Top 6 Foods You Probably Had No Idea Were GMO

Sure, by now, anybody who can still think straight and isn’t getting the drip (chemotherapy) at some superbug-ridden hospital knows better than to eat non-organic corn and soy in America. Those two GM staple crops are as corrupt as snake venom, and they infiltrate more than 70 percent of all U.S. food, including baby food and pet food. Anyone who also cares an iota about the environment knows biotechnology and chemical agriculture is not sustainable, as our soil from sea to shining sea methodically becomes more and more void of nutrients, and you know what that means.

Still, most people who shop organic and local are largely unaware that every year the biotech giants Bayer, Dupont, Dow, Syngenta, Cargill (and the list goes on) have thousands of evil science trolls in white lab coats figuring out new ways to infect the seeds of other popular produce and grains.

Meanwhile, the most popular and deadly herbicide, Roundup, is sprayed on commercial crops as if it were filtered water, while more and more Americans are suffering from chronic illnesses and organ failure, wondering what their clueless M.D.s and oncologists can do to “save” them or extend their miserable lives just a few more years.

Let’s face it folks, food “transparency” is becoming opaque, Whole Foods will NEVER put a warning label on their GMOs (especially since they’re now owned by Jeff Bezos), and foods you never thought would be corrupted in a laboratory now are.

So, besides sugar, beets, canned soups, most cereals, and 90 percent of all canola oil, let’s talk about some foods you probably had no idea are actually made with GMOs:

#1. “Honey” (largely made with GMO HFCS)

Yes, it’s true. Research reveals most store-bought honey isn’t honey at all. So then what the hell is it? More than 75 percent of honey sold in those jugs, jars, and cute little plastic bears in U.S. grocery stores, drug stores, Costco, Sam’s Club, Walmart, and Target is not what bees produce. For starters, it doesn’t contain any pollen. Are you really consuming GMOs and HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) when you think you’re eating honey? Don’t look it up on “Google” because they too are owned by Big Pharma and Big Food.

#2. Wheat breads (made with GMO HFCS)

Remember the “whole grain” and “multi-grain” fad? Every parent in the USA went crazy, buying their kids whole grain bread, wheat bread, and multi-grain cereals, even though GM wheat was in full swing, and those cereals and bread were still loaded with GM HFCS. What a Ponzi scheme health scam that was. Wait, are you still falling for it? Plus, now nearly all non-organic grains, including wheat, barley and rye, are heavily sprayed with Roundup (carcinogenic weed killer) to help them dry out before cutting them all down and processing them in the silos.

#3. Baby Formula

If the corn, soy, and milk in your baby’s formula isn’t organic, then your baby is getting a “double dose” of genetically modified toxins. Most U.S. cows are fed GM alfalfa, and many baby formulas are made with GM soybean milk now. Would you spray ant and roach killer on your infant to keep the bugs away, and feed him or her pesticides on purpose? Then quit doing it on accident.

#4. Potatoes

Are you buying potatoes that are “bruise resistant?” Maybe YOU will also be bruise resistant when you’re dying of cancer. What types of potatoes do you think fast food chains and most restaurants serve up? Well, the cheap, corporate GM ones, of course. Yep, three types of GM Frankenfood potatoes are out there, and if you didn’t know, and you just continue to shop blindly, you might just get “fried” yourself. That’s “plant science” folks (but it’s really fake science), and if you don’t like getting cancer and dementia, then you are labeled by corporate America as “anti-science.”

#5. Papaya

In the 1990s, Hawaiian papaya production was cut in half by the ring spot virus. The solution? Go into a laboratory and create a Frankenstein papaya called the Rainbow Papaya. Now it’s the primary variety there.

#6. Pumpkins

Did you know pumpkins did not exist at one point in history? Be sure to remember Michael Pollen saying, “Don’t eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food.” This year for Halloween, check that canned pumpkin, because it’s not really pumpkin at all, but another Nestle “Franken-crop” creation.

It’s Time To Tell The Truth About Your Annual Flu Shot

vaccine-shot-in-arm-150x150Top 10 Critical Reasons To Skip The Flu Shot

Many in the medical community and other proponents of the flu vaccine would have you believe it is absolutely necessary for sustaining health. However, a closer look at the long list of vaccine dangers associated with the shot reveals it is more about dollars spent on pharmaceuticals than it is about public health.

If you still need convincing to help you avoid the vaccine, here are 10 critical reasons you should skip the flu shot:

1. Ineffectiveness is well documented: Each year, a flu vaccination is created months ahead of time, based on a “best guess” of what strains are going to give the most trouble when flu season arrives. Even public health officials have voiced doubt about effectiveness. If you come into contact with a different strain of the flu, you will have put yourself at risk of side effects, yet become ill anyway.

2. It’s all about the money: The same officials pushing the flu vaccine – specifically, members of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) – stand to make billions of dollars from successful sale of the pharmaceuticals. The ability these officials have to work objectively in the best interests of public health is highly compromised, to say the very least.

3. Immunization is a fallacy: It is no coincidence that when a child is vaccinated, he or she develops a number of symptoms, including runny nose, ear infection, and bronchitis – even pneumonia. The flu vaccine introduces the flu virus to the bodies, sensitizing the body to the virus, lowering immunity and creating symptoms.

4. No benefits for infants and children: Scientific review of over 50 studies involving 260,000 children ages 6 to 23 months did not uncover any evidence that young children benefit from the flu vaccine. In fact, results showed the flu shot was no more effective than a placebo. Yet, at the same time, research has shown that the injection itself can lead to serious health complications in patients of any age. Problems have included infection, adverse immunological response and even death.

5. Increased threat to those at risk: Flu vaccines introduce live virus to the human body. For patients already suffering from a suppressed immune system and reduced ability to fight off viruses, the shot can increase risk of the full effects of flu, as well as increase susceptibility to pneumonia and other contagious diseases.

6. Hazard of mercury toxicity: The flu vaccine contains mercury, a heavy metal known to cause memory loss, respiratory problems, cardiovascular disease, attention deficiency disorder, digestive imbalances, oral health issues and other health concerns. The amount of mercury contained in a multi-dose flu shot far exceeds the maximum allowable daily exposure limit.

7. Evidence of neurological disorders: There is evidence that ingredients used in flu vaccines can cause serious neurological disorders. Many receiving flu shots during the 1976 swine flu outbreak suffered permanent nerve damage. This is not surprising, considering flu vaccines can contain a number of hazardous materials, including formaldehyde, detergent and mercury, in addition to strains of the live virus.

8. Greater risk of Alzheimer’s disease: The elderly are frequent targets in the push for the flu shot, yet there is evidence that those receiving the flu vaccine for three to five consecutive years runs a 10-fold increase for developing Alzheimer’s disease than those who did not have any flu shots. In addition, aging tends to bring with it a weakened immune system (under ‘normal’ living habits), increasing the risk of dangerous symptoms when the flu virus is introduced to the body.

9. Multiple strains bring multiple risks: In recent years, particularly since the arrival of the H1N1 strain, it has become increasingly difficult to pinpoint which strains to vaccinate against. Moreover, receiving shots for multiple strains increases the health risk as greater numbers of viruses and harmful vaccines are introduced into your body.

10. Vitamin C is a better option: Studies have shown that overuse of the flu vaccine, along with drugs like Tamiflu and Relenza, can cause flu viruses to mutate, potentially resulting in more deadly strains. Rather than reducing susceptibility to the flu, the flu vaccine leads to even greater risks.

Rather than risk your health with the flu vaccine, why not opt for some vitamin C benefits such as warding off viruses without the risky side effects of a vaccine. This natural antioxidant has multiple advantages to your health, all without the risk of toxins and their side effects.

Also see: “Get Your Flu Shot or You’re Gonna Die!” – As the Hysteria Campaign Gears Up, Here Are Some Amazing NATURAL Flu Remedies and Preventatives.

Did 80,000 People Really Die from the Flu Last Year? Inflating Flu Death Estimates to Sell Flu Shots


Antidepressants Cause Severe Withdrawal Symptoms like “Hallucination,” “Mania,” & “Anxiety”

antidepressantsBy Sayer Ji, Founder

New research reveals severe withdrawal symptoms in over half of those who discontinue antidepressant drugs, including lasting and even permanent damage.

A concerning new study published in the journal Addictive Behavior and titled, “A systematic review into the incidence, severity and duration of antidepressant withdrawal effects: Are guidelines evidence-based?,” reveals that antidepressants are far more addictive and harmful than previously assumed, and vindicates the long time activism on this issue spearheaded by American psychiatrists like Kelly Brogan, MD and Peter Breggin, MD.

Learn more:

What You Don’t Know About Wearable Tech Radiation Exposure


Wearable Tech Radiation Exposure – A Complete Guide

We live in an era of immense convenience driven by technological advancements. We have smartphones to ensure seamless communication, laptops and tablets to enable productivity, and now, wearables are taking connectivity to a whole new level.

While we enjoy the advantages of technology, the subject of how these gadgets affect our health has become a topic worth considering. Smartphones are often at the forefront of these concerns because of their ubiquity; but as electronics continue to evolve to accommodate our needs, it’s time we take a look at how newer technologies come into play–like wearables.

What are wearables?

The term “wearable” refers to electronic devices that can be incorporated into clothing, or function as an accessory so that it can be comfortably worn. These include fitness trackers worn on the wrist that measure the steps you take every day, necklaces that serve to track your sleep, smartwatches that allow easy access to your smartphone or laptop messages, just to name a few.

These gadgets are fairly new, and while most are sold as essential tools to support your road to wellness and health, it also raises questions regarding safety.

What kinds of wearables are there?

There are multiple categories of wearables at the moment–

  1. Smartwatches are by far, the most popular wearable devices today. They are worn on your wrist and connect to your mobile phone or your computer so that you are constantly online. Apart from notifying you of calls, messages, emails, and social media alerts, some smartwatches are specifically designed to track fitness and health.
  2. Fitness trackers are devices specifically dedicated to tracking your health and fitness such as your heart rate, calories you burn, number of steps you take, your blood pressure, and even the quality of your sleep. It’s an especially useful tool if you’re trying to lose weight or have resolved to reach specific health goals. Earliest versions of the device were designed to be worn around your wrist, but newer versions offer more variety so that it seamlessly blends with fashion. Some can be clipped to a belt, others can be worn around your neck.
  3. Sports watches are normally used by more serious athletes or active types whose lifestyle involves serious sports activities like running, swimming, or cycling. In addition to its fitness tracking abilities, it is usually equipped with GPS.
  4. Head-mounted displays such as smart glasses–like Google Glass, or virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) goggles are newer devices that are just starting to gain popularity. AR and VR headsets are focused on providing a more in-depth entertainment or gaming experience. Facebook made a big gamble on this technology (by buying Oculus for ~$2B in 2014) and the role it will play in the future of how we communicate.
  5. Smart clothing is an even newer and broader category of wearables that covers garments equipped with electronics for added functionality. Some examples include smart compression shirts designed for serious athletes that can track heart rate and has GPS, or swimwear that has a built-in sensor to alert you if you’ve stayed out too long under the sun.
  6. Smart jewelry takes the concept of smart watches further by creating useful devices that are as fashionable as they are practical and useful. They’re usually targeted to women right now and are typically used to notify users of emails, text, or calls discreetly.

What kind of health problems are associated with wearable devices?

One area of concern that frequently surrounds our use of technology is radiation exposure. It is a fact that our gadgets emit radiation which we are exposed to by virtue of daily use–what we don’t yet know are the implications and how long-term exposure affects overall health.

Numerous studies have already pointed out how cell phone radiation can affect the human reproductive system, disrupt sleep, or cause mood swings. Now, we have a host of wearable devices that work together with cellphones and can wirelessly connect to WiFi–this means that they too emit radiation, and could in fact, pose long term health risks.

How will wearable devices post health risks?

Gadgets release a form of radiation referred to as Electro Magnetic Frequency (EMF), which has been cited as a form of carcinogen–a substance capable of causing cancer in living tissue–in previous studies. This essentially puts it at par with a more common known source of carcinogens, such as cigarettes.

Wearables are intended to be worn, and are most commonly designed to be used daily or during exercise. Even when these devices are not active, they still emit radiation, and its close proximity to users’ bodies means we are more exposed to it.

Also, there’s also the matter of how wireless electronic devices may interrupt the functionality of medical devices, such as pacemakers.

What kind of radiation do wearables emit?

Wearables use Bluetooth or WiFI technology, sometimes a combination of both, to connect wirelessly to your smartphone or computer. This means that like smartphones, these devices emit radiation and have to pass FCC standards to ensure their safety.

“Wi-Fi is very similar to cellphone radiation. You definitely don’t want to put these devices near your head or near your reproductive organs” for extended periods of time, said Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the UC Berkeley Prevention Research Center School of Public Health in an interview with Fox News. “Besides the peak RF exposure from Bluetooth devices, which is what the SAR measures, we need to be concerned about the cumulative RF exposure, as people may keep these devices on all day long.”

The concern here lies in the fact that wearables are now being worn on the body, which means there is a very real possibility of extended exposure that amplifies long-term health risks. The cumulative exposure from all your wireless devices basically adds up over time.

Is there any research that supports all these claims?

Literature focused on informing users of the dangers of wireless wearable devices is available from numerous credible institutions.

In one example, researchers from the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a federal interagency group under the National Institutes of Health, conducted experiments on mice that showed how the subjects exposed to electromagnetic radiation could be more susceptible to cancer.

In another study, the World Health Organization (WHO) mentions cell phones as “possibly carcinogenic.” The study also implies that increased proximity to the devices increases the level of radiation exposure. This particular finding makes wearables even more worrying, given that they are specifically designed to be worn constantly near the body.

Research conducted by a team of European researchers led by Dr. Lennart Hardell who is a professor of oncology and cancer epidemiology at a University Hospital in Sweden also notes potential dangers. In his study, he found that talking on mobile phones or even cordless devices for extended periods could raise  the risk of brain cancer, up to three times.

The popularity of smartphones as well as wearable devices and the risks it poses has also been the subject of media scrutiny, especially as it pertains to how it may affect children.

“Children should limit how much time they spend talking on a cellphone, doctors say. And if they have a wearable device, they should take it off at night so it does not end up under their pillow, near their brain. Doctors also warn that women who are pregnant should be extra careful with all of these technologies,” writes the New York Times.

Genetically Modified Children

thumbnailBy Stephanie Seneff


Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the pervasive herbicide Roundup. Together with several colleagues, I have published extensively on the dangers of glyphosate to human health and to the ecosystem. Most people believe that glyphosate is practically non-toxic to humans, in part because governments are claiming that this is so, and people want to believe that their government is trustworthy. But there is a growing awareness that glyphosate is much more toxic than we have been led to believe, and I am confident that in time it will be banned worldwide, just like DDT.

One way to find out whether glyphosate is toxic is to get to know the people who are in the front lines: those who are exposed, environmentally or occupationally, to heavy doses of glyphosate in their daily lives. A good choice might be people who live in a small village in northern Argentina that is surrounded by fields of tobacco that have been genetically engineered to resist it. This is what two investigative journalists set out to do, and their efforts have borne fruit in the form of an informative, engaging and disturbing documentary.

The documentary reveals the severe physical deformities, mental disabilities and cancers the children of these tobacco farmers are experiencing, and it offers the rather audacious hypothesis that glyphosate is inducing genetic mutations in the children of these farmers. Could they be right?

Watch the video:

Future Weapons: DARPA Seeking Innovative Designs For Insect-Sized Robots To Compete In A Series Of Tactical Competitions

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is keeping itself busy these days trying to develop an army of ultra-powerful robot “warriors” to do it’s totalitarian bidding on the world stage.

According to new reports, the Department of Defense (DOD) agency has requested that developers present their best, bug-sized robots, purportedly for use in an Olympic-like competition, of sorts, that will test their strength, agility, and speed by having them jockey with each other in a battle of dominance.

Dubbing them “SHRIMP,” short for Short-Range Independent Microrobotic Platforms, the tiny insect “bots” will be deployed in various competitive scenarios, similar to those engaged by human athletes, to see how well they operate.

DARPA is actually describing the program as “an Olympic-style evaluation” that will investigate how well these human-less androids perform in a sequence of events aimed at proving their “maneuverability, dexterity and mobility.”

One of the challenges will reportedly involve looking at how well the robots can “jump,” as well as how much weight they can lift and how far that weight can be “thrown” by their miniature “bodies.” There will also be a tug of war “sport” to verify their pulling ability.

DARPA: Disguising advanced death weapons as advancements for humanity since 1958

It’s all fun and games until you consider that DARPA’s actual goal is to see how well miniature “soldiers” might perform on the battlefield. They can whitewash it all as some kind of sporting event, but the truth is that it is all an attempt at creating uber-advanced military weaponry.

If you’re not convinced, consider that DARPA is planning to set up the very same types of challenges and obstacle courses that actual humans in military training are subjected to before being deployed – including rock piling, climbing, and even a biathlon event.

DARPA hasn’t been shy in admitting that part of the evaluation involves assessing how well insect-esque robots are able to perform tasks that are considered to be “off-limits” to humans.

The obvious reason for this, as plainly stated in reports about the program, is to make these tiny robots “more powerful and agile” in order to apply their abilities “to other areas where the use of robotics is currently constrained by their size or bulkiness.”

DARPA claims that the endgame is to help humanity by creating technologies that can be used in everything “from prosthetics to optical steering,” according to Ronald Polcawich, DARPA’s program manager for its Microsystems Technology Office – but we all know better.

Don’t be fooled: DARPA isn’t trying to help humans – it’s trying to REPLACE us with robot weapons

Keep in mind that this is the very same DARPA that, back in 2011, announced the formation of a so-called “Warrior Web” program that, as we previously reported, involved developing technologies to create a new breed of “super soldiers” that some believe might eventually replace all human soldiers.

This was revealed several years later when DARPA expanded upon this “super soldier” concept by announcing that it was working to develop genetically-modified soldiers using gene-editing technologies like something out of some futuristic sci-fi movie.

And, as it usually does, DARPA is notorious for couching its proposed innovations in terminology that makes that sound innocuous and even advantageous to everyday people. In other words, trust us – we’ve got this!

But the truth is out there for those who care to acknowledge and accept it. As an errand boy of the Pentagon, DARPA is not only trying to supplant humans with robots, it’s also working closely with the thought police to control the free-flow of information online. In other words, DARPA continues to be an enemy of freedom and liberty.

U.S. Hospitals Overrun By Babies Dependent On Opioids

Baby-Newborn-Hand-Mother-Mom-Parent-FingerBy Tracy Watson

Opioids are a class of strong prescription painkillers which are incredibly addictive. Initially prescribed as a pain management tool for cancer sufferers, in the early 1990s drug giant Purdue Pharma started aggressively pitching them to doctors as an effective treatment for chronic pain. In just six years, prescriptions for Purdue’s star product – OxyContin – increased 10-fold, from 670,000 to six million a year. What Purdue covered up, however, was the incredibly addictive nature of these pharmaceuticals.

Even taken exactly as prescribed, a patient can become addicted to opioids within a few days. Taken in pill form, their pain and stress-relieving properties can be habit-forming, and when ground up and snorted or injected, they can produce an intense high.

Sadly, as the number of people addicted to opioids has skyrocketed, a new class of little addicts has emerged: tiny babies born dependent on opioids after being exposed to these drugs while in the womb.

A baby is born dependent on opioids every 15 minutes

Axios recently reported that a baby is now born dependent on opioid drugs every 15 minutes in the United States. At Mt. Washington Pediatric Hospital in Baltimore, one quarter of all admissions are for babies born with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS) – a condition in which babies undergo withdrawals from drugs they were exposed to during pregnancy. NAS can cause breathing problems, seizures, high fevers, difficulty eating, trouble gaining weight, and other problems.

Learn more:

New Vitamin C Sepsis Treatment Reduces Death By 87 Percent

high-dose-vitamin-cBy Sharon Thomas (NaturalHealth365)

Sepsis, a body-wide infection that can progress to shock and organ failure, features a grim mortality rate of 30 to 50 percent.  In fact, one out of every three patients who die in a hospital bed has sepsis – which claims a shocking 270,000 lives in the United States every year.

Now, a new study reveals that a revolutionary vitamin C-based protocol is slashing sepsis mortality rates – causing some to hail it as a ‘miracle.’

Of course, the extraordinary results come as no surprise to high-dose vitamin C pioneers – such as Dr. Thomas E. Levy – who have long advocated for the use of vitamin C in treating disease!

Vitamin C treatment caused mortality rates to plummet

To conduct the retrospective clinical study, researchers compared outcomes of 47 sepsis patients – treated with a combination of intravenous vitamin C, hydrocortisone and thiamine – with 47 sepsis patients treated with conventional medications.

And the results were astounding!

The progressive vitamin C treatment reduced mortality among the sepsis patients by 87 percent (when compared to patients who had been treated with standard therapy.)

Only four of the 47 patients treated with the progressive therapy died – as opposed to 19 of the 47 conventionally-treated patients.

In addition, not one of the patients in the vitamin C group developed organ failure. Furthermore, all of them were able to be weaned off vasopressors (used to ward off dangerous drops in blood pressure that can strike sepsis patients) more quickly than the conventionally-treated group.

Medical professionals deem the mixture a “miracle juice”

The study, which was published in the journal Chest, involved patients at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in Norfolk, VA.

The patients received the vitamin therapy under the care of Dr. Paul E. Marik. Dr Marik, chief of pulmonary and critical care at Eastern Virginia Medical School, instituted the protocol after reading about intravenous vitamin C in medical journals.

The simple, non-toxic protocol consists of 1.5 grams of intravenous vitamin C every six hours for four days, 200 mg of thiamine – or B1 – every twelve hours for four days, and 50 mg of hydrocortisone every six hours for seven days, followed by a three-day taper.

Over 700 patients in the United States have been treated with Dr. Marik’s protocol to date – at a cost of about $60 per patient.

Compare this to the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to treat sepsis patients with standard medications!

In an article in The Virginian-Pilot, an ICU nurse at Sentara Norfolk marvels at the treatment results, saying she had witnessed “one patient after another” experiencing remarkable results. “They’d be at death’s door and, 24 to 48 hours later, they had turned around,” she reported.

Is it any wonder that the mixture is commonly referred to by some on the hospital staff as “miracle juice?”

Learn more:

The Shocking Conclusions from 28 Medical Studies Linking Fluoride to Lower IQ in Children

2018-01-01_MJ-graphic_SCG-January2018_583x431By Alex Pietrowski

To date, there are at least 53 known international scientific studies concluding that fluoride consumption is harmful to the development of intelligence in children; it impairs their learning and memory capacity. Children are commonly exposed to fluoride from municipal water supplies, dental treatments, environmental pollution, and  in-utero.

Municipal water fluoridation is a state-mandated pharmacological intervention that ostensibly aims to fight dental fluorosis, but this claim is highly contested, and a growing body of research indicates that water fluoridation is linked to lower IQ in children. Medication without consent is a human rights violation.

Learn more: