All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 9, 2010 - InfoWars Special Reports
01:05:14
20101109_SpecialReport_Alex
Source
| Copy link to current segment Download episode

Time Text
We had a chance to talk to Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD, a retired neurosurgeon and author.
His trailblazing research has tirelessly documented the fact that there is an epidemic of neurological disorders in the Western world directly tied to toxins in our environment.
And the story behind the story concerning the larger global eugenics program behind population reduction.
I'm Dr. Russell Blaylock.
I'm a board certified neurosurgeon.
I've retired from active practice.
Now I do primarily theoretical research in neurosciences and spend most of my time writing research articles, review articles on neuroscience projects.
at the present time.
What I found interesting in all of this when I first started looking at it,
looking at the funding by the Rockefeller Foundation and many of the other foundations
like Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, and looking back into the history of it,
and I came accidentally upon a book by Dr. Lily Kay.
She was doing a research project looking at the origins of molecular biology in the United States.
And that was primarily my interest, was just reviewing the history of molecular biology.
But to my surprise, much of the book describes what was called the Science of Man Project by the Rockefeller Foundation.
And primarily, and this is in the period about 1910, primarily what he was interested in and his foundation board was doing social engineering.
They were concerned that society was made of a lot of people they considered undesirables.
Their definition of undesirables was people that had lower IQ, people that had physical defects, people who had diseases, people who did not behave in a way that the group of elitists thought people should behave in a society.
So their idea was to use eugenics, which was the primary science at the time, to redevelop man, to create a new type of person.
And they coined the term social engineering.
Now, of course, at that time we didn't have DNA as a concept.
So they were using rather crude genetics to bring this about.
In the very beginning.
So what she shows is the Rockefeller Foundation was really putting a lot of money in this.
And in order to do that, he thought, what I'll do is I will fund major universities.
And he picked Caltech as one of those universities.
And then some in the east, like Harvard and Johns Hopkins and Columbia.
University of Chicago as the primary centers where this type of study would be carried out and how to re-engineer human beings to be in the form that they thought humans should be.
And gradually as science began to become more sophisticated and eugenics began to get a really bad name as the period of Adolf Hitler occurred, And you realize that the Rockefeller eugenicists, before Hitler became well-known in power, they were traveling to Germany and exchanging information on these eugenic programs.
So a fair amount of this information came from the Rockefeller Foundation.
Of course, after World War II, when the world found out a lot of what was going on in eugenics and the horror of eugenics, Most of these programs were abandoned and the Rockefeller Foundation very quickly said to all their members, let's never use the name eugenics anymore.
What we'll talk about is social engineering, the new science of man, behavioralism.
So they had these key words that meant...
meant basically the same type idea that is redesigning man and man's behavior and controlling it through elitist ideas.
But we would do it through new science and we would establish major institutions in the United States that would control medical education through his General Education Board, which was a very powerful foundation regulation of education in America.
And so he would appoint professors that would be directors of these programs.
He groomed people who believed, like he did, that, in fact, man should be redesigned.
We need this science of man to re-engineer human beings.
But do it in a more scientific way than this crude eugenics program that he began with.
And what that necessitated was using what was called molecular biology.
Well, with the discovery of DNA, this became more sophisticated in that you could manipulate certain genes and change how the brain functioned.
And, of course, then they got into the neuroscience field itself and began to look at, well, how does the brain work?
How can we change behavior by altering brain function?
And this has led up to the present day when we have things like the decade of the brain where there's intense study of the behavioral functions of the brain and how it works.
But if you look through her book where she talks about the actual funding, their actual ideas, it's the same thing that started back in 1910.
That is, we're going to recreate man in our image, what we think man should be, how people should think, what they should think, the limitations on their behavior.
It's a true scientific social engineering of human beings.
Well, leading from that, when we start looking at, well, look at some of the programs that have sort of spurred out of this.
You know, the high-tech DNA manipulation, brain manipulation through electrodes or through transmission outside of electrodes to change human thinking.
These are the more sophisticated programs that are a little bit more obvious, but then there's things that are less obvious.
For instance, fluoridating water.
We look at the original justification for fluoridating water back in 1945 when they picked a couple of cities, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Muskegon.
Grand Rapids was going to be fluoridated, Muskegon was not, and they were going to compare and use the idea that fluoride was preventing cavities.
So even before the study had been completed, they announced that it was a grand success and that fluoridated water produced a 30 to 60 percent reduction in cavities.
What they didn't say was that in the unfluoridated city, There was a very similar drop in the incidence of cavities as well.
And in fact, throughout the entire world, we began to see in the developed world a tremendous fall in the incidence of dental cavities.
That had nothing to do with fluoride.
What it had to do with was increased intake of calcium, mainly through cheese consumption, and better diets, better oral hygiene.
And a number of studies prove that.
One of which was conducted by the U.S.
Public Health Service.
It was one of the largest American studies at the time.
They looked at 39,000 school children in which they looked at the effect of fluoridation versus non-fluoridation and they found it had no beneficial effect at all.
Well, they hid that document so scientists couldn't examine it and the public and the media would never see it.
Well, Dr. Yamanianis, who was a chemist, filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit, had it released, and then he saw why they wanted to hide it, and that's because it clearly demonstrated fluoride did not reduce cavities.
Since that time, there's been a number of studies, one of which included eight countries, another which included all studies on fluoride, independent studies on fluoride and dental caries for the past 30 years, another study included 400,000 children in India.
All of these studies showed the same thing.
Adding fluoride to water did not reduce cavities at all.
And in fact, several of the studies showed it increased cavities.
And it did so because it weakened the dental layer of the tooth and made it more prone to become cavities.
So now that we've established, and it's admitted by the National Science Foundation study, which was recently completed, that fluoridating water does not reduce cavities, there's no modern evidence whatsoever that fluoridating water Reduces cavities at all.
So you have to ask the question, why are you still fluoridating water?
Now European countries have caught on very quickly.
None of them fluoridate their water.
Britain fluoridates about 60% of its water and it forced fluoridation on Ireland.
But the mainland European countries do not fluoridate water, do not allow it.
But the United States, we still have the federal government And inclusion with the American Dental Association, going to various cities, even small cities, using their pressure, their money, taxpayer money, to try to force local city councils to fluoridate the water.
In the state of California, in fact, they've ordered the fluoridation of all waters in every city and village, over 10,000 inhabitants, Whether they vote to not fluoridate their water or not.
So you have to ask the question, well now that scientifically we've proven that fluoridating water has no effect on reducing cavities, why is the federal government spending so much money and effort to force fluoridation of the rest of the water supply?
And even insisting that bottled water be fluoridated.
That no one would have access to unfluoridated water.
Uh, except the elite.
Well, if we look at, uh, the scientific studies and what is the effect of fluoridation, well, we know fluoridating water, uh, through a number of studies, some of which were ordered by the federal government itself in the earlier days, increases cancer risk.
Burke and Yamin Yanis, two scientists, did one of the largest cancer studies in relationship to fluoridating water supply.
They looked at all cities, ten cities, in the eastern part of the United States.
And they showed that in fluoridated cities, as compared to unfluoridated, there's a 10% increase in cancer.
This was a criticized study, so they repeated it, and they did all cities.
East of the Mississippi, above 10,000 population, comparing fluoridated and unfluoridated.
Now, what they did, they compared the cancer statistics before fluoridation and then 13 to 17 years after fluoridation.
Again, they found there was a 10% increase cancer death incidence in the cities that had been fluoridated.
Now, when you say cancer death, that means people who died of cancer.
You can appreciate there can be a lot more people who develop cancer who didn't die.
So the actual cancer incidence is much higher.
This study was so impressive to some members of Congress, they ordered a study of this link to cancer through the Battelle Research Institute.
These studies showed that, number one, it produced a number of types of cancer.
One, which was a very rare liver cancer.
And it significantly increased the growth of cancer in people who already had cancers.
Well, despite these studies, they're still fluoridating water.
They found out it increased fractures, not only in the elderly, but in younger women.
And it increased hip fractures in older men to a greater extent than the women.
Well, a hip fracture in someone over 65 has a high mortality rate.
So it's a good way, if you wanted to, to increase the mortality of the elderly and get them out of the way, which is in discussion today.
We know that it has profound effects on the brain.
One of the most impressive was done by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, who was a highly regarded neurotoxicologist, someone who studies the toxicity of different elements on the brain.
Well, she was She was drafted into doing this when she worked for the Forsyth Dental Research Institute and she had never worked with fluoride, didn't know a lot about it.
Now I know this first hand because I've interviewed her and talked with her and I know her.
And she said when she first was going to do the research product to see if fluoridating water had any effect on the brain's function, She thought it would be negative.
She didn't think fluoride would have any adverse effects on the brain.
She did one of the largest studies that's been done in animals to see the effect of fluoridating water on their brain function.
And she used a very innovative, modern technique.
And in this technique, she used computers to see the behavior of the animal, so that it was totally objective.
There was no subjective influence by the researchers themselves.
That had never been done before, and all this was high-tech equipment.
She completed her study, and to her surprise, the fluoride produced two main effects.
If you fed the fluoride to a pregnant animal, the offspring then became hyperactive.
In other words, like ADHD.
If you gave the fluoride after birth, the animal became very lethargic.
Sort of like a couch potato.
Didn't really want to do anything.
Became very apathetic acting.
So this was a very clear effect with objective, computerized evaluation of the behavior of these animals.
She used over 500 animals.
She completed this research and she also measured the fluoride levels in the animal's brain and found some very interesting things.
It's that fluoride tends to accumulate in the part of the brain that controls behavior, particularly the hippocampus and the other limbic areas of the brain.
She brought this research to the National Institutes of Health.
They asked her to present this.
And the results of her research.
Well, at the same time, after she wrote up her research, she had presented it in one of the very prestigious journals to be published.
And they didn't know it.
So she presented it to the National Institute of Health, and their response was very cold.
And she said when she was walking through the National Institutes of Health, all the walls were adorned with big posters proclaiming the effectiveness of fluoridation of water and promoting the fluoridation of water.
And she said, this is a very objective audience I'm speaking to.
Well, they were very hostile and very cold to her during her presentation and didn't even ask questions.
So, when she got back to her institute, they asked her about sending this to a journal to be published, and they wanted the name of the journal.
Well, she wouldn't tell them, because she knew they would try to stop the publication, try to influence the journal not to publish it.
So, she wouldn't tell them, and it was published, much to their dismay and anger.
A wide audience of scientists began to look at this research which for the first time proved that fluoride added to water in the concentrations that humans are exposed to was producing profound changes in the brain and altering behavior of young animals exposed to it.
We have to realize at the time women were adding fluoridated water to reconstitute the baby food.
Well, over half of babies get reconstituted baby food.
They're not breastfed.
So this was tens of millions of babies were being exposed to concentrations of fluoride that were used in this experiment.
Where she, after they found that this had been published, they fired her.
And the Forsyte Dental Research Institute, in fact, at about that time had gotten a quarter million dollar grant from the Colgate Company, which fluoridates their toothpaste.
So she was fired from her job, she's never gotten another federal grant, and she was one of the top neurotoxicologists in the world.
She had created this innovative new system.
Well, she went back to her lab to get the rat's brains so that she could continue research on her own.
It turns out they had flooded the lab, claimed there was a break in a water pipe.
It destroyed her computer system and they killed all the rats and incinerated them.
So there is no tissue left to do any studies on.
All of these things look rather suspicious.
So, you know, you have to come to your own conclusion of what does this mean.
Number one, we know that there's numerous health effects of adding fluoride to water.
We know fluoride bioaccumulates in the human body.
That means it just keeps getting higher and higher concentrations the more you drink water.
If you want to produce the highest concentration of a mineral, you don't put it in the food, you put it in the water.
Because people drink a lot of water, particularly in warmer climates.
So that produces the highest level of bioaccumulation.
And that's what we were saying.
Well, Dr. Yamanianis did some studies and looked at the different tissues in the body, found out the highest accumulation was in the thyroid gland.
It had been known that one way to reduce thyroid function was to put fluoride in the water.
That it produced a significant hypothyroidism, or low function of the thyroid gland.
Now not only does that produce lethargy, apathy, weakness, tiredness in adults, but if you do it in pregnant women, the babies are born with low IQs and they never recover.
So even mild reduction of thyroid function in pregnant women has now been shown to produce significant neurobehavioral problems in their offspring.
So we've got some rather profound problems with fluoridation that are now well documented from laboratories all over the world without any question.
For instance, one of them Dr. Varner did out of Europe.
In which he looked at 0.5 parts per million, which is half of what's put in water, and found significant deaths of neurons in the brain and damage to the blood vessels that supply blood to the brain.
He's a highly regarded researcher.
It was published in a very prestigious neurological journal.
So we have all of these studies proving that this is a very hazardous thing to do, that it produces behavioral changes, many of which we're seeing in the populations that are drinking fluoridated water.
We know it bioaccumulates, it gets worse over time.
We know that it's absorbed into the plants and the foods and the concentration in the foods is rising significantly.
Yet we have a government that is still pushing as hard as they can, using taxpayer money, to get all the water supply in the United States fluoridated.
So I leave it to the audience to think for themselves, what could possibly be the justification for doing such a thing?
If you've demonstrated it doesn't reach its objective, that is, reducing cavities, which everybody now has admitted, even the ADA has had to admit it, why is it still being added to the water?
If it has these profound health effects, why is it still being added to the water?
And even the ADA had to admit recently that it is harmful to the baby's brain, and they put out a warning.
Now, this is just on the government sites and on their own site.
Women should not reconstitute their baby food with tap water that's fluoridated.
Well, you don't see that as a headline in your newspaper.
You don't see it on most major news TV stories.
Which would reach most women.
It's just sort of kept under the cover so they can say, well, we did put out the warning.
We just didn't make it a widespread warning.
So a lot of women are still reconstituting their baby's infant formula with fluoridated tap water that even the ADA now admits is harmful to their brains.
So, if we start looking at some of the other things that are being done in this society, for instance, the use of aspartame, widespread use of aspartame, which is also proven to be a brain toxin, without any question.
It's also linked to an increased incidence of cancer.
To any reasonable objective of mine, these studies prove it.
When we look at the effects of MSG, monosodium glutamate, and other food additives that are excitotoxins on brain and behavior, When we look at the effects on reproduction of these things.
For instance, fluoride reduces reproduction.
It influences sperm mobility, sperm production, and testosterone level in males.
And it bioaccumulates in these organs and gradually reduces the ability to reproduce.
When we look at aluminum, lead, all of these things that are ending up in our water system, our food that are being given as food additives, We're seeing some common effects.
They have behavioral effects, they have reproductive effects, and they have effects on health like cancer, degenerative brain disorders.
And it's well demonstrated in the scientific literature.
The question you have is why are the regulatory agencies not approaching this?
Why are they still allowing this?
When there's compelling evidence that it's harmful.
Just to be on the safe side, you would think when millions of people are exposed to this every day, They would at least warn the public that it has effects on your reproduction, has effects on your risk of cancer, has effects on your brain function, your cognitive function, your memory, learning.
It has effects on the development of the brain of the child.
When all these things are known, and endless scientific literature and peer-reviewed journals, why is the public being kept in the dark?
And so, you know, just answer that question yourself, without saying, well, they're doing it on purpose.
You have to say, well, either they're doing it on purpose, or they're the most incredibly stupid and incompetent people in the world, and they don't deserve to be in positions of power, and should be removed from positions of power, and people with good cognitive sense replace them.
There's only two choices you have in this debate.
Either they're incredibly stupid and incompetent, or criminal, or they're doing it on purpose for a reason, which goes back to the Rockefeller design of human engineering.
When we look at vaccinations, this country vaccinates children at a rate higher than anywhere in the entire world.
They get something like 46 different antigen exposures before they start school.
They're getting 26 to 30 by age 1.
Now, I've made the case in a number of articles I've published in Peer Review Journal that this is very harmful to the brain.
I've outlined the mechanism by which it does it.
And yet, the policy continues and every day we see the federal government pushing more vaccinations.
In collusion with the pharmaceutical companies that are making high profits off of it, international organizations are pushing it, and you have to ask why.
Now there's a recent study that's been done by Neil Miller, and in this study he compared the mortality of infants age one and children five years and younger in relationship to the number of vaccines they receive.
It is a direct dose response in every country examined.
For instance, the United States has the highest vaccination rate in the world and it is 44th in the world in infant health.
In other words, we have infant mortality That's 44th in the world.
Now, for a nation that's supposed to be the leader of health care, why are we so far down the list of infant mortality in terms of high levels of infant mortality?
And it directly correlates to the number of vaccines.
And if you follow the number of vaccines, it's a straight line which shows a dose response of this toxicity of the vaccine.
And it makes sense, because when you over-vaccinate, it interferes with the development of the brain, and then the child has difficulty learning, they become behavioral problems, and their brain cannot develop normally.
And this is happening on a very, very wide scale.
We're talking about 90% of children in this country are getting this huge number of vaccinations.
And despite the fact that we have this compelling evidence that it is harmful to the developing brain, we have health care officials who are totally ignoring this and continue to promote it.
So we have to ask, where is this going to stop?
How many more toxins are they going to add to the burden to these people, which is going to shorten their lifespan, interfere with their ability to think clearly, And why would you want your population to be apathetic and unable to think clearly and make decisions as independent thinking minds?
I was one of the first people in the published literature to say, when you remove thimerosal from the vaccine, you're not going to see much of a difference in autism rate.
Everyone else that's working in this field was convinced it was the mercury.
Now there's no question mercury is toxic to the developing brain.
There's no question about that.
But the greatest toxicity is the number of vaccines being given and the fact that you're overstimulating the immune system.
When you powerfully and repeatedly stimulate the immune system, it activates the brain's immune cell, the microglia, and that secretes destructive compounds.
excitotoxins, immune cytokine, that have been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt in hundreds of research papers
to produce abnormal development of the brain and destruction of certain areas of the brain and types of
neurons.
That's well known. That's established.
Now, you have to ask again, if this is so well known, why do we keep adding new vaccine?
Because now we're insisting not only do they get the 46 vaccine, but then every four years,
many of these vaccines are to be repeated throughout the rest of their life, even into adulthood.
It's been estimated that they're going to propose 150 vaccines for adults throughout your life.
There's no way that the brain can tolerate 115 repetitive vaccinations.
So it's not necessarily the mercury.
The mercury adds to the toxicity.
But it's the fact that the brain is being overstimulated immunologically.
And that's proven.
And they also recently announced a new army plan to develop DNA vaccines, which would use an electro-stimulation process and supposedly go directly to the cells.
And it would also, part of the project would be so they could deliver multiple vaccines in one quick blast, not have to use new needles for everyone, so they could do things fairly quickly.
But do you have any idea what the potential dangers would be of DNA vaccines?
Well, it is an area that they're looking into, so that they can give it in fewer vaccination exposures.
And that's because they have difficulty getting people to keep coming in, getting these dozens and dozens of vaccines, so it would be a lot more convenient just to give one.
But you're still immunologically stimulating the body In a very, very powerful way over a prolonged period of time.
If you do that in animals, it damages the brain.
If you do that in animals that are young or during pregnancy, it will reproduce things like Schizophrenia and Autism.
And we know in women, pregnant women, if during their pregnancy they develop a viral infection, the incidence of Schizophrenia and Autism goes up tremendously.
And their offspring as they get older.
Of course, schizophrenia doesn't present until their teenage years.
So there's a long period between the vaccination and the appearance of the schizophrenia, which gave a deniability for a long period of time.
Well, the new research has shown it's not the virus that's causing the schizophrenia.
It's the mother's immune reaction to the virus.
So when her immune system is activated, It activates the baby's brain's immune system and produces a process called immuno-excitotoxicity that produces abnormal brain development and the schizophrenia and autism.
When you stimulate the body's immune system, it automatically activates the brain's immune system, which is a separate immune system.
It's operated by the microglia-type brain cell.
When that brain cell is activated during a natural infection, it's activated, kills the virus or bacteria, and then it shuts down.
If you immunologically activate it by giving injections, like you do with a vaccine, it turns it on and it doesn't turn off very well.
You give another vaccine a month later, two months later, that cell becomes hyper-reactive.
So the next reaction is infinitely more intense than the first one.
So the brain stays in this state of chronic inflammation.
Chronic inflammation of the brain is what's thought to lead to such diseases in adults, like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Lou Gehrig's disease, Huntington's disease.
And in infants and small children, it leads to neurodevelopmental problems.
Difficulty learning, ADD, ADHD.
I think recently on the news they talked about the link between pesticides and ADHD.
Well, the interesting thing, pesticides do the same thing as vaccines do.
They activate this microglia immune cell in the brain.
So what the pesticide is doing chemically is the same thing that a vaccine does.
During the injection, that is, it produces chronic brain inflammation, leading to ADHD, autism, schizophrenia, and sets you up later in life for chronic brain degeneration.
This is the thing that's well demonstrated in scientific literature, particularly neuroscience literature, but being totally ignored by the media, By health authorities, by regulatory agencies, by the people promoting vaccines.
They're completely keeping this silent and away from the general public.
So that mothers and people getting these multiple vaccinations do not know the danger that's inherent in this practice.
If you look back at what Dr. Kaye is saying in her book on molecular biology, that in 1910 this was the dream of these elitists, was to recreate man in the image of the elitist idea.
And it was funded by enormous amounts of money from the Tax-Free Foundation.
Which hide what they're doing with other types of philanthropy.
So if they're using their money for art museums and education programs and things that have a lot of public appeal, then underneath that they can hide these other things that they're doing.
And then if they are exposed by someone, then they say, oh, we're promoting these vaccine programs in Africa because we care about these poor people and we're trying to protect them against these diseases.
Or we're doing this fluoridation program because we're interested in people's health of their teeth.
So it's easy to hide the true motivation of what you're doing.
Now, do we have the smoking gun that proves this is what they're doing?
Well, we don't have the The exact smoking gun, because they're smarter than that, they're not going to put it exactly in writing, but when you look at the writings of the Rockefellers and the Ford Foundation, they hint at these things, that population needs to be controlled, that we need to re-engineer human thinking and behavior.
So, if they're in favor of social engineering, If they're in favor of this science of man idea of remaking the human mind, it's a pretty strong indication that they will use their enormous power, influence, and enormous amounts of money in conjunction
With pharmaceutical companies and others to bring these ideas about.
You know, I find it ironic when people say they don't believe in certain conspiracy theories.
Well, it's like H.G.
Wells wrote a book.
The title of his book is Open Conspiracy.
Because it's not secret, and this is what you usually hear is, well, if this was true, how could they keep it secret?
Well, they don't need to keep it secret.
And it's not a secret, because they write a lot about it.
They write about the need for control in these different areas.
They write about how we need to control behavior and how we need to re-engineer man.
So it's in their writings.
It's an open conspiracy, but they can keep people from making that final link because they never actually say exactly how they're doing it and what they're doing.
It's just they fund it.
You look for the funding behind things like Floridation, then you look for funding behind some of these other efforts, and it always goes back to the Tax-Free Foundations, The driving force behind it.
And they're producing the justification for it by hiding it behind benevolent claims.
Brave New World Revisited was about methods that then were known to control human behavior.
Huxley talked about strobotic injection in which you gave some mild psychotropic drugs to the population And you could inject thoughts into their minds and they would think they thought.
And suddenly you would change their whole way of thinking without their knowledge.
So he was writing about this in 1950s.
So that's one book.
H.G.
Wells wrote about it.
We have a number of people who are writing about the chemical alteration of the brain to change human thinking on a mass scale.
So it's not a new idea and unfortunately there are people who believe that's true.
Now this new move to put psychotropic drugs into the water supply, for instance lithium, should scare people.
You know, they have no right To put psychotropic, mind-altering drugs in the water supply.
It's very dangerous for one thing.
We know lithium can accumulate in the brain.
We know that in some people, it can produce serious neurological disorders.
We know that if you're, for instance, on lithium medication, does that mean you can't drink your tap water?
Because the therapeutic dose is very close to the toxic dose.
So we're going to have to supply special water to them?
What do you do for small children?
What do you do for babies?
What do you do for pregnant women?
They can't drink the water supply because it's going to have a very profound effect on a small baby's brow.
And none of this is being considered.
Well, then other people are already stepping forward.
Well, not only should we add lithium to the water supply to prevent suicide and depression, we should add other drugs to the water.
There's a British physician who said we ought to add statin drugs and antihypertensives to all water.
Well, then there's other psychiatrists and people interested in human behavior say, well, you know, there's other drugs we could alter human behavior with.
Well, I don't think we need elitist scientists or technocrats, as you say, altering our thinking by putting things in our water supply.
That's the drugging of America on a mass scale for these elitists to manipulate our minds.
And they have no idea what it is.
I mean, look at the fluoride program, for instance.
Here it started out, it's very safe, it's very benign.
Now, 60 years later, we find out, well, no, it's increased cancer rates 10%.
It makes tumors grow faster.
It increases bone fractures.
It produces reproductive problems.
One of the major things that's just exploded since I've been in medical school is infertility in young people.
Fertility clinics are everywhere.
Young people are having trouble conceiving.
And no one has a scientific explanation other than these things that are being added to water and foods, etc.
that are known to affect human reproduction.
This is another one of those living Constitution rights, where the left says, well, it's not in the Constitution.
It was not proposed by the framers of the Constitution.
It was not part of the contract between the state and the federal government.
But we've inserted it on our own, without any vote, without any constitutional methods of adding an amendment.
We just decided it would be good for society to do this.
And therefore, we'll do it.
And if later we find out we've created a tragedy, then, well, that's just the price that you have to pay.
You know, it reminds me of when Malcolm Muggeridge was traveling to the Ukraine during the great Ukrainian starvation imposed by Stalin.
He was riding on the train with a reporter from the New York Times, and the dead bodies were just piled up like cordwood everywhere.
And Malcolm Muggeridge was just shocked.
He said, I can't believe what Stalin is doing.
And he turned to the New York Times reporter, Walter Durante, and he said, aren't you shocked by this?
And he says, oh, well, you have to break some eggs to make an omelet.
We're building a new society.
Well, this is their idea.
This is their same viewpoint.
It's that, oh yes, we may harm a lot of people, we may kill some babies, we may create some new diseases, you know, we may wipe out whole populations at a time, but that's the price we have to pay to create the new vision, the new society.
And these people admitted in many of their writings, if you take the time to read these things, for instance, one of the great ophthalmologists, I've forgotten his name now, I think it was Wise, but he was an ophthalmologist back in the 1950s.
And one of the greatest.
They still give him an award in his name.
And he wanted to euthanize anybody who was blind.
It always starts with the worst case scenario.
And he said, well, it's terrible that people are born blind.
Therefore, what we'll do is we'll sterilize all families that had blind children so they can't have any more blind children.
Well, then other ophthalmologists came forward and said, well, 99% of blindness has nothing to do with heredity.
He was going to sterilize all blind people.
So none of them could have children.
Well, then he carried it even further.
He said, well, anyone with impaired vision should be sterilized.
And then it became, anyone who wears glasses should be sterile.
So we always see this progression.
It starts out with a worst case scenario to sell it to the public because the public feelings of sympathy and empathy are easily engendered when you pull this little child that has this horrible disease.
You say, we need to do this so that this doesn't ever happen.
And then you approve that.
And then the next thing you know, we're killing people who just have minor problems.
I call it the Kevorkian progression.
If you remember Kevorkian in the beginning, oh, people have terminal diseases.
They're going to die soon.
Why let them suffer?
Well, most people said, well, that makes sense.
I don't think people should suffer.
Then, oh, well, they're not going to die anytime soon, but they have a disease that's crippling, and it's not nice to have to live like that, so he killed them.
Well, then people start saying, well, I don't know if I agree with that.
You know, they can live with that condition.
They just not be able to do everything they'd like to.
Well, where did it end up?
Then he was killing a woman because she was depressed.
So there's always this progression.
It starts out with a worst case scenario.
To sell it.
Because of its power of empathy.
And then once it's sold and becomes legislation and a law, then we start including large numbers of people who are nowhere near that severe.
Well, this is what happened in eugenics.
In eugenics, they were going to round up anyone who didn't have full capability to have a Harvard education.
They wanted to build compounds to put them in.
If you had just moderately low IQ, They wanted to forcibly sterilize, and they did.
They forcibly sterilized some 36,000 people in America before it was finally ended.
And as I said, the major proponents of this eugenics idea back in the 1920s and early 30s were traveling to Germany, meeting with eugenicists over there, telling them about what we were doing in America in the early ages.
In the 1910s and 1920s.
And this is where Hitler created his eugenics program.
Hitler was, you know, exchanging eugenics ideas with people from the Rockefeller Foundation.
Stoddard was one of these people.
He wrote a book about it.
In which he was exchanging these eugenics ideas from the Rockefeller Foundation with Hitler.
And Hitler built this huge program for sterilization of people he felt like shouldn't reproduce.
That's what stopped the eugenics movement in America and the Rockefeller people, according to Dr. Lilly, and she had access to the Rockefeller records by permission of the family.
According to that, he ended that program and told them, don't use the name eugenics anymore.
We're going to use the name social engineering.
So that people won't know what we're doing, that we're continuing this program under a different name.
But it all started out in 1910 with the idea of science of man, of recreating man.
Scientific discovery took place as we learned more about cells, we learned about DNA, we learned about inheritance patterns, how genes work, how you could turn them on and off.
As our pharmacology became more sophisticated.
All of this increased our ability technologically to carry out some of these things.
Now you have to realize most of molecular biology is beneficial.
I'm not opposed to molecular biology.
The vast majority of it is extremely beneficial.
But that gives you a huge cover because you can't attack molecular biology.
What about the things we learned to stop diabetes?
What about the things we're doing now with heart disease and cancer?
It all came because of molecular biology.
Well, I admit that and I'm for that.
I think we should continue molecular biology.
What we should divorce from it Is an elitist idea that government in conjunction and using this technological ability can force behavioral changes in people against their will.
To use this technology to change your ability to have independent thought.
There's a neuroscientist by the name of Delgado who was one of the leading experts in the world of deep brain stimulation.
He suddenly disappeared from the scene, stopped publishing papers, stopped writing books, didn't attend conferences any longer.
And I think it was Discover Magazine traced him down and found him and asked him, what are you doing now?
And he said, well, I work for the federal government on a secret project.
And he said, well, what are you doing?
And he said, well, I can't tell you a lot of details, but I don't have to use electrodes anymore to change human thought.
I can do it at a distance with my directed microwave.
And I can aim it at certain parts of your brain and fill you with fear or make you hear voices or see things.
And he said, that's all I can tell you, but I get unlimited money, the best laboratory in the world, and all I want to do this research.
Well, he wrote a book before he did this, and Physical Control of the Mind.
And in that book, he says, the last refuge of the individual is their own thought.
And that is the target of certain people in the world, is to remove your ability to think on your own.
They made it where the people that they wanted to control understood this money comes to you as long as your project goes in the direction we want it to.
The money will stop flowing if you stop doing it.
So there's this understanding of our goal, where we want to go with this, and that if you want the money, and you want this multi-million dollar laboratory, we have this unwritten understanding, and I don't even have to tell you, you just kind of know that's what I want.
About the regulatory agencies, EPA, FDA, all these regulatory agencies, alphabet agencies, They were all established sort of the same methodology that this is to protect the public.
And they gave justification, you know, contamination of the foods if we don't regulate it, contamination of this, of the drugs if we don't regulate it, which gave good justification for some regulation of different things to protect the public, which most people agreed with.
The problem is, is that over time, the people with the most power and influence were able to influence the regulatory agency so they were not looking after the public, they were looking after the person supplying the most money.
And usually, it is the very agencies that they're regulating.
For instance, the Food and Drug Administration, what we've had, and there's been a number of books written on it, a number of exposés on it, is that individuals of the FDA will be receiving either promised jobs when they retire that are very lucrative if they'll just pass this drug and give it the okay.
This has gotten so bad now we have just numerous drugs have entered the market and harmed and killed tens of thousands of people.
Uh, which, when the investigation, uh, looks at it, they found out, in fact, they knew this drug was harmful before it was ever approved.
Uh, the early studies, some of them had been faked by either the companies being investigated and the FDA was aware of it, or the early studies did indicate that these dangers were there, and they approved it anyway.
And then, uh, once it entered into the, the marketplace, thousands of people were harmed.
Uh, you may remember, uh, Some of the anti-inflammatory COX-2 drugs, one of them came out on the market and it's estimated as many as 80,000 people died of a complication that was known before the drug was ever approved and it was known by the FDA regulatory agencies.
So we have a number of cases in which the regulatory agencies were being heavily influenced by the people they were regulating.
This is true with the Superfund.
There's a number of studies looking at EPA and Superfund in which the people doing the polluting, they're not corrected.
They just pass over it.
And I've looked into some of this myself with some of the regulatory agencies.
For instance, vaccine contamination.
I looked up some of the FDA records on the investigation of the people that were supplying components of the vaccine that were heavily contaminated, either with hepatitis virus or at risk of the mad cow prion contaminants.
And what the FDA would do would go into the company, identify the danger that they were collecting specimens that were contaminated or high risk of contamination, and then they would just write up a report and never come back and see if they corrected it.
So they're allowed to continue the practice without any fine, without any follow-up to see if this had been stopped.
So this is one of the other reasons I worry a lot about vaccines.
Because there's indications that they're highly contaminated.
They're using contaminated serum to make it by getting this from small labs all over the world in the United States.
And there's been numerous cases in which, for instance, a vaccine in the UK They found out that one of the people that they were getting the serum from died of mad cow disease.
And their response was, well, we don't think it's going to cause any problem.
But tens of thousands of people had received that vaccine contaminated with the mad cow.
So, you know, what we call this is the revolving door.
One of the best demonstrated examples, and you can find this on Betty Martini's site, Mission Possible.
If you go to that site, you'll find the full document reproduced.
And so when they were doing the first approval of aspartame, When it was made by G.D.
Searle Company, they told G.D.
Searle, do some experiments and present them to the FDA and we'll see about approval.
Well, they did the experiments and studies on mice and they presented it to G.D.
Searle and a board of scientists, which included neuroscientists, said, well, we don't think this should be approved because there's a very high incidence of brain tumors in animals exposed to aspartame and other tumors as well and some other problems.
Well, the chairman of that scientific committee overrode their decision and approved it anyway.
And then shortly after that, I think within three to six months, he went to work for the PR agency for G.D.
Serrell.
So this was sort of the revolving door in how aspartame ever got approved in the first place.
Now, a government regulatory committee was asked to look at this and see if indeed there were an increased number of brain tumors.
And so they went back, got all the GD sero slides, all the material that was used for these studies, and they found out that many of the slides had been destroyed that had tumors in them.
They found out that the people that were doing the examination of the slides were not qualified, that the studies on the effect of aspartame on developing babies was done by a person who had no experience whatsoever in examining the embryologic effects of this toxin.
And that there was evidence of numerous types of tumors being induced by aspartame in these studies.
This report was locked up in a file cabinet.
No one was allowed to see it until a Freedom of Information lawsuit was filed.
It was released.
When it was released, it demonstrated all these things.
I've read it myself, so I know what's in it.
And it's all true that they were destroying specimens, hiding tumors, lying about what was found.
And that's the sole basis of the approval of aspartame for use today.
It was known that it's a carcinogenic agent.
They were known at the time that it produces damage to the brain, that it contains excitotoxins.
Repeat studies recently have shown that it increases the incidence of a particular deadly cancer, lymphomas and leukemias, possibly brain tumors and possibly breast cancers.
That has been since repeated in even a larger study by a very prestigious research group confirming that this does produce cancer in these animals.
We know that the aspartame contains breakdown products, DKP, And formaldehyde that latches to the DNA damages it, and so we have a good explanation why it's producing this high incidence of cancer.
We also know the mechanism for producing damage to the brain as well.
And there's been numerous human cases of cancer that seems connected to the aspartame, particularly brain cancers.
And we've seen an increase in the number of brain cancers since it's been approved, particularly in young people.
So this demonstrates again this revolving door mentality.
They approach people that are in positions to get products approved that are dangerous.
They use their money and influence, promise of jobs to get it approved.
Then that person leaves and goes to work for the company.
So the public is being deceived thinking that modern regulatory agencies are protecting them.
They're not.
They're protecting the people that they're supposed to regulate.
Doctor, going back to the collusion and the revolving door issues, Wolfgang Wodarg of the Council of Europe initiated an official investigation into the H1N1 vaccine, saying that it had been pharmaceutical people falsely rising the level of the pandemic and causing the WHO to put out the mass alert and push this whole thing.
Could you talk about the swine flu?
I'll suggest the word hoax, but of course, tell us what you think about it.
Well, I think it was a grand hoax.
You know, now that we're looking in retrospect, the idea that it was a pandemic is being attacked by a number of people, that there was no evidence it was a pandemic.
And as I appeared on one of Alex's earlier shows when all of the H1N1 was first emerging, I had searched the CDC site.
I researched things that were in one of the most prestigious of our science magazines.
Which is called science and nature.
And the New England Journal of Medicine.
Early on the evidence was that this was a very difficult virus to transmit.
That its virulence was no worse than any other ordinary virus.
And that this whole thing was being overblown.
Then it came out by the CBS study.
Which they looked at all the different states and found out the vast majority of the viral infections were not H1N1.
Something like 90% in some states, 99% were other viruses.
And so there were very few cases actually of H1N1, which goes along with these other early studies, saying it's very difficult to transmit.
Well, they knew all of this.
When I went through all the data that was appearing on the CDC site, the Center for Disease Control, it was showing quite clearly that the death rate from this virus at all age levels was actually quite low.
At this time, they were saying, well, the most at risk are children under four years of age.
I warned at that time, if you use the adjuvants in this vaccine that's being proposed, you're going to increase the risk of seizures and brain damage, autism, and schizophrenia in these children.
Well, now it's come out after the epidemic has been over, or the so-called pandemic is over, that in fact in Britain, for instance, they admit that the H1N1 vaccine has caused a tremendous increase in seizures in children under age four, the very ones they targeted.
The very ones they were telling children in America and in Europe and in the UK, you need to bring your children in to get this vaccine because they're at high risk of dying.
When I looked on their site, it didn't tell that story.
When I looked at their own data, it said those children really are at less risk than they were in previous years from flu.
So they were lying all the time, and the media could easily have done what I did, look on the CDC site and see they were lying, but instead they carried the story that this is a pandemic, that this is scary, that you need to get your children vaccinated, and who else did they target?
They targeted pregnant women.
I warned them that compelling studies said if you vaccinate pregnant women with this powerful adjuvant, You're going to increase the incidence of Autism and Schizophrenia.
Well, we're not going to see the impact of the Schizophrenia for a decade or more.
And they'll have deniability.
Because they know that most of the public does not know about this research.
That in fact, if you do that during pregnancy, dramatically, it's almost a six-fold increase in Schizophrenia.
It took 20 years or more for us to find out about the previous fake epidemic and pandemic.
You remember the 1986 H1N1 scare that, oh here's the 1918 pandemic coming again.
And so we went through that with the swine flu vaccine and we had over 500 deaths.
And the actual virus itself killed one person.
So that means 500 times more people died from the vaccine than died from the actual virus.
It took 20 years for that to come out to the public.
20 years from the figure out that in fact the whole thing had been concocted.
So it's going to take another 20 years for us to actually see the impact of what's happened this past year with H1N1.
When we finally get a tally of how many mothers lost their babies, I think so far the count's about 200, how many in the end are going to end up schizophrenic?
How much increase in autism will we see?
How many other neurodevelopmental problems will we see?
How many children will have seizures for the rest of their life?
How many elderly are going to have problems, autoimmune disease, etc.?
It's going to take decades for that to finally be exposed.
And so, you know, that's my warning to people is be a little bit more discerning, a little bit more skeptical when you hear these federal agencies on TV trying to terrify you into taking a course of action.
And, of course, when we look at The CDC and again people who've visited there told me all the walls are plastered with posters that are printed by the vaccine companies themselves extolling the virtues of all these vaccines.
So the Centers for Disease Control is using their posters.
If you go in your doctor's office and you see this big poster all about the virtues of these vaccines, look down in the corner and you'll see printed the name of the pharmaceutical company.
So that's where your doctors get the information from the pharmaceutical company.
The CDC is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical company.
That's come out in a recent examination, an expose.
It's that a number of these scientists are in fact receiving funds from the pharmaceutical companies.
When you look at the vaccine board for the American Academy of Pediatrics, you see a number of those people are receiving funds from the pharmaceutical companies that makes vaccines.
▲
Export Selection