China congratulates Putin on his inauguration as Russian President

Vladimir Putin at the inauguration ceremony at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia on 7 May 2018 [PPIO]

Amid a Western standoff with Russia over sanctions and the Syrian crisis, ally China congratulated President Vladimir Putin after he was sworn in for a new term on Monday.

At the Kremlin Palace Putin was sworn in for a new 6-year term on Monday.

“The Chinese side believes that under the leadership of President Putin, Russia will keep making achievements in its nation building and social and economic development,” Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang told a routine press briefing.

Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke to Putin after more than 70 per cent of voters backed him in a March 18 presidential election.

China’s Foreign Minister said a “personal push by President Xi and President Putin” has boosted ties between the two nations.

Beijing and Moscow “have exchanged views on major international and regional issues in a timely manner, kept close coordination within the framework of multilateral mechanisms, and made significant contributions to world peace and stability” Geng was quoted by Chinese agency Xinhua.

Trade between BRICS allies China and Russia has increased about 30 per cent in the first quarter of 2018, according to Chinese officials.

In May 2014, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping singed a landmark $400 billion gas deal under which Gazprom will supply the China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) 38 billion cubic meters (BCM) of natural gas every year for 30 years.

The deal has brought both countries, BRICS members, closer and has been a massive boost to Sino-Russian ties even as Russia struggles with EU and US sanctions over Ukraine.

On Monday, Putin announced he was retaining Dmitri Medvedev as Prime Minster and Anton Siluanov as Finance Minister.

In a speech after the swearing-in ceremony, Putin said that Russia favours “equitable and mutual cooperation with all states in interest of peace”.

“Russia faced a number of dark periods and challenges, and rose like a phoenix from the ashes every time, achieving heights that seemed unattainable to others,” Putin said.

 

TBP and Agencies

Shout Out!


By Anna Von Reitz

A number of needs have hit my dashboard today.


One of our allied program managers needs a place to stay in Oak Park, Illinois tomorrow May 8, 2018 through Friday, May 11, 2018.  She’s going to be working during the days on relief programs for children and victims of human trafficking– like Thasja and the children who were taken at the same time.  It will cost more than a thousand dollars just in hotel fees and cab fares, and she couldn’t afford to come to the meetings without help. 

Our lead researcher into the historical copyrights which are key to proving the ownership interests and identities of parties to contracts is in desperate need of financial assistance this month to finish filing several major program claims.  This is important to all of us and is the culmination of over five years of hard work. 

Our chief engineer who is responsible for the development and deployment of the new, safe banking system is in need of travel funding that will allow him to meet with other key people directly and finalize agreements needed to actually implement this system for our banks and credit unions. 

One our most talented Ancient History researchers who has successfully detailed the evidence of what really happened in the Dark Ages in Europe has been hospitalized with a mysterious illness that has not been diagnosed.  Please pray for him and his family and send donations for his wife and daughter needed to travel to the hospital. 

My Brother-in-Law is also hospitalized tonight at the Mayo Clinic and facing Heart By-Pass surgery.  Please join with me in praying for a successful surgery and recovery for him and comfort for my Sister and Niece.  

Our friends in West Virginia who have been instrumental in uncovering the history of that pivotal state and what happened there that has affected every other state in the Union ever since are also facing hard times and need money for significant car repairs and hotel costs in Richmond, Virginia, to continue their volunteer work.

One of our members who is in jail tonight on trumped up charges is in desperate need of money for postage and printing and legal fees to continue his legal work and prosecute the cases that the vermin are trying to avoid by incarcerating him.  These cases directly impact our claims on public lands and parks and other “set asides” in the western United States.  

“It’s always something,” in the immortal words of Gilda Radner.   

I don’t expect anyone who is in real need to sacrifice, and simply ask that those of you who have some extra this month consider making a donation to help keep the work (and the workers) moving forward on these many important projects.  They all contribute to the whole.  

I am still Paymaster for the entire crew, Chief Cook, Bottle-Washer, Grandma, and Dog-Sitter — so please send what you can to my PayPal Account at:avannavon@gmail.com or to my snail mail address — Anna Maria Riezinger, c/o Box 520994, Big Lake, Alaska 99652.  

—————————-
See this article and over 900 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.

Dr. Samuel Epstein, 91, Dies

By Dr. Mercola

Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, former chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and a pioneer in cancer prevention, has passed away at the age of 91. As his son Julian told The New York Times, “He walked the walk”1 in terms of avoiding exposure to carcinogens, and he was an outspoken critic of household products that contained cancer-causing ingredients — and the lax regulations and conflicts of interest that often allow them to remain on the market.

“He was never shy in choosing his targets, which included the American Cancer Society [ACS] and the National Cancer Institute, which he accused of potential conflicts of interest because they had corporate sponsors,” The New York Times reported.2 Indeed, I’ve referenced Epstein many times over the years and we met and talked on several occasions.

When I interviewed him in 2010 (see the interview above), we spoke about several controversial health dangers that receive little attention in the mainstream press, including nanoparticles used in cosmetics and recombinant (genetically engineered) bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in milk. Epstein was instrumental in helping to spread the word that chemicals cause cancer and he sought to bring corporations to task for their role in the cancer epidemic.

What’s more, he was a champion for cancer prevention and wanted to spread the word that most cancers are preventable if you avoid exposure to carcinogens. And for the record, while 1 out of every 4 deaths in the U.S. is due to cancer,3 Epstein’s was not — he passed away from cardiac arrest March 18, 2018.

Epstein Spread the Word About Little-Known Carcinogens

Epstein was adamant about addressing the environmental components of cancer and wanted to spread the word about avoidable toxic exposures. Some of his life’s work included bringing the following carcinogens into the public eye so people could make informed decisions about whether or not to risk exposure.

rBGH Milk

Cows are injected with rBGH to boost their milk production. rBGH is a synthetic version of natural bovine somatotropin (BST), a hormone produced in cows’ pituitary glands. Science has proven this practice of injecting cows with rBGH, although profitable to the industrialized dairy industry, comes at a high price to you, as well as to dairy cows.

Monsanto developed the recombinant version from genetically engineered E. coli bacteria and marketed it under the brand name “Posilac.” It sold the brand to Eli Lilly and Company (specifically their animal health division, Elanco) in 2008.4 According to Elanco, a cow supplemented with Posilac produces an average of 10 more pounds of milk per day,5 which explains why rBGH is the largest selling dairy animal drug in America.6

Yet, it’s banned in Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the European Union because of its dangers to human health, which include a potentially increased risk of cancer in humans along with medical problems in cows. RBGH increases milk production by increasing levels of the hormone insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1).

IGF-1 is a potent hormone that acts on your pituitary gland to induce powerful metabolic and endocrine effects, including cell growth and replication. Elevated IGF-1 levels are associated with breast and other cancers. When cows are injected with rBGH, their levels of IGF-1 increase. In one of Epstein’s studies, a sixfold increase in IGF-1 levels in milk were found as early as seven days following rBGH treatment, with results suggesting it could be a risk factor in both breast and gastrointestinal cancers.7

The synthetic hormone is also known to cause at least 16 medical conditions in cows, including infertility, lameness, hoof disorders and a shortened life span.8 In the U.S., no labeling is required for rBGH milk, but you can find brands that state the milk is produced without it. Organic milk is also rBGH free.

In what is perhaps a further sign that rBGH is falling out of favor, Elanco announced in late 2017 that it’s trying to sell Posilac and its August, Georgia, manufacturing facility.9 For more information on this topic, I recommend reading Epstein’s 2006 book, “What’s In Your Milk?”

Mammograms

Epstein started warning people about the dangers of mammography in the 1990s, stating:

“The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade’s screening …

The high sensitivity of the breast, especially in young women, to radiation-induced cancer was known by 1970. Nevertheless, the establishment then screened some 300,000 women with X-ray dosages so high as to increase breast cancer risk by up to 20 percent in women aged 40 to 50 who were mammogramed annually.”

The fact is that the ionizing radiation used by mammography to discern breast tumors is a risk factor for the development of breast cancer. Additionally, if you do have a malignant tumor, the crushing compression of your breast could potentially cause it to spread. In a 2015 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers concluded mammography screenings lead to unnecessary treatments while having virtually no impact on the number of deaths from breast cancer.

A positive correlation between breast cancer screening and breast cancer incidence was indeed found, but there was no positive correlation with mortality.10 Epstein described mammography screening as a “profit-driven technology posing risks compounded by unreliability.”

In research published in the International Journal of Health Services, he stated that “annual clinical breast examination (CBE) by a trained health professional, together with monthly breast self-examination (BSE)” is a practical alternative that’s “safe, at least as effective and low in cost.”11

Personal Care Products

In his 2009 book “Toxic Beauty: How Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Endanger Your Health,” Epstein details many of the toxic ingredients found in common cosmetics and personal care products like lipstick, hairspray, facial moisturizer and deodorant.

His crusade to get the word out about their toxicity started even earlier, in the 1990s, when he held a news conference listing a “dirty dozen” list of household products he found to be toxic. Among them were talcum powder, a foundation makeup, hair conditioner and hair color. Dr. Epstein also had serious concerns about cosmetic products containing tiny nanoparticles, which can readily penetrate your skin, stating:

“There is no labeling of the warning at all of the dangers of these nanoparticles. Instead they are touted as reducing wrinkling and firming up the skin surface. However, the use of nanoparticles in cosmeceuticals, whether they are sham cosmeceuticals or whether they’re bona fide cosmeceuticals, poses an extraordinarily dangerous and unrecognized public health hazard.

Nanoparticles, because of their ultramicroscopic size, readily penetrate the skin, can invade underlying blood vessels, get into the general blood stream and produce distant toxic effects. We already have evidence of this, including toxic effects in the brain, degenerative disorders in the brain and nerve damage. So we’re dealing here with one of the most dangerous types of products in the whole cosmetic industry.”

Epstein Exposed Conflicts of Interest in Government Cancer Organizations

Epstein didn’t shy away from controversy and helped to expose the many conflicts of interest at play in government cancer organizations that were supposedly protecting public health but were actually beholden to industry. In the 2011 report, “American Cancer Society — More Interested in Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives,”12 for instance, Epstein plainly lays to bare the many conflicts of interest that hamper the effectiveness of this organization.

Among them were contributions in excess of $100,000 from companies responsible for polluting the environment with carcinogens or selling products containing toxic or carcinogenic ingredients. This includes industry funding from pharmaceutical, junk food, biotech and petrochemical companies, among others. Epstein was among the first to highlight ACS’ close ties with the mammography industry — five radiologists served as ACS presidents.

In addition, Epstein noted, “In its every move, the ACS reflects the interests of the major manufacturers of mammography, films and machines. These include Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak and Piker, which allocate considerable funds to the ACS.”13 The report also highlighted ACS ties to the pesticide and pharmaceutical industries, along with their long history of siding with industry rather than protecting the public from potential cancer risks. According to Epstein’s report:14

  • In 1993, ACS trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood cancer. The ACS also reassured the public that carcinogenic pesticide residues in food are safe, even for babies.
  • In 1994, ACS published a study designed to reassure women on the safety of dark permanent hair dyes, and to trivialize risk of fatal and nonfatal cancers, particularly Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as documented in over six prior reports.
  • In 2002, ACS initiated the “Look Good … Feel Better” program to teach women cancer patients beauty techniques to help restore their appearance and self-image during chemotherapy and radiation treatment but failed to disclose the wide range of carcinogenic ingredients in toiletries and cosmetics.

Continuing Epstein’s Legacy

One of the best ways to honor Epstein’s life work as a champion of cancer prevention is to continue to spread the word about how to avoid or reduce your exposure to carcinogens in your daily life. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) compile and keep a current list of chemical substances manufactured or processed in the U.S.

That list includes about 85,000 chemicals,15 but even the EPA is largely in the dark about what that actually means for people’s health and the environment. Very few chemicals on the market are tested for safety, but even those that are are not necessarily safe. Part of this is because safety testing is typically done on just one chemical at a time, and under laboratory conditions. The way you’re actually exposed to chemicals — in combination and under countless different real-world scenarios — may increase their toxicity exponentially.

Research published in the journal Carcinogenesis also found that chemicals deemed “safe” on their own can cause cancer when combined, even at low doses, with researchers noting, “Our analysis suggests that the cumulative effects of individual (noncarcinogenic) chemicals acting on different pathways, and a variety of related systems, organs, tissues and cells could plausibly conspire to produce carcinogenic synergies.”16

Experts agree that in order to gauge the true risk of a chemical, it should be tested in combination with others to more closely replicate real-world exposures. Yet, U.S. National Toxicology Program data suggests testing the interactions between just 25 chemicals for 13 weeks would require 33 million experiments and cost $3 trillion.17

Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., cofounder and executive director of the Bioscience Resource Project, pointed out that even if such experiments were possible, it’s likely that no chemical would be deemed truly “safe.”18 So what can you do? Until change occurs on a global scale, you can significantly limit your exposure by keeping a number of key principles in mind.

Eat a diet focused on locally grown, fresh and ideally organic whole foods. Processed and packaged foods are a common source of chemicals, both in the food itself and the packaging. Wash fresh produce well, especially if it’s not organically grown.

Choose pastured, sustainably raised meats and dairy to reduce your exposure to hormones, pesticides and fertilizers. Avoid milk and other dairy products that contain the genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST).

Rather than eating conventional or farm-raised fish, which are often heavily contaminated with PCBs and mercury, supplement with a high-quality krill oil, or eat fish that is wild-caught and at little risk of contamination, such as wild caught Alaskan salmon, anchovies and sardines.

Buy products that come in glass bottles rather than plastic or cans, as chemicals can leach out of plastics (and plastic can linings), into the contents; be aware that even “BPA-free” plastics typically leach endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are just as bad for you as bisphenol-A (BPA).

Store your food and beverages in glass, rather than plastic, and avoid using plastic wrap.

Use glass baby bottles.

Replace your nonstick pots and pans with ceramic or glass cookware.

Filter your tap water for both drinking and bathing. If you can only afford to do one, filtering your bathing water may be more important, as your skin readily absorbs contaminants.

Look for products made by companies that are Earth-friendly, animal-friendly, sustainable, certified organic and GMO-free. This applies to everything from food and personal care products to building materials, carpeting, paint, baby items, furniture, mattresses and others.

Use a vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter to remove contaminated house dust. This is one of the major routes of exposure to flame-retardant chemicals.

When buying new products such as furniture, mattresses or carpet padding, consider buying chemical-free varieties containing naturally less flammable materials, such as leather, wool, cotton, silk and Kevlar.

Avoid stain- and water-resistant clothing, furniture and carpets to avoid perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs).

Make sure your baby’s toys are BPA-free, such as pacifiers, teething rings and anything your child may be prone to suck or chew on — even books, which are often plasticized. It’s advisable to avoid all plastic, especially flexible varieties.

Use natural cleaning products or make your own. Avoid those containing 2-butoxyethanol (EGBE) and methoxydiglycol (DEGME) — two toxic glycol ethers that can compromise your fertility and cause fetal harm.

Switch over to organic toiletries, including shampoo, toothpaste, antiperspirants and cosmetics. EWG’s Skin Deep database can help you find personal care products that are free of phthalates and other potentially dangerous chemicals.19

Replace your vinyl shower curtain with a fabric one or use glass doors.

Replace feminine hygiene products (tampons and sanitary pads) with safer alternatives.

Look for fragrance-free products. One artificial fragrance can contain hundreds — even thousands — of potentially toxic chemicals. Avoid fabric softeners and dryer sheets, which contain a mishmash of synthetic chemicals and fragrances.

Reconfirmed: Artificial Sweeteners Make You Fat and Sick

By Dr. Mercola

If you’re still holding out hope that science will eventually prove artificial sweeteners to be beneficial, or at the very least harmless, you’re likely to be disappointed. Again and again, research shows no-calorie sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose cause the same problems as excess sugar, and then some.

According to the latest statistics1 nearly 40 percent of American adults, over 18 percent of teens and nearly 14 percent of young children are now obese, not just overweight, and processed foods and sweetened beverages are clearly driving factors. Unfortunately, many make the mistake of thinking artificially sweetened products are a healthier option as it cuts down your calories, but nothing could be further from the truth.

The international trend of taxing sugary beverages to discourage sugar consumption has also had the unfortunate side effect of causing beverage makers to switch to artificial sweeteners rather than sugar and other calorie-rich sweeteners. However, when it comes to health, artificial sweeteners cause just as many health problems as sugar does.

Artificial Sweeteners Again Linked to Obesity and Diabetes

Over the years, an ever-growing number of studies have shown artificial sweeteners raise your risk of both obesity and Type 2 diabetes — perhaps even to a greater degree than sugar does. Most recently, animal research2,3 presented at the annual Experimental Biology conference in San Diego again confirmed that artificial sweeteners raise your risk of obesity and diabetes.

The study, which explored how different sweeteners affect the way food is used and stored in the body, and how they affect vascular functioning, found both sugar and artificial sweeteners result in impairments, albeit through different pathways. As noted by the authors:

“This study tested the response of the vascular endothelium in vitro and the in vivo response of a diabetes susceptible … rat model to glucose, aspartame, and acesulfame potassium supplementation … Through this set of experiments we have identified unique signatures of alterations in lipid metabolism, among others, following artificial sweetener consumption.

Overall, results of this study suggests that exposure to high glucose and artificial sweetener administration lead to unique mechanisms of vascular impairment and homeostatic alterations that may be important during the onset and progression of diabetes and obesity.”

Sugar Versus Artificial Sweeteners — Different Mechanisms of Action, Similar Results

After being fed a diet high in either artificial sweeteners (aspartame or acesulfame potassium) or sugars (glucose or fructose) for three weeks, detrimental effects were seen in all groups. All had increased blood lipids (fats), but the artificial sweeteners also accumulated in the blood of the animals, which harmed the blood vessel lining to a greater degree. Of the two artificial sweeteners, acesulfame potassium appeared to be the worst.

The results of the study — which used unbiased high-throughput metabolomics, a technique that allows you to investigate how something affects cellular metabolism — indicate that artificial sweeteners alter how your body processes fat and produces energy at the cellular level. So, while operating on completely different chemical pathways, they produce the same kinds of health consequences as sugar.

As noted by lead author Brian Hoffmann, Ph.D., assistant professor in the department of biomedical engineering at the Marquette University and Medical College of Wisconsin,4 “In moderation, your body has the machinery to handle sugar; it is when the system is overloaded over a long period of time that this machinery breaks down.”

Artificial sweeteners, on the other hand, wear the machinery down. “Sweeteners kind of trick the body. And then when your body’s not getting the energy it needs — because it does need some sugar to function properly — it potentially finds that source elsewhere,” he says.5

One alternative sugar source is muscle, and indeed, evidence of protein break down was found in the animals’ blood. Essentially, the rats were burning muscle as a source of energy when given artificial sweeteners. Hoffman also notes that this research is different from previous attempts to conclusively tie artificial sweeteners to health problems:

“Most of these sweeteners were approved well before we had the technology to perform studies like my lab is doing. So they weren’t able to look as in-depth at some of the potential effects being caused. By knowing what biochemical changes these are causing through these large-scale studies, we can take an unbiased approach and see what’s changing to give us a better direction.

What I like to tell people is that most things in moderation are going to be fine … It’s when people start to chronically consume these [drinks] — say, a person drinks two, three, four … every day — that we should start to be concerned. Because you’re starting to introduce these biochemical changes and the body has no time to recover.”

Artificial Sweeteners Trick Your Body Into Storing Fat

Contrary to industry claims, research over the last 30 years have shown that artificial sweeteners stimulate appetite, increase cravings for carbs, and produce a variety of metabolic dysfunctions that promote fat storage and weight gain, often to the researchers’ great surprise. Below is a sampling of some of the studies published through the years.

Preventive Medicine 19866

This study examined nearly 78,700 women aged 50 to 69 for one year. Artificial sweetener usage increased with relative weight, and users were significantly more likely to gain weight compared to those who did not use artificial sweeteners, regardless of their initial weight.

According to the researchers, the results “were not explicable by differences in food consumption patterns. The data do not support the hypothesis that long-term artificial sweetener use either helps weight loss or prevents weight gain.”

Physiology and Behavior, 19887

In this study, they determined that no- or low-calorie sweeteners can produce significant changes in appetite. Of the three sweeteners tested, aspartame produced the most pronounced effects.

Physiology and Behavior 19908

Here, they found that aspartame had a time-dependent effect on appetite, “producing a transient decrease followed by a sustained increase in hunger ratings.”

Journal of the American Dietetic Association 19919

In a study of artificial sweeteners performed on college students, there was no evidence that artificial sweetener use was associated with a decrease in their overall sugar intake either.

International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 200310

This study, which looked at 3,111 children, found that diet soda, specifically, was associated with higher body mass index (BMI).

International Journal of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders 200411

This Purdue University study found that rats fed artificially sweetened liquids ate more high-calorie food than rats fed high-caloric sweetened liquids. The researchers believe the experience of drinking artificially sweetened liquids disrupted the animals’ natural ability to compensate for the calories in the food.

San Antonio Heart Study 200512

Data gathered from the San Antonio Heart Study, which went on for 25 years, showed drinking diet soft drinks increased the likelihood of serious weight gain far more so than regular soda.13 On average, for each diet soft drink the participants drank per day, they were 65 percent more likely to become overweight during the next seven to eight years, and 41 percent more likely to become obese.

Journal of the American College of Nutrition 200514

In this two-year-long study, which involved 166 school children, increased diet soda consumption was associated with higher BMI at the end of the trial.

The Journal of Pediatrics 200615

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Growth and Health Study followed 2,371 girls aged 9 to 19 for 10 years. Soda consumption in general, both regular and diet, was associated with increase in total daily energy intake.

Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 201016

This review offers a summary of epidemiological and experimental evidence concerning the effects of artificial sweeteners on weight, and explains those effects in light of the neurobiology of food reward. More than 11,650 children aged 9 to 14 were included in this study.

Each daily serving of diet beverage was associated with a BMI increase of 0.16 kg/m2. It also shows the correlation between increased usage of artificial sweeteners in food and drinks, and the corresponding rise in obesity.

obesity rates
Source: Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine June 8 2010: v83(2)

According to the authors:

“[F]indings suggest that the calorie contained in natural sweeteners may trigger a response to keep the overall energy consumption constant … Increasing evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners do not activate the food reward pathways in the same fashion as natural sweeteners … [A]rtificial sweeteners, precisely because they are sweet, encourage sugar craving and sugar dependence.”

Appetite 201217

Here, researchers showed that saccharin and aspartame cause greater weight gain than sugar, even when the total caloric intake remains similar.

Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism 201318

This report highlights the fact that diet soda drinkers suffer the same exact health problems as those who opt for regular soda, such as excessive weight gain, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke.19,20 The researchers speculate that frequent consumption of artificial sweeteners may induce metabolic derangements.

The Journal of Physiology 201321,22

This study demonstrated that your body is not fooled by sweet taste without accompanying calories, which is yet another reason why artificial sweeteners promote obesity. When you eat something sweet, your brain releases dopamine, which activates your brain’s reward center. The appetite-regulating hormone leptin is also released, which eventually informs your brain that you are “full” once a certain amount of calories have been ingested.

When you consume something that tastes sweet but doesn’t contain any calories, your brain’s pleasure pathway still gets activated by the sweet taste, but there’s nothing to deactivate it, since the calories never arrive. Artificial sweeteners basically trick your body into thinking that it’s going to receive calories, but when the calories fail to arrive, your body continues to signal that it needs more, which results in carb cravings.

Nature 201423

This important study was able to clearly show causality, revealing there’s a direct cause and effect relationship between consuming artificial sweeteners and developing elevated blood sugar levels. People who consumed high amounts of artificial sweeteners were found to have higher levels of HbA1C — a long-term measure of blood sugar — compared to nonusers or occasional users of artificial sweeteners.

Seven volunteers who did not use artificial sweeteners were then recruited, and asked to consume the equivalent of 10 to 12 single-dose packets of artificial sweeteners daily for one week. Four of the seven people developed “significant disturbances in their blood glucose,” according to the researchers.

Some became prediabetic within just a few days. The reason for this dramatic shift was traced back to alterations in gut bacteria. Some bacteria were killed off, while others started proliferating.

PLOS One 201424

This study, which was done on rats, using aspartame, also found an increased risk of glucose intolerance. Animals that consumed artificial sweeteners ended up with raised levels of propionate — short-chain fatty acids involved in sugar production. Consumption of artificial sweeteners shifted gut microbiota to produce propionate, which generated higher blood sugar levels. 

Other Ways Artificial Sweeteners Harm Your Health


Artificial sweeteners have also been linked to a number of other adverse effects. For example, the amino acids in aspartame attack your cells, even crossing the blood-brain barrier to attack your brain cells, creating toxic cellular overstimulation (excitotoxicity), and sucralose (sold under the brand name Splenda) has been linked to:

  • Decreased red blood cells, a sign of anemia, at levels above 1,500 milligrams per kilo per day
  • Increased male infertility by interfering with sperm production and vitality, as well as brain lesions at higher doses
  • Kidney enlargement and calcification
  • Significantly increased risk for miscarriage (in rabbits, spontaneous abortions affected nearly half the rabbit population given sucralose, compared to zero aborted pregnancies in the control group)
  • Significantly increased death rate (a 23 percent death rate in rabbits, compared to a 6 percent in the control group)

Artificial Sweeteners Destroy Your Gut Microbiome, and Much More

An in-depth scientific review25 of sucralose published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health also reveals an extensive list of safety concerns, including toxicity, DNA damage and heightened carcinogenic potential when used in cooking. It turns out that when heated, sucralose releases chloropropanols, which belong to a class of toxins known as dioxins, known to cause cancer and endocrine disruption.

Importantly, this review also concluded that sucralose destroys gut bacteria. In fact, animal research26 published in 2008 found it could kill as much as 50 percent of your microbiome, and appeared to targeted beneficial microorganisms to a greater extent than pathogenic and more detrimental bacteria. This is really important, as any time you destroy healthy intestinal bacteria you open yourself up to unfriendly microorganisms that can cause health problems.

Studies have also found that sucralose alters glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 levels and responses,27 thereby raising your risk for diabetes. Besides worsening insulin sensitivity and promoting weight gain, aspartame and other artificial sweeteners also promote other health problems associated with excessive sugar consumption, including:

  • Cardiovascular disease and stroke28,29,30
  • Alzheimer’s disease. While poor diet is a major driver of Alzheimer’s in general, the key mechanism of harm here appears to be methanol toxicity, a problem associated with aspartame in particular. In a previous interview, toxicology expert Dr. Woodrow Monte (author of the book “While Science Sleeps: A Sweetener Kills”31) explains the links between aspartame and methanol toxicity and the formation of toxic formaldehyde

Surprising Reason Processed Foods Promote Drug-Resistant Disease

In related news, researchers have also found an intriguing link between processed foods and drug-resistant disease. Here, a sugar called trehalose is a preferred fuel for two of the most problematic strains of clostridium difficile (C. diff), microbes that cause severe gut infection and can lead to death. Deaths associated with this infection increased fivefold between 1999 and 2007, in part due to C. diff strains having developed resistance against antibiotics.

Moreover, researchers found that more virulent strains of C. diff were outcompeting less harmful strains inside the human gut. To determine how and why, they tested more than 200 different sugars and amino acids to see whether these more virulent strains were somehow able to use some food sources more efficiently than others — and this is precisely what they found.32 As reported by The New York Times:33

Trehalose occurs naturally in mushrooms, yeasts and shellfish, among other things. It has historically been expensive to use, but in the late 1990s a new manufacturing process made the sugar cheap. That was good news for companies that manufactured prepackaged foods, because trehalose works great for stabilizing processed foods, keeping them moist on the shelf and improving texture.

Since about 2001, we’ve added loads of it to everything from cookies to ground beef. What Dr. [Robert] Britton and his colleagues contend is that, in doing so, we’ve inadvertently cultivated the most toxic C. diff strains, driving what has become a scourge of hospitals. As evidence, he points to the timing of recent C. diff epidemics. The virulent strains existed before 2000, but they didn’t cause as many outbreaks.

Only after large quantities of trehalose entered the food supply did they become this deadly … Britton also found that mice infected with those virulent strains of C. diff that consumed the sugar fared worse than infected mice that were not fed the sugar … ‘What this research shows is that people should be considering the ecological impacts of food stuffs,’ Britton [says]. ‘Our gut bacteria are being bombarded with things that we never ate — or never ate in the concentrations we eat now.’”

For Optimal Health, Drink More Clean Water

I firmly believe ditching soda and other sweetened beverages is one of the most important steps you can take to improve your weight and health, and this includes artificially sweetened beverages as well, which may in fact be worse for your health than regular soda.

As you can see, the scientific evidence shows artificial sweeteners can stimulate your appetite, increase carb cravings, stimulate fat storage and promote weight gain just like regular soda. As noted above, diet soda is associated with a 50 percent increased risk of obesity while regular soda (at a rate of one can per day) is associated with a 60 percent increased risk.

In addition to that, aspartame is associated with a long list of other harmful effects, ranging from brain damage to pre-term delivery, while sucralose has been found to be particularly damaging to your intestines.34,35 Unfortunately, many are still in the dark about these health risks. Sugar also promotes unhealthy bacterial growth, and many are already deficient in healthy bacteria due to consuming too many highly-processed foods.

This is why I recommend eating fermented vegetables every day, or at the very least taking a high-quality probiotic. Remember, pure water is a zero-calorie drink. You cannot find a beverage that contains fewer calories. If you want some flavor, just squeeze a little bit of fresh lemon or lime into mineral water. In instances where your cooking, baking or beverage needs a little sweetener, be mindful of your choice. For more information, see “Sugar Substitutes — What’s Safe and What’s Not.”

Is There Teflon in Your Cosmetic Products?

By Dr. Mercola

Teflon is perhaps best known for coating nonstick pans with a slippery surface, such that overeasy eggs slide off with just a flick of your wrist. Yet, this chemical is also found in other consumer goods, from stain-resistant and waterproof clothing to, as revealed by a recent Environmental Working Group (EWG) report, cosmetics and personal care products.

Teflon is a brand name for polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), a synthetic fluoropolymer, and one of a large group of fluorinated chemicals known as polyfluoroalkyl or perfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFASs), which include PFOA and PFOS. While the acronyms can get a bit confusing, the important thing to remember is that this family of chemicals (PTFE, PFAS, PFOA, PFOS and PFCs, as per- and polyfluorinated compounds were historically known) is toxic to your health.

In fact, the convenience of a nonstick or stain-resistant surface comes at a steep price, as such chemicals have been linked to developmental problems, cancer, liver damage, immune effects, thyroid problems and more. What effects may result from applying PFASs directly to your skin in the form of personal care products is unknown but raises another level of concern entirely.

PFAS Chemicals Found in 28 Brands of Personal Care Products, Spanning 200 Products

EWG’s Skin Deep database contains ingredient lists and safety ratings for close to 75,000 cosmetics and personal care products. EWG researchers used this database as the basis for their study, which sought to identify how many such products contain Teflon or other PFASs.

Overall, 13 PFAS chemicals were found in close to 200 products spanning 28 brands, including makeup, sunscreen, shampoo and shaving cream. Teflon, however, was the most common chemical found among its class, showing up in 66 products from 15 brands. According to EWG:1

“Besides PTFE, EWG identified an alphabet soup of other fluorinated chemicals in the personal care products we assessed — PFH, OFPMA, PFD and others. Absorption of these chemicals through skin is not expected to be a significant route of exposure, but when used on or around the eyes, absorption can increase, posing a greater hazard.

There may also be significant variation in absorption depending on the type of PFAS used in the products, and the other PFAS chemicals present. Not enough is known about the health impacts of these chemicals. Until more is known, EWG strongly urges people to avoid all products with PFAS, including cosmetics and personal care products.”

The EWG study detected these toxic substances in a number of personal care products, including the following, so be sure to read labels avidly:2

? Foundation

? Sunscreen/moisturizer

? Moisturizer

? Eyeshadow

? Bronzer/highlighter

? Facial powder

? Sunscreen/makeup

? Mascara

? Anti-aging

? Moisturizer

? Eye cream

? Blush

? Shaving cream (men’s)

? Facial moisturizer/treatment

? Brow liner

? Other eye makeup

Antiaging Cosmetics Previously Found to Contain PFOA

In 2015 the California-based Campaign for Safe Cosmetics had products from multinational cosmetic companies tested by an independent laboratory, looking for toxic chemicals linked to breast cancer. Three antiaging creams with the popular brand names Garnier and CoverGirl contained PFOA. “How do chemicals linked to cancer end up in our beauty products?” the report asked. “The answer is simple. No one is minding the store when it comes to the safety of cosmetics or personal care products.” They continued:3

“Due to gaping holes in federal law, it is perfectly legal for cosmetics companies to use unlimited amounts of virtually any ingredient, including chemicals linked to cancer, reproductive and developmental harm, hormone disruption and other adverse health impacts, with no FDA pre-market testing or review …

Taken alone, chemicals in any one consumer product may not cause harm. Unfortunately, people are repeatedly exposed to industrial chemicals from many different sources, including cosmetics, on a daily basis. The average American woman uses 12 personal care products a day, resulting in exposure to as many as 126 unique chemicals from personal care products alone.”

As for why companies choose to put Teflon in their cosmetics, it’s due to its claim to fame: a slick, slippery feel that leads to a smooth finish. Yet, most consumers are unaware that to gain this perceived benefit they’re putting a chemical on their skin that’s been deemed a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO).4

PFOA is already the subject of at least 3,500 personal injury claims against DuPont, which used PFOA to make Teflon for decades. One woman who developed kidney cancer after drinking PFOA-contaminated water was awarded $1.6 million in damages.5

PFOA Is a Major Water Pollutant

If you’re wondering just how toxic PTFE and related chemicals are, consider that, once in the environment, PFOA persists and does not break down. From Michigan to Vermont, companies using toxic perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in the manufacture of Teflon-containing fabrics and waterproof shoes have left behind a toxic legacy: contaminated water and soil that’s been poisoning area residents for decades.  

The problem is worst near known chemical plants and dumping grounds, but even if you live in a seemingly “clean” area, there’s a chance your water could be contaminated with these ubiquitous and highly toxic chemicals. According to a 2016 Harvard study, 16.5 million Americans have detectable levels of at least one kind of PFAS in their drinking water, and about 6 million Americans are drinking water that contains PFAS at or above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) safety level.6

While toxic water supplies were found in 33 states, 75 percent of the samples with elevated PFAS came from 13 states: California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Georgia, Minnesota, Arizona, Massachusetts and Illinois. Not surprisingly, the highest concentration levels of PFAS were found in watersheds near industrial sites, military fire training areas and wastewater treatment plants.

Private wells were also found to be contaminated. As for health risks, those related to PFASs continue to grow. In May 2015, more than 200 scientists from 40 countries signed the Madrid Statement, which warns about the harms of PFAS chemicals and documents the following potential health effects of exposure:7

? Liver toxicity

? Disruption of lipid metabolism, and the immune and endocrine systems

? Adverse neurobehavioral effects

? Neonatal toxicity and death

? Tumors in multiple organ systems

? Testicular and kidney cancers

? Liver malfunction

? Hypothyroidism

? High cholesterol

? Ulcerative colitis

? Reduced birth weight and size

? Obesity

? Decreased immune response to vaccines

? Reduced hormone levels and delayed puberty

Manufacturers Are Swapping Out PFOA and PFOS With Other Toxic Chemicals

As the health and contamination risks of PFOA and PFOS became too large to ignore, the chemicals were phased out of production. However, they’re being replaced with chemicals that are largely untested and likely equally as harmful. In addition to cookware, clothing and cosmetics, another product group where you’re likely to see PFASs include fast food packaging and food wrappers.

American manufacturers voluntarily agreed to phase out PFOA and PFOS in 2011 due to concerns about their safety, but other countries still use them and some companies are still using them in the production of food packaging. In one study, about one-third of fast food wrappers and containers were found to contain fluorine, which suggests perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) were used to give the paper a slick surface, making it oil and grease resistant.8

Some 400 samples of food packaging from 27 fast food chains in the U.S. were tested between 2014 and 2015. This included packaging from Jimmy John’s, Quiznos, Starbucks, Chipotle, Chick-fil-A, and Dunkin’ Donuts in the Boston, Seattle, Washington D.C., San Francisco and Grand Rapids areas. On average, 33 percent of them contained fluorine.

Dessert and bread wrappers were affected the most, with 56 percent containing fluorine, whereas only 20 percent of paperboard samples (such as pizza boxes and french fry containers) were affected. EWG has urged fast food companies to stop using fluorinated compounds in food packaging altogether, noting:9

“The FDA has approved 20 next-generation PFCs specifically for coating paper and paperboard used to serve food. These chemicals have not been adequately tested for safety, and trade secrecy laws mean that, in some cases, the limited safety data submitted to the EPA does not publicly disclose the identity of the specific chemicals or even the companies submitting them for approval. But what little information manufacturers have provided to regulators is troubling.

In documents filed with the EPA, DuPont reported that a next-generation chemical used to produce food contact paper, called GenX, could pose a ‘substantial risk of injury,’ including cancerous tumors in the pancreas and testicles, liver damage, kidney disease and reproductive harm …

[R]etired EPA toxicologist and senior risk assessor Deborah Rice,[Ph.D.,] said GenX has ‘the same constellation of [health] effects you see with PFOA. There’s no way you can call this a safe substitute.’ PFC-free paper is readily available, as shown by the fact that the tests detected no fluorine in more than half of the paper samples.”

PFOA Found in 99 Percent of Americans’ Blood Samples

PFOA is now found in over 99 percent of American blood samples, according to analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).10 Hundreds of internal documents have been uncovered showing DuPont knew about the chemical’s danger to the public and employees, likely as early as 1961.

PFOA continues to be released into the air and water through use of products that are already on the market, while DuPont and other companies have only substituted newer versions of such chemicals in the production of stain-resistant materials and Teflon-coated pans, which means the damage will only continue.

The film “The Devil We Know,” released at the Sundance Film Festival in 2018, depicts the struggle employees and residents of the Ohio River Valley went through to ensure DuPont takes responsibility for their actions of dumping Teflon waste into waterways, which will be experienced for centuries to come.

Likewise, toxic emissions from ChemFab, a maker of Teflon-coated fiberglass fabrics, polluted drinking water and soil in North Bennington, Vermont, with PFOA for decades, such that on average, Vermont residents have PFOA blood levels of 10 micrograms per liter.

Among Bennington residents living in the areas of contamination, blood levels of 1,125 micrograms per liter have been detected. Hundreds of wells in the area have also been contaminated, some found with more than 2,000 parts per trillion of PFOA in the water.11 Residents worry not only for their long-term health but also for their financial futures.

Aside from possibly being saddled with PFOA-related health care costs, their property values have taken a hit and the groundwater and soil contamination may prevent them from being able to sell their homes. Over a decade ago the EPA fined DuPont $16.5 million for withholding decades’ worth of information about health hazards, but although it was the largest fine the EPA had ever assessed, it did not act as a deterrent to the company, which continues to manufacture such chemicals.

How to Avoid Teflon in Your Cosmetics

In order to avoid PFASs, it’s important to avoid most products that are stain-resistant, waterproof or nonstick. If you’d like to choose personal care products without Teflon or similar chemicals, however, be sure to check the labels and avoid ingredients that contain “fluoro” or the following ingredients:12

? Perfluorononyl Dimethicone Phosphate

? Perfluorodecalin

? C9-15 Fluoroalcohol

? Octafluoropentyl Methacrylate

? Perfluorohexane

? Pentafluoropropane

? Polyperfluoroethoxymethoxy

? Difluoroethyl Peg Phosphate

? Polyperfluoroethoxymethoxy

? Peg-2 Phosphate

? Methyl Perfluorobutyl Ether

? Perfluorononylethyl

? Carboxydecyl Peg-10

? Dimethicone

? Perfluorodimethylcyclohexane

? Perfluoroperhydrophenanthrene

? Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)

? Polyperfluoromethylisopropyl Ether

? DEA-C8-18

? Perfluoroalkylethyl Phosphate

? Teflon

More helpful tips can be found in EWG’s Guide to Avoiding PFCs.13 Among them, avoid:

? Items that have been pretreated with stain-repellants and opt out of such treatments when buying new furniture and carpets

? Water- and/or stain-repellant clothing. One tipoff is when an item made with artificial fibers is described as “breathable.” These are typically treated with PTFE.

? Items treated with flame retardant chemicals, which includes a wide variety of baby items, padded furniture, mattresses and pillows. Instead, opt for naturally less flammable materials such as leather, wool and cotton

? Fast food and carry out foods, as the wrappers are typically treated with PFCs

? Microwave popcorn. PFOA may not only be present in the inner coating of the bag, it also may migrate to the oil from the packaging during heating. Instead, use “old-fashioned” stovetop popcorn

? Nonstick cookware and other treated kitchen utensils. Healthier options include ceramic and enameled cast iron cookware, both of which are durable, easy to clean and completely inert, which means they won’t release any harmful chemicals into your home. A newer type of nonstick cookware called Duralon uses a nonfluoridated nylon polymer for its nonstick coating. While this appears to be safe, your safest bet is still ceramic and enameled cast iron.

? Oral-B Glide floss and any other personal care products containing PTFE or “fluoro” or “perfluoro” ingredients.

White Hats— Pay Attention Please


By Anna Von Reitz

As long as we are de-bunking things this week, let’s have done with the idea of “Thirteen Families” of the “Illuminati”.  


There aren’t Thirteen Families. 

There are Thirteen Tribes. 

And they are all one family, stemming from one source: Abraham.   

Their history is very recent in terms of the age of the Earth — less than a week ago, in God-Time. 

Everyone talks about Twelve Tribes, but there are actually Thirteen— just like everyone talks about Twelve Disciplines and forgets about Judas Iscariot. 

Now, among the tribes there are fates which were spelled out by Jacob’s Blessing.  Dan is the stumbling block, Ephraim holds the scepter, Asher holds the baking championship. 

And all this is spelled out in the sky, too, with thirteen constellations.  You’ve just never been baldly told what the thirteenth constellation is — it’s the star system of Sirius, the Dog Star, the Morning Star…. the birthplace of Satan, the Son of the Morning Star. 

So this one family that gave rise to thirteen tribes has been misrepresented as thirteen families and nobody is connecting the dots.  

The Ten “Lost” — as in spiritually ‘lost” tribes —  left the Middle East behind a long, long time ago and moved westward, eventually populating Western Europe.  

By 400 AD these pagan Celtic people who followed their own version of  what we now call Satanism had long established their homes in Europe and their kings ruled over Germany, Poland, and  the Scandinavian Countries since @ 1000 BC and, except for the Roman occupation, they had ruled both France since @ 800 BC and Britain since @ 600 BC.  

These pagan Celtic Norman French Kings were the ones who originally conquered Britain and displaced the people of central England, especially the Kingdoms of Powys and Northumbria.  A couple hundred years later, more Celtic people arrived in Ireland and married into the native Irish Royal Family.  About 450 A.D. these Irish-Celts moved down the West Coast of England and invaded Wales.  

The chaos created when the Romans withdrew their legions  and the Saxons invaded resulted in the French Celtic King of Powys’s daughter marrying the Celtic Irish prince.  We know them as Guinnivere (the White Owl) and Arthur (the Bear).  They came from different tribes of the same family.  All Celts, aka, Israelites. 

We also know about Guinnivere’s kinsman, Guilleroi de Lancelot du Lac, the son of King Ban of Banoic and also, eventually, the King of Gaul.  

“Guilleroi” is the French for “William”. 

When Arthur broke his wedding covenant with Guinnivere by sleeping with his own half-sister, the Kingdom of Powys reverted to her and passed to Lancelot who was at that time, the senior male member of Guinnivere’s family, and King of Gaul.  

That claim passed down from father to son to William of Normandy—a claim which Edward the Confessor of England fully admitted.  

It was the refusal of the then-nobles in England to honor the Norman French Celt’s claim to Powys that led to The Norman Conquest and what was in fact the Second Conquest of Britain by the French Celts in 1066 A.D. 

William “Guilleroi” de Lancelot du Lac and William of Normandy are our ancestors. The Belle Chers have been kings in their own right in England since 1087 A.D. and in France for even longer.  

The Holy See knows this, has all the records, knows the entire lineage of the tribes and the strife.

Read that— the Queen of England is subservient to us in this matter on all counts.  Even within their own  system they are still wrong, still functioning improperly, still making false claims, still trying to obfuscate and chisel their way forward. 

True to form, they acted in Breach of Trust, fraud, and deceit to pose a false claim on this country and its people. 

So while they have been playing all their “games” and the tail has been wagging the dog since the Civil War began, they really have no valid right, power, or authority related to the international land jurisdiction of this country and had only delegated and partial power in the international jurisdiction of the sea. 

Most recently, they lost all claim to the delegated powers, too.  

The United States of America (Unincorporated) delegated nineteen enumerated powers to the three levels of the Federal Government established to exercise those powers in behalf of our States— the national level government we ordained was usurped upon and moth-balled under a false trusteeship pending “reconstruction” in 1868, the municipal level government we allowed to the members of the United States Congress was liquidated in Chapter 7 bankruptcy beginning in 2015, and the Territorial Government declared bankruptcy in 2017. 

Thus all three levels of the Federal Government were incompetent and in receivership and all powers delegated to them have, as a result, reverted to the Issuer of those delegations of power, The United States of America (Unincorporated) and our member States and People.   

Trying to maintain a grasp on the commercial contracts associated with the three violated Constitutions, those responsible for this debacle have most recently gone to France and tried to set up yet another governmental services corporation calling itself THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  

This is another act of deceit and infringement upon our copyright and attempted usurpation upon the actual sovereign government of this country by foreign powers.  

If the Holy See and the Conclave of Cardinals wish to have any credibility as a moral or lawful organization whatsoever, they must come forward at this juncture and intervene because we have clearly stated our claims and presented our evidence and established our standing in the matter as of 2008. That evidence was received and accepted and cured on the public record.  All parties including Jacob Rothschild and the Bank of France have been given full Due Notice and Due Process. 

There can be no excuse for trying to steal control of our country by assumption of contracts.  The Constitutional framework, to the extent that it is preserved, is represented by our agreements with the American Indian Nations.  

There can be no excuse for trying to claim that our land titles, patents, copyrights, or any other property is being “held in trust” by any of these deceitful interlopers. 

There can be no excuse for the continued mis-direction of our employees, including the members of the military.  

And there can be no excuse for any continued claim or supposition that the American People were ever voluntarily alienated from their birthright political status as the result of deliberate fraud and falsification of public records. 

We are the “factualized” National Trust and our claims are long-cured as agricultural liens in favor of all Natural Persons and the actual States of our Union.  We are owed the return of our land titles and patents, our copyrights, our trademarks, our Good Names, our private assets, and all other property and benefit rightfully owed to us, free and clear of debt and encumbrance. 

All presumption that our people have been made subject to the Territorial United States or removed to the international jurisdiction of the sea by any Declaration, Act, or “New Deal” by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, is false and all claims based upon such presumptions are false.  

We mandate the immediate return of all American “Vessels” to their natural birthright political status and permanent domicile on the land and soil of our States, the enforcement of the Public and International Law, and the lawful conversion of all assets rightfully belonging to us.  

If the members of the Bar Associations will not stand down and accept new positions as Counselors at Law and otherwise abide by the limitations of the actual Maritime and Admiralty Courts, we call for their immediate arrest.  

The Norman Conquest is a fact and so is our lineage, standing, authority, and rightful claim cured upon the record of the Vatican Chancery Court.  

It is time for everyone to wake up and demand an end to all the criminality which has infested the world and been funded by selling little babies into bondage under conditions of fraud.  

—————————-
See this article and over 900 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.