additional energy absorption by the water dipoles...proteins, lipids or nucleic acids, which will also be forced to oscillate by the applied field.
• ...man-made EMF’s can produce severe biological alterations such as DNA damage without heating the biological tissue...may lead to cancer, neurodegenerative deceases, reproductive declines or even heritable mutations...conductivity varies for different tissues and different field frequencies..The relative permittivity of an adult brain is calculated to be around 40 while the corresponding value for a young child’s brain is between 60 and 80 resulting in almost double the radiation absorption and SAR...
• ...SAR offers no information at all with respect to frequency, waveform or modulation... (Ref (22))

Dr Dimitris Panagopoulos, Dep. of Biology, University of Athens also writes in his 2013 paper: Electromagnetic Interaction Between Environmental Fields and Living Systems Determines Health and Well Being:

• Disturbances in the communication between individual body clocks can desynchronize the circadian system, which in turn may lead to unwellness, chronic fatigue, decreased performance, obesity, neuropsychiatric disorders, and the development of different diseases...
• ...endogenous electrical balance in living organisms cannot occur in the presence of unnatural ­ man-made ­ electromagnetic pollution..... GSM mobile phone radiation is found to cause DNA damage on insect reproductive cells (gametes) and adversely affect reproduction for intensities down to 1 microwatt per centimetre squared after only a few minutes exposure..... (Ref (23))

References

1.			Professor John R. Goldsmith	Possible Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation Environmental Health Perspectives Sup. 6 Dec. 1997 P. 1580
2.	Microwave News	Children’s Brains are Different May 3rd. 2010 P.3
3.	Andrea Klein & Barrie Trower	Wireless Laptops and Their Transmitters Using Microwaves in Schools P.3 (Undated)
4.	NMRI	AD750271 Research Report MF12. 524.015-004B 4-10-1971 Bethesda, Maryland, USA
5.	WHO	Biological Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation International Symposium, Warsaw, Poland (1973) With US Dept of Health, Food and Drug Administration Document 05-609-04
6.	Microwave Mind Control	Mind Control and the UK Chapter 4. Tim Rifat P.83 2001
7.	Hennies ­ Neitzke - Voight	Mobile Telecommunications and Health Review of Current Scientific Research T-Mobile Hannnover April 2007 Section 7
8.	US Defence Intelligence Agency	DST ­ 18105-076-76 March 1976 NB: DST-18105-074-76 and ST-CS-01-169-72 also refer to this phenomena
9.	Barrie Trower	Most Confidential Report on the TETRA (Airwave) Communication System Strictly for the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) June 2009
10.	P. Phillips, L.Brown, B. Thornton	US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights Course No. 11 Page 40 Sonoma State University As a study of the History of US Intelligence Community Human Rights Violations and Continuing Research in Electromagnetic Weapons Project Censored: Media Freedom Foundation
11.	J. Simon C. Arthur	MAPK Aclivation by Radio Waves MRC Protein Phosphoryiation Unit School of Life Sciences University of Dundee DD4 5EH UK Published by Journal of Biochemistry (405) e5 e6 2007
12.	Barrie Trower	www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Barrie Trower SA.pdf
13.		Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phones: Health Effects on Children and Teenagers Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection April 2011
14.		Private letters (available on internet) as titled and dated in text
15.	C. Avendano, A. Mata, C.A Sanchez Sarmienta, G. Doncel	Use of Laptop Computers Connected to Internet Through Wi-fi Decreases Human Sperm Motility and Increases Sperm Fragmentation Nascentis Medicina Reproductiva, Cordoba, Argentina Dept of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia (2012)
16.	Barrie Trower	The Communications Industry is in the Position Where it is Sprialling out of any Person’s Ability to Control it An Open Letter (undated)
17.	Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy	The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields ­ Problems and Solutions March 2012 P.14
18.	Stuart Gallimore, Director of Children’s Services	Personal Letter. Nick Gibb MP House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA 30 August 2011
19.	Paul James	Physicist: I’m Stopped From Seeing my MP Mid Devon Advertiser 3.5.13 P. 13
20.		Personal Conversations I am with holding their private telephone numbers for privacy
21.		Nature Publications ­ Nature or Scientific American 75, Varick Street, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10013-1917, USA
22.	Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Olle Johansson & George L. Carlo	Evaluation of Specific Absorption Rate as a Domestic Quantity for Electromagnetic Fields Bioeffects 4.6.2013 Pages ­ i) 1 ii) 2 iii) 4 iv) 6 PLOS ONE June 2013 Vol 8 Issue 6 e62663
23.	Dimitris J. Panagopoulos University of Athens	Electromagnetic Interaction Between Environmental Fields and Living Systems Determines Health and Well-Being Electromagnetic Fields: Principles ­ Biophysical Effects ISBN 978-1-62417-063-8 Editors M.H Kwang and S.O Yoon 2013 Nova Sciences Publishers, Inc Pages ­ i) 20 ii) 35