Are chemicals damaging future generations?

May 29, 2012

I do not know if this is true, but if it is we are in big trouble.  We are currently undergoing a huge experiment, where we are the Ginea Pigs, and the out come is uncertain, and probably not pleasant.  The government gives a green light to all of this because profit is involved.  This from NaturalNews.  You decide if it convinces you.

Red alert for humanity: Chemical damage can be inherited by offspring through unlimited generations

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Groundbreaking new science reveals that the harmful effects of exposure to synthetic chemicals are passed from generation to generation via “epigenetics,” causing measurable damage to future generations even if those offspring are never exposed to the original chemical. The phenomenon of “Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance” (ETI) has now been demonstrated in live animals, and if the implications of this research are fully understood, it would force human civilization to radically rethink its widespread use of synthetic chemicals in agriculture, medicine, food, construction materials, personal care products and elsewhere.

The research, led by Dr. David Crews ( (and including colleagues Michael Skinner, Ross Gillette and others), is entitled, “Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of altered stress responses” and is published in the journal PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) (

The study, which was funded by a sub-group of the National Institutes of Health (, found that exposure to a common fungicide caused neurological and behavioral changes that were passed on to future generations of offspring, even when those offspring had no exposure to the original fungicide. Furthermore, the mechanism of “transgenerational inheritance” was epigenetic, meaning it was “above the genes.” It was not coded into the DNA of sperm and egg, in other words. Instead, the expression of the DNA was altered and inherited through some mechanism other than DNA.

As the abstract of the study sums it up:

“We find that a single exposure to a common-use fungicide (vinclozolin) three generations removed alters the physiology, behavior, metabolic activity, and transcriptome in discrete brain nuclei in descendant males, causing them to respond differently to chronic restraint stress.” (

Watch the video interview with Dr. David Crews

Because of the red alert importance of this breaking science news, we have completed an interview with Dr. David Crews today, and you can watch it at:

Read more about Dr. David Crews at his lab web page:

Why chemicals threaten the future of the human species

This groundbreaking research offers a sobering revelation about the age of industrial chemicals through which we are all now living. This “age of chemicals” ramped up roughly around World War II (late 1930’s).

The conventional view of chemicals — the view advocated by the chemical industry, the cancer industry, the FDA, the EPA, etc. — is that the damaging effects of chemical exposure are NOT passed on to future generations (unless, of course, exposure happens during pregnancy). Chemicals are relatively safe, the regulators say, because the next generation is always born healthy and genetically intact.

But what this research by Dr. David Crews reveals is that chemical exposure accumulates and is inherited by offspring which then pass on the damaging effects of that exposure to their own offspring. This transgenerational “epigenetic” effect appears to go on indefinitely, forever altering the expression of the genetic code.

“I don’t see a diminution. It’s the nature of this kind of imprint. It will not disappear,” he told NaturalNews. “We are becoming a different species,” Dr. Crews told me on a separate phone call, meaning that modern humans, having been exposed to a heavy burden of synthetic chemicals for roughly 3-4 generations, now express their genetic code in a way that strongly diverges from the expression of someone living in, say, the 1920’s.

We are, in essence, ChemHumans, forever imprinted with the toxic burden of all the tens of thousands of synthetic chemicals we have foolishly unleashed onto our world, our environment and our food supply.

Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance may help explain the rise in autism, obesity and infertility

Dr. Crews explained to me that the inherited, cumulative effects of chemical exposure may be a key element behind the causes of today’s most worrisome disease epidemics: Autism, obesity, infertility and perhaps even cancer.

Autism has exploded in the last century, rising sharply from an estimated 1 in 25,000 children ( to an astonishing 1 in 88 children, according to the CDC. (

If this trend continues, we may be looking at a near future where every other child is autistic, and at that point questions about the long-term viability of the entire human race start to become unavoidable. Dr. Crews explains that although we cannot rid our world of toxic chemical pollution, we must at least be honest and accurate about the near-term and long-term damage caused by those chemicals so that we can take immediate steps to limit exposure.

“We have permanently contaminated our world, and we are never going to be able to clean up our world. We have to recognize this fact. We have poisoned the environment. There is no turning back, but that doesn’t mean we have to continue poisoning the environment,” he says.

Dr. Crews believes that part of the answer rests in the realm of “green chemistry” where toxic synthetic chemicals used in agriculture are replaced with far less harmful chemicals that don’t trigger transgenerational (inherited) damage in humans or animals.

Watch my full interview with Dr. Crews at:

Urgent call to avoid all chemicals NOW

Anyone who fully grasps the implications of this research must immediately take urgent steps to radically and permanently reduce their exposure to synthetic chemicals.

“This recent ruling by the FDA not to ban BPA in the United States is, in my opinion, a disaster,” says Dr Crews. “It is a fundamental mistake by a regulatory agency.”

The most common sources of chemical exposure today include (this is my own list, not David Crews’):

• Foods – pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, food packaging
• Insect repellants such as DEET
• Personal care products (lotions, hand sanitizers, cosmetics)
• Plasticizers such as Bisphenol-A (BPA)
• Dioxins
• Hydrocarbons (gasoline, jet fuel)
• Medicines and pharmaceuticals
• Chemicals used in home construction materials (glues, dyes, formaldehyde, etc.)
• Chemical adjuvants in vaccines

Health Ranger analysis: The genopocalypse approaches

The realization that exposure to such chemicals can cause damage three, five or even ten generations down the line should be a red alert wake-up call for everyone interested in keeping their genes represented in the human gene pool. Chemical exposure causes not just changes in neurology and behavior, but even changes in fertility. As chemical exposure accumulates generation after generation, fertility rates plummet.

I have coined the coming collapse of the human gene pool the “genopocalypse.” This term has not yet caught on across the ‘net, as many people still don’t realize what has already begun to unfold. We have already compromised our future as a species right now, even if BPA were banned tomorrow. The heavy chemical burden already unleashed on our world (and our population) will be felt for countless generations to come. And it may very well threaten the survival of not just our civilization, but our entire species.

That’s my assessment of the situation, not Dr. Crews. I’m looking at the far darker long-term implications of his research because I remain concerned about the fact that humanity is killing itself through chemicals, nuclear power, GMOs and other serious threats to our survival.

I’ve even posted an S.O.S. to the world about this very topic:

S.O.S. means “Stop Out-of-Control Science,” and it means that before we kill ourselves (and our planet) with runaway science conducted for the benefit of corporate interests, we must return to the precautionary principle and conduct science with a sense of caution rather than a drive for profit.

Do not misinterpret this as meaning in any way that I am against science. Real science is, indeed, crucial to the advancement of knowledge in our universe. The quest for scientific understanding is a journey out of the darkness of superstition and into the light of awareness. And yet too much of today’s so-called “science” has been conducted with no regard for the safety of the human race, the planet’s ecosystems or the integrity of reproductive systems in both plants and animals. Genetically Modified Organisms, for example, are a form of runaway genetic pollution that have entirely unknown consequences for the future of food crops on our planet.

GMOs, by any rational standard, are a dangerous experiment that should only be conducted in tightly controlled (indoor, clean-room) environments, not planted in open fields where their seeds are blown away by the wind. By the same token, the mass chemical inundation of our world today is another disturbing science experiment through which we are currently living. What will be the long-term impact of all these chemicals used in foods, medicines, personal care products and industrial processes? Nobody knows, and that’s exactly what should scare us the most.

It is a crap shoot. A roll of the dice. And the stakes couldn’t be higher: the future of human life on our planet may be either won or lost depending on the outcome. But instead of playing it safe, the chemical industry (and the FDA, EPA, etc.) have all jumped in bed with the American Chemistry Council, an organization whose sole purpose is to convince regulators, politicians and consumers that there’s no such thing as a bad chemical! They’re all good for you, and in fact the more you’re exposed to, the better your life! (Better living through chemistry, remember?)

The research of Dr. Crews and colleagues gives us a stern warning that stands in great contrast to the persistent denials of the chemistry industry. Chemical exposure damages your offspring, and it then goes on to damage their offspring, generation after generation, through an unknown number of generations.

The pesticide-sprayed strawberries you eat today, in other words, may damage your great great great grandchildren. And that’s if your offspring are even fertile in the first place, because at some point infertility may lead to a population collapse from which humans may be hard-pressed to recover.

Have we already destroyed ourselves?

The questions we would be wise to consider today include: How will life on Earth 500 years from now be impacted by our decisions today? Cities today continue to dump fluoride into public water supplies. Modern dentistry continues to absurdly insist on putting mercury fillings into the mouths of children. GMO seed companies are openly conspiring with the USDA to unleash yet more genetic pollution across our planet, even working to de-regulate “Agent Orange Corn” — a variety of GM corn that would be immune to 2,4-D, a chemical that’s 50 percent of the recipe for the plant-killing chemical weapon known as Agent Orange.

Make no mistake: We are poisoning ourselves at a level never before witnessed in human history. It is all being done for profit, to appease powerful corporations that have undue influence in government. Regulators, meanwhile, have sold out the People and betrayed us all in order to keep their corporate masters filthy rich. While corporate shareholders revel in their quarterly profits, they are precisely the same people whose children are being poisoned by the very companies fattening their bank accounts!

We are stuck in a cycle of self destruction from which the human race may not escape. And that’s if we don’t kill ourselves with nuclear accidents first (Fukushima, anyone?)

Sources for this article include:


Who is really Killing us?

May 29, 2012

We get obsessed about terrorism because it is dramatic, and the government does not mind spending billions on a decades long failed war on drugs.  We continue to repress Cannabis, despite the fact that no one (that I know of) has died from the plant, and the fact that it has medicinal purposes.

Meanwhile deaths from big Pharma are in the thousands every year, drugs are approved for sale without adequate and impartial safety tests.  People die.  The same goes for almost all new chemicals created and released every year.  Just business as usual.

Natural News is a bit hyperbolic, but the article below has a point.  Our medical system is corrupt, dangerous and not adequately regulated.  Partake of it at your own risk.

FDA accused of mass homicide of one million Americans each decade

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The biggest threat to America today is not terrorists or global warming, but the mass genocide of Americans who die every year at the hands of the corrupt U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In a recent report, investigative reporter Jon Rappoport uncovers the dirty truth that FDA-approved drugs kill at least 100,000 people every single year — the FDA actually lists this figure on its own website — and the agency is doing absolutely nothing about this disastrous trend.

On a webpage entitled Why Learn about Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR)?, the FDA admits that 100,000 people die every single year as a result of taking FDA-approved pharmaceutical drugs. Citing figures from three different published studies, the figures also reveal that two million people a year suffer from serious ADRs, which include things like stroke, heart attack, and permanent neurological damage.

You can view the FDA page for yourself here:

Since these figures come from studies dating back to at least 1998, it is clear that the FDA is fully aware of the extensive harm being caused by supposedly “safe” drugs. And since it has done nothing to address the problem, the agency is complicit in willfully harming and murdering tens of millions of Americans throughout just the past several decades, which makes it one of the most murderous government regimes in history.

Based on the figures presented by the FDA, at least 30 million people have suffered serious injury or death as a result of taking FDA-approved drugs just since 1998 when the first cited study was published. If you go back several more decades, it is clear that potentially hundreds of millions of people have been directly harmed by the FDA’s “negligent homicide.”

“It is time for these murderous government crimes to end,” writes Rappoport in his report. “It is time for all responsible parties to be brought to justice, to real justice. It is time for the public to realize that 100,000 people dying every year in the U.S., because they take medical drugs, is the equivalent of 33 airliner crashes into the Twin Towers, every year, year after year.”


Why the FDA and its drug lords are the real terrorists

Since the FDA is the official gatekeeper of pharmaceutical drugs, it is directly responsible for the harm they cause. And yet agency officials have never, in any meaningful way, been held responsible for their crimes against humanity. And the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), as Rappoport points out, has failed to step in and pursue those responsible for peddling poison as medicine.

If al-Qaeda operatives were caught dispensing toxic chemicals disguised as medicine to innocent civilians, they would be sent off to Guantanamo Bay without trial, and locked away indefinitely. But when the FDA does the very same thing on a much more massive scale, nobody bats an eye. And yet the number of people that the FDA has killed with its drugs is far more than the number killed during 9/11 or the Oklahoma City bombing.

The organized crime ring that is the federal government today is the real terrorist threat that we all face on a daily basis. And until the American people collectively wake up to this reality, we will continue to watch our friends, our families, and our children, which are the casualties of this ongoing terrorist attack, lay waste at the hands of Big Pharma and the FDA.

Sources for this article include:

Is it time to start taxing non profits and churches?

May 29, 2012

I have thought for a long time that probably churches should be taxed, like everyone else.  Yes there are good churches that probably deserve tax free status, but there are also a lot of churches that are run like businesses to maximize profits and power, while their leaders live in luxury.  Why should Par Robertson´s organization, or the Mormon church, or Scientology get special breaks.  They are all self serving organizations.

The other reason why I have a problem with it is that by not taxing churches the government is effectively subsidizing religion, which is supposed to be against the constitution.  Religious organizations benefit from government services, but they do not pay for them.

And while we are at it I think that colleges and universities should be taxed as well.  They put their students into a lifetime of debt servitude, while their to brass live very well.

The problem with all tax exempt organizations is that it becomes almost impossible to make distinctions between those that do genuine good (and probably deserve tax exempt status), and those that are essentially self serving (who certainly do not).  The government has not done its job of keeping non profit organizations honest, and in this climate of corruption, influence peddling and conflicts of interest, I do not think that I even can.

This from Care 2:

Is It Time To Start Taxing Churches?

597 comments Is It Time To Start Taxing Churches?

As institutions of faith, churches are not forced to pay taxes like the citizens and (usually) corporations in the rest of the United States.  The original argument was that, like charity, church profits and donations go to doing public good — feeding the poor, caring for the sick and other projects that help to build a better, stronger community, and that those advantages outweigh the tax revenue lost.

Churches have grown to take greater advantage of this exemption.  The surge in “televangelism” allowed many corrupt pastors to house themselves and keep themselves in luxury without paying taxes by declaring them allowable living expenses.  Megachurches began popping up, buying cheap land to build on and using subsidies and avoiding paying property taxes while still taking full advantage of the services other residents pay out for.  Some have businesses on site — coffee shops, book stores, all tax exempt by funneling their “profits” back into the church.  Others have taken their earnings both from their businesses and donations and used them to evangelize and increase their missions, supporting the church and recruiting new members.

All of this is legal.  And despite the growing stretch of the definitions of non-profit, of charity, and living expenses, most Americans would agree that all of this should be allowed.

But the only firewall that was set up is now breaking down.  Churches weren’t supposed to get involved in political issues.  No endorsing, no campaigning.  It’s a rule that many religious organizations have been tiptoeing to the line on for years.  “Family values” religious organizations have sanctioned off 501c4s to allow them the ability to advocate for candidates and issues, with donations kept separately from their main group and taxed accordingly.  Pastors and priests have allowed candidates to come in and give testimony during services while winking that they aren’t endorsing a politician or party.  And a growing number have actively endorsed despite the law against it, daring the government to come down on them.

Within the last few years, the “evangelical vote” has been a major driving force behind elections, and the United States Council of Catholic Bishops has actively become a political force, sending missives to their priests telling them to preach to the congregation about the evils of the Affordable Care Act, or convincing the Komen Race for the Cure Foundation to drop Planned Parenthood as a group they donate to — a move that would free up more funding to go to Catholic charities and hospitals to provide mammograms.

Apparently, even this hasn’t been brazen enough.  So now, one church is collecting donations explicitly to oppose a gay marriage ballot initiative in Maine.  The Associated Press reports, “Scores of Maine churches will pass the collection plate a second time at Sunday services on Father’s Day to kick off a fundraising campaign for the lead opposition group to November’s ballot question asking voters to legalize same-sex marriages. Between 150 and 200 churches are expected to raise money for the Protect Marriage Maine political action committee, said Carroll Conley Jr., executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine evangelical organization and a member of the PAC. Conley is also trying to drum up support for the Maine campaign from religious leaders from around the country.”

Again, totally legal, as long as they don’t advocate for a specific candidate.  The churches are following the letter of the law, but not the intent.  Religious institutions now get all of the benefits of tax exempt status, but have become one of the most politically active groups in the nation.

Should churches continue to keep their tax exempt status while become key players in elections? Let us know what you think in the comments.
Read more:

Max Kaiser

May 23, 2012

Max Kaiser is at his best in this video: insightful, funny, witty, irreverant and informative.

This video is also interesting.

Interesting video on Bit Coin

Campaign for LIberty

May 21, 2012

This organization has a nice email on why we need to stop the TSA.  Not only is the TSA like a mini tyrannical police state where citizen are denied their rights and dignity, but the organization is also highly incompetent.  I believe that this is for various reasons.  First the government is often not well run,  Second, public sector unions make it hard to hold government employees accountable, and finally I believe that various “Civil Rights” provisions leave black employees even less accountable.  Considering that- on average- black employees have the lowest qualifications of any major ethnic group, this is even more troubling.  This is a problem that the government does not want to confront.  Many incompetent black federal employees are essentially unfireable because supervisors are so afraid of cries of racism from disgruntled black employees.  Holding black employees to account can be a career wrecker in the federal government.  Everyone knows it and is afraid to act.

The Muslim army major who went on a shooting spree, showed plenty of signs of mental imbalance and incompetence, but no one wanted to bring his erratic behavior up, for fear of being accessed of being a racist, or being intensive, or any other loaded and career ending accusation.  A conspiracy of silence exists when dealing with incompetent government employees of a certain skin color.

This from campaign for liberty:

Campaign for Liberty

Dear Liberty Activist,

In the past, I’ve written of abuses by the TSA, including its belief that you check your 4th Amendment rights the moment you purchase a plane ticket.

The TSA’s invasive screening tactics shame passengers into their potentially harmful porno scanners with the horrific thought of being groped by an agent if you refuse.

As it turns out, while conducting tests on the radiation levels of these scanners, a number of them were coming back with higher levels than expected. “It would appear that the emissions are 10 times higher. We understand it as a calculation error,” TSA spokesman Sarah Horowitz told Wired.

A “calculation error.”  And yet, these are the people we are told are “keeping us safe?”

Nevertheless, without hesitation, the government continues to install these scanners in airports across the country.

If you thought virtual strip searches were a violation of your privacy, just wait until you hear the latest claim from the Department of Homeland Security.

During oral arguments in a lawsuit filed by EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center), the DHS counsel claimed they have authority to “strip search every air traveler. The agency also stated that it believed a mandatory strip search rule could be instituted without any public comment or rulemaking.”

Have we given up enough of our liberties yet?

Just when you thought flying couldn’t possibly get worse, union bosses are now trying to force union representation on TSA employees with a “vote” that is clearly stacked in the bosses’ favor.

In other words, that creepy TSA agent that almost seemed to enjoy feeling up you and your child will now be virtually impossible to fire for inappropriate behavior.

From now on, security and passenger rights will play a secondary role to the union bosses’ demands for “screener’s rights.”

Remember when House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica claimed the solution to TSA abuses was for airports to “opt-out” of the TSA?  Well, his “solution” turns out to be nothing more than a distraction to appease angry constituents.  In reality, it rings hollower than Jimmy Hoffa’s coffin.

The “private screeners” are required by law to follow the same screening procedures as the TSA; in other words, even if the airports opt-out, nothing will change except the names and faces.

The only viable solution here is to abolish the TSA.  Since 9/11, blue-shirted, rubber-gloved government agents have not thwarted the major terrorist attempts on our airlines.  In the real world, only alert passengers and flight crews stopped these attacks.

It’s time to bring a halt to our government’s security theater.  When the government claims to have a monopoly on keeping us safe, the chances of average people slipping into apathy are higher.

Airlines have a responsibility to keep passengers protected and their planes safe and in the sky.  After the TSA is abolished, we must return the responsibility for security to where it belongs – the private sector.

Please consider chipping in $10 to help Campaign for Liberty continue to spread the message about the abuse of the American people’s civil liberties by the TSA.

Before the TSA becomes a protected, public-sector union unlikely to ever be downsized or replaced, the American people must demand swift action to reign in the unaccountable, rogue agency.

In Liberty,

Campaign for Liberty
Matt Hawes
Vice President

P.S. C4L must expand its efforts if you and I are to stop the TSA and its assault on civil liberties. If you’re able, please chip in just $10 to help my staff and me recruit even more Americans to this fight.

Austerity vs. Growth

May 21, 2012

The media has been parroting the line that Europe needs less austerity and more “growth”.  Austerity, however, simply means that governments must move towards living within their means, and not endlessly driving up the nation´s deficit.  For the last few decades governments have been busy expanding government spending, while building patronage networks to buy votes.  Cushy government jobs, juicy contracts, and social spending all help special interests and the nation live above its means…until the debt burden becomes unsustainable.  That moment has now arrived, and current spending is unsustainable and affordable.  The bill has finally come due for the party, and the open bar must close.  The PIGS are being forced slowly to move towards living within their means.  Of course politicians and various vested interests never want the party to end, and fight it tooth and nail.

One of the ways to fight austerity and budget sustainability is to pretend that deficit spending is so good for the economy that it is either austerity or growth.  Lately there has been a chorus coming from the media about more “growth” and less austerity.  The reality is that deficit spending does little more than temporarily juice the economy.  Productivity is rarely increased, and once the spending stops (as it must inevitably) so does the party.  In fact deficit spending can actually hurt productivity, because like oil revenue, it can drive up costs, and make an economy less competitive.

I wish that they media would stop mindlessly parroting the line of austerity vs. “growth”.   It is typical of today´s media which is rarely- if ever-is critical of government assertions, and tends to have very superficial reporting.  The line ought to be austerity vs. financial implosion.

The Cancer Industry

May 21, 2012

Despite all the propaganda that we are “closing in a on a cure”, the reality is that the Cancer Industry does not want to cure cancer and works to block those who do.  It really is evil.  This is from NaturalNews.

Fascinating documentary exposes cancer industry’s death agenda: Cut Poison Burn

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) As free as many Americans might think they are, there are certain glaring aspects of American life for which individuals are not free to make their own choices, and cancer treatment is one of them. In the sobering documentary Cut Poison Burn, filmmaker Wayne Chesler brings to light the sinister nature of the multi-billion dollar cancer industry, its suppression of any real pursuit of a cure, and its stranglehold on medicine that restricts individuals from choosing their own personalized, alternative forms of treatment.

The documentary follows the journey of the Navarro family, whose young son Thomas, then four years old, was diagnosed with medulloblastoma, a highly-malignant form of brain cancer that typically afflicts children. Rather than undergo conventional chemotherapy and radiation, the Navarros instead wanted to pursue an alternative route, which in their case was Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s non-toxic antineoplaston treatment, which has been shown to be particularly effective at treating brain cancers.

But unless a child is of a proper age to make his own medical treatment decisions, which Thomas clearly was not, then he is required by the medical mafia to undergo the prescribed treatment regimen, which in Thomas’ case was chemotherapy and radiation. Even though these forms of treatment are virtually useless at treating medulloblastoma, the state threatened Thomas’ parents that if they did not subject him to these barbaric poisons, they would remove him from their custody.

After a long, drawn-out legal battle with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the ringleader of the phony cancer industry, and thousands of dollars in legal expenses, the Navarros were finally permitted to have their son see Dr. Burzynski. But by this point, Thomas had already had his life destroyed by many months of chemotherapy and radiation, which led to his death at the young age of six.

Cancer is big business for drug companies and the federal government

Thomas is not the only victim of the cancer industry, of course — millions of Americans, including many children, have died on the altar of Big Pharma’s cancer machine, and many more will follow unless the People wake up and take their freedoms back. And in order to wake people up to the truth, they need to hear and see the truth as it is plainly laid out in films like Cut Poison Burn.

Be sure to watch the official trailer for Cut Poison Burn at the following link, where you can also purchase a DVD or downloadable copy of the film:

Also, be sure to check out the related documentaries Burzynski The Movie and Dying to Have Known, both of which can be viewed for FREE: