Chemtrails Raining Down on Farm Wars

By Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

If you have any doubts about the reality of chemtrails, take a look at these pictures. I snapped them outside my door. Look at the progression. The sky is now grey soup, and it was clear.


Read my article What do HAARP, Chemtrails, and Global Warming all have in common? and look at these pictures. Now understand that this activity can cause drought. We just happen to be experiencing a drought in this area, and the farmers’ water will be taken away due to this. If you don’t already know this, then WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! This is biological warfare! We are the targets, and the one world government is the aggressor.

Historical facts about the dangers (and failures) of vaccines

Big PharmaSource: Natural News

By Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) Vaccines are the quackery of modern medicine. Mass vaccination programs not only fail to protect the population from infectious disease, they actually accelerate the spread of disease in many cases. Continue reading

The Flouride Deception

Have you ever wondered why we have more and more children suffering from attention deficit disorder? FLOURIDE. The connection is there, it has been proven, and the kids still drink it. In fact, the medical establishment encourages 8 glasses of water per day. Enough to ensure that children don’t stand a chance. A win-win situation. Create the disorder, then prescribe a drug to treat it. Good scam.


From The Flouride Action Network

AUGUST 9, 2007

We, the undersigned professionals, come from a variety of disciplines but all have an abiding interest in ensuring that government public health and environmental policies be determined honestly, with full attention paid to the latest scientific research and to ethical principles.

EIGHT recent events make action to end water fluoridation urgent.

1. The publication in 2006 of a 500-page review of fluoride’s toxicology by a distinguished panel appointed by the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC, 2006). The NRC report concluded that the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) safe drinking water standard for fluoride (i.e. maximum contaminant level goal or MCLG) of 4 parts per million (ppm) is unsafe and should be lowered. Despite over 60 years of fluoridation, the report listed many basic research questions that have not been addressed. Still, the panel reviewed a large body of literature in which fluoride has a statistically significant association with a wide range of adverse effects. These include an increased risk of bone fractures, decreased thyroid function, lowered IQ, arthritic-like conditions, dental fluorosis and, possibly, osteosarcoma.

The average fluoride daily intakes (*) associated with many of these adverse effects are reached by some people consuming water at the concentration levels now used for fluoridation — especially small children, above average water drinkers, diabetics, people with poor kidney function and other vulnerable sub-groups. For example, the average fluoride daily intake associated with impaired thyroid function in people with iodine deficiency (about 12% of the US population) is reached by small children with average consumption of fluoridated water at 1 ppm and by people of any age or weight with moderate to high fluoridated water consumption. Of special note among the animal studies is one in which rats fed water containing 1 ppm fluoride had an increased uptake of aluminum into the brain, with formation of beta-amyloid plaques, which is a classic marker of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in humans. Considering the substantial variation in individual water intake, exposure to fluoride from many other sources, its accumulation in the bone and other calcifying tissues and the wide range of human sensitivity to any toxic substance, fluoridation provides NO margin of safety for many adverse effects, especially lowered thyroid function.
* Note: “Daily intake” takes into account the exposed individual’s bodyweight and is measured in mg. of fluoride per kilogram bodyweight.

2. The evidence provided by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2005 that 32% of American children have dental fluorosis – an abnormal discoloration and mottling of the enamel. This irreversible and sometimes disfiguring condition is caused by fluoride. Children are now being overdosed with fluoride, even in non-fluoridated areas, from water, swallowed toothpaste, foods and beverages processed with fluoridated water, and other sources. Fluoridated water is the easiest source to eliminate.

3. The American Dental Association’s policy change, in November 2006, recommending that only the following types of water be used for preparing infant formula during the first 12 months of life: “purified, distilled, deionized, demineralized, or produced through reverse osmosis.” This new policy, which was implemented to prevent the ingestion of too much fluoride by babies and to lower the risk of dental fluorosis, clearly excludes the use of fluoridated tap water. The burden of following this recommendation, especially for low income families, is reason alone for fluoridation to be halted immediately. Formula made with fluoridated water contains 250 times more fluoride than the average 0.004 ppm concentration found in human breast milk in non-fluoridated areas (Table 2-6, NRC, 2006).

4. The CDC’s concession, in 1999 and 2001, that the predominant benefit of fluoride in reducing tooth decay is TOPICAL and not SYSTEMIC. To the extent fluoride works to reduce tooth decay, it works from the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. It makes no sense to drink it and expose the rest of the body to the long term risks of fluoride ingestion when fluoridated toothpaste is readily available.

Fluoride’s topical mechanism probably explains the fact that, since the 1980s, there have been many research reports indicating little difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Leverett, 1982; Colquhoun, 1984; 1985 and 1987; Diesendorf, 1986; Gray, 1987; Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Spencer,1996; deLiefde, 1998; Locker, 1999; Armfield and Spencer, 2004; and Pizzo 2007 – see citations). Poverty is the clearest factor associated with tooth decay, not lack of ingested fluoride. According to the World Health Organization, dental health in 12-year olds in non-fluoridated industrialized countries is as good, if not better, than those in fluoridated countries (Neurath, 2005).

5. In 2000, the publication of the UK government sponsored “York Review,” the first systematic scientific review of fluoridation, found that NONE of the studies purporting to demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation to reduce tooth decay were of grade A status, i.e. “high quality, bias unlikely” (McDonagh et al., 2000).

6. The publication in May 2006 of a peer-reviewed, case-controlled study from Harvard University which found a 5-7 fold increase in osteosarcoma (a frequently fatal bone cancer) in young men associated with exposure to fluoridated water during their 6th, 7th and 8th years (Bassin et al., 2006). This study was surrounded by scandal as Elise Bassin’s PhD thesis adviser, Professor Chester Douglass, was accused by the watchdog Environmental Working Group of attempting to suppress these findings for several years (see video). While this study does not prove a relationship between fluoridation and osteosarcoma beyond any doubt, the weight of evidence and the importance of the risk call for serious consideration.

7. The admission by federal agencies, in response to questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America’s drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological testing nor received FDA approval for human ingestion (Fox, 1999; Hazan, 2000; Plaisier, 2000; Thurnau, 2000).

8. The publication in 2004 of “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson. This meticulously researched book showed that industrial interests, concerned about liabilities from fluoride pollution and health effects on workers, played a significant role in the early promotion of fluoridation. Bryson also details the harassment of scientists who expressed concerns about the safety and/or efficacy of fluoridation (see Bryson interview).

We call upon Members of Congress (and legislators in other fluoridating countries) to sponsor a new Congressional (or Parliamentary) Hearing on Fluoridation so that those in government agencies who continue to support the procedure, particularly the Oral Health Division of the CDC, be compelled to provide the scientific basis for their ongoing promotion of fluoridation. They must be cross-examined under oath if the public is ever to fully learn the truth about this outdated and harmful practice.

We call upon all medical and dental professionals, members of water departments, local officials, public health organizations, environmental groups and the media to examine for themselves the new documentation that fluoridated water is ineffective and poses serious health risks. It is no longer acceptable to simply rely on endorsements from agencies that continue to ignore the large body of scientific evidence on this matter — especially the extensive citations in the NRC (2006) report discussed above.

The untold millions of dollars that are now spent on equipment, chemicals, monitoring, and promotion of fluoridation could be much better invested in nutrition education and targeted dental care for children from low income families. The vast majority of enlightened nations have done this (see statements).

It is time for the US, and the few remaining fluoridating countries, to recognize that fluoridation is outdated, has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, violates sound medical ethics and denies freedom of choice. Fluoridation must be ended now.

Click here to see references cited in this statement


• UNITED STATES: Names beginnning with A-M and N-Z


What do Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, and Oggie Dog have in common?

What do Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, and Oggie Dog have in common?

Answer: They are all aware that GMO frankenfood will kill you.

It all started with my dog Oggie eating a large quantity of sheep wool. Not just any sheep wool, but my endangered Jacob’s sheep wool. I thought this was rather strange, but took it in stride, and doused him with oil and fiber until the wool clump came out. I thought about what would entice him to eat this, since he has not done it before, but chalked it up to weird things dogs do after Marti found a missing hair curler in her dog Milo’s poop.

Now Oggie Dog has been raised on dry dog food, and he is over 10 years old. I have not had problems with this diet until about a year ago when he started getting finicky about the type of dry food he would eat. I attributed this to his age. After all, I am getting a bit finicky too, but that’s another story. Then it hit me after reading William Engdahl’s Seeds of Destruction. What if most of the dry dog food we get in the grocery store is made from GMO products? What if Oggie senses the GMO in his food and is rejecting it because he knows it is bad for him? What if he ate the wool because it was preferable to GMO dog food? Animals instinctively know what is good for them. Well, all except Marti’s dog Milo who will eat anything. But again, that’s another story. So, I started doing some research on the Net, and here is what I found:

Pet food recall linked to GMO

On March 23, [2007], the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets announced that rat poison in contaminated wheat gluten imported from China was responsible for the suffering and deaths of an as yet uncounted numbers of cats and dogs across North America. The poison is a chemical compound called aminopterin.

On March 30, [2007], the FDA reported finding a widely used compound called melamine in the suspect pet foods. The FDA claims the melamine was the cause of an as yet uncounted number of cat and dog poisonings and deaths. The FDA could not find the rat poison, aminopterin, in the samples it analyzed; however a lab in Canada, at the University of Guelph, has confirmed the presence of rat poison.

A brief internet search quickly reveals that the widely used insect growth regulator cryomazine is not only made from melamine, but it also breaks down into melamine after ingestion by an animal. Wheat gluten is wheat gluten, fit for human consumption, so the question remains, what was wrong with this gluten that it was only bought for use in pet food?

Dr. Michael W. Fox presents the following hypothesis:

1. The wheat gluten imported from China was not for human consumption, because, I believe, it had been genetically engineered.

2. The ‘rat poison’ aminopterin is used in molecular biology as an anti-metabolite, folate antagonist, and in genetic engineering biotechnology as a genetic marker. This could account for its presence in this imported wheat gluten.

3. The contaminant melamine, the parent chemical for a potent insecticide cyromazine, could well have been manufactured WITHIN the wheat plants themselves as a genetically engineered pesticide. This is much like the Bt. insecticidal poison present in most US commodity crops that go into animal feed.

4. So called ‘overexpression’ can occur when spliced genes that synthesize such chemicals become hyperactive inside the plant and result in potentially toxic plant tissues, lethal not just to meal worms and other crop pests, but to cats, dogs, birds, butterflies and other wildlife; and to their creators.

How else can one account for samples of pet food containing as much as 6% melamine? It was surely not mixed in such amounts when the wheat gluten was being processed, but rather was already in the wheat, along with the aminopterin genetic marker. My suspicion is that the FDA was aware that the gluten came from genetically engineered wheat that was considered safe for animal consumption.

In a nutshell, it is the researcher’s opinion that the recalled pet food contained GMO wheat gone bad. That is to say, a great deal of our pet food is normally made with GMO wheat imported from China. This particular batch went hyperactive and produced a toxic amount of genetically engineered poison in the wheat, and killed our pets.

Good boy, Oggie Dog! You sniffed out the GMO in your food and thumbed your nose at it. At least that is my theory. By the way, Here are some GMO testing results from Moscow that I don’t think the U.S. wants us to see:

Mouse tests and photos

Maria Konovalova provided photos of the mice under tests:


A mouse from the control set [fed] on a common vivarium [controlled environment] ration


A mouse from the sample group that ate isolate of GM soy within five months

That Jacob’s sheep wool doesn’t look so bad, does it Oggie Dog? In fact, just about anything looks better than GMO dog food.  

Copyright 2008, Barbara H. Peterson

%d bloggers like this: