Codex Alimentarius: An Introduction to Soft Kill Eugenics

By DAISY LUTHER | INALIENABLE YOURS | MAY 2, 2012

The world as we once knew it is gone. The rosy cheeked children, bursting with energy, that once climbed trees and got up to mischief, are extinct. The people are still here, but they are pale, lethargic and slowly dying.

Every bite of food provided to these people is the product of a laboratory – the genetically modified spawn of Big Agri and Big Pharma. The food looks incredible – huge, radiant tomatoes such a vivid red that one would think the lycopene was virtually emanating from the skin of the fruit. Inside that appealing package is a food-like substance, utterly raped of nutrients.

The people are unable to go to a health-food store and purchase vitamins or an herbal tonic to put the spring back in their step. Herbs, vitamins and nutrients in general have been labeled “toxins” and are only available via prescription at high prices and low doses.

If the people are caught hoarding treasured fertile heirloom seeds, and heaven forbid, planting them to grow their own food, punishment is swift and sure. The bounty is taken and the people starve again.
Amidst the abundance of burgeoning supermarket shelves, the majority of the world’s population is slowly starving to death.

The world according to Codex Alimentarius looks grim indeed. Codex Alimentarius (Greek for “food code”) is a global set of standards created by the CA Commission, a body established by a branch or the United Nations back in 1963.

The CA Commission’s purported mission, like all Agenda 21 missions, sounds so wonderful that it might have been created by a committee from heaven above.

The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade
Don’t you wonder what could possibly be wrong with that? The UN wants us to be healthy and wants everyone to be paid fairly. Codex Alimentarius sounds great! Let’s institute these standards right away!

As with all globally stated agendas, however, CA’s darker purpose is shielded by the feel-good words.  Global committees have been established to regulate the following topics, to name a few.

· fruits and vegetables
· fruit and vegetable juices
· fats and oils
· meat, poultry and fish
· cereals, pulses (used for food and animal feed) and legumes
· milk and milk products
· natural mineral waters
· sugars
· cocoa products and chocolate
· food hygiene
· food labeling (as a way not to disclose GMO foods and ingredients)
· pesticide residues;
· residues of veterinary drugs found in foods
· food additives

The unfortunate thing is, the regulations ensure money, not safety. They guarantee profit, not health benefits.
“Codex Alimentarius is a dark marriage between pharmaceutical and chemical industries and the WTO, conceived to exact complete and regimented control over all food products and nutrients worldwide.” ~ writes Chantal Boccaccio of The People’s Voice.

Follow the Money

So if all of these regulations don’t benefit the consumers, who do they benefit? Dr. Rima Laibow, of Health Freedom USA estimated that for every dollar spent on natural health solutions and supplements, Big Pharma loses $40. Therefore, if people have the option to chose vitamins over valium, Big Pharma loses billions per year.
The medical establishment benefits. When people are able to manage chronic conditions and avoid surgery through carefully choosing what they eat or what supplements they take, the medical establishment loses out on those costly visits that people must undertake in order to “manage” their conditions.

Pesticide manufacturers benefit. GMO foods require greater pesticide use, thus manufacturers of pesticides like Round-up (Monsanto) reap the financial rewards while being allowed to poison the environment.

Food processors benefit. CA requires food to be irradiated, a low cost (and nutrient-destroying) practice to require lower standards of hygiene and sanitation.

Big Pharma benefits. CA mandates that nutrients be classified as drugs; therefore the purchase of vitamins will eventually require a prescription. Prescription drugs, of course, are monitored by the FDA, which means only the Big Pharma companies will be able to manufacture and supply them.

Maybe, then, the United States should just refuse to take part in CA. That’s not going to happen, because all members of the World Trade Organization are legally bound under global guidelines, including CA standards. CA standards override all national laws. Lack of compliance to these standards may result in fines and/or crippling trade sanctions. If a country wants to play the global trading game, that country has no option whatsoever but to comply with CA. Those who do not comply automatically forfeit the judgment in any global trade dispute regarding food or nutrients.

Read Full Article →

MOX Plutonium leaking from Japanese reactor

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
March 25, 2011

While the mass media has all but dropped its interest in the Fukushima crisis to focus on Libya and meaningless side-issues like the death of Elizabeth Taylor, the nuclear nightmare only worsens, as Japanese authorities admit that reactor number 3, which is the only reactor to contain MOX plutonium, is now leaking.

“Japan’s nuclear regulator said one reactor core at the quake-damaged Fukushima Dai-Ichi power plant may be cracked and leaking radiation,” reports Bloomberg.

“It’s very possible that there has been some kind of leak at the No. 3 reactor,” Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman at the Japan Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said in Tokyo today. While radioactive water at the unit most likely escaped from the reactor core, it also could have originated from spent fuel pools stored atop the reactor, he said.”

The water now leaking from reactor number 3 has radiation levels 10,000 times above the level of normal reactor water. Yesterday, two Fukushima technicians received instant radioactive burns when they stepped in the puddle of water, as it burned right through their boots.

The leakage of plutonium and uranium from reactor number 3 is the nightmare scenario that many experts predicted would turn the situation at Fukushima from a crisis to a catastrophe.

The dire consequences of any major leak in reactor number 3 are exemplified by the fact that 4,000 tons of water have been dumped on the reactor, five times more than any of the other five units.

Reactor number 3 runs on MOX or Mixed Oxide fuel, a mixture of plutonium and uranium. Plutonium is the most deadly radioactive isotope known to man, and MOX is two million times more deadly than normal enriched uranium. The Half-life of Plutonium-239 in MOX is 24,000 years and just a few milligrams of P-239 escaping in a smoke plume will contaminate soil for tens of thousands of years.

On March 14, reactor number 3 was hit with a massive explosion that sent debris hurtling hundreds of feet into the air in an orange fireball. Authorities claimed that the explosion was caused by a build up of hydrogen pressure and that the blast did not damage the reactor containment unit. Is the damage to the reactor only recent, or have the Japanese been covering up the leak for almost two weeks since the explosion?

According to the Nuclear Information Resource Center (NIRS), “In the event of such accidents (involving the accidental release of MOX), if the ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) recommendations for general public exposure were adhered to, only about one mg of plutonium may be released from a MOX facility to the environment. As a comparison, in [sic] uranium fabrication facility, 2kg (2,000,000 mg) of uranium could be released in the same radiation exposure.”

In the case of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, the vast majority of the plutonium was not released during the explosion and subsequent fire.

As part of the bizarre sweeping apathy that the mass media has cultivated over the last week surrounding the Fukushima crisis, the threat of MOX plutonium has been completely downplayed.

Similarly, the longer the crisis drags on and the worse it gets, the less the media pays attention, despite disturbing reports of yellow rain now falling in Tokyo and surrounding areas. Just like the victims of Chernobyl, Japanese authorities are telling the people that the substance is merely pollen.

Radiation emitted by the Fukushima reactors is already approaching Chernobyl levels.

“Iodine-131 is being released at daily levels 73 per cent of those seen after the 1986 disaster. The daily amount of caesium-137 released from Fukushima Daiichi is around 60 per cent of the amount released from Chernobyl,” reports the New Scientist.

According to a new study by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), “Nearly 25 years after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, exposure to radioactive iodine-131(I-131, a radioactive isotope) from fallout may be responsible for thyroid cancers that are still occurring among people who lived in the Chernobyl area and were children or adolescents at the time of the accident.”

Despite UN and World Health Organization studies that claim Chernobyl led to a maximum of 9,000 deaths and 200,000 cases of radiation sickness, more contemporary studies have shown that nearly a million people have been killed from cancers caused by the disaster over the course of the last 25 years.

Swimming in chlorinated pools can lead to cancer: study

Breitbart

Swimming in chlorinated pools can cause an increased risk of cancer in bathers, Spanish researchers said on Monday.

Researchers from the Barcelona-based Centre of Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL) and Research Institute Hospital del Mar studied changes in indicators of mutagenicity — permanent mutation of the DNA — among a group of swimmers in an indoor chlorinated pool.

“The evidence of genotoxic effects were observed in 49 healthy adults after swimming for 40 minutes in a chlorinated indoor pool,” CREAL said in a statement on Monday.

Researchers found indicators of an increase in cancer risk in healthy subjects as well as potential respiratory effects from the chlorine used as a disinfectant, the statement said.

The study was published on Sunday in the US journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

The co-director of CREAL, Manolis Kogevinas, said the findings should not put people off swimming.

“The positive health impacts of swimming can be increased by reducing the levels of these chemicals,” he said.

“In no case do we want to stop swimming, but to encourage the reduction of chemicals in swimming pools,” said Kogevinas, who suggested the problems caused by a reduction in levels of disinfectant could be offset if swimmers showered before taking a dip, wore bathing caps and refrained from urinating.

Adendum*

WHAT IS CHLORINE?

Chlorine is a poisonous, greenish-yellow gas described as having a choking odor. It is a very corrosive, hazardous chemical. Usually combined with other chemicals, it is used to disinfect water, purify metals, bleach wood pulp and make other chemicals.

Household bleach, used to whiten fabrics or remove mold from surfaces, is a 5% solution of a stabilized form of chlorine.

Do Not Mix household bleach with acid-containing or ammonia-containing cleaners. Dangerous levels of a very harmful gas can be released.

Most of the chlorine that enters lakes, streams, or soil evaporates into the air or combines with other chemicals into more stable compounds. Chlorine-containing chemicals that seep through soil down into groundwater can remain unchanged for many years.

HOW ARE PEOPLE EXPOSED TO CHLORINE?

Exposures to chlorine gas are usually due to industrial processes or accidental spills. Chlorine is added in small amounts to some municipal water supplies when bacteria contamination threatens public health. When chlorine combines with lake or river water, a class of chemicals that includes chloroform can be formed. (See chloroform fact sheet)

Breathing: Most high-level exposure occurs in workplaces where chlorine is used. People may inhale chlorine by using chlorine bleach or by living near an industry that uses chlorine.

The smell from treated drinking water or swimming pools may be irritating but isn’t usually harmful.

Drinking/Eating: Low level exposure can occur when water containing chlorine is used for drinking or for food preparation.

Touching: The body does not absorb chlorine well. However, small amounts can pass through the skin when people are exposed to chlorine gas, chlorine bleach, or bathing in water with high levels of chlorine. Lower levels of exposure can occur when people handle soil or water containing chlorine.

DO STANDARDS EXIST FOR REGULATING CHLORINE?

Water: The proposed federal drinking water standard for chlorine is 4 parts per million (ppm). Many city water supplies are treated with chlorine to reduce the possible spread of bacterial disease. The system operators are required to maintain a detectable level of chlorine in the piping system. We suggest you stop drinking water that contains more than 4 ppm of chlorine on a regular basis.

Air: No standards exist for the amount of chlorine allowed in the air of homes. We use a formula to convert workplace limits to home limits. Based on the formula, we recommend levels be no higher than 0.01 ppm of chlorine in air. Most people can smell chlorine when levels reach 0.02-3.4 ppm. If you can smell chlorine in your home, the level may be too high to be safe.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources regulates the amount of chlorine that can be released by industries.

WILL EXPOSURE TO CHLORINE RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?

Short-term, high-level exposures:

  • Immediately or shortly after exposure to 30 ppm or more of chlorine gas, a person may have chest pain, vomiting, coughing, difficulty breathing, or excess fluid in their lungs. Exposure to 430 ppm in air for 30 minutes will cause death.
  • The health effects of breathing air that has less than 30 ppm of chlorine are the same as listed below for inhaling liquid bleach vapors.
  • Liquid chlorine bleach and its vapors (at levels of 3-6 ppm in air) are irritating to eyes. At levels of 15 ppm in air people experience nose and throat irritation. Touching liquid chlorine bleach can cause skin irritation. Drinking levels over 4 ppm can cause throat and stomach irritation, nausea and vomiting.

Long-term, low-level exposure (e.g. several years of exposure to chlorine):

Organ Systems: The main effects of exposure to chlorine gas include diseases of the lung and tooth corrosion. People with previous lung disease, smokers, and those with breathing problems are more sensitive to chlorine.

Cancer: There is no information currently available about whether chlorine causes cancer.

Reproductive Effects: No reproductive effects from chlorine exposure have been reported.

In general, chemicals affect the same organ systems in all people who are exposed.

A person’s reaction depends on several things, including individual health, heredity, previous exposure to chemicals including medicines, and personal habits such as smoking or drinking.

It is also important to consider the length of exposure to the chemical; the amount of chemical exposure; and whether the chemical was inhaled, touched, or eaten. People with preexisting lung or heart disease may be particularly sensitive to the effects of chlorine.

CAN A MEDICAL TEST DETERMINE EXPOSURE TO CHLORINE?

By testing lung function and examining your skin and teeth, your doctor can evaluate the health effects of chlorine exposure.

Seek medical advice if you have any symptoms that you think may be related to chemical exposure.

*Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Oxford Professor: Poison water to medicate population

Oxford professor Julian Savulescu says fluoridation demonstrates how populations of the future could be mass-medicated through pharmacological ‘cognitive enhancements’ added to the water supply.

Aaron Dykes

In a 2008 paper titled, “Fluoride and the Future: Population Level Cognitive Enhancement,” Oxford bioethics professor Julian Savulescu claims that water fluoridation may be key to the “future of humanity.” He argues that “fluoridation may not merely be about tooth decay… [but] the drive to be better.”

Drugging the population’s water supply, Savulescu claims, is a form of “enhancement” that can pave the way to a future where mental abilities and other functions could be improved with drugs. Savulescu writes:

“Fluoridation is the tip of the enhancement iceberg. Science is progressing fast to develop safe and effective cognitive enhancers, drugs which will improve our mental abilities. For years, people have used crude enhancers, usually to promote wakefulness, like nicotine, caffeine and amphetamines. A new generation of more effective enhancers is emerging modafenil, ritalin, Adderral and ampakines and the piracetam family of memory improvers.”

But once highly safe and effective cognitive enhancers are developed – as they almost surely will be – the question will arise whether they should be added to the water, like fluoride, or our cereals, like folate. It seems likely that widespread population level cognitive enhancement will be irresistible.

The dream Savulescu argues for is based upon the lie that fluoridation of the public water supply has been a tremendous human advancement. Supporting that lie is the boasted claim by the Center for Disease Control that water fluoridation ranks among the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th Century. Instead, fluoride has been linked with neurological effects, thyroid problems, bone cancer and even crippling-blindness. What’s more, much of it is not even the common-but-toxic sodium fluoride, but an industrial waste derivative known as hydrofluosilicic acid– in an estimated 2/3 of the fluoridated public water in the U.S. and known to be very deadly.

null

Savulescu is flawed to hope fluoride can pave the way to an alchemically-”improved” society, especially where forced-medication is involved. The vision is distinctly like that of Brave New World, wherein author Aldous Huxley predicts a future dictatorship where people “learn to love their servitude.” What Huxley terms in the novel “Soma” would most likely come in reality in the form of numerous drugs that would tackle individual happiness, and the larger complacency of the masses at large. Solidified by a Scientific Dictatorship, a pharmacologically-treated population would be rendered very unlikely to ever revolt against the regime in power.

There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”

A ‘scientific’ form of control doesn’t necessarily imply the rise of enlightenment or technological innovation, but rather the guaranteed control of its population through a tested understanding of human behavior– including breaking point, resistance, anger– and the the ability to systematically stay one-step or many more ahead of what anyone might do.

DRUGS AND CHEMICALS ALREADY IN OUR FOOD & WATER

So could “cognitive enhancers” like Ritalin, Prozac and other chemically-engineered drugs be added to the water supply in the future to make humans better, smarter or faster? Or could they make humans docile, complacent and dangerously subservient?

Such proposals are already underway, and what’s more, whether intentional or not, spiked water supplies are already affecting populations in the U.S. and across the globe.

Huxley stated:

Kurt Nimmo reported in December 2009 on a newspiece advocating adding lithium to the water supply as a mood stabilizer:

Japanese researchers, according to Georgiou, are “investigating whether trace amounts of lithium can just change the mood in a community enough — in a really positive way without having the bad effects of lithium — to really affect the mood and decrease the suicide rate.”

Moreover, the AP exposed in 2008 that pharmaceutical drugs were found in the majority of the United States’ water supply. According to the AP, at least 46 million people are affected by the issue.

The New York Times sums in ‘There are drugs in the drinking water. Now what?‘ that: “There are traces of sedatives in New York City’s water. Ibuprofen and naproxen in Washington, D.C. Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety drugs in southern California… But how bad is it, exactly?”

The U.S. Geological Survey lists the “emerging contaminants in the environment” and specifically notes what is affecting the water supply. Contaminating compounds range from herbicides to pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors and household chemicals.

New research has also uncovered the presence of chemicals known as Antiandrogens that are finding their way into the water supply. Paul Joseph Watson writes:

Antiandrogens used in pesticides sprayed on our food have also been identified as “endocrine disruptors” that have been “demonstrated to induce demasculinization in rats.”

More shockingly, population control advocates like White House Science Advisor John P. Holdren have advocated adding sterilants to the water supply. He wrote about it alongside Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich in their 1977 book Ecoscience.

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.”

“It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Spreading disease, like “enhancements” or sterilization, could be the intention of food or water additives. In 2002, The Melbourne Age reported on Nobel Peace Prize winning microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet’s plan to help the Australian government develop biological weapons for use against Indonesia and other “overpopulated” countries of South-East Asia. From the article:

Sir Macfarlane recommended in a secret report in 1947 that biological and chemical weapons should be developed to target food crops and spread infectious diseases. His key advisory role on biological warfare was uncovered by Canberra historian Philip Dorling in the National Archives in 1998.

“Specifically to the Australian situation, the most effective counter-offensive to threatened invasion by overpopulated Asiatic countries would be directed towards the destruction by biological or chemical means of tropical food crops and the dissemination of infectious disease capable of spreading in tropical but not under Australian conditions,” Sir Macfarlane said.

Alex Jones recently exposed the fact that all the adulterated and dangerous chemical additives in our food and water are put there intentionally as put of a larger eugenics program.

The potential to use food and water as a weapon of mass-medication has long been used in times of war, under the principle of attrition and destabilization. Lord Bertrand Russell has underscored this concept rather bluntly in how it applies to societies living under the scientific age:

“Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.” - The Impact of Science on Society, 1953

“Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play. - Education in a Scientific Society p.251

CHEMICAL LOBOTOMY: ENLIGHTENMENT IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

It’s a brave new world indeed where Oxford professor Julian Savulescu argues for the “Ethics of Enhancement.” In his 2002 paper, “Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings,” Savulesco argues for using gene therapy and drug therapy to make “happier, healthier people.” It could mean adding both mental-boosting and mood-enhancing chemicals to the things everyone eats or drinks.

It is interesting that Savulescu mentions fluoride alongside “cognitive enhancements,” as many critics have pointed towards the use of fluoride in Nazi concentration camps to keep the inmates passive, and questioned whether a docile population is a hidden purpose of the water fluoridation campaigns in the United States and post-war Western world. Further, fluoride is a basic ingredient in both Prozac, which is the leading brand-name for Fluoxetine (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) as well as Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride), which are fundamentally mind-altering substances.

Fluoride isn’t the only controversial substance Savulescu terms as an advance in human civilization. He touts the widespread use of Prozac and points to the use of Modafenil, an amphetamine, to keep Air Force pilots alert during missions in Iraq. Savulescu is also a proponent of most types of genetic-enhancement that have been proposed. He sees experiments like the genetically-engineered “supermouse” as a model for the potential supermen of the future.

However, all of these “enhancements” come with risks. Genetically-engineered foods have proved deadly and dangerous; gene-splicing has proved to have unforeseeable consequences; fluorides and pharmaceutical chemicals pose dangers of addiction, brain damage, cancer or other problems.

Savulescu poses the potential to “enhance” a.k.a. “control” behavior: “If the results of recent animal studies into hard work and monogamy apply to humans, it may be possible in the future to genetically change how we are predisposed to behave. This raises a new question: should we try to engineer better, happier people?” p. 7-8

NOT UTILIZING ENHANCEMENTS COULD BE ‘WRONG’

He goes on to argue that while many have raised questions about the moral and ethical dilemmas of biological enhancement, NOT enhancing could be most wrong. In this scenario, not feeding offspring “enhanced” food additives could be considered as an offense:

First Argument for Enhancement: Choosing Not to Enhance Is Wrong – Consider the case of the Neglectful Parents. The Neglectful parents give birth to a child with a special condition. The child has a stunning intellect but requires a simple, readily available, cheap dietary supplement to sustain his intellect. But they neglect the diet of this child and this results in a child with a stunning intellect becoming normal. This is clearly wrong.”

“But now consider the case of the Lazy Parents. They have a child who has a normal intellect but if they introduced the same dietary supplement, the child’s intellect would rise to the same level as the child of the Neglectful Parent. They can’t be bothered with improving the child’s diet so the child remains with a normal intellect. Failure to institute dietary supplementation means a normal child fails to achieve a stunning intellect. The inaction of the Lazy Parents is as wrong as the inaction of the Neglectful parents. It has exactly the same consequence: a child exists who could have had a stunning intellect but is instead normal. Some argue that it is not wrong to fail to bring about” p. 10

Savulescu’s vision is distinctly “transhumanist” a branch of the eugenics movement which seeks to improve the human species to the point that highly-gifted individuals would transcend into a new & improved proto-human species– becoming godlike creatures with unique creative potential and abilities. Transhumanism was first termed by UNESCO founder Julian Huxley in 1952, the grandson of Charles Darwin’s partner at the Royal Society of Science, T.H. Huxley.

“I believe in transhumanism”: once there are enough people who can truly say that, the human species will be on the threshold of a new kind of existence, as different from ours as ours is from that of Pekin man. It will at last be consciously fulfilling its real destiny.
-Julian Huxley, 1957

LIBERAL EUGENICS: “VOLUNTARY” ENHANCEMENTS THROUGH MASS-MEDICATED WATER

That philosophy of Transhumanism, moreover, is necessarily rooted in the Eugenics movement of the early 20th Century that was led by the scientific elite of the Royal Society, which included Charles Darwin, his cousin Francis Galton and Thomas H. Huxley. This circle and their allies floated Utopian visions for a scientifically- and eugenically- engineered society that would be progressive and even transformative, theoretically producing a ‘better’, albeit tightly-authoritarian society (science demands control, in that sense).

Savulescu identifies with much of this “liberal Eugenics,” defensibly separate from Nazi eugenics because there is ‘no belief in only one gene-type’ and because its measures remain “voluntary.”

“What was objectionable about the eugenics movement, besides its shoddy scientific basis, was that it involved the imposition of a State vision for a healthy population and aimed to achieve this through coercion.” p. 21

However, proposals to add medication to the population’s water supply are involuntary, and would violate individual rights. It would be mass-medication, and avoiding the substances treated with it would be costly, burdensome and difficult to do with any finality. Savulescu apparently views compulsory water treatment in the same vein as compulsory vaccinations, and anything else that can be justified on a public health care basis, even when such treatments prove not to be healthy at all.

“Some interventions, however, may still be clearly enhancements for our children and so just like vaccinations or other preventative health care.” p. 27

Additionally, while the figures of “liberal eugenics” which Savulescu looked up to often espoused semi-tolerant “voluntary” proposals, it was always clear that the long-term vision encompassed measures of control ‘for the betterment of all’ that could not function under voluntary or ‘democratic’ conditions. What’s more, eugenical laws passed in the 1920s and 1930s in the United States and Britain– some of which weren’t repealed until the late 1970s– gave the State authority over forcible sterilization and beyond. Thus, these “voluntary” enhancement-visionaries have already crossed the line of trust and betrayed the fact that they mean to control with force.

Advancements and innovations in science, technology and health have obvious potential benefits, but with kind of dangerous ideology driving the science policy, public health is at a serious risk. Worse still, driving the population into that system has been an intentional scheme by certain ideologues. We cannot flirt with ushering a Brave New World knowing its sweet poison is certain despotism.

Male Infertility Wave Sweeping the World

Natural News

Nearly 20 years ago, Danish scientists first broke the news to the world that men from Western countries seem to be slowly becoming infertile. Recent research seems to back this up as well, with average sperm counts having dropped to half of what they were 50 years ago.

Exposure to and consumption of toxins in water, food and pharmaceuticals are among the well known causes of lower sperm counts.

According to reports, nearly 20 percent of men between the ages of 18 and 25 have sperm counts that are abnormally low. To put this in perspective, consider the fact that in the 1940s, men had an average of about 100 million sperm cells per millimeter of semen (m/ml). Today, the average is around 60m/ml. Those among the 20 percent with abnormal levels have less than 20m/ml.

So what is the cause behind decreasing sperm counts? Realistically, there is probably more than just one cause. Environmental toxins, synthetic food and water additives, and estrogenic substances in food are all likely culprits.

“It’s most likely a reflection of the fact that many environmental and lifestyle changes over the past 50 years are inherently detrimental to sperm production,” explained Professor Richard Sharpe, a fertility research expert at the Medical Research Council, in a U.K. report.

But what scientists believe may be the biggest cause of poor semen quality in men has more to do with what their mothers were exposed to during pregnancy, than what the men themselves are exposed to throughout their lifetimes.

A case in point is the disastrous chemical accident that occurred in 1976 in Seveso, Italy. The incident caused the highest known human exposure to toxic chemical dioxins. It was later revealed that pregnant women who were exposed to the chemical during that time bore male children who ended up having poor sperm counts.

Other studies also seem to lend credence to the idea that lifelong sperm counts are determined during the early stages of male fetal development. Interference with the Sertoli cells, which are responsible for proper sperm development during fetal development, can lead to lifelong sperm production problems in males.

“Maternal-lifestyle factors in pregnancy can have quite substantial effects on sperm counts in sons in adulthood, and the most logical mechanism by which this could occur is via reducing the number of Sertoli cells,” explained Professor Sharpe.

In other words, prenatal exposure to toxic chemicals is a serious threat to male health, which ultimately threatens the existence of mankind.

Related Links:

Togel178

Pedetogel

Sabatoto

Togel279

Togel158

Colok178

Novaslot88

Lain - lain

Partner Links