The U.S. Air Force says it is not halting its use of Depleted Uranium weapons, has recently sent them to the Middle East, and is prepared to use them.
A type of airplane, the A-10, deployed this month to the Middle East by the U.S. Air National Guard’s 122nd Fighter Wing, is responsible for more Depleted Uranium (DU) contamination than any other platform, according to the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW). “Weight for weight and by number of rounds more 30mm PGU-14B ammo has been used than any other round,” said ICBUW coordinator Doug Weir, referring to ammunition used by A-10s, as compared to DU ammunition used by tanks.
Public affairs superintendent Master Sgt. Darin L. Hubble of the 122nd Fighter Wing told me that the A-10s now in the Middle East along with “300 of our finest airmen” have been sent there on a deployment planned for the past two years and have not been assigned to take part in the current fighting in Iraq or Syria, but “that could change at any moment.”
Remember when doctors and scientists told us cigarettes were safe, with doctors even showing up on commercials puffing away? Or how about when Vietnam Vets were told that being sprayed with Agent Orange wouldn’t cause them any significant health problems? The ‘studies’ supported by biotech on GMOs have been suspected of being falsified in one way or another, and now there is an independent, peer-reviewed study to prove it.
Many believe that if enough individuals think there is enough ‘proof’ that GMOs are perilous, then the U.S. government will have no choice but to stop biotech companies like Monsanto from making them, but I believe this is an erroneous assumption.
A growing number of people are starting to think that the U.S. government is using flawed science on purpose to justify centralized manufacture, production, storage, and distribution of an altered world food supply to be used for political power and international rule. If we don’t eat our GMOs, take our vaccines, and assent to being sprayed with chemtrails while our municipal water is being poisoned, then their aims will be supported by our military and police forces.
Until we oust practically every criminal in office, including those who are about to run for office (i.e. Hilary Clinton, who cheerleads for biotech), we will continue to have this problem.
In a recent study that reviewed the histopathology on rats who ate three of the most predominantly consumed GMO genes by humans, the following was surmised:
“Our review also discovered an inconsistency in methodology and a lack of defined criteria for outcomes that would be considered toxicologically or pathologically significant. In addition, there was a lack of transparency in the methods and results, which made comparisons between the studies difficult. The evidence reviewed here demonstrates an incomplete picture regarding the toxicity (and safety) of GM products consumed by humans and animals.
Therefore, each GM product should be assessed on merit, with appropriate studies performed to indicate the level of safety associated with them. Detailed guidelines should be developed which will allow for the generation of comparable and reproducible studies. This will establish a foundation for evidence-based guidelines, to better determine if GM food is safe for human and animal consumption.”
Furthermore, the significant differences between say non-GMO corn, which contains well – corn, and GMO corn which may contain E coli bacteria, antibiotic resistant markers, up to six varieties of Bt toxins, pesticide residues, and RoundUp residues, how can these crops be compared to regular food at all?
“…found 21 studies for nine (19%) out of the 47 crops approved for human and/or animal consumption. We could find no studies on the other 38 (81%) approved crops. Fourteen out of the 21 studies (67%) were general health assessments of the GM crop on rat health. Most of these studies (76%) were performed after the crop had been approved for human and/or animal consumption, with half of these being published at least nine years after approval. Our review also discovered an inconsistency in methodology and a lack of defined criteria for outcomes that would be considered toxicologically or pathologically significant.”GMOs are not safe. It’s about time we wake up to the reality that biotech and the U.S. government won’t listen to a single study saying they are cancerous, cause birth defects, or destroy human embryo cells. It’s time we take a different track altogether. You can assess what you and your family should do in such a hostile environment where our food is concerned.
Corbett gets to the main question around 24:00
Or should I say non-scandal. The american sheeple are so out to lunch on so many things it’s hard to get them to think about obvious questions like whether their government is lying to them or whether monsanto might not have their best interests at heart or whether their baby is fodder for a huge business of child and mother abuse for profit and social control. The corruption in this society is so systemic, so pervasive, so unquestioned, the brainwashing so foundational, one would have to go back to biblical stories of babylon to find anything comparable.
The national U.S. cesarean rate in 2012 was 32.8%.The national cesarean rate has not changed since 2010 when it declined slightly from 32.9% in 2009, the only dip since 1996. Cesarean section is the most common operating room procedure in U.S. hospitals. Overuse of this procedure is associated with excess morbidity in women and babies.1 For both commercial and Medicaid payers, total maternal-newborn costs are about 50% higher for cesarean compared with vaginal births.2
See links below for some of Childbirth Connection’s extensive resources about this procedure. For your use, we have also prepared a PDF hand-out of this c-section page (PDF).
The national U.S. cesarean section rate was 4.5% and near this optimal range in 1965 when it was first measured (Taffel et al. 1987). Since then, large groups of healthy, low-risk American women who have received care that enhanced their bodies’ innate capacity for giving birth have achieved 4% to 6% cesarean section rates and good overall birth outcomes (Johnson and Daviss 2005, Stapleton et al. 2013). However, the national cesarean section rate is much higher. After steeply increasing over more than a decade, it leveled off at 32.8% in 2010 and 2011 (Hamilton et al. 2012). So, about one mother in three now gives birth by cesarean section.
Most mothers are healthy and have good reason to anticipate uncomplicated childbirth. Cesarean section is major surgery and increases the likelihood of many short- and longer-term adverse effects for mothers and babies (some of these harms are listed below). There are clear, authoritative recommendations for more judicious use of this procedure (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2010). Why, then, is the cesarean rate so high?
To explain the high cesarean section rate, health professionals and journalists often point the spotlight on mothers themselves. Many assume that leading factors in the trend are: 1) more and more women are asking for c-sections that have no medical rationale, 2) the number of women who genuinely need a cesarean is increasing, and 3) liability pressure is driving rates up. None appears to account for a large portion of the growth in the cesarean rate since it began to rise in 1996.
Despite a lot of talk about “maternal request” cesareans, few women appear to be taking this step. Childbirth Connection’s national Listening to Mothers survey of women who gave birth in hospitals from mid-2011 to mid-2012 polled women about these decisions in the United States. When we asked mothers with a cesarean when and why they had it, just 1% of Listening to Mothers III survey participants with an initial or “primary” cesarean” reported that she had had a planned cesarean with the understanding that there was no medical reason for it (Declercq et al. 2013). Those who have looked at this question in other countries have found similar results (McCourt et al. 2007).
Many have also pointed to changes in the population of childbearing women, such as more older women who have developed medical conditions and more women with extra challenges of multiple births. While there are some overall changes in this population, researchers have found that cesarean section rates have gone up for all groups of birthing women, regardless of age, the number of babies they are having, the extent of health problems, their race/ethnicity, or other characteristics (Declercq et al. 2006). In other words, there is a change in practice standards that reflects an increasing willingness on the part of professionals to follow the cesarean path under all conditions. In fact, one quarter of the Listening to Mothers survey participants who had cesareans reported that they had experienced pressure from a health professional to have a cesarean (Declercq et al. 2013).
Finally, fear of malpractice liability is frequently cited as a major driver of the extensive use of cesarean section. However, a series of studies have examined this question and have concluded that the role of liability pressure is modest at best and can account for just a fraction of the steep recent rise (Sakala et al. 2013). Further, this factor is overpowered by the role of variation in professional practice style (e.g., Baicker et al. 2006).
Reasons for the High Cesarean Section Rate
The following interconnected factors appear to contribute to the high cesarean rate.
Low priority of enhancing women’s own abilities to give birth …
Side effects of common labor interventions …
Refusal to offer the informed choice of vaginal birth
Casual attitudes about surgery and variation in professional practice style …
Limited awareness of harms that are more likely with cesarean section …
Incentives to practice in a manner that is efficient for providers …
All of these factors contribute to a current national cesarean section rate of over 30%, despite evidence that a rate of 5% to 10% would be optimal.
If you’re expecting a baby, there’s a good chance you’ve wondered if you’ll have a vaginal birth or a cesarean section (c-section). Maybe you talked about your chance of having a c-section with your doctor or midwife. You might even wonder if a c-section is easier or safer than vaginal birth. It’s important to get the facts and understand your options, so you can be prepared to make the best decisions for you and your baby.
What Every Pregnant Woman Needs To Know About Cesarean Section is based on a thorough review of the research. …
1 A woman is five to seven times more likely to die from a cesarean delivery than from a vaginal delivery.
2 A woman having a repeat C-section is twice as likely to die during delivery.
3 Twice as many women require rehospitalization after a C-section than after a vaginal birth.
4 Having a C-section means higher rates of infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and potentially severe placental problems in future pregnancies.
5 Babies born after an elective cesarean delivery (i.e., when labor has not yet begun) are four times more likely to develop persistent pulmonary hypertension, a potentially
6 Between one and two babies of every hundred delivered by C-section will be accidentally cut during the surgery.
7 TheUS is tied for second-to-last place with Hungary, Malta, Poland, and Slovakia for neonatal mortality in the industrialized world.
8 Babies born via C-section are at high risk for not receiving the benefits of breastfeeding.
9 The risk of death to a newborn delivered by C-section to a low-risk woman is 1.77 deaths to 1,000 live births. The risk of death to a newborn delivered vaginally to a low-risk woman is only 0.62 per 1,000 live births.
Unfortunately this checklist pays no heed to the long term psychological impact of iatrogenic trauma and drugging on the baby. The baby is not a passive object to be taken from point A to point B. They actively participate in their own births if given a chance. Their first learning experience is the empowering accomplishment of initiating and successfully completing their own births, and finding their mothers loving arms waiting for them on the other side. What does standard obstetrical medicine imprint on babies? Helplessness, rejection, incomprehensible suffering and subjugation by uncaring strangers. And that’s even before considering the satanic sado-pedophilic abuse of medical circumcision.
The standard mythological framework in which medicine garbs its violence is that babies don’t remember, and that birth is inherently dangerous. How convenient, and how tragically wrong. This society is swimming in violence, alienation and depression. How much of it is due to the pathological american birth imprint? It’s not random speculation: people born in this country are significantly more likely to suffer from depression and addiction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_paradox And then there’s the USA’s astronomical divorce rate. How much of it is due to the simple fact that american men are emotionally castrated by circumcision-induced ecstatic sensory deprivation? As far as birthing dangers, medicine creates most of the crises that necessitate its intervention, which is an institutionalized form of munchausen by proxy. See my munchausen obstetrics paper above.
As usual, medicine likes to blame someone else, including the victims for its institutionalized malevolence. It’s the mothers, the babies, the lawyers, the population demographics etc. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s the built in conflicts of interest within the institution of obstetrical medicine, which produces armies of debt-enslaved, stressed out, time-constrained technobots trained in profit maximization and self-adulation.
Medicine is a cult. Go down the checklist at http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm and see whether it fits, with the appropriate substitutions of nouns. The mindset is the same: we have figured out reality and if you don’t follow our dictates, you’re crazy or stupid and a danger to yourself or your baby and we’re calling the cops http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/cps-still-in-charge-after-hearing-on-gestapo-style-baby-snatching/ http://medicalkidnap.com/2014/10/22/4-month-old-texas-baby-seized-from-parents-in-medical-dispute/ . A total lack of insight into the doctor’s own motivations and ignorance, a hallmark of brainwashing or insanity induced by standard american medical education: http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2017/05/medical-psychopath-school-diary-of-a-3rd-year-medical-student/
And in case you’re still wondering whether it really is all about safety, the US has “50 percent more first-day deaths than all other industrialized combined.”. http://rt.com/usa/us-newborn-deaths-combined-960/
The larger question of the uses of obstetrical abuse in social control is addressed here: http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2014/02/the-war-on-empathy-love-and-family/ . But heaven forbid that we entertain the notion that at the governing levels of medicine and society, this is all intentional. That’s just a wild conspiracy theory, comparable to the idea that money is created out of nothing.
The entrenched and overwhelming power of the satanic central banking cartel is evidenced by their continuing invisibility even in russian propaganda (using that term in a generic sense). It would be nice if just once they pointed out how US foreign policy is being dictated entirely by interests which have no loyalty whatsoever to this country or its people. In any case, there’s still more truth in this speech than you’re going to find in 100 speeches from washington.
In 1977 and 1995 Congressional hearings survivors of CIA mind-control verified that children are being raped and tortured in mind-control experiments. Congress voted not to release results of their investigation and now appears to allow the program to continue. Help us save these abused children. Why are Survivors of CIA Mind-control Claiming Children are Tortured Today? View the documented history of CIA mind-control including prior Congressional investigations at www.ChildAbuseRecovery.com