A mention on the website of the World Health Organization (WHO) admits that there were suggestions by member or members of the Chemical Aspects Working Group meeting in Tokyo, held in 2002, to omit information on the “adverse health effects” of fluoride to “prevent controversy.” Here is the full quote from the WHO’s website:
“At the Chemical Aspects Working Group meeting (Tokyo, 2002), the group was informed that the monograph was being finalized, and there was considerable discussion on various aspects of the draft, including a suggestion that the monograph should not mix discussion on the beneficial use of fluoride with adverse health effects to prevent controversy.
The monograph was not discussed at the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality Working Group meeting (Geneva, 2004). The document is in editing and layout (2005). A presentation to the Working Groups of the WHO Oral Health Programme on the importance of fluoridation was made in 2005.”
In the questionnaire for the working group, posted on the WHO’s website, the Working Group’s members are assured that their comments “will not be posted to the public website.” Well, it seems the WHO not only lies to the world, they lie to their own underlings as well.
But no matter: the most important thing here is that the WHO deliberately contemplated omitting crucial information about fluoride’s damaging effects from its future publications- which in turn act as guiding principles, commandments almost, for states all around the world.
As it turns out, the WHO not only omits and deletes. That would make the whole affair some sad sort of cover-up or whitewash. No, the WHO- knowing perfectly well that fluoride is most damaging- actively promotes the use of fluoride and works to distribute it through the world’s water-supply.
A WHO publication of the Expert Consensus Meeting Group Report even advises adding fluoride in the water-supply for specific segments of the population.
The “consensus” reached among the “experts” reads, that higher income groups often already consume enough fluoride for their purposes, which- by the way- has decidedly nothing to do with some dental battle against tooth decay.
“For example”, we can read in the report, “in countries such as those in Scandinavia, where public dental awareness is very high and alternative vehicles for fluoride (e.g. fluoridated toothpaste) are widely available and widely used, a decision to not fluoridate the water, or remove fluoride, or to supply drinking water with suboptimal levels of fluoride would likely be of little consequence.
The report continues with the statement that for segments of the population which do not have wide access to fluoridated toothpaste, the WHO would me more than willing to dump trace amounts of it into the water-supply, free of charge:
“On the other hand in developing and developed countries where public dental health awareness in some population groups (e.g. lower income) might be much lower, water containing either natural or added fluoride at concentrations of 0.5 to1.0 mg/l would be important for dental health.”
This idea perfectly coincides with the ruling guidelines of the WHO Oral Health Programme, which include a “particular focus” on “the disadvantaged and under-served population groups.”:
“The WHO Oral Health Programme, jointly with the FDI World Dental Federation (FDI) and the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), have embarked on an action plan for the promotion of using fluoride, particularly focusing on the disadvantaged and under-served population groups.”
Furthermore, the WHO’s Guidelines for drinking water quality states:
“In setting national standards for fluoride or in evaluating the possible health consequences of exposure to fluoride, it is essential to consider the intake of water by the population of interest and the intake of fluoride from other sources (e.g., from food, air and dental preparations).”
Dr.Richard Shames, graduated Harvard and University of Pennsylvania, after in-depth research into the effects of Fluoride on the human biological system, noted:
“(…) the Nazi concentration camps used fluoridated water to suppress the will and vigor of inmates. This appears to have been during the 1930s and was the first known example of fluoridated water supplies for a specific population.”
Fluoride, in whatever amount, is nothing less than a chemical weapon. Considering it is applied to entire populations or certain groups within a population, the definition is chemical warfare- a tool most useful to eugenicists who are intent on depopulation the planet.
Signature drone strikes target suspects sometimes not identified by the CIA
As ongoing drone strikes from American officials continue to raise questions both home and abroad, a new report suggests that those with perhaps the fewest concerns for the missions are the very authorities that approve them.
According to a report published in the Wall Street Journal, a large number of the unmanned strikes carried out by robotic American drone aircraft are launched without officials identifying the targets of the plane. Rather, groups of men that are suspected of being associated with terrorist groups are fired upon in hopes of eliminating the enemy.
The Journal writes that those attacks, called “signature” strikes by the CIA, make up the “bulk” of the Central Intelligence Agency’s drone missions. Signature strikes were first used under President George W Bush and continue under the Obama administration despite opposition from Pakistani authorities. An US counterterrorism official speaking on condition of anonymity to the Wall Street Journal says that double the number of wanted terrorists have been killed using signature strikes as opposed to attacks that signal out specific targets, “personality” strikes, but information about the death toll stemming from either is scarce outside of what the CIA offers publically.
American personnel claim that drone strikes in Pakistan have only taken 60 lives since the operations began a decade ago under President Bush. Other agencies are quick to criticize that statistic, however. In a report issued this summer by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism out of London, they make claims that at least 385 of the casualties caused by unmanned robotic America drones were of civilians. Actual casualties, say the Bureau, are at least 40 percent higher than previously reported by the US government.
Signature strikes are still carried out today despite growing opposition of American military action from Pakistan. After the unauthorized raid in May that killed former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden *cough* lies *cough*, Pakistanis have become more angered than ever over ongoing American operations in Pakistan. As the US continues its War on Terror, however, the deaths continue to add up.
Last month a strike in Yemen took out two American citizens suspected of having ties to al-Qaeda. With upwards of hundreds of civilians losing their lives on multiple front now, is it worth pursuing these missions?
"The question is, ‘Is it even worth doing now? We’ve got the key leadership in al Qaeda, what is it that we’re there for now?" one White House official tells the Wall Street Journal he overheard during internal meetings.
In 2011 so far, the United States has launched more than 50 drone strikes in Pakistan alone — despite being ordered off of bases by the country’s Defense Minister. Operations are far from limited to just Pakistan and Yemen, however; US drones carried around 23,000 spy missions in the first nine months of 2011 and airstrikes in Libya between April and November totaled 145.
It’s expected that even with the assassination of Gaddafi, drone strikes worldwide offered up by Americans will carry on. A Washington Post report from September 2011 alleged that the CIA was constructing drone bases in the Arabian Peninsula and the Indian Ocean archipelago nation of Seychelles to increase the number of strikes overseas.
Meanwhile, strikes will continue in Pakistan where the current plan is to act first, ask questions later. Under current drone strike policies, the latest report reveals that the White House is rarely asked for approval for CIA-led strikes. Instead, rather, Obama and company are only informed of attacks after they occur.
And as for Pakistani officials that are subjecting to ongoing American presence as the War on Terror continues? Current mandates, revealed now by the Journal, suggests that the CIA only must inform Pakistan of its signature strikes in advance if it believes it will kill more than 20 militants.
Sleep? What’s that? I think I did that once… *Shrug*
guys come on. this picture got FIVE reblogs, while a picture of lips with no caption of mine got over 4,000. this isn’t right. reblog this. even if you delete it in a day, it could help. this is one of my best friend’s sisters. she’s dearly missed and i’d appreciate the help.