Why should new-born babies live? They shouldn’t, Ethicists say

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
February 29, 2012

“An ethicist is one whose judgment on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by a specific community, and (importantly) is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others to mimic or approximate that judgement. Following the advice of ethicists is one means of acquiring knowledge.”

The impossibility to save all babies that are born into this world is not an uncommon situation. The decision to save a mother and not the baby during a birth or vice-versa isn’t new either. What is new is questioning if it is OK to kill a baby even though it was born perfectly healthy. Some ethicists today are even omitting the question itself and advancing the idea that after-birth abortion should be seriously considered. But for what purposes? In a recent paper published in the Journal for Medical Ethics, ethicists explain that ‘after-birth abortion’ or killing a newborn should be allowed under all circumstances where abortion is, and those situations include the ones where a baby IS NOT disabled. In other words, the authors of this paper are openly advocating eugenics under the premise that neither a fetus not a new-born have the moral status of an actual person.

The paper, written by Dr. Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; had the support of Alberto Giubilini. Mr. Giubilini is affiliated to the Department of Philosophy and the University of Milan, Milan, Italy, the Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, while Ms. Minerva is affiliated to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia and the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.

In what kind of drugs does anyone have to be to advocate for the murder of unborn or born children. Only an arrogant, disarranged and ethically compromised group of people who follow a eugenics way of thinking could push for such a policy. The authors claim that even when a fetus or a baby is healthy, becoming a mother can be a psychological burden for a woman and therefore murdering babies should be considered as an option to alleviate that burden. THey also argue that if it’s not the mother who is mentally out of balance, perhaps it is her existing children the ones who will be mentally affected by the arrival of the new-born. “We need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human,” say the authors.

Amazingly, the paper makes a case that it should be an even more common practice to abort fetuses just because there is a suspicion of a genetic defect, which according to them can be detected through medical tests. However, since some tests are not good enough to detect certain complications originated from inherited genes or genetic mutations, fetus abortion or new-born abortions should also be considered as a preventive step to avoid the arrival of unwanted human beings. “…genetic prenatal tests for TCS are usually taken only if there is a family history of the disease. Sometimes, though, the disease is caused by a gene
mutation that intervenes in the gametes of a healthy member of the couple. Moreover, tests for TCS are quite expensive and it takes several weeks to get the result. However, such rare and severe pathologies are not the only ones that are likely to remain undetected until delivery; even more common congenital diseases that women are usually tested for could fail to be detected,” reads the paper.

These two people seem to believe that a philosopher or a group of them has the moral, medical or academic authority to determine what the future of a baby should look like, as they cite that “philosophers” have proposed euthanasia as an alternative in the past, and therefore it is nothing new to kill a baby, even if it is perfectly healthy. “It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down’s syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child,” they assert. This kind of thinking was typical during the Nazi holocaust where in addition to Jews, Armenians and other ethnic groups, the sick, the old and the handicapped were murdered for the sake of purifying the race. Their eugenicist assessment continues: “…to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

Minerva and Giubilini summarize their mindset by stating that the unconfirmed potential of any fetus to become a person who has less that a perfect life, is an opportunity to justify abortion, or after-birth abortion in the case of babies who were permitted to live. “the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible,” they say. Then they propose that instead of calling a child’s murder by its name — infanticide –, it should be toned down by calling it after-birth abortion, a term that can be easily related to since large portions of the society are accustomed to hearing about abortion as a consideration when there are medical emergencies or when a mother or a doctor decide it is the best option. For the authors, infanticide or euthanasia are not such when the interests of the unborn baby or those of the family call for the murder of that same human being.

Shockingly, both Minerva and Giubilini take the moral ground when advocating for infanticide. They consider that since neither a fetus not a new-born have the MORAL standing of a PERSON, it is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing his or her birth or from preventing the development or the potential of this being to become a fully developed PERSON in the moral sense. According to their analysis, neither a fetus nor a new-born have the right to live because they lack the properties that allow for that right to exist. “… neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” They go on to echo a talking point that well-known eugenicists as well as modern philanthropists and members of the medical establishment commonly use to impose environmental policies — that humans are animals — and that just as animals, mentally retarded humans, for example, do not have the capacity to value their existence and therefore are not persons. The premise that humans are animals — an ill conceived one since humans are not animals, but mammals; the trait that we share with other animals, is often paraded as a justification to murder the sick, the elderly, the poor and now the babies.

Even the liberal mainstream media have unveiled the agenda behind a not so secret aspect of modern eugenics campaign. Click the image to read the article.

“Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.” Then they try to swindle the reader by asserting that the previous description is true for fetuses where abortion is considered or criminals who are punished with death. One question that immediately comes to mind is, What crimes has a fetus or a new-born committed in order for Minerva and Giubilini to compare it to a convicted criminal? The second question is, Aren’t innocent people often convicted of crimes they did not commit and sentenced to death anyway? A third questions is, do abortion practices as they are today in any way moral, just because they are permitted or widely accepted? Reading further into their paper makes me think that these two medical academics are not completely sane by pushing the ideas they a support in their published paper. Perhaps another incredible fact is that the Journal for Medical Ethics gives legitimacy to claims like ones in the paper that seek to appease the people regarding the murder of other human beings. It is like when the United States government decided to baptize the murder of Libyans by calling its attack on that country as Kinetic Action, instead of plain out mass murder through military action.

The authors completely omit the fact that although they are unable to express it verbally, fetuses and new-borns do feel pain and that the current practices used to perform infanticide do inflict pain on those living beings. Instead, they claim that pain can only be measured by the limitation that a PERSON is submitted to, which prevents him or her to accomplish his or her aims, and that since fetuses and new-borns are not  PERSONS, there is no pain inflicted when they are murdered. “hardly can a newborn be said to have aims, as the future we imagine for it is merely a projection of our minds on its potential lives,” the authors say. Here again, Minerva and Giubilini agree that the plans and lives of those who are already alive, such as siblings and parents of the new-born are more important than letting a perfectly healthy new-born live. They stress that given the potential for their lives — that of the parents and siblings — to be negatively or even positively affected by the birth of a child, those parents and siblings should resource to infanticide to end with the inexistant potential consequences that only their minds — Minerva’s and Giubilini’s — are capable of guessing ahead of time.

While reading their paper, I realize that Minerva’s and Giubilini’s train of thought is ill conceived for at least three reasons. First, they believe, although it is not properly supported in the paper, that there are moral or other justifications to kill a fetus or a new-born. Second, they equal a fetus to a new-born. Third, they believe that neither a fetus nor a new-born are PERSONS because of commonly accepted conventions that say so, instead of writing their analysis based on comparisons on the presence of biological functions, for example, which all fetuses, new-borns and PERSONS share. This is a typical case of nitpicking whatever works out to get a point across and to publish a paper that advocates for the murder of innocent beings that in their view are not human or PERSONS.

What good could it come from a medical establishment that believes that humans can be equaled to animals, or that a new-born is not a PERSON and that therefore it should be permissible to murder it? How can we trust our lives into the hands of human haters who advocate infanticide, and in other situations euthanasia or even mass murder just because their conventions dictate that handicapped or mentally retarded people do not have a life worth living? Who are they to determine what a life is worth and whose life should be preserved and who are candidates for murder?

“An ethicist is one whose judgment on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by a specific community, and (importantly) is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others to mimic or approximate that judgement. Following the advice of ethicists is one means of acquiring knowledge.”

Will you continue to trust ethicists blindly?


The Causes of Cancer are well-known and so are the Cures

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
February 7, 2012

It is not uncommon to see essays from so called cancer experts or doctors who privately or through foundations promote the old know-how when talking about cancer, cancer prevention and treatment. But articles that talk about cancer rates and the best methods to prevent and treat this disease are usually filled with half truths and often with plain bold lies. A recent commentary article posted on the New York Times, and written by doctor Susan Love, is a clear example of what the establishment medical industry does in order to keep patients ignorant and to continue the unnecessary search for a cure.

Cancer is not only a completely curable disease, in many cases even in advanced stages, but also an absolutely preventable one. In her essay Ms. Love begins by assessing the decision made by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure group to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, which the organization later retracted given the pressure exercised by the eugenics-driven organizationPlanned Parenthood– as well as the pharmaceutical industrial complex. The establishment medical industry co-opted organizations and foundations to protest Susan G. Komen’s decision and raised public awareness about the issue as if the defunding move would heavily impact Planned Parenthood’s ability to continue to carry out its eugenics programs. Planned Parenthood makes $164 million per year from abortions. That of course, was not pointed out by Ms. Love.

She actually went straight into the lies and half truths usually megaphoned by the establishment medical industry and the dying main stream media. She started by saying “we still don’t know what causes breast cancer, therefore we don’t know how to prevent it”. To Ms. Love’s surprise, doctors who treat and attempt to cure cancer through traditional and alternative methods have discovered that all cancers do have a common cause. Cancer is, as the latest study published by the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, has shown, a metabolic malfunction, not a consequence of cellular mutation or bad genetics, as many in the medical establishment tell us. It can be prevented and treated with diet and exercise, (also read thisenzyme therapy as well as with ingestion of dichloroacetate, as the Canadian study shows. What there isn’t right now is a treatment or cure that is equally successful for everyone, which is what the medical establishment wants us to believe. What doesn’t work is the traditional set of treatments -chemotherapy and radiation- which in most cases causes remission for a few years, but causes the cancer to spread and return. Cancer drugs make tumors more aggressive and deadly within 5 to 10 years after the patient is irradiated and poisoned. So, not all cancers are equal, true, but it is absolutely false that we don’t know its origin or how to treat it.

Ms. Love then talks about cancer screening as a tool to control cancer. Although she mentions that screening by itself is not an effective way to prevent cancers, she goes on to say it is the best way there is, therefore implicitly suggesting that women should continue to irradiate their bodies as often as their doctors recommend. She probably has not heard about the monumental number of false positives that causes doctors and patients to even consider surgery in cases when cysts found through the mammograms aren’t even malign tumors. So no Ms. Love, mammograms are not the best thing out there to diagnose or prevent breast cancer.

Ms. Love goes on to tell another lie that was manufactured within the medical establishment: That the HPV vaccine is an awesome way to prevent cancer of the cervix. She doesn’t say it, but perhaps she also believes that boys should be vaccinated against HPV, too. Again, Ms. Love probably is not aware of the fact that HPV does not cause cancer of the cervix, and that healthy women are able to prevent any disease caused by the HPV virus, with few cases of women who experience mild infections, and only a minority -less than 3000 a year- who actually develop cancer of the cervix, but not due to HPV. In fact, neither does Cervarix not Gardasil help prevent cancer of the cervix. In their own studies, pharmaceutical corporations reveal that both vaccines are barely effective in treating 4 of the more than 100 strains of human papillomavirus that exist. Even the Food and Drug Administration’s own papers reject the idea that these two vaccines help to prevent cancer of the cervix. The FDA says the HPV vaccine in women who have human papillomavirus increases the risk of cervical cancer by 44.6%, because this vaccines promote the development of precancerous lesions in the uterus, which eventually leads to cervical cancer. The American Medical Association (AMA) says: “There is significant evidence to indicate that there is no benefit from the vaccine. The disappearance of the virus during periods of 12 months is not related to the use of the vaccine. It is unlikely that vaccination has any significant benefit.” Ms. Love definitely ignores that the current global vaccination policies have been found to be fraudulent at best. Both Cervarix and Gardasil are well recognized for causing 3500 serious side effects which are not acknowledged by the medical establishment despite their proven serious consequences.

At the end of her essay, Ms. Love reinforces her views about the need to “find the causes” instead of “finding the cure”. Of course, the cures for cancer have already been found, and so have the causes. Except that the causes are not a common set of signs or symptoms that are the same on every patient. Each cancer patient has a set of causes that promoted and allowed cancer to appear and grow in him or her. I don’t think she understands that yet despite her college degree. Dear Ms. Love, neither Planned Parenthood nor any other medical organization that swears by the traditional, outdated and inefficient methods to treat and cure cancer actually offer medical care; they offer death care. They don’t treat the symptoms or the disease; they don’t cure. They kill. The only thing that has stopped millions of women and men from finding the cure for cancer is not the lack of that cure, but the ignorance, arrogance and economic interests of the pharmaceutical industrial complex to which you belong, voluntarily or not.


Swine Flu Vaccine “conclusively” Causes Chronic Nervous System Disorders

The nation of Finland has now openly admitted that the swine flu vaccine “conclusively” causes narcolepsy

The Finnish government says it will pay for “lifetime medical care” for 79 children who have been irreparably damaged by the swine flu vaccine.

October 8, 2011

The nation of Finland has now openly admitted that the swine flu vaccine “conclusively” causes narcolepsy, a chronic nervous system disorder that makes people uncontrollably fall asleep. The Finnish government, in acknowledging this link, says it will pay for “lifetime medical care” for 79 children who have been irreparably damaged by the swine flu vaccine. (http://news.yahoo.com/finland-vows-…)

Narcolepsy isn’t the only side effect now admitted to be caused by swine flu vaccines: 76 of the 79 children also suffered hallucinations and “paralyzing physical collapses,” say Finnish researchers.

Remarkably, even though the link between swine flu vaccines and permanent neurological damage in children is now openly admitted by the Finnish government, there is absolutely no talk about halting the utterly unscientific ritual of injecting children with flu vaccines in the first place. Not only are flu vaccines harmful to children (as is now admitted), but flu vaccines don’t even work! A simple daily dose of vitamin D would do far more to halt influenza than any vaccine (http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_v…).

U.S. refuses to admit vaccines harm anyone

The U.S. government, of course, still refuses to admit vaccines cause any harm whatsoever. Both the government and the vaccine industry continue to push the fabricated fairy tale that “vaccines are safe and effective,” meaning they harm no one but help everyone. Yet the truth is practically the polar opposite: Vaccines harm countless millions of children each year in ways that are usually never linked to vaccines (mild mental retardation, suppressed immune function, learning disabilities, etc.). At the same time, vaccines are all but worthless at preventing infections. Even the vaccine industry’s own research shows that flu shots only work on 1 out of 100 people, meaning they’re completely useless for 99 percent of those who take them (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v…).

Instead of admitting the truth that vaccines cause autism, the U.S. government has conspired with vaccine manufacturers to create a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program which essentially pays “hush money” to parents of permanently harmed children to make sure they cannot bring their claims of harm to federal courts (http://www.naturalnews.com/033635_v…).

Even worse, the medical establishment — which is heavily influenced if not downright dominated by pharmaceutical interests — absolutely refuses to advocate vitamin D as a flu prevention nutrient. Vitamin D is safe, effective and affordable. It’s available without a prescription and could save literally billions of dollars in national health care costs for just pennies per day per person. So why won’t the medical establishment promote vitamin D? Precisely because it would cost the industry billions of dollars in lost profits from all the sickness and degenerative disease that is prevented by vitamin D.
Of course vaccines cause autism!

There is absolutely no question in the mind of any reasonably informed person that vaccines cause neurological damage, including (but not limited to) autism. Only the corporate-whore scientists around the world continue their charade that vaccines are not linked to autism; or that vaccines even work in the first place. Most Americans haven’t yet heard the secret interview with Merck vaccine scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman where he openly admits vaccines carry dozens of strains of cancer-causing “stealth” viruses. Read the transcript here:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033584_D…Listen to the interview at:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=13EAA…Similarly, most people still don’t know that Dr. Jonas Salk, the celebrated “grandfather” of vaccines who is credited with creating the polio vaccine, was an unindicted medical criminal who committed heinous crimes against humanity in the name of “medical science.” (http://www.naturalnews.com/031564_J…)In fact, the whole history of vaccines and medicine has been utterly distorted by the medical establishment to paint vaccines in a glorified light of public health. But the real story is that vaccines are now — and have always been — tools for causing diseaseand promoting sickness so that the pharmaceutical industry can benefit as a result.The horrifying truth about the vaccine industry and medical establishment

Remember, this is the same industry that got caught conducting outrageous medical experiments on Guatemalan prisoners (http://www.naturalnews.com/033483_G…). These are the same people who ran Tuskegee experiments on African Americans, too (http://www.naturalnews.com/029924_m…).

Do you honestly think these same vaccine criminals would not also use innocent children for their own mass inoculation medical experiments? Remember: These are hard-core, Nazi-style criminals we’re talking about here. This is who runs the pharmaceutical industry. The former chairperson of Bayer, for example, was a convicted Nazi war criminal who was indicted and sentenced at the Nuremburg trials:

Don’t believe me? Read your history:

“Dr. Fritz ter Meer, a director of IG Farben who was directly involved in developing the nerve gas, Zyklon-B, which killed millions of Jews, was sentenced to seven years in prison but was released after four years through the intervention of Rockefeller and J.J. McCloy, then U.S. High Commissioner for Germany. An unrepentant Fritz ter Meer, guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity, returned to work in Bayer where he served as Chairman for more than 10 years, until 1961. This same ter Meer, a convicted Nazi war criminal, went on to become one of the initiators of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 1962, an organization that was nurtured by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and latterly the World Trade Organization (WTO).” (http://www.naturalnews.com/024534_E…)

Governments know vaccines maim and kill children — that’s exactly why they push them so aggressively

You see, every world government already knows that vaccines are murder. They know vaccines kill and maim children. They know vaccines cause autism and neurological disorders. They know this and then they keep promoting vaccines anyway. Why? Because they are mass murderers who have philosophical roots in Nazi Germany and the eugenics movement. Even today’s FDA can be traced backed to eugenics and population control. Bill Gates, who promotes world vaccination, openly admits that vaccines and health care can “reduce world population by 10 to 15 percent” if they “do a good job.” (http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_v…)

Don’t believe me? Watch Bill Gates say it himself in this video:
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A…

Vaccines are not given to children with the “accident” that they kill some children and cause neurological disorders in others; no, they are given to children BECAUSE they cause neurological disorders, organ failure, infertility, reduced intelligence and numerous other side effects.

Today’s vaccines create tomorrow’s health care customers, you see.

Vaccines keep Big Pharma in business based on repeat profits

How else is Big Pharma supposed to ensure its future profits if the population were actually allowed to stay healthy? The whole point of vaccines is to DAMAGE HUMAN HEALTH and rake in trillions of dollars in long-term profits from all the suffering and disease caused by those vaccines.

C’mon, folks: Do you really think all these for-profit companies are trying to HELP humanity? Do you really think drug company CEOs are goody-goody humanitarians who would give up their shareholder profits and drive their own companies out of business by promoting lasting health?

Wake up, people. Wake up and smell the coffee. Drug companies think absolutely nothing of murdering Nigerian children (http://www.naturalnews.com/023654.html) or even using your own children as medical experiments as long as they make more money in the process. And as the editor of NaturalNews, having seen countless documents, tips, testimonials and other sources of information that have been given to me over the years, I can tell you with absolute certainty that the pharmaceutical industry is actively using vaccines to CAUSE degenerative disease as a way to lock in future profits from that disease.

Vaccines are a business continuity strategy used by the for-profit pharmaceutical industry

It’s just like a greasy car mechanic throwing some solvents into your gas tank so that you have to come back for engine repairs after a few hundred miles. The drug companies are willing to do anything to guarantee their profits, and that includes committing acts of genocide against the human race as long as it fattens their bottom line profits.

We are not dealing with ethical, principled human beings in the pharmaceutical industry, folks. We are dealing with criminal-minded monsters who have found a way to selfishly enrich themselves at the expense and suffering of others.

And they relish in it. They get off on watching children suffer and die from their vaccines. They get a rise out of the fact that they are pulling off this scam with such success that the sheeple of the world will actually line up at their local pharmacies and beg to be injected with the very chemical adjuvants and live viral materials that will destroy their health and turn them into lifetime medical victims.

The sick, demented medical elite who engineer all this (which includes top people at the FDA, by the way), are like modern-day vampires who suck the life out of innocent little children in order to feed their own devilish appetites for wealth and power. And watching it all happen every day in America, Finland, and everywhere else around the world is absolutely infuriating. That’s why I work so hard to expose these medical quacks for the true criminals they really are. These people who lead Big Pharma and the vaccine industry would infect your baby with cancer if it guaranteed them chemotherapy profits two decades down the road.

These people should be arrested, thrown in prison and charged with their role in these crimes against humanity. Occupy Wall Street is just one movement that’s rising up in opposition to the total scam of the fraudulent banking industry and the Federal Reserve, but we need another movement: Occupy Big Pharma where the sick, degenerate masses who have been harmed by all these vaccines and deadly pharmaceuticals march on the drug companies and arrest their CEOs for crimes against humanity.

I know that day is coming. There will be a day when the angry, diseased masses figure out the depth of the medical crimes that have been committed against them in the name of “public health…” and they will rage against the machine.

To all the vaccine company CEOs out there: Enjoy your millions right now, because there will come a day when you have to answer for how you got that money and who really had to pay the price for your financial windfall. Hundreds of millions of children are harmed today around the world because of vaccines, and that number will continue to rise with each passing year that we allow humanity to be chemically assaulted by these biological weapons known as “vaccines.”

Electropollution causes Type 3 Diabetes

NaturalNews.com

Most people are familiar with type-1 diabetes and type-2 diabetes, but did you know researchers have discovered a third type of diabetes? Type-3 diabetes, as they are calling it, affects people who are extra sensitive to electrical devices that emit “dirty” electricity.

Type-3 diabetics actually experience spikes in blood sugar and an increased heart rate when exposed to electrical pollution (“electropollution”) from things like computers, televisions, cordless and mobile phones, and even compact fluorescent light bulbs.

Dr. Magda Havas, a PhD from Trent University in Canada, recently published the results of a study she conducted on the relationship between electromagnetic fields and diabetes in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. In it, she explains how she and her team came to discover this about why electropollution is so dangerous for many people.

Blood sugar goes haywire

One of the most interesting finding in her study was that electro-sensitive people whose blood sugar decreases when they go for a walk outdoors actually experience an increase in blood sugar when walking on a treadmill.

Treadmills, you see, are electrical devices that emit electrical pollution. But interestingly, even the physical exertion of walking on the treadmill did not make up for the blood sugar spiking effect of the EMFs emitted by the treadmills. Despite the exercise, in other words, type-3 diabetics experienced significant spikes in blood sugar when walking on the treadmill.

Dirty electricity is bad for everyone, but it is especially bad for people who are type-3 diabetics. And Dr. Havas explains in her study that even having an electrical device plugged into the wall near someone who is type-3 diabetic can cause them problems.

We have to rethink environmental influences of modern living

I find this research fascinating, not only because it proves that electromagnetic waves impact blood sugar and heart rate, but because there could be thousands, if not millions, of diabetics who may be suffering from a diabetes misdiagnosis right now.

The reason I’m bringing this up is because a 54 year-old pre-diabetic man who participated in the study was found to experience serious blood sugar spikes only when he was working in an urban environment around power lines or on his computer. When he was out camping away from the city, his blood sugar was just fine.

The man tested his blood sugar every morning in different situations and his levels were always higher when electrical fields were nearby. On one of the mornings, he forgot to test himself prior to beginning work on the computer. His blood sugar levels were higher than normal, registering around 205 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL). But after stepping away from the computer for only ten minutes, his levels dropped nearly 20 mg/dL.

The degree to which electromagnetic pollution affects the body is clearly quite astonishing, and this study illustrates that. But it makes you wonder how many people have diabetes simply because of EMF pollution (and not solely due to their diet or lack of exercise, as we have been taught).

High EMFs gave this woman diabetes

Take the case of the 80 year-old woman whose house tested high for EMF pollution. Prior to installing a system of filters around her house designed to reduce “electro-smog” levels, her blood sugar was high and she was using insulin each day in order to balance her blood sugar levels. After installing the filters (which reduced EMF pollution by roughly 98 percent), the woman’s blood sugar levels dropped by 33 percent and her insulin requirements plunged a whopping 75 percent!

This idea that reducing the electropollution of your house could drastically reduce a patient’s need for insulin has never even registered in conventional (mainstream) medicine. Yet it could be a crucial understanding for tens of millions of diabetics around the world.

The study mentioned here classifies the type of diabetes caused by electromagnetic pollution as type-3 diabetes. While those with type-1 or type-2 diabetes can also have type-3, the data seems to indicate that a person can also exclusively have type-3 without any overlay of the other two types. In other words, their diabetes may be solely due to electromagnetic pollution.

And since pre-diabetics can be pushed over the edge by EMF pollution, there is no telling how many people actually have type-3 rather than type-2 diabetes.

If you ask most mainstream medical “professionals”, they will deny that type-3 diabetes even exists. According to most of them, the idea that electromagnetic pollution contributes to disease is some sort of whacked out conspiracy theory. But there’s more to the study that you need to know…

Wireless signals interfere with the heart

For one portion of the study, Dr. Havas had patients lie down on a bed with a cordless phone placed two feet away from their heads. The phone was plugged into the wall, but for each testing session, the electricity was either on or off.

Neither the patient nor the doctor administering the test was aware of whether or not the phone was live or dead during each session. (This is what is known as a double-blind study, the type most respected in clinical trials).

At the completion of that part of the study, researchers observed that EMF-sensitive patients experienced significant increases in their heart rates during the sessions when the phone was being powered and emitting radio signals. When it was turned off, these same patients returned back to their normal heart rates almost instantaneously.

Why is this important? First of all, a double-blind study is the litmus test used in the medical profession to verify that a study is legitimate. Since nobody involved knew when the power was on or off, the results are completely unbiased and hold a lot more sway than if it had been conducted a different way.

Secondly, it illustrates that EMF pollution really does speed up the heart rates of certain people. And since a rapid pulse is one of the many symptoms of diabetes, it seems reasonable to suspect that EMF pollution could be a fundamental cause of diabetic symptoms for a significant portion of the diabetic population.

This makes you wonder about the harm caused by mammograms, CT scans and other medical scanning technologies that blast the body with electromagnetic radiation, doesn’t it?

Electromagnetic radiation leads to many diseases, including cancer

Our bodies are constantly barraged by electromagnetic radiation from numerous electronic sources, and most people don’t think twice about this high level of exposure (probably because many don’t even realize it’s there), but the truth is that all this EMF pollution is leading to widespread illness.

Most of the recent research on EMF pollution has focused on cell phones, which makes sense because people take their cell phones with them everywhere they go and when they use them, they often hold them right next to their skulls. Cell phone radiation is probably one of the most dangerous EMF polluters because the devices remain in very close contact with the body for long periods of time.

A 2008 study published in New Scientist revealed that cell phone radiation causes human cell proteins to improperly express themselves. Similar studies also found that the radiation damages living DNA, creates leakages in the blood-brain barrier, and increases estrogen and adrenaline levels, disrupting hormone balance.

According to one statistic from a 2008 study, adults who use a cell phone over the course of a decade increase their chances of developing brain cancer by 40 percent. Even worse, a Swedish study found that people who start using a cell phone before the age of 20 increase their risk of developing a brain tumor by 500 percent!

Mainstream science holds conflicting views (as usual)

Of course, many in the medical establishment simply deny that electro-smog has anything to do with health or disease. And it doesn’t matter how many studies are conducted on the matter; many continue to insist that there is not enough evidence that EMFs cause any harm.

Not everyone feels this way, of course, but sadly most of today’s experts seem unable (or unwilling) to put two and two together and make the connection between electromagnetic pollution and disease.

There are many contributors to disease in our environment. EMFs represent just one. But to deny that electromagnetic pollution is harmful is quite narrow minded. Dr. Havas’ study provides more than enough evidence that at least some people are suffering because of the electrical devices that surround them.

Our world, of course, is full of electromagnetic devices — and some of them may surprise you. A typical hair dryer, for example, emits an explosion of electromagnetic radiation that’s usually aimed right at the skull. Typical office environments shower employees with electropollution from fluorescent lighting, and even exercise gyms can subject visitors to a dense field of electromagnetic pollution (from all the electronic exercise machines).

It all gives credence to the idea of getting into nature more often, doesn’t it? If you’re sensitive to electropollution, the farther away you get from the city, the better you’ll feel. No wonder most people innately gravitate to such natural environments like forests, lakes and ocean beaches.

So, does all this research mean we should all get rid of our phones and computers and return to the pre-information age? You could always join an Amish community. They’re remarkably healthy, and part of that may be due to their lack of electropollution.

But for mainstream people, a more practical solution is to install some EMF filters around your home.

Some solutions for electromagnetic pollution

As mentioned in the study, home EMF filters are one of the best ways to reduce or eliminate the stray electrical signals that plague your house. These filters will capture electrical “noise” from things like televisions, computers and phones, and return it back into the line or into the ground. These can be connected to the outlets where these devices are plugged in.

Keeping Wi-Fi devices like cell phones and wireless routers away from your body as much as possible is another good idea. If you have a wireless router at home, place it away from areas where people sleep or spend a lot of time. Even having it just a few feet farther away can make a big difference in a reduction of the electropollution exposure from it.

When charging your cell phone, plug it in across the room from you. Especially at night when you are sleeping, it is best to turn off as many electrical devices as possible and to keep them away from your bed when sleeping. And beware of electric blankets: They produce a very strong electromagnetic field.

Try to use the speakerphone as much as possible when talking on the phone, or use an “air-tube” device that stops the signal short before it reaches your head. Never walk around with an idle bluetooth attached to your head, because these devices deliver a steady stream of EMF radiation directly into your head. I would recommend not using one at all, but if you do use one, take it off when not in use.

It’s also a good idea to keep your phone in your pocket or purse only when necessary, and to keep it away from your body at all other times. Cell phones are intermittently communicating with network towers, so the closer they are to our bodies, the more radiation we are exposed to. So if you’re not going to be using it for a while, just turn it off.

Finally, it is crucial to maintain a healthy diet and get plenty of outdoor exercise. Eating lots of nutrient-rich foods, drinking plenty of clean water, and minimizing intake of toxic preservatives, food additives, and refined sugars will do wonders to build a strong and vibrant neurological system that will resist some of the impact of electromagnetic pollution.

The reason I mention outdoor exercise is because, just like in the study, certain indoor exercise equipment like treadmills can actually cause more harm than good (for certain people). So go outside and take a walk or a jog. The sunshine will boost your vitamin D levels and the fresh air will help rejuvenate your system. (Just be sure to stay away from the power lines.)

Why Medical Authorities Went to Such Extreme to Silence Dr. Andrew Wakefield?

The smearing campaign against doctor Andrew Wakefield has resulted in two events.  One, he received great exposure on the alternative and main stream media, which in turn allowed for more people to learn about his important work and how vaccines poison people, especially children.  Two, it replicates the effect main stream media smearing campaigns have when an honest, professional does his job.  So instead of bringing him down, it builds him up.  Although Dr. Wakefield’s job has been found to be true by other independent studies, the corporate corrupt media and medical establishment dismiss his work as lunacy.  Below there is a fair and balanced interview with Dr. Mercola.  Dr. Wakefield explains in detail what does the MMR vaccine, among others, do to children.  Do your own research and spread the knowledge.