This photo makes it pretty clear. The baby on the left has been starved of blood and iron. Long term consequences include lower IQ and imprinted suffocation trauma.
Anemia resulting from premature clamping may lead to long-term
cognitive deficiencies, even where iron supplements are given:
SIDS has been correlated with abnormalities in neurochemical
metabolism in the brainstem, which is the area most affected by
The finding that boys are more vulnerable to the effects of ICC
than girls correlates with higher rates of both SIDS and autism
In March 2014, the Bank of England let the cat out of the bag: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it. So wrote David Graeber in The Guardian the same month, referring to a BOE paper called “Money Creation in the Modern Economy.” The paper stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong. The result, said Graeber, was to throw the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.
The revelation may have done more than that. The entire basis for maintaining our private extractive banking monopoly may have been thrown out the window. And that could help explain the desperate rush to “fast track” not only the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), but the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA). TiSA would nip attempts to implement public banking and other monetary reforms in the bud.
The Banking Game Exposed
The BOE report confirmed what money reformers have been saying for decades: that banks do not act simply as intermediaries, taking in the deposits of “savers” and lending them to borrowers, keeping the spread in interest rates. Rather, banks actually create deposits when they make loans. The BOE report said that private banks now create 97 percent of the British money supply. The US money supply is created in the same way.
Graeber underscored the dramatic implications:
. . . [M]oney is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There’s really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it.
Politically, said Graeber, revealing these facts is taking an enormous risk:
Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.
If money is just an IOU, why are we delivering the exclusive power to create it to an unelected, unaccountable, non-transparent private banking monopoly? Why are we buying into the notion that the government is broke – that it must sell off public assets and slash public services in order to pay off its debts? The government could pay its debts in the same way private banks pay them, simply with accounting entries on its books. What will happen when a critical mass of the populace realizes that we’ve been vassals of a parasitic banking system based on a fraud – that we the people could be creating money as credit ourselves, through publicly-owned banks that returned the profits to the people?
Henry Ford predicted that a monetary revolution would follow. There might even be a move to nationalize the whole banking system and turn it into a public utility.
It is not hard to predict that the international bankers and related big-money interests, anticipating this move, would counter with legislation that locked the current system in place, so that there was no way to return money and banking to the service of the people – even if the current private model ended in disaster, as many pundits also predict.
And that is precisely the effect of the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), which was slipped into the “fast track” legislation now before Congress. It is also the effect of the bail-in policies currently being railroaded into law in the Eurozone, and of the suspicious “war on cash” seen globally …
The House of Representatives is voting tomorrow to pass Fast Track authority for the horrible TPP treaty (it already passed the Senate). If Fast Track is approved, TPP will quickly pass without amendment.
But the mainstream media is censoring and ignoring the whole issue.
Senator Warren says that dozens of members of congress are undecided.
Call your Congressional rep right now … and tell them no to TPP and no to Fast Track Authority!
Postscript: Remember, we stopped SOPA … even though they said it couldn’t be done. If everyone picks up the phone right now, we can stop TPP!
Common feminine care products contain hazardous chemicals including carcinogens, endocrine disruptors and reproductive toxins that can cause cancer among other dangers, a new report shows.
Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE) released Wednesday the report Chem Fatale revealing feminine care products, a $3 billion industry, are marred by toxins and void of crucial regulations, putting the health of millions of women at risk.
The report finds that the products used on or in absorbent parts of the female body are sold with little or no data provided about the ingredients they contain.
“The chemicals used in these products are a real concern given the inevitable exposure to sensitive and absorptive vulvar and vaginal tissue,” said Dr. Ami Zota, a professor of occupational and environmental health at George Washington University, in a press release.
For instance, tampons and menstrual pads are regulated by the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) as medical devices, thus are not required by law to disclose ingredients, making “it nearly impossible for consumers to avoid chemicals of concern found in these products.”
Feminine washes, wipes and sprays are defined as “cosmetics” and are required to be free of harmful substances that would harm users under normal conditions. Yet the FDA says it does not assess or preapprove products before they are marketed.
“Companies and individuals who manufacture or market cosmetics have a legal responsibility to ensure the safety of their products. Neither the law nor FDA regulations require specific tests to demonstrate the safety of individual products or ingredients. The law also does not require cosmetic companies to share their safety information with FDA.” …