Advertising

Source: Dailymail

The European Union is spending £2.3billion a year on pro-Brussels propaganda - more than Coca Cola's entire global marketing budget.

Britain alone squanders £200million of taxpayers' cash on promotional material or funding groups that extol the benefits of a 'United States of Europe'.

Much of the money goes on 'highly dubious' propaganda that is targeted at children, according to a book by the think-tank Open Europe.

Examples found include one EU-funded town-twinning project between Banbury in Oxfordshire and towns in Germany, France and Poland.

Schoolchildren worked with MEPs to negotiate a directive on chocolate.

One website called 'Europa Go!', aimed at ten to 14-year-olds, included a quiz called 'The Euro Game' which promoted the single currency.

The book was compiled after Open Europe studied hundreds of EU documents.

The authors concluded that the EU was 'geared not towards providing neutral, balanced information, but towards trying to convince people to support EU integration'.

Open Europe director Lorraine Mullally said: 'In Britain, the EU is the most unpopular it has been in 25 years, and yet the Commission is doing nothing serious to correct this

'Instead of throwing taxpayers' money at propaganda, EU leaders need to take a long, hard look at what is going wrong.'

Source: The Plain Truth About Christmas

Christmas [as we know it] has become [has always been] a commercial season. It's sponsored, kept alive, by the heaviest retail advertising campaigns of the year. You see a masqueraded "Santa Claus" in many stores. Ads keep us deluded and deceived about the "beautify Christmas spirit." The newspaper, who sell the ads, print flowery editorials exalting and eulogizing the pagan season, and its "spirit." A gullible people has become so inoculated, many take offense when told the truth. But the "Christmas spirit" is created each year, not to honor Christ, but to sell merchandise. Like all Satan's delusions, it appears as an "angel of light," is made to appear good. Billions of dollars are spent in this merchandising spree every year, while the cause of Christ must suffer. It's part of the economic system of Babylon.

We have professed to be Christian nations, but we're in Babylon, as Bible prophecy foretold, and we don't know it. "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues" - now soon to fall - is the warning of Revelation 18:4.

This year, instead of gift trading, why not put that money into God's Work?

The futuristic systems, like those used by Tom Cruise in the science fiction film Minority Report [see clips at the end of this article], are being developed by scientists for Barclaycard.

The company has announced it is investing a seven-figure sum in "contactless payment" technology.

This allows customers to use everyday items they carry around with them - such as mobile phones, key fobs or even their eyes or fingerprints - to make payments.

It means shoppers will no longer have to rely on cards.

Barclaycard, which is part of Barclays, has already introduced a new-style cash machine in the United Arab Emirates enabling people to use their fingerprints to withdraw money and shoppers in the UK may soon be able to use the same technology.

Antony Jenkins, chief executive of Barclaycard, said: "It's possible we'll see an end to plastic in the next five to 10 years with new technologies to take its place emerging now. It could turn out to be one of the shortest lived payment methods in history, going from being ubiquitous to a museum piece in the same way as the video cassette."

Barclaycard also aims to have one million customers upgraded to its contactless payment system OnePulse by the end of the year. OnePulse enables people to buy items for less than £10 by touching their card against a sensor, without even having to take it out of their wallet. It can also be used as an Oyster card on London transport.

Barclaycard said people may soon be able to hover their mobile over the price label of an item in a shop, confirm their purchase and take it away without having to go to a checkout or get a receipt.

Mr Jenkins said: "If I had said to you 10 years ago that you couldn't pay with a cheque at the supermarket, you wouldn't have believed me. That is now the reality, and we see plastic cards going the same way eventually."

Source: Weston A. Price Foundation

In 1999 the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) released a glowing report on the fluoridation of public water supplies, citing the procedure as one of the century's great public health successes.

Ironically, the same report hints that the alleged benefit from fluorides may not be due to ingestion: "Fluoride's caries-preventive properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth development because of the association between fluoride and cosmetic changes in enamel and a belief that fluoride incorporated into enamel during tooth development would result in a more acid-resistant mineral."

The CDC report then acknowledges new studies which indicate that the effects are "topical" rather than "systemic." "However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children."

The obvious question is this: How can the CDC consider the addition of fluoride to public water supplies to be a public health success while admitting at the same time that fluoride's benefits are not "systemic," in other words, are not obtained from drinking it?

The truth, now becoming increasingly evident, is that fluoridation and the proclaimed benefit of fluoride as a way of preventing dental decay is perhaps the greatest "scientific" fraud ever perpetrated upon an unsuspecting public.

Even worse, the relentless promotion of fluoride as a "dental benefit" is responsible for the huge neglect in proper assessment of its toxicity, an issue that has become a major concern for many nations. As there is no substance as biochemically active in the human organism as fluoride, excessive total intake of fluoride compounds might well be contributing to many diseases currently afflicting mankind, particularly those involving thyroid dysfunction. In the United States, most citizens are kept entirely ignorant of any adverse effect that might occur from exposure to fluorides. Dental fluorosis, the first visible sign that fluoride poisoning has occurred, is declared a mere "cosmetic effect" by the dental profession, although the "biochemical events which result in dental fluorosis are still unknown." The quantity of fluoride needed to prevent caries but avoid dental fluorosis is also unknown.

Source: Fluoride Action Network

1) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (NRC 1993 and IOM 1997). No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride.

2) Fluoridation is not necessary. Most Western European countries are not fluoridated and have experienced the same decline in dental decay as the US (See data from World Health Organization in Appendix 1, and the time trends presented graphically at (Tooth Decay Trends in Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries). The reasons given by countries for not fluoridating are presented in Appendix 2.)

3) Fluoridation's role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989). According to NIDR researchers, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed Missing and Filled Surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface! There are 128 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth. This result was not shown to be statistically significant. In a review commissioned by the Ontario government, Dr. David Locker concluded:

"The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance" (Locker 1999).

4) Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has actually decreased (Maupome 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997,2000; Kunzel 2000 and Seppa 2000).

5) There have been numerous recent reports of dental crises in US cities (e.g. Boston, Cincinnati, New York City) which have been fluoridated for over 20 years. There appears to be a far greater (inverse) relationship between tooth decay and income level than with water fluoride levels.

Source: Picture of walls

Toronto Canada

Source: News Target

The idea that sunscreen prevents cancer is a myth. It's a myth promoted by a profit-seeking tag-team effort between the cancer industry and the sunscreen industry. The sunscreen industry makes money by selling lotion products that actually contain cancer-causing chemicals. It then donates a portion of that money to the cancer industry through non-profit groups like the American Cancer Society which, in turn, run heart-breaking public service ads urging people to use sunscreen to "prevent cancer."

The scientific evidence, however, shows quite clearly that sunscreen actually promotes cancer by blocking the body's absorption of ultraviolet radiation, which produces vitamin D in the skin. Vitamin D, as recent studies have shown, prevents up to 77 of ALL cancers in women (breast cancer, colon cancer, cervical cancer, lung cancer, brain tumors, multiple myeloma... you name it). Meanwhile, the toxic chemical ingredients used in most sunscreen products are actually carcinogenic and have never been safety tested or safety approved by the FDA. They get absorbed right through the skin (a porous organ that absorbs most substances it comes into contact with) and enter the bloodstream.

The benefits of sunscreen are a myth. Proponents say sunscreen prevents sunburn, but in fact, the real cause of sunburn is not merely UV exposure: It is a lack of antioxidant nutrition. Start eating lots of berries and microalgae (spirulina, astaxanthin, blue-green algae, etc.), and you'll build up an internal sunscreen that will protect your skin from sunburn from the inside out. Sunburn is actually caused by nutritional deficiencies that leave the skin vulnerable to DNA mutations from radiation, but if you boost your nutrition and protect your nervous system with plant-based nutrients, you'll be naturally resistant to sunburn. The same nutrients, by the way, also protect the optic nerve and eyes from radiation damage. That's why the consumption of berries and carrots, for example, has historically been associated with healthy eye function. (The same nutrients that protect the eyes also protect the skin.)