noworldsystem.com


BBC Hypes X-Ray Body Scanners

BBC Hypes X-Ray Body Scanners

NoWorldSystem
January 12, 2010

BBC promotes conventional x-ray technology to be used on only ‘suspicious’ travelers at Newcastle Airport.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmyVk_vRerM

These X-ray scanners send a high-energy beam of electromagnetic waves that pass through the subject to digitally create the x-ray image of the persons’ insides. These machines are similar to the Backscatter X-ray scanners (the scanners that look like 2-boxes you step in-between) but rely on low-energy x-ray waves that are only strong enough to pass through clothing producing the ‘blue alien‘ image of the persons figure.

X-rays that penetrate the human body are extremely dangerous and can even be deadly, people who use them significantly increase the risks of internal cancer and tumor growth. Women are especially susceptible to these deep penetrating rays as breast tissue has is very vulnerable to cancer, children and the unborn are the most at-risk.

The Backscatter and millimeter-wave are far less damaging than conventional x-ray, but Backscatter machines still rely on ionizing x-ray and millimeter-wave scanners rely on terahertz waves still be absorbed by the very surface of the skin, destroying, mutating DNA and skin cells which could lead to cancer.

Here is CNN’s Sanjay Gupta failing to mention that terahertz waves from millimeter-wave machines have been tested to “unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication (that can potentially cause cancer)”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bifqf-yQFZE

He also fails to mention that radiation damage is cumulative and with each dose builds upon cellular mutation caused by the last –in other words– these machines can effect previously damaged cells to trigger the spread of cancer.

X-Ray Devices That Scan Your Body on the Streets

Cancer Risks Debated for Type of X-Ray Scan

Whole-body airport scanners are basically safe—or are they?

Future Airport Scanners Will See Through Bodies

Full-body scanners used on air passengers may damage human DNA

Full-Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk

Full-Body Scanners to Fry Travelers With Radiation

 



BPA chemical found in 90% of newborns

BPA chemical found in 90% of newborns

Meg Kissinger
Milwaukee/Wisconsin Journal Sentinel
December 4, 2009

A study released Wednesday which found that nine of 10 babies tested were born with bisphenol A in their systems has renewed calls for the chemical to be banned.

In the study commissioned by the Environmental Working Group, scientists found the chemical in nine of 10 randomly selected samples of umbilical cord blood.

Previous studies have found BPA in the urine of 93% of Americans tested. But Wednesday’s study is the first to find it in the cord blood of U.S. newborns.

“It’s alarming,” Janet Gray, director of the Environmental Risks and Breast Cancer project at Vassar College, said of the study results. “What more evidence do we need to act?”

BPA Side Effects Include: Breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, obesity, ADHD, miscarriage, sterilization, erectile dysfunction, impotence, increased estrogen, feminized newborn boys, down’s syndrome, transgender newborns, early onset puberty, memory loss, increased aggression.

Read Full Article Here

Consortium rejects FDA’s approval of BPA

A scary study shows the hidden causes of feminizing baby boys

Medications contain chemicals that “feminize” unborn baby boys

Why boys are turning into girls

 



Medications contain chemicals that “feminize” unborn baby boys

Phthalate warning: Medications contain chemicals that “feminize” unborn baby boys

Natural News
November 17, 2009

In a bombshell finding that has far-reaching implications for society and culture, scientists at the University of Rochester have found that phthalates — the chemical found in many vinyl and plastic products — tends to “feminize” boys, altering their brains to express more feminine characteristics. The study has been published in the Journal of Andrology.

Phthalates are found in vinyl products (including vinyl flooring), PVC shower curtains, plastic furniture and even in the plastic coating of the insides of dishwashing machines.

The feminization process happens during pregnancy when phthalate exposure causes hormone disruptions in the unborn baby. This chemical feminizes males by disrupting the action of the hormone testosterone.

In this recent study, researchers found a strong correlation between the types of toys that male children play with and the level of phthalates found in their mothers when they were pregnant. Researchers discovered that boys exposed to high levels of phthalates in the womb tend to avoid playing with cars, trains or toy guns. They also avoided rough play, instead preferring more feminine toys and activities. (Barbie?)

Phthalates used in pharmaceutical coatings

What very few people know about phthalates is that they are used in the coatings of pharmaceuticals to create “enteric” coatings. This means that many people taking certain pharmaceuticals are unknowingly eating phthalates. If expectant mothers take such pharmaceuticals during pregnancy, they may then feminize their unborn male babies.

How do we know phthalates are used in pharmaceuticals? This Google Books link (http://books.google.com/books?id=e7…) shows a page from the Handbook of Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Formulations: Over-the-counter products. In it, a recipe is given for manufacturing a clear enteric coating. The ingredients are:

Acetone
Purified water
Hydroxypropyl Methyl Cellulose Phthalate
Vanillin
Acetylated Monoglycerides
Alcohol

This combination of highly toxic chemicals is cooked, stirred and then used to coat pharmaceutical pills that people actually swallow!

Here’s a patent that describes the process in more detail:
http://www.wikipatents.com/5723151.html

Phthalates in antidepressant SSRI drugs
These phthalate chemicals are also used in antidepressant drugs. Here’s a patent that describes the process: “Controlled Release Compositions of an Antidepressant Agent” http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/200…

As the patent explains:

“…the enteric coating polymer is selected from the group consisting of cellulose acetate phthalate, polyvinyl acetate phthalate, methacrylicacid copolymer, cellulose acetate trimellitate, shellac, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose phthalate, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose acetate succinate and combination thereof.”

Why boys are turning into girls

The 515 chemicals women put on their bodies every day

 



Why boys are turning into girls

Why boys are turning into girls
Gender-bending chemicals are largely exempt from new EU regulations, warns Geoffrey Lean.

UK Telegraph

Here’s something rather rotten from the State of Denmark. Its government yesterday unveiled official research showing that two-year-old children are at risk from a bewildering array of gender-bending chemicals in such everyday items as waterproof clothes, rubber boots, bed linen, food, nappies, sunscreen lotion and moisturising cream.

The 326-page report, published by the environment protection agency, is the latest piece in an increasingly alarming jigsaw. A picture is emerging of ubiquitous chemical contamination driving down sperm counts and feminising male children all over the developed world. And anti-pollution measures and regulations are falling far short of getting to grips with it.

Sperm counts are falling so fast that young men are less fertile than their fathers and produce only a third as much, proportionately, as hamsters. And gender-bending chemicals are increasingly being blamed for the mystery of the “lost boys”: babies who should normally be male who have been born as girls instead.

The Danish government set out to find out how much contamination from gender-bending chemicals a two-year-old child was exposed to every day. It concluded that a child could be “at critical risk” from just a few exposures to high levels of the substances, such as from rubber clogs, and imperilled by the amount it absorbed from sources ranging from food to sunscreens.

The results build on earlier studies showing that British children have higher levels of gender-bending chemicals in their blood than their parents or grandparents. Indeed WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund), which commissioned the older research, warned that the chemicals were so widespread that “there is very little, if anything, individuals can do to prevent contamination of themselves and their families.” Prominent among them are , dioxins, PVC, flame retardants, phthalates (extensively used to soften plastics) and the now largely banned PCBs, one and a half million tons of which were used in countless products from paints to electrical equipment.

Young boys, like those in the Danish study, could end up producing less sperm and developing feminised behaviour. Research at Rotterdam’s Erasmus University found that boys whose mothers were exposed to PCBs and dioxins were more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes.

And it is in the womb that babies are most vulnerable; a study of umbilical cords from British mothers found that every one contained hazardous chemicals. Scientists at the University of Rochester in New York discovered that boys born to women exposed to phthalates had smaller penises and other feminisation of the genitals.

The contamination may also offer a clue to a mysterious shift in the sex of babies. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls: it is thought to be nature’s way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict. But the proportion of females is rising, so much so that some 250,000 babies who statistically should have been boys have ended up as girls in Japan and the United States alone. In Britain, the discrepancy amounts to thousands of babies a year.

A Canadian Indian community living on ancestral lands at the eastern tip of Lake Huron, hemmed in by one of the biggest agglomerations of chemical factories on earth, gives birth to twice as many girls as boys. It’s the same around Seveso in Italy, contaminated with dioxins from a notorious accident in the 1970s, and among Russian pesticide workers. And there’s more evidence from places as far apart as Israel and Taiwan, Brazil and the Arctic.

Yet gender-benders are largely exempt from new EU regulations controlling hazardous chemicals. Britain, then under Tony Blair’s premiership, was largely responsible for this – restricting their inclusion in the first draft of the legislation, and then causing even what was included to be watered down.Confidential documents show that it did so after pressure from George W Bush’s administration, which protested that US exports “could be impacted”.

Now the Danish government is planning to lobby to have the rules toughened up. It is particularly concerned by other studies which show that gender-bending chemicals acting together have far worse effects than the expected sum of their individual impacts. It wants this to be reflected in the regulations, citing its discovery of the many sources to which the two-year-olds are exposed – modern slings and arrows, as it were, of outrageous fortune.

 

Eugenics Society is turning humans into sub-species

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J281EnxEOM

Professor Predicts Human Race Will “split into two different species”

 



Doctors refuse to save baby because it was born too early

Doctors refuse to save baby because it was born too early

Mail Online

Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.

Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy – almost four months early.

They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.

She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.

Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.

Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.

In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.

The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not ‘standard practice’.

James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.

A trust spokesman said: ‘Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.’

Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages, said the guidelines had robbed her son of a chance of life.

She said: ‘When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over.

A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat, and described him as a “little fighter”.

I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, “They won’t come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him”.’

She cuddled her child and took precious photos of him, but he died in her arms less than two hours after his birth.

Miss Capewell, who has a five-year-old daughter Jodie, went into labour in October last year at 21 weeks and four days after suffering problems during her pregnancy.

She said she was told that because she had not reached 22 weeks, she was not allowed injections to try to stop the labour, or a steroid injection to help to strengthen her baby’s lungs.

Instead, doctors told her to treat the labour as a miscarriage, not a birth, and to expect her baby to be born with serious deformities or even to be still-born.

She told how she begged one paediatrician, ‘You have got to help’, only for the man to respond: ‘No we don’t.’

As her contractions continued, a chaplain arrived at her bedside to discuss bereavement and planning a funeral, she claims.

She said: ‘I was sitting there, reading this leaflet about planning a funeral and thinking, this is my baby, he isn’t even born yet, let alone dead.’

After his death she even had to argue with hospital officials for her right to receive birth and death certificates, which meant she could give her son a proper funeral.

She was shocked to discover that another child, born in the U.S. at 21 weeks and six days into her mother’s pregnancy, had survived.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida in 2006 and celebrated her second birthday last October. She is the youngest premature baby to survive.

Miss Capewell said: ‘I could not believe that one little girl, Amillia Taylor, is perfectly healthy after being born in Florida in 2006 at 21 weeks and six days.

‘Thousands of women have experienced this. The doctors say the babies won’t survive but how do they know if they are not giving them a chance?’

Miss Capewell has won the support of Labour MP Tony Wright, who has backed her call for a review of the medical guidelines. He said: ‘When a woman wants to give the best chance to her baby, they should surely be afforded that opportunity.’

What the medical guidelines say…

Guidance limiting care of the most premature babies provoked outrage when it was published three years ago.

Experts on medical ethics advised doctors not to resuscitate babies born before 23 weeks in the womb, stating that it was not in the child’s ‘best interests’.

The guidelines said: ‘If gestational age is certain and less than 23+0 (i.e at 22 weeks) it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.’

Medical intervention would be given for a child born between 22 and 23 weeks only if the parents requested it and only after discussion about likely outcomes.

The rules were endorsed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and are followed by NHS hospitals.

The association said they were not meant to be a ‘set of instructions’, but doctors regard them as the best available advice on the treatment of premature babies.

More than 80,000 babies are born prematurely in Britain every year, and of those some 40,000 need to be treated in intensive care.

The NHS spends an estimated £1 billion a year on their care.

But while survival rates for those born after 24 weeks in the womb have risen significantly, the rates for those born earlier have barely changed, despite advances in medicine and technology.

Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain.

The guidelines were drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics after a two-year inquiry which took evidence from doctors, nurses and religious leaders.

But weeks before they were published in 2006, a child was born in the U.S. which proved a baby could survive at earlier than 22 weeks if it was given medical treatment.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.

Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.

Her birth also coincided with the debate in Britain over whether the abortion limit should be reduced.

Some argued that if a baby could survive at 22 weeks then the time limit on abortions should be reduced.

The argument, which was lost in Parliament, followed a cut to the time limit in 1990 when politicians reduced it from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, in line with scientific evidence that foetuses could survive outside the womb at a younger age.

However, experts say cases like Amillia Taylor’s are rare, and can raise false expectations about survival rates.

Studies show that only 1 per cent of babies born before 23 weeks survive, and many suffer serious disabilities.

 



Big Brother Obama Will Indoctrinate Your Kids

Big Brother Obama Will Indoctrinate Your Kids

Still on Patrol
September 2, 2009

If you’re not more than a little disturbed by this, please go back and read your copy of the Constitution. If you don’t have one, call me and I’ll send you one. Why? Because nowhere in that document, or in its many amendments, will you find that the Federal government has been assigned the responsibility or power over public education. That, my friends, is one of the biggies that is left to the states under their original sovereignty.

Nevertheless, Comrade Obama is planning to beam into our public schools, on September 8, to all grades and all schools that receive public funding, a speech of content that is yet to be determined, but is pretty obvious. There is little doubt in my mind that, his “Town Hall” campaign having gone down in flames, Comrade Obama intends to push his government healthcare agenda by scaring the wits out of our kids, so they will go home and cry, “Mommy, Daddy, why don’t you support the President’s plan?” No doubt he will also try to convince the kids that he, and he alone, is the savior of America, and they need to listen to him about what to do to ensure their future

A study guide has been distributed for teachers’ use, which includes some of the following statements:

* Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?
* As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following: What is the President trying to tell me? What is the President asking me to do? What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?
* Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

I have heard several people say they are going to pull their children out of school September 8. If sufficient numbers do so, it will jeopardize school funding in the fractional increment represented by that day. On the other hand, I suspect that if schools choose to not run the speech, it could jeopardize some amount of Federal funding – the usual gun to the head approach our Federal government uses.

If this thing is going to happen, it is the responsibility of all Americans to become infinitely aware not only of the content of Comrade Obama’s speech, but of the in-class discussions held in conjunction with the speech. The subjects and content should be discussed with our children, and they must be disabused of any erroneous notions the Comrade dares to push on them. Best of all, our children need a strong lesson on the Constitution, and their duty as a member of a free society to not swallow whole what the government tells them, but to question authority with their minds, their mouths, their pens, and ultimately their money and their vote.

In the meantime, we have less than a 1 day to register our protest at this blatant end-run of state educational authority, and more particularly, parental authority by an Administration that is moving more rapidly toward socialism than any of us could have imagined.

Indoctrination Of ‘Obama Youth’ In Schools Accelerates

Under Obamacare, Government Will Indoctrinate Your Kids

 



Baby Stolen from Mother for Refusing C-Section

Baby Stolen from Mother for Refusing C-Section

Momlogic.com
July 24, 2009

Wow, we just can’t believe this.


A woman in New Jersey refused to consent to a C-section during labor in the event that her baby was in distress. She ended up giving birth vaginally without incident. The baby was in good medical condition.

However, her baby was taken away from her and her parental rights were terminated because she “abused and neglected her child” by refusing the C-section and behaving “erratically” while in labor.

How is this legal?

A New Jersey appellate court has upheld the shocking ruling, and custody has been given to the child’s foster parents.

The court’s decision cites hospital records that describe the mother, V.M., as “combative,” “uncooperative,” “erratic,” “noncompliant,” “irrational” and “inappropriate.” That’s how we acted during labor, too … but our babies weren’t taken away, thank God.

The court opinion also focuses on the fact that the mother had been in psychiatric care for twelve years prior to the birth. But, as the Huffington Post points out, her psychiatric state would never have been questioned if the mother had not refused invasive abdominal surgery — which was entirely within her rights.