Aerosol Infection by Flu Viruses

Photo by Kickstarter Michael Gilvary Sick Building Project – view here

For years Frequency Foundation has been reporting on flu virus aerosol infection. Many of these infections are caused by airborne parasites where masks can block large particles. However, for virus particles of a few microns, masks are ineffective. This came to a head in COVID when it became clear that medical scientists do not understand basic physics. See https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/

Frequencies are mathematic data that do not lie. They are present in a building or not. Frequencies sent to the building consistently reduce infection 100% of the time. You do not need a clinical trial to show this after you do it on hundreds of buildings with 100% success (in at least reducing infection if not eliminating it).

Furthermore, if you are skeptical, it only takes a few weeks on your building to prove it either helps or does not help. The alternative is to live with the infection continuously.

Conventional flus, spread by aerosol parasites, were radically reduced during COVID with masks, despite the propaganda masks were ineffective in stopping the COVID virus. The 6 foot separation was also a myth that has been debunked in the science journals. Do your own research. There is real data out there.

Here we just want to emphasize that aerosol infection is one of the primary routes of viral infection, particularly for COVID, and buildings that are not properly ventilated with air cleaners that kill viruses become infected. There are many companies that do sick building remediation but they are expensive and your local Starbucks, Whole Foods, Home Depot, and other vendors are not using them every week. A single really sick person can infect a store that does not have air clearers and ventilation that kill viruses and other pathogens quickly.

This is why we have the “Sick Building Service” for weekly scans for $99/month. We have many individual subscribers for home that are infected as people are well aware that mold is a critical issue. When we scan buildings using the same technology we use for people we find viruses, bacteria, and many other things in addition to mold. It is so inexpensive that some of our homes use this service every month, continuously.

It is critical for health clinics and restaurants to be aware of the Sick Building Service because these are the areas that become most infected, most often, by the most people. We find the same thing in retail and wholesale stores. Clearing these buildings with frequencies not only prevents infection of customers and employees, it significantly changes the atmosphere in the store make it feel more friendly. People linger longer and buy more products as one of the largest retail furniture outlets in Hawaii discovered.

Mercury and Lead are Toxic – Add Flouride to the List

Moms2B Avoid Fluoride
During pregnancy Moms know to protect their babies by avoiding
smoking
alcohol
medications
raw meat and seafood
high-mercury fish
AND NOW WE SHOULD ADD

fluoride in water, food, and drinks

Why add fluoride to the list?
In 2017, a 12-year-long government-funded study was completed. It showed significant reductions in children’s IQ when their mothers were exposed to fluoride during pregnancy. In this carefully-controlled study of Mexican mother-offspring pairs by American and Canadian researchers, mothers were receiving the same fluoride doses as mothers in the US who live in communities that add fluoride dental treatment to their water.
What should pregnant women know about this study?
The results of the 2017 study by Bashash et al. included up to 299 pregnant women and their offspring. Fluoride exposure was determined by measuring fluoride in the urine of the pregnant women because that is a very reliable measure of total fluoride exposure. The researchers found a correlation between the urine fluoride of the pregnant mothers and a loss of up to 6 IQ points in their children when the children were tested at age 4 and again between 6-12 years of age. This study was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives in September 2017.
Is there another mother-offspring study?
Yes, a second study by Thomas et al. was presented at a conference in March 2018. The researchers reported lower IQ scores due to prenatal fluoride exposure when the children were tested between the ages of 1 and 3.
Is this new information?
Yes. While there are another 53 published studies reporting an association of fluoride exposure with a lowering of IQ in children, and over 200 animal-fluoride studies reporting damage to the brain and reduced learning and memory ability, the surprise came with the release of these mother-offspring fluoride studies. Why? Because they have clearly demonstrated, for the first time, that pregnancy is the most critical period for exposure to fluoride. The fetus now ranks as the most vulnerable of our species to fluoride’s toxicity.
Pregnant women should know about these studies in order to take the necessary steps to protect their child’s brain.
Who funded these studies?
The two mother-offspring studies were funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
For more info on these studies use the links
in the Select-a-Topic at the top

How is a pregnant woman exposed to fluoride?
Fluoride is added to approximately 70% of public drinking water systems across the U.S. as non-consensual dental treatment. Exposure to fluoride mainly occurs by ingestion or inhalation. The greatest exposure to fluoride for the majority of Americans comes from drinking fluoridated water and using it in food preparation to make soups, rice, coffee, tea, infant formula, etc. Fluoride also has many industrial uses, so living close to a fluoride/fluorine emitting industry is also a concern. For more information on industrial releases, see the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory for fluorides.
What water should I drink if I am pregnant? — Find out here
Questions & Concerns? Check out the Q & A

Glyphosate Shortens Pregnancy

Glyphosate exposure in pregnancy and shortened gestational length: a prospective Indiana birth cohort study

S. Parvez, R. R. Gerona, C. Proctor, M. Friesen, J. L. Ashby, J. L. Reiter, Z. Lui and P. D. Winchester

Environmental Health 201817:23 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-018-0367-0 © The Author(s). 2018

Abstract

Background

Glyphosate (GLY) is the most heavily used herbicide worldwide but the extent of exposure in human pregnancy remains unknown. Its residues are found in the environment, major crops, and food items that humans, including pregnant women, consume daily. Since GLY exposure in pregnancy may also increase fetal exposure risk, we designed a birth-cohort study to determine exposure frequency, potential exposure pathways, and associations with fetal growth indicators and pregnancy length.

Method

Urine and residential drinking water samples were obtained from 71 women with singleton pregnancies living in Central Indiana while they received routine prenatal care. GLY measurements were performed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Demographic and survey information relating to food and water consumption, stress, and residence were obtained by questionnaire. Maternal risk factors and neonatal outcomes were abstracted from medical records. Correlation analyses were used to assess relationships of urine GLY levels with fetal growth indicators and gestational length.

Results

The mean age of participants was 29 years, and the majority were Caucasian. Ninety three percent of the pregnant women had GLY levels above the limit of detection (0.1 ng/mL). Mean urinary GLY was 3.40 ng/mL (range 0.5–7.20 ng/mL). Higher GLY levels were found in women who lived in rural areas (p = 0.02), and in those who consumed > 24 oz. of caffeinated beverages per day (p = 0.004). None of the drinking water samples had detectable GLY levels. We observed no correlations with fetal growth indicators such as birth weight percentile and head circumference. However, higher GLY urine levels were significantly correlated with shortened gestational lengths (r = − 0.28, p = 0.02).

Conclusions

This is the first study of GLY exposure in US pregnant women using urine specimens as a direct measure of exposure. We found that > 90% of pregnant women had detectable GLY levels and that these levels correlated significantly with shortened pregnancy lengths. Although our study cohort was small and regional and had limited racial/ethnic diversity, it provides direct evidence of maternal GLY exposure and a significant correlation with shortened pregnancy. Further investigations in a more geographically and racially diverse cohort would be necessary before these findings could be generalized.

Michael Davis Reports After 16 Years with the EPA

A Statement For GeoengineeringWatch.org From Scientist Michael Davis

My name is Michael Davis, I was employed as an Environmental Engineer for nearly 16 years in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Programs Branch of the Water Division in Region 5, Chicago of the USEPA. I was terminated as a public servant performing a public service for raising the issues of anthropogenic deposition of aluminum due to atmospheric geoengineering.

Geoengineered skies, Woodland, Michigan. Photo credit: Kacy Blair

In addition, I brought up the industrial hazardous waste byproduct of fluoride known as HFSA (being sold primarily by the phosphate fertilizer and aluminum industries) to drinking water utilities for disposal into the nation’s drinking water systems. This does not include pollutants that are discharged from wastewater reclamation facilities into receiving waters.

The issue regarding anthropogenic deposition of aluminum due to atmospheric geoengineering came up in May 2013 when a colleague in the NPDES Programs Branch sent a general email to everyone regarding “NPDES and Climate Change”. I sent a six (6) bullet point one – sentence response to my colleague. Nearly six (6) weeks later my supervisor (at the time) set up a conference call to inform me that I would be receiving a Letter of Reprimand for making false, malicious and unfounded statements against colleagues, supervisors, management and elected public servants. Furthermore, my then supervisor claimed that my statements damaged the integrity and reputation of the agency.

In April, 2014, my last supervisor assigned me to the Beloit, Wisconsin wastewater reclamation facility DRAFT permit review. I asked the permit writer why fluoride (a poison) was be disposed of in Beloit’s drinking water supply? She could not provide an explanation. Approximately two (2) weeks later my supervisor placed a “gag order” on me barring me from having any communication written or verbal with anyone unless he approved ahead of time and was present on all conference calls. It was claimed by my supervisor (and management) that the “gag order” would remain in place to prevent me from making statements that would further damage the integrity and reputation of the agency.

Furthermore, my supervisor kept giving me assignments like Beloit, Wisconsin where fluoride, along with other pollutants knowing that I would describe the adverse human, animal health effects along with adverse environmental effects of them in my DRAFT Permit review reports. The adverse human, animal and environmental effects were completely ignored by my supervisor.

This was even more profound when it came to the issue of fluoride as HFSA being deposited into the drinking water system. This is in violation of (1) EPA’s Policy on Scientific Integrity, (2) The Precautionary Principle, (3) 5 U.S.C. §2302(b)(8) and (4) Informed Consent. My supervisor informed me that the EPA does not regulate fluoride in the drinking water systems under either the Clean Water Act (CWA) or the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). However, FDA under Health and Human Services (HHS) regulated fluoride in the drinking water systems.

I eventually crafted a general description of the adverse human and animal health effects in an email to my supervisor and upper level management. Initially was ignored by all of them. I had to send the original descriptive email several times over about a six (6) month period of time before I received a reply from the water division director who just parroted the corporate agenda pertaining to fluoride disposal into the nation’s drinking water systems.

The label in the photo above should be shocking to any that are even slightly awake. Highly toxic industrial waste that is officially labelled as a “drinking water additive”.

In doing my own research into the issue of anthropogenic deposition of aluminum from atmospheric geoengineering (as well as fluoride and other pollutants) in an attempt to determine why there was strong opposition from my supervisor and the EPA in general it this (factual reports on the issues). It is because the EPA wants to continue their cover-up, collusion, and criminality pertaining to pollution and contamination being perpetrated by their puppet masters, the multinational corporations.

The EPA (like the FDA, CDC, etc) is a complete sham. Because the “P” in EPA stands for protection of corporate profits and not for protecting human, animal and environmental (or biosphere) health. The EPA like other governmental regulatory agencies are corrupt to the core, completely dysfunctional and have been completely hijacked by the multinational corporations. I will not allow any of my ex – supervisors, ex – branch chiefs, ex – divisions directors, ex – EPA acting regional administrator or ex – EPA administrator or other individuals either identified or unidentified to get away contaminating our one and only biosphere (soil, water and air), and causing untold adverse human and animal health effects.

Pseudoscience: the American Dental Association

For over a decade I was on the faculty of the University of Colorado School of Medicine where I was one of the leading experts in carcinogenesis from radiation and toxic chemicals. I was appointed by the Governor and senior Senator of Colorado to monitor the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons plant and as Chair of the Health Effects Committee was reviewing toxicology reports on a wide variety of chemicals as well as radiation on a weekly basis for many years.

I was also the Co-Chair of the leading committee on healthcare standards for many years and attended workshop after workshop with members of the FDA and CDC. When I would complain about issues like the one below I was repeatedly informed that these organizations were continuously buffeted by political pressure which influenced all their actions. They said they had much bigger problems with political influence than the ones I had identified.

Here is a short excerpt of some toxicology concerns that indicate infants are getting fluoride far above the EPA upper limit. As an expert in this area, my view is that there is no safe dose of fluoride, only a dose like the EPA limit where most adults will not have obvious clinical symptoms.

The government has been repeatedly been convicted of destroying evidence, obstruction of justice, harassing scientists and fraudulent suppressing or altering the data in official reports on fluoride hazards. The appeal courts have refused to overturn the governments objections to being ordered in court to stop their criminal behavior and reinstate senior scientists who have been abused. Watch Fluoridegate for testimony on government officials forced to lie when setting standards.

The Basics of Regulatory Toxicology: Protecting the Public from Harmful substances

By Paul Connett

So many of the statements and arguments coming from proponents of fluoridation betray their lack of knowledge of basic toxicological principles especially as it is applied in the regulatory field. It is one thing when such poorly informed positions emanate from lay persons but quite another when it comes from pediatricians or people at the very top of large organizations promoting fluoridation.

Here is one shocking example. The appalling toxicological ignorance of the American Dental Association (ADA) was demonstrated when it dismissed the relevance of the landmark review by National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC) on the very day it was published in 2006. The same ignorance was displayed by the CDC Oral Health Division six days later. Both organizations argued that the NRC (2006) was not relevant to water fluoridation because the panel (they claimed) only looked at harm in communities with fluoride levels between 2 and 4 ppm. There are four major problems with this position:

a) The NRC panel looked at several studies in which harm was found at less than 2 ppm

b) Chapter 2 of the NRC (2006) review consisted of an exposure analysis that concluded that certain subsets of the US population (including bottle-fed babies) drinking water at 1 ppm were exceeding the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) safe reference dose for fluoride (0.06 mg/kg/day).

c) Neither the ADA or the CDC Oral Health Division appears to realize that there is a difference between concentration and dose. When comparing two populations and considering whether a certain concentration is safe or not one must first calculate the dose involved. This depends on how much water is consumed. As far as a harmful dose is concerned there will be an overlap between the doses ingested by individuals when comparing two communities – one drinking water at 1 ppm fluoride and one drinking water at 4 ppm – and even more so when comparing 1 ppm and 2 ppm. This overlap will occur even before we consider individuals exposed to other sources of fluoride. It is the total daily dose that is the critical calculation as far as harm is concerned. So both the ADA and CDC are incorrect when they imply there is a margin of safety simply because harm has been found at a higher concentration (in the studies cited by the NRC) and not necessarily at the 1 ppm used in water fluoridation.Concentration is not an appropriate basis for comparison as far as toxicity or safety is concerned.

d) They also ignored the need to use a safety factor when extrapolating from small studies to estimate a safe dose needed to protect everyone in a large population.

I will now go into more detail on these issues below.

The difference between concentration and dose.

Concentration is measured in milligrams (mg) of fluoride per liter (1 mg/liter = 1 part per million or ppm). This can be controlled at the water works. Dose is measured in mg/day and this cannot be controlled as it depends on how much someone drinks – and some drink a lot – and how much fluoride they are getting from other sources. It is the total dose that has the potential to harm someone. The concentration (mg/liter) offers no guarantee of safety. It is actually worse than that, which brings us to part b) above.

The difference between dose and dosage.

The same dose (mg/day) can have different affects on different people. There are two reasons for this:

1) because in a large population there is a large range of sensitivity to any toxic substance (more about that later) and

2) because the same dose can have a very different affect on people of different bodyweights. This is especially relevant when comparing the impacts of the same doseon adults and infants. That is why toxicologists use a different measure called dosage. In this they take account of bodyweight by dividing the dose in mg/day by the adult’s average bodyweight of 70 kg.

Thus supposing it was determined that 7 mg/day was safe for an adult (for some health end point), then the safe dosage (sometimes referred to as a safe reference dose) which can be applied to anyone of any weight including an infant, would be 0.1 mg/kg bodyweight per day. 7mg/day divided by 70 kg = 0.1 mg/kg/day

Going from safe dosage to safe dose for a particular bodyweight

From a safe dosage we can work out a safe dose for any age range by multiplying the safe dosage by the average bodyweight for that age range. Thus for a 7 kg infant the safe dose for this hypothetical situation would be 0.7 mg/day and for a 20 kg child it would be 2 mg/day.

The EPA’s Iris Reference Dose (Dosage)

Going back to the real world. The (EPA) determined a safe reference dosage (for the end point of moderate dental fluorosis) of 0.06 mg/kg/day (the so-called IRIS reference dose). Using this Iris reference dose we can determine the safe dose for a bottle-fed infant – at least for dental fluorosis. Assuming an average bodyweight of 7 kg, the safe dose would be 7 kg x 0.06 mg/kg/day = 0.42 mg/day.

A 7 kg infant drinking 800 ml of formula per day made up with fluoridated water at 1 ppm, would receive 0.8 liters x 1 mg/liter/ day = 0.8 mg/day. In other words a bottle-fed baby consuming water at 1 ppm fluoride would get about twice the safe dose based upon the EPA’s IRIS safe reference dose.

Watch Flouridegate …

Support flouridealert.org

Environmental Remediation Using Frequencies

Hutchison-Lazaryan frequency generator clears polluted Gulf waters

Famous anti-gravity researcher, John Hutchison, and his associate, Nancy Lazaryan, have come up with a device that emits a combination of audio and radio frequencies that have the effect of clearing waters polluted by oil and dispersant in less than 24 hours, bringing the native life back.
by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems NewsCopyright © 2010

Concerned about the BP oil gusher disaster, John Hutchison and his research partner, Nancy Lazaryan have come up with a combination of audio and radio frequencies that now have been shown scientifically to reduce the oil and grease in polluted waters in the Gulf of Mexico from 7 ppm to less than 1 ppm, restoring the water’s vitality as manifest by the return of fish, dolphins and even barnacles to a region of Perdido Bay in Lillian, Alabama, USA, where they conducted their first test in situ.

John is world famous for his work in eccentric, maverick research creating anti-gravity effects, transmutation of elements, and energy from rock-like compounds. Now, with Nancy’s help, he has applied his knowledge of frequencies to produce what could be a solution to the pollution from oil and dispersants in the Gulf and elsewhere in the world.

“The local residents may now finally have hope for getting their Gulf back and restoring it to the healthy body it once was, if not better, before the Oil Disaster,” said Cara Fay, who is a friend of John and Nancy, and has been following their work on this project, which began in July, when a sample of polluted water was sent to John’s lab in Vancouver, BC. Based on success in finding the right frequencies, John and Nancy recently headed to the Gulf to try a test on location, with scientific documentation by a chemistry lab to corroborate their observations. More …

Moms2B Avoid Fluoride

Why add fluoride to the list?

What should pregnant women know about this study?

Is there another mother-offspring study?

Is this new information?

Who funded these studies?

For more info on these studies use the links in the Select-a-Topic at the top

How is a pregnant woman exposed to fluoride?

What water should I drink if I am pregnant? — Find out here

Questions & Concerns? Check out the Q & A