Connect with us

Underworld

Video Shows What Mercury Does to a Brain Neuron in Just 20 Minutes

Alex Pietrowski, Staff Writer
Waking Times

One of the most serious byproducts of modern living is the inundation of the human body and natural environment with toxic chemicals and substances used in medical and consumer products. Just under our noses are a ton of toxic materials, and when you look at the ingredients of pharmaceuticals and contaminants in foods, you see that people are consuming a ton of dangerous substances.

Take for instance mercury, a dangerous heavy metal that is commonly used in light bulbs, batteries, and other electronics, is widely used in dental filling and is also an ingredient in many vaccines. As our society attempts to understand the nature and causes of the growing epidemic of autism, which is affecting far too many children and families, many are pointing the finger to mercury poisoning and toxicity as a likely culprit.

So what exactly does mercury do to healthy brain cells?

Many scientists and concerned vaccine safety advocates are eager to answer this question. Vaccine awareness advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. comments on toxic heavy metals:

“In nature, toxic metals generally are bound with other elements rather than being present in their pure form. However, with the advent of large-scale industrial processes to extract metals from naturally occurring compounds, humans let the genie out of the bottle, contributing significantly to the distribution of mercury, aluminum and other heavy metals in the environment. When released from nature’s semi-protective hold, these “invariably toxic” metals wreak havoc on living systems, including humans, animals and plants alike.

Modern-day scientists have been amassing evidence of mercury’s toxicity for decades, with a growing focus in recent years on the metal’s association with neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism spectrum disorder (ASD). A new review article in the multidisciplinary journal Environmental Research pulls together a wide body of literature with the aim of summing up current research and emerging trends in mercury toxicology. Geir Bjørklund, the study’s lead author, is the founder of Norway’s non-profit Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine and has published prolifically on topics related to heavy metals, autoimmune disorders and ASD.” ~Robert F Kennedy Jr.

A study conducted at the University of Calgary looked at the effect that mercury has on brain neurons, photographing the effects and compiling a video of real-time results of mercury vs. your brain. In the study, entitled, How Mercury Causes Brain Degeneration, researchers looked at brain lesions in animals who had inhaled mercury vapor.

“Mercury has long been known to be a potent neuro-toxic substance, whether it is inhaled, or consumed in the diet as a food contaminant.” [Source]

The study recorded actual video of healthy snail brain cells growing, then introduced mercury into the culture, which caused rapid degeneration of the snail brain cells after just 20 minutes of direct exposure. The results are quite startling, especially when you consider the ramifications on human health, most notably children who are receiving doses of vaccines which may contain mercury.

The results are seen in the video presentation below:

What do you think? Should we be more cautious about the things we put into our bodies and introduce into our environment?

About the Author

Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com. Alex is an avid student of Yoga and life.

This article (WATCH: Video Shows What Mercury Does to a Brain Neuron in Just 20 Minutesoriginally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alex Pietrowski and WakingTimes.com

Advertisement
Comments

Underworld

The Latest Deep State Smear Victim is a 14-Year-Old Girl | The Soph Shut Down – 1791

The Deep State manipulate the population mainly through the control of information. Propaganda and the media are, therefore, critically important for their agenda to indoctrinate the masses into a false reality that ultimately makes people behave the way they want. The preceding article highlights one such aspect of the reality management agenda, related to smear campaigns. When someone shares information that puts the false reality of the Deep State at risk, that person must be discredited at all costs. They often use half-truths, outright falsehoods, or statements made out of context to confuse the people. But if one simply looks at the facts themselves, the truth of the smear campaign becomes obvious. Understanding that the Deep State is trying to control what you believe is critically important so as to begin the process of developing personal discernment and mental autonomy. With the ability to discern properly in hand, one effectively becomes immune to disinformation and fake news, empowering them to act as an agent of truth, to defend the innocent and protect the rights of the people—a true sovereign.

Continue Reading

Underworld

Bayer’s Stock Has Lost 44% of Its Value Since They Bought Monsanto

John Vibes, Truth Theory
Waking Times

Bayer’s stock price fell to a seven year low this week, after the company lost a $2 billion lawsuit over claims that the weedkiller Roundup causes cancer. Roundup weedkiller is a product that was developed by the controversial biotech corporation Monsanto, but the company was purchased by Bayer for $66 Billion in 2016. Along with the acquisition of the extremely profitable company, Bayer has also inherited a long list of lawsuits and reputation problems.

Bayer’s stock has been in a freefall all year, as more bad news about Roundup reaches the public. The company’s stock is down by more than 44% since the acquisition of Monsanto.

Bayer Stock Price (Google, Nasdaq)

Roundup contains a chemical called glyphosate, which has been shown in many studies to cause cancer. Despite these findings, the EPA has concluded that the chemical is safe, citing other contradictory studies. However, as an Intercept investigation revealed, the vast majority of those contradictory studies were commissioned by Monsanto. The data that the EPA was using to determine the safety of glyphosate was actually provided by Monsanto, which represents an obvious conflict of interest.

As the expenses from the Roundup lawsuits began to mount, Bayer shareholders began to question the wisdom of the Monsanto acquisition.

Earlier this year, Bayer shareholder Christian Strenger, filed a motion of no confidence in Bayer’s board complaining of negligence on the part of Bayer CEO Werner Baumann in the Monsanto acquisition.

Strenger pointed to the “almost complete failure to deliver the key objectives presented by Baumann in May 2016 for the Monsanto acquisition.”

“Mr. Baumann from Bayer always refers to 800 opinions that glyphosate is a safe product. But the big issue is how was it applied, and was it sold properly with sufficient warning signs. [Bayer] should have insisted. These were not military secrets. Bayer should have told Monsanto, ‘Either you get the DOJ to permit disclosure, or we’re not going to proceed with the transaction,‘” Strenger said, according to Fortune.

Strenger accused the decision-makers at Bayer of being “lenient with a proper analysis of the legal situation.”

Among other complaints, the no confidence motion pointed to the elimination of 12,000 jobs at the end of November 2018, which is believed to be a result of the Monsanto acquisition. This is especially frustrating to shareholders considering that Bayer CEO Werner Baumann promised that the Monsanto deal would create more jobs at the company.

A spokesperson for Bayer has dismissed these concerns stating that the company’s board of directors “performed this risk assessment based on an information and update process which was in all respects adequate for an acquisition of such a scale.”

The spokesperson went on to say that, “Of course, in the context of the acquisition, the board of management also reviewed the risks connected with Monsanto’s glyphosate business. This risk assessment clearly showed that, when used as directed, the products of Monsanto containing glyphosate are safe. Based on the views held by regulatory authorities worldwide and scientists, the board of management assessed the legal risks in connection with the use of glyphosate as low.”

Last week, the French newspaper Le Monde, reported that Bayer hired the public relations firm Fleishman-Hillard to help them launch a counter-offensive against media critics. The firm reportedly compiled a list of over 200 journalists, politicians, and scientists, with detailed descriptions of their opinions on Monsanto.  The lists also included the phone numbers, addresses and, personal interests of these individuals. This type of activity is illegal under the European data protection law, so Bayer has since distanced themselves from the firm, and made an apology where they attempted to place responsibility on the firm.

About the Author

Source link

Continue Reading

Underworld

Paul Joseph Watson: “Facebook calls me ‘dangerous’ … imagine my shock. No, really…”

() Paul Joseph Watson has been labeled a dangerous terrorist by the international deep state. Seriously, the attacks on speech have reached a level of such insanity that intelligent, independent commentary is now labeled a crime by the fraudulent establishment.

Read PJW’s own words, via InfoWars.com:

Last week I was permanently banned by Facebook for being a “dangerous person”. I found out about it not through Facebook, which failed to even send me a single email, but through media reports.

They’ve put me in the same category as Louis Farrakhan, a man who compared Jews to termites and once described Adolf Hitler as a “very great man”.

The Instagram (owned by Facebook) ban was even “funnier” given my page consisted mainly of selfies and videos of myself and my girlfriend feeding ducks. Super dangerous.

But as humorous as it is, I take exception to being defamed as a “dangerous person”.

To whom am I a danger, precisely? Mark Zuckerberg? A billionaire who wants to create a cult out of 2.4 billion people? A creepy oligarch who wants to dictate the thoughts that can be expressed by a third of the earth’s entire population? Who’s the bigger danger?

In tandem with this ban, Facebook instituted a new policy which states if you post material about people Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t like, it will be removed and you may be banned. Talk about a dangerous fucking egotist.

Holocaust denial? Still fine and rife across the platform. But defend Alex Jones or share an InfoWars link and you’re in big, big trouble.

And according to the new left, it is now “progressive” to allow a handful of corporate monopolists to control who has free speech and what opinions they can communicate. What was the point of the trials of humanity over the past 300 years if we were just going to end up with some little nerds in California dictating the terms of human civilization to us from behind their MacBook screens?

There’s also the absurdity of knowing that if someone who makes sardonic videos and snarky social media posts is that much of a threat to your establishment then your establishment must be really quite pathetic. I mean I’m hardly Robespierre. I make YouTube videos laughing at modern art and scoffing at brutalist architecture. If I’m that much of a “danger” to society, that’s more an illustration of how coddled and cowed western society has become.

CNN also labeled me an “extremist”, which I also take exception with. I refuse to be defamed as an “extremist”, too.

I have never advocated violence and I have never advocated “hate” against any individual or group. The establishment is putting me in the same category as human traffickers, serial killers, and terrorists. For what? Poking fun at pudgeball Michael Moore?

Media personalities glibly repeated this characterization without citing any evidence for their proclamations. I won’t allow that to stand. Maajid Nawaz was awarded over $3 million dollars after being falsely labeled an “extremist” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Like Nawaz, I have received death threats from Islamists. You know, actual extremists. I won’t allow a target to be painted on my back, which is exactly what Facebook and CNN are trying to do, and it isn’t like they don’t know it.

Facebook will shortly be put on legal notice about the harm that their actions have caused and will be mandated to turn over all information and internal discussions as to why I was designated as a “dangerous” person and why I was banned. Lawyers tell me their behavior is “fairly extraordinary”.

Meanwhile, what is anyone actually doing to stop the rapacious social media censorship of conservatives?

While the President’s tweets about me last week were nice, tweets aren’t nearly enough.

It’s not implausible to suggest that given the increasingly online nature of political campaigns, if platform neutrality is not secured, we could never see a Republican (or more accurately a true “America first” Republican) in the White House ever again.

Will Chamberlain’s excellent article asserting that platform access is a civil right is a good place to start as a template for what must be done.

Others argue Big Tech’s immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act needs to be revoked. If Facebook wants to act like a publisher and not a platform, let it be treated as a publisher. This would mean Facebook being legally liable for everything posted on their website.

It’s my right as a website owner to deny anyone else access to post on that website. But that means I am personally responsible for the content on my website. Facebook wants to have its cake and eat it. Facebook wants to deny access while simultaneously eschewing responsibility. Why should we allow that?

Also, isn’t it an extraordinary coincidence that leftists, notorious for their distrust of big corporations centralizing power and behaving with impunity, suddenly became massive fans of big corporations centralizing power and behaving with impunity when those corporations bought up the new public square and started censoring conservatives?

It’s almost like they aren’t actually liberal, have no actual principles, and are just feverish authoritarians who want to harness the power of corporate behemoths to silence their ideological opposition.

Isn’t it fascinating how leftists demand Christians bake the gay wedding cake under threat of financial decimation while reacting to Facebook refusing to provide a service with the tired old cliche, “It’s a private company, it can do what it likes.”

I’ll use that line next time a fracking company wants to plough through your living room.

The idea that leftists and self-proclaimed “journalists” – those who behave like activists in lobbying to deplatform conservatives – do so out of genuine concern for “hate,” “bullying” or “harassment” is also beyond ludicrous.

These are some of the most hateful, vindictive people you could ever encounter. They abuse their power to deplatform conservatives in order to satiate their spiteful vendettas. And in some cases, to prove their credentials to their new paymasters.

They derive sick pleasure from ruining people’s lives.

The Daily Beast exposed Pamela Geller’s children. They weren’t even political.

Geller has fatwas against her from Islamic terrorists and the American media exposed her children.

If, God forbid, one of these deplatformed people commits suicide, many on the left will be popping champagne corks. They’ll be laughing it up. These are not nice people.

When news broke of my Facebook ban, my Twitter direct mentions were flooded with vicious taunts and violent threats. But I’m the “hateful” one.

Save me the sanctimonious crap about “hate,” “bullying” and “harassment”. We know why conservatives are being banned and it’s purely political. It’s a pre-2020 purge. This is election meddling.

Anyone who watched the 2016 footage of Google executives mourning the election of Donald Trump and vowing to never let it happen again knows that for a fact.

As Dr. Robert Epstein has documented, the power of Google and Facebook algorithms to shift millions of votes in elections is vast and unprecedented. Now we learn that Facebook will ensure “authoritative” (establishment) sources appear far more frequently in news feeds.

It’s not sufficient to ban entire news outlets and prominent people – that’s not rigging the game enough – now they want to stack the deck even further against whoever’s left.

Despite all this, there’s also a kind of lobotomized peacefulness surrounding the idea of escaping social media entirely. Because of the way it was designed to keep people addicted, social media is personally responsible for the largest mental health crisis of our generation. The prospect of fleeing that insane asylum (despite the obvious crippling impact on my ego, career, and financial security) doesn’t even sound all that bad.

Paul Joseph Watson is the founder of Summit.News and has a SubscribeStar account where people can contribute to his work and legal fund.

This op-ed was originally posted at Human Events.

Source:

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-05-09-pjw-facebook-calls-me-dangerous-imagine-my-shock-no-really.html

Continue Reading

Trending