Morning Ramblings with God — Confusion.

For any of you who feel led this morning to give up 3 minutes of your time and listen to this mad sounding lady, you will hear that I made this recording early this morning as a way to document my heart so that I would be able to write a blog about it at some point later on today. I am at a loss this morning and can’t quite find the words to express what I spoke into my phone this morning (im sure I looked like such a ding bat..thankfully, the I do not care what the birds think of me)..since the words are unavailable at the moment, I will just expose these struggles..these inner struggles that have me somewhat weary this morning in their raw form.


I am not sure where exactly this all is coming from. For the first time in a long, long time, I am trying to please the Lord. I am making a conscience attempt to lay down the things which cloud my heart.. the things about me that hurt the heart of God. I never even worried this much in the past – when I was living in very dark sin and bondage. So I just don’t understand why I am feeling these things now.

I do not expect many people (if any..well I can always count on my mom and dad to listen) to actually listen to this (it does not hurt my feelings at all, by the way). But if you do listen and feel the Holy Spirit prompting you, please share with me your thoughts. Please lift me up in prayer and just call out my name at some point today.
Am I the only person who has ever dealt with feeling this way? I guess the best way that I can find right now (as I rush to finish this so I can get my kids ready for church) to describe how I feel is that I am torn between the God of Judgment and the ever-loving Redeemer of the lost.. which one is my God? And, as I suppose the answer is, if they are both the can I make sense of this in my own life and not feel like I can never be worthy?

My Sword : Adderall. What’s yours?

“If you are willing and obedient,
You shall eat the good of the land;
But if you refuse and rebel,
You shall be devoured by the sword”;
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

At first, Isaiah 1:19-20 can cause one to think of God’s wrath. It can cause a person to question all the other things that they have heard about their savior.

I thought Jesus was all about grace, mercy, and forgiveness? I thought only the god of Islam devours people who do not submit! What god is this verse talking God?

Isaiah’s ministry was during a time when God’s people had forgotten him. The kingdom of Israel in the north and the kingdom of Judah to the south had both fallen to pagan worship. God’s people had gradually fallen into a state of serious moral and spiritual decline. (Does any of this sound familiar?) Isaiah’s voice was calling for the people to abandon their evil ways and to come back to God. Isaiah was warning Judah of the coming struggles if they did not change. Isaiah was used by God as a last effort to call his people back to Him before His coming judgment. They did not listen. In this verse, the “sword” spoken of would come upon them in the form of a Babylonian sword in the years after Isaiah was written. Judah was taken by Babylon in 607 BC. The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar led his armies against Judah, killing many people and destroying the Jewish temple. Babylon took captive many thousands of Jews and left Jerusalem in ruins. What would history be like if the Jewish people had listened to God’s message through Isaiah?

What will history say of you after you leave this world?

Let us look at this verse in a fuller context to get some answers. Starting at Isaiah chapter 1, verse 18, the Lord says to the Jewish people,

“Come now, and let us reason together.”
Says the Lord,
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
They shall be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They shall be as wool.
If you are willing and obedient,
You shall eat the good of the land;
But if you refuse and rebel,
You shall be devoured by the sword”;
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

Wow. and THAT is why our God – The ONE AND ONLY true and living God – IS a God of LOVE.

His judgement does not come swiftly. His judgement does not come after giving little. His judgment is a consequence of rejecting the most beautiful gift..a gift that will CLEANSE you..that will make you WHOLE. The rewards he will give you if you are obedient to him are great. He does not ask you to obey him so that he can make your life miserable. No. He asks you to be obedient to his voice so that He may bless you. So that you may have LIFE. So that you may eat the good of the land.

My sword is Adderall.

Adderall is a prescription medication for attention deficit disorder. I was first put on this medicine as a teenager in high school. Adderall is nothing but legal speed. God has spoken to me very clearly during the last few months. In many more ways than one, God has told me to lay Adderall down. His voice came at a time when I found myself addicted to it. His voice came during a time when Adderall stood between me and HIM. At a time when I called Jesus my savoir but at a time when I could not say,

Lord, you are my LORD.

this is how I look at the verse above:

Briana, if you are willing and obedient to me and lay Adderall down,
you shall eat the good of the land. Briana, I will bless you so! Don’t be afraid.
But, Briana, if you rebel and refuse to give your addiction to me –
You shall be devoured by Adderall. Adderall will destroy you, Briana. If you continue down this road Adderall will beset you and you will tread dangerously close to the land of blaspheming the Lord, your God.

What is your sword?

What is keeping you from being led to the heart of God?

Anyone who doesn’t love me will not obey me. – John 14:24

This song really touched me. I urge you to watch it. Look at the path Jesus followed when he obeyed God. Let us lay all our weights at the foot of the cross.

Father YOUR will. Not mine.

Have you heard?! Our God is GREAT!

This morning my kids and I had to take my husband to work. It was a big change of routine and im glad..everyone needs a breath of change every once in while. As we were driving back home, the song by Chris Tomlin, How Great is our God, came on the radio..I turned it up and my kids and I praised God all the way home. Looking in my rear view mirror and seeing my 6 year old daughter lifting her little hands and singing this to her God is a moment that I will never ever forget. This is a song that we need to play everyday to our children. They will learn the chorus quickly. With all the hatred now days and the need to be “politically correct’- I shudder to think what would happen to my children if I didn’t share the love of Jesus with them. I shudder to think of the outcome – if every day I did not stand in for my children.. stand in for them garnishing the sword of the spirit and the shield of faith while fighting in the war that satan is waging against their soul. We live in a society that says its ok to talk about any god but the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob..The God who lowered himself to man by sending his own son – Jesus Christ – to die and be resurrected for the sins of the world..The one and only true God who stands alone above all others clothed in glorious righteousness..our soon coming King! I want to ingrain into my children that their GOD IS GREAT!!

I challenge everyone to put down everything else for the next 4 matter what you are in the midst of doing..listen to this song. Give the next four minutes to God.


on holding an eternal soul : bumps in the road

“Anticipating the child’s development, and knowing that evil will come to be a part of his moral nature, places an urgent sense of responsibility upon parents. The world is an undertow pulling children to destruction. Looking at statistics alone, the probability is against their moral survival. The training parents give and the wisdom they impart can make all the difference in the outcome. You hold an eternal soul in your hands. You cannot afford to give in to indifference, laziness, or careless neglect. It is your responsibility to determine what level of understanding your child possesses and to hold him accountable at that level.. Everything a child experiences, either by way of indulgence or the self-restraint you impose, is preparing him for the day when he will mature into a responsible, moral soul. Somewhere on that road of development, each child will graduate into complete accountability. The child will then stand alone before God, “without excuse.” – from “To Train Up A Child” by, Michael and Debi Pearl

**I am feeling guilty this morning because I have failed my children by my lack of proper training. The weight of my children’s morality and of my responsibility over their souls have been constant realities that I’ve been concerned over since God placed them into my hands..and I really have tried to accept this daunting task with a conscience effort to do what is right in the eyes of God. However, seeing the baby man “fit pitching” thrown by my son recently and seeing the way that Trinitee’s whining hurts her by sending her into a rarely satisfied state of emotional limbo..I am quickly, and with much regret and desire to change, realizing that I have not done enough and that, by giving in and allowing them to constantly win, I have failed Trinitee and Rory. This is a good book thus first it was a bit unsettling and I still do not agree with 100% of its content, but now that I’ve moved past my feelings of regret..I am going to start, with much love and prayer, implementing the principles from this book in my household.

Draft Review of: The Very Thick Line Between Raising Concerns And Denialism

This review was written by Paul G. King, PhD in response to an article that represents the typical lies and misleading tone of everything published by the mainstream media today. I highly suggest that you take the time to read this and that you urge your friends and loved ones to read this also. WE ARE BEING LIED TO. This review is fantastic and has tons of good sources (see the actual pdf for link to all sources).

The full article can be accessed at:

Draft Review of:
“The Very Thick Line Between Raising Concerns And Denialism
By Christie Wilcox | June 19, 2013 8:00 am”
The writer’s title is an interesting choice of words because the thickness of the “Line Between Raising Concerns And Denialism” and its placement are obviously based on subjective assessments — not objective evaluations.
“The real question is, which side of the line are studies that lack scientific rigor on?”
To this researcher, the answer depends upon the nature of the question being asked and is limited to those questions that science can answer.
For the subjects that this writer discusses, this reviewer finds that there are studies that lack rigor with regard to several aspects of the dispute between those who seek to maintain and enlarge the status quo in a given controversial issue for their direct and indirect benefit and those who seek to ensure that the safety (not the often-substituted “lack of proof of harm”) of any disputed practice has been rigorously proven.
“Recently, Kara Moses asked Guardian readers: ‘Should we wait for conclusive scientific studies before becoming concerned about an issue?’ Her personal answer was no; that special interest groups should perform and publicize their own findings. ‘I believe they should be given a voice,’ she concluded, ‘not dismissed out of hand for lacking the scientific rigour demanded by professional scientists.’
Quick to support her was Treehugger writer Chris Tackett. ‘The point here is that scientific proof matters in science, but it shouldn’t necessarily be what determines our actions,’ he wrote. ‘We can intuit that some things are unwise or dangerous or against our values without needing reams of scientific data to back up our concerns.’ While Kara’s piece talked only about the use of glyphosate (the pesticide known by its brand name RoundUp), Chris used it to attack both the pesticide’s use and Monsanto GM crops.
I understand where they are coming from, but the hair on the back of my neck bristled reading those words. I think they’re both getting into very dangerous territory (or, in the case of Chris’ comments later, happily dancing around in it).”
While this reviewer would agree that the writer is entitled to “think” what she chooses, it is not clear that she understands “where they are coming from” or, for that matter, who is “reading those words”.
“The trouble is, it’s one thing to notice a potential danger and raise a few alarm bells to get scientists to investigate an issue — it’s a whole other to publicize and propagandize an unsubstantiated fear despite evidence against it.”
Here, the writer begins by confusing the noticing of “a potential danger and …” that is implicitly associated with “the use of glyphosate” or “pesticide use and Monsanto GM crops” with what the people have a right to do, “to publicize and propagandize” what they perceive as a danger even when there is purportedly “evidence against it”.
Moreover, because this writer makes numerous assertions without providing any citations or footnotes to support or substantiate her views, this reviewer is compelled to discount the writer’s statements when, without any documented proof, they attempt to discredit the views expressed by others.
“The former is important, as Kara suggests, and should occur. I have no problem with non-scientists raising honest concerns, if their goal is to have the concerns considered — so long as they’re actually willing to hear what the evidence has to say.”
Here, the writer attempts to restrict the role of “non-scientists” to that of “raising honest concerns”, when the realities are that:
a. These “non-scientists” are perfectly capable of reading and un-derstanding the published literature and
b. Some who are raising these concerns are scientists who have examined the evidence and/or conducted fundamental studies that have shown serious adverse long-term-ex-posure-related outcomes when “glyphosate” and/or “pesticide use and Monsanto GM crops” have been studied.
Since the writer presents no proof to support her assertion that these individuals have not appropriately examined the evidence, this reviewer must counsel the reader to ignore her caveat about hearing “what the evidence has to say”.
“The latter, on the other hand, is denialism. You see, once scientists have weighed in, you have to be willing to listen to them.”
As a scientist, this reviewer is appalled at the writer’s unqualified claim that “once scientists have weighed in, you have to be willing to listen to them”.
First, unless all of the raw data and supporting information, including models and adjustment factors, used to generate the published results are freely available, no one should listen to the claims made in any study.
Second, unless a truly independent review of the data and supporting documentation or a truly independent rigorous duplication of a given study for which the raw data and all supporting information are available has confirmed a given publication’s findings, the results reported in the initial study should be given no scientific weight in the decision-making process.
Third, the quality of evidence rating (QER) standards1 developed for evaluating the scientific quality of evidence clearly support the skepticism that should accompany any assertion when most all of the studies are not independent2.
Thus, it is not the scientists that should be listened to but rather the results of those truly independent studies of “glyphosate” or “pesticide use or Monsanto GM products” that have an appropriately defined QER rating of “1” or, if the studies are toxicological in nature, an equivalent rating.
“When it was first suggested that vaccines might lead to autism, is” [sic; it] “was a legitimate question to ask. Kids seemed to develop autism around the same age they got their vaccines — and can you imagine if the vaccines were to blame? That would have been huge news! We would have had to revolutionize the vaccine industry, to start from scratch and figure out if we can keep these life-saving shots without screwing up our kids’ brains. One of the core foundations of our children’s public health program would have been forever shaken.”
First, this reviewer finds it odd that the writer abruptly veers away from the agricultural/food issues she has been addressing (“the use of glyphosate” and “pesticide use and Monsanto GM crops”) to address an apparently unrelated issue, the putative link between “vaccines” and “autism”, a neurological disorder diagnosed not by some scientifically sound tests but rather by an admittedly somewhat subjective evaluation of the symptoms and the behaviors observed in developing children.
Here, for whatever reason, the writer, Christie Wilcox, begins by laying out an “imagine if” scenario about the established link between the current recommended vaccination program in the USA and the chronic childhood disease epidemics that this ever-growing vaccination program has caused and is causing by focusing on one of these epidemics, the purportedly most-difficult-to-prove epidemic, the epi-demic of “autism”.
Then, without providing any proof to support her opinion, she claims that “independent scientists investigated the concerns” and “kept getting the same answer” – essentially that whatever was causing these epidemics of chronic diseases, “it isn’t vaccines”.
Nonetheless, as one of those truly independent scientists, this reviewer has been continually engaged in the study of the issues surrounding vaccine safety and vaccination effectiveness for about 14 years after having worked in a wide range of capacities in firms that produced biocides (pesticides), brand-name pharmaceuticals, generic pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements for more than two decades.
The results of this reviewer’s studies have clearly established that today’s FDA-licensed and CDC-recommended vaccines have not been proven to be “safe” to the standards required by the law3 and, as such, are adulterated drugs under 21 U.S.C. § 351(a)(2)(B).
Moreover, an ever-growing number of independent scientists from around the world are publishing papers that clearly show that today’s vaccines are not as safe as they are represented to be and/or today’s vaccination programs are not effective in preventing disease and/or are not cost effective, especially in the developed countries4,5.
Finally, based on multiple independent vaccination-related surveys comparing the health of never-vaccinated children to the health of the fully vaccinated children have, from 19776,7, consistently found or, for the current on-going survey study8, are consistently finding that, depending upon the chronic diseases studied, the never-vaccinated children are, as a group, 2 to 5 times healthier than the comparison group of fully vaccinated children.
Clearly, the results from these independent studies and other sim-ilar studies have proven that “the vaccines were” and are “to blame” for the epidemics of chronic childhood diseases that we are now confronting9
Yet, this writer apparently remains in denial about these proven realities.
Given the preceding actualities, let us return to the writer’s state-ments.
“So, like they should, independent scientists investigated the concerns. They checked and double checked the safety testing. They ran and re-ran results, but they kept getting the same answer: whatever causes autism, it isn’t vaccines. A cumulative sigh of relief was uttered by doctors, nurses, scientists, parents and children around the world.”
Then, without providing any proof to support her opinion, she claims that “independent scientists investigated the concerns” and “kept getting the same answer” – essentially that whatever was causing these epidemics of chronic diseases, including “autism”, “it isn’t vaccines”.
Yet, as far as this reviewer has been able to ascertain in his investigations into articles that claim to have found “no evidence of harm” or assert that the “benefits of vaccination outweigh their theo-retical risks”, the authors of these articles are often not “independent scientists” and/or the studies themselves are often not independent studies.
In at least one instance, this reviewer has been able to prove that an epidemiological study in which the CDC not only participated but also, after refusal by two major high-stature journals, strongly recom-mended that this knowingly misleading study be published in the journal Pediatrics. The CDC made this recommendation although the assertion made in the article10 (“The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism”) was diametrically opposed to the truth, as expressed in internal emails (where, some, if not all, of the authors in the key Danish study cited in this discussion and CDC’s liaison person [Schendel] knew) that “the incidence and prevalence” [of autism] “are still decreasing in 2001”)11.
Moreover, the reality of the decrease in the prevalence and inci-dence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnoses was confirmed by:
a. The Danish health officials’ not electing to re-introduce any Thimerosal-preserved vaccines into their national childhood vaccination program after this article was published and
b. A 2010 article12 from which the prevalence rate for the incidence of individuals diagnosed with a “Pervasive Devel-opmental Disorder” [“PDD”] (known as an ASD in the USA) was found to be 1 in 1272, when the 2013 estimate in the USA for similar children estimated an ASD diagnosis rate of one child in every 50, 6-to-17-year-old children13.
After reading this review response and verifying its validity, the writer of this article hopefully will listen to the realities that:
a. Vaccination with Thimerosal-preserved vaccines is a casual risk factor for an ASD diagnosis and
b. The current vaccination programs collectively are major causal factors for the current childhood epidemics, at levels in excess of 10% of the vaccinated children in several instances, of many other chronic childhood medical condi-tions, including but not limited to, ADHD, asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, epileptic disorders, obesity, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, eczema, food allergies, serious gastrointestinal disorders, solid cancers and lymphomas, and other immune-autoimmune-linked childhood diseases, disorders and syndromes, which were non-existent or vir-tually non-existent in the 1930s through the 1970s.
“Except that some people didn’t listen to the data. They called foul, saying every scientist that disagreed with them was under the thumb of Big Pharma and lying to the public. They released the results of unscientific, pet studies showing how they are right and everyone else is wrong. These anti-vaxers still won’t give up their beliefs, even though scientists have come to consensus that vaccines are, in no way, related to autism.”
Based on the facts presented by this reviewer, the writer appears to be one of those people who “didn’t listen to the data”.
Moreover, the writer fails to provide any factual citations to sup-port her attack on those who have and are critically evaluating:
a. The safety and effectiveness of each FDA-approved vaccine,
b. The validity and data transparency, or lack thereof, for each published vaccine-related study, and/or
c. The effectiveness and cost-effective, or lack thereof, for each of the current CDC universal-inoculation-schedule’s recommendations for these vaccines.
Thus, the writer essentially seems to attack all studies that do not support the vaccination status quo by labeling them as “unscientific, pet studies” even when they were published in peer-reviewed journals and their authors are willing, subject to the constraints imposed by the federal government on data sharing and medical privacy, to share the raw data and ancillary information with those who seek to confirm that the data does support the findings reported by those authors.
In contrast, the datasets and ancillary information for the vaccine studies that “support” vaccination have either been reported as lost (e.g., the datasets for the CDC’s 2003 Verstraeten, et al. study14 and Fombonne’s 2006 study of children in certain Montreal schools15) or access to the data and ancillary information has simply been denied to those seeking to verify that the data does support the reported findings, or not.
Moreover, the writer’s asserting, “scientists have come to consensus that vaccines are, in no way, related to autism” does not make that statement true.
Finally, her attempt to cast the evidence-based concerns of those who question the safety and/or effectiveness of vaccines and/or the cost-effectiveness of vaccination programs as “beliefs” does not reduce the scientific validity of the evidence-based concerns raised.
Again, this time mid-paragraph, the writer changes subjects and begins to speak of “climate change” and of GMO issues.
“We see the same refusal to listen when it comes to climate change. It doesn’t matter how many studies show the same thing, or how many consensuses are reached by scientists. They simply don’t want to question their biases. They don’t want to be informed. They stick their fingers in their ears like children, shouting ‘I can’t hear you!’ — and sadly, the same attitude is found throughout the anti-GMO platform.”
Whenever this reviewer observes a writer attempting to speak for those who are opposed to the position that the writer is trying to sell to the reader, the narrative almost invariably degenerates into an attempt to portray that opposition in a demeaning manner as in the writer’s closing statements here.
Ironically, this reviewer does agree with the writer when she states, “It doesn’t matter how many studies show the same thing, or how many consensuses are reached by scientists”.
In fact, it is not the number of studies, or the number of consensuses, or even the number of scientists that matter.
What matters are the confirmed, scientific soundness of each study and the scientific validity of the consensus.
After all, at one time, the scientific consensus was that the Sun was the center of the universe; the world was flat; when burned, wood lost a substance called “phlogiston”16; and the universe was governed by Newtonian physics.
Moreover, as the reviewer’s introductory remarks clearly state,
“Finally, should anyone find any significant factual error in this review for which they have independent[a], scientifically sound, peer-reviewed-published-substantiating documents, please submit that information to this reviewer so that he can improve his understanding of factual reality and, where appropriate, revise his views and this review
[a] To qualify as an independent document, the study should be published by researchers who have no direct or indirect conflicts of interest from their ties to either those commercial entities who profit from the sale of any product or practice addressed in this review or those entities, academic, commercial or governmental, who directly or indirectly, actively promote any product or practice, the development of any product or practice, and/or programs using any product or practice covered in this review.”
he is open to any independent, scientifically sound, peer-reviewed published documents that refute his understanding of the facts.
Thus, to the extent that this reviewer and his colleagues around the world are scientists, the writer’s allegations, “They simply don’t want to question their biases. They don’t want to be informed”, are pure nonsense.
“Instead of listening to the evidence, campaign groups conduct unrigorous, unscientific and completely biased studies, dig in their heels, and stand their ground. Just look at the recent anti-GM rat and pig studies which have been thoroughly flayed by scientists that” [sic; who] “have nothing to gain from the GM industry. The groups that performed and published these “trials” weren’t asking whether GM foods are unsafe; they sought and executed sham research hell-bent on proving their beliefs, then denied any conflict of interest. I can’t agree with Kara that such studies deserve equal voice. They don’t.”
Here, the writer begins by stating prejudicial claims concerning the basis and intent of studies conducted by groups or individuals who implicitly have problems with the GMOs in food that not only rats and pigs but also humans consume.
Then, she asks us to “look at the recent anti-GM rat and pig studies”, which she claims “have been thoroughly flayed by scientists that” [sic; who] “have nothing to gain from the GM industry”.
However, the links the writer provides are not to peer-reviewed journal publications establishing the validity of the claimed problems, nor to the articles in question so that we may study them, nor to the studies’ authors’ published rebuttals (if there are any) to the published criticisms of the cited studies.
Instead, the links provided are to a posting in an anonymous blog (, and a personal web site posting (, which respectively attacked a long-term rat feeding study and a pig feeding study.
Unfortunately, the first link is an apparently invalid link as at-tempts to access it returned a “HTTP/1.0 404” error.
However, by accessing the web site,, this re-viewer quickly found the cited entry,
“June 18, 2013
The Seralini Rule
I have a new rule for debating anti-GMO people:
If you favorably cite the 2012 Séralini rats fed on Roundup ready maize study, you just lost the argument.
If you cite this study as demonstrating any dangers in genetically modified food, you are either (a) so clueless as not to have spent 30 seconds checking to see if there are any reported problems in the study, or (b) so dishonest in citing a blatantly fraudulent study, that you are not worthy of any more serious consideration. You just lost the debate and you’re done. (Obviously you don’t lose the if you cite the study to demonstrate its flaws, only if you claim the study’s conclusions are valid.) …”.
Clearly, this intentionally anonymous blogger has an agenda that is highly biased and subjective even though this anonymous blogger claims to be objective.
From the blog entry, one can access the peer-reviewed, pub-lished article (Séralini G-E, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov; 50(11): 4221-4231) at,
While this reviewer agrees that a more-robust study design might have been preferable, this reviewer notes that the designs used seem to be a copy of the “accepted” study designs used by Monsanto scientists in similar studies except that, unlike the short-term Monsanto studies, these studies continued feeding the rats for an extended period of time.
Turning to the provided valid “pig study” link, this reviewer was directly connected to, which presents Mark Lynas’ views on this pig study and also provides a direct link to the peer-reviewed, published study at “” (Carman JA, Vliegers HR, Ver Steeg LJ, Sneller VE, Robinson GW, Cinch-Jones CA, Haynes JI, Edwards JW. A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. J Organic Sys. 2013; 8(1), 38-54).
Unfortunately, the information Mark Lynas provides about himself does not list any formal degrees, training or experience in the life or agricultural sciences; indicates that his major interests seem to be climatological and environmental in nature; and states that he is a “Visiting Research Associate at Oxford University’s School of Geography and the Environment”.
Further, although the writer’s claim that these studies “have been thoroughly flayed by scientists that” [sic; who] “have nothing to gain from the GM industry”, the articles to which she links and their comments fail to provide any hard evidence that these comment posters “have nothing to gain from the GM industry”.
In addition, the writer’s claim, “The groups that performed and published these “trials” weren’t asking whether GM foods are unsafe; they sought and executed sham research hell-bent on proving their beliefs, then denied any conflict of interest”, lacks the substantive proof needed to justify the allegations that she has made.
Moreover, since the studies seem to be effects studies, designed to identify and evaluate the effects of feeding high-GMO diets as compared to feeding low/no-GMO diets on the overall health of the animals fed an exclusive diet containing one type of feed or another, the studies were not, per se, designed to determine the safety of the different diets.
Thus, the writer’s negative comments about these two (2) studies are, at best, inappropriate and, at worst, defamatory.
“I’m not sure where Kara stands on the GM issue, but Chris’ clear bias towards one side of the argument shows in the comments. ‘I don’t need scientists to tell me that GMOs are not a good idea,’ he says. There is an astounding level of cognitive dissonance in his statements. Though Chris brings up climate change, he misses his own point. For example, he calls out deniers, saying that ‘once enough peer-review science had been completed, still maintaining disproven beliefs would not be respectable, like in the case of global warming deniers’, then doesn’t even blink when he says ‘I would dislike GMOs whether the scientific community agreed they were bad or not. Likewise, I think we should not use Roundup, whether the scientific community agrees that it is dangerous or not.’ [emphasis mine]. This is exactly the problem.”
Here, the writer is quick to notice “Chris’ clear bias towards one side of the argument”, while ignoring her own obvious bias.
However, it is inappropriate to use one person’s biases as if they are representative of all persons who oppose GMO crops because: a) the GMO crops have not been proven to be either safe in the long term or nutritionally equivalent to the non-GMO crops previously grown; b) the use of the GMO seed raises the levels of the pesticides used to treat the crops as the weeds and insect pests develop resistance to the pesticides; c) as, contrary to the claim of rapid breakdown in the environment, the levels of glyphosate and other pesticides continue to increase in our drinking water supply and food; and/or d) of some other GMO-related (e.g., bt-corn) or pesticide-related (e.g., intentional promotion of an off-label use) problem.
“GM crops have undergone rigorous safety testing — and passed.”
Here, the writer makes an unsubstantiated claim, “GM crops have undergone rigorous safety testing”, which is, at best, deliberately vague, and, at worst, patently false.
Factually, GM crops have mostly only undergone short-term toxi-city, metabolism, and residue studies conducted by, or on behalf of, those firms who are marketing these GM crops.
Moreover, in some instances, the GM-crop candidate has been abandoned when it caused serious adverse effects even in the short-term studies typically conducted.
However, when it comes to long-term toxicity, metabolism, resi-due and environmental-impact studies, few, if any independent studies have been conducted.
Furthermore, the few independent, longer-term, feeding and environmental-impact studies that have been conducted have found evidence of serious adverse effects in rats and “unintended” transfer of pesticide resistance and other genetically inserted traits to other plants, principally “weeds” – making these weeds much harder to kill.
Given the preceding realities, this writer’s views are based on other than sound science and are apparently grounded in the pro-GMO propaganda that permeates the mainstream media and academia today.
“The simple fact is our fear of GM technology is based entirely on emotion. There is no science to support it.When it comes to GMOs, the anti crowd are not ‘raising concerns’—they’re denying scientific consensus.”
Continuing her biased attack on those individuals, groups and peer-reviewed studies that raise concerns about the safety of the entire GMO/pesticide paradigm, the writer again makes absolutist claims that, besides being at odds with some of the scientifically sound independent studies, are obviously biased to the extreme.
Further, those who question the Establishment’s GMO and/or pesticide paradigm are not denying any scientific consensus other than that “consensus” bought and paid for by the biotech and pesticide in-dustries and their direct and indirect supporters.
Until there are appropriate, independent, scientifically sound, long-term (greater than half of the life span of the animals studied) studies on the direct and indirect effects on the consumers of the products and their residues at every level – from the microbes, to the plants and the animals, including man – which clearly prove that the GMO/pesticide -containing and -derived products are sufficiently non-toxic17to those non-targeted individuals who are most susceptible to the adverse effects of such products, no one can logically or scientifi-cally assert that such are “safe”.
“There is a plethora of science that supports the safety record of GM foods. As the Skeptico blog pointed out, there are more than 600 studies (>125 of which were independently funded) that stand behind the safety record of GM crops.”
Accepting that there “are more than 600 studies (>125 of which were independently funded)”, this reviewer notes that the cited blog is admitting that about 80% of these studies are industry-overseen and/or industry-conducted studies – not even “independently funded studies”.
Further, independent funding does not ensure that the study is an independent study.
Given the careful choice of words by the anonymous writer of the cited blog, it would appear that very few of the studies are truly independent studies.
Finally, this reviewer has observed that any study that indicates there may be a problem with the Establishment’s GMO/pesticide paradigm and its authors are attacked by those who are a part of, or favor, the biotech and/or pesticide industries.
Thus, by not stating the number of truly independent studies that address “the safety record of GM crops” and providing a supporting peer- reviewed citation that supports that number, the writer seems to be hiding the scarcity or absence of truly independent safety studies.
“Scientists have been studying GMOs and their potential effects for decades. With every major scientific body saying the exact same thing, I simply don’t know how else to spell it out: there is a scientific consensus that GM foods are safe.”
Here, this reviewer simply reminds the reader that the tobacco industry used similar talking points in its decades-long knowing cover up and suppression of the risks associated with the smoking and/or chewing of its tobacco products, including the use of medical doctors in cigarette advertisements.
Further, making a statement, which is linked to an article that reports “the most important opposition currently facing the worldwide adoption of this technology: public opinion” clearly detracts from the assertion that “scientific consensus”, not propaganda, is being used to prove “GM foods are safe”.
In fact, the writer’s assertion is an implicit admission that the truly independent scientifically sound safety studies on GM foods have not established that they are safe.
Finally, this reviewer notes that one of the prime tactics that propagandists use is the repetition of less-than-truthful statements because such rhetoric eventually leads to increased public acceptance of such statements by those who, for whatever reasons, do not truly study the issues.
“Continuing to act as if the science is mixed or unclear about the safety of genetic modification is not raising a legitimate concern. It’s not even uninformed; it’s denialist. It’s right up there with the claims of anti-vaxers and climate deniers: that is, simply, flat-out, 100%, dead wrong.”
Contrary to the writer’s views, the independent science is clear that the long-term “safety of genetic modification” has not been established just as the “safety” of vaccines has not even been proven to the legal standards for such proofs as required of the manufacturers thereof by the applicable statutes and regulations18.
Moreover, this reviewer does not know of any “climate deniers” – all seem to admit that climate exists.
However, based on the current understanding of the independent sound science, those who have resisted the alarmist claims of “global warming” may have been right.
For a variety of reasons, the local climate is both changing and being actively modified but there is no independent, scientifically sound body of evidence that supports “global warming”.
Further, because most of the energy that warms the Earth comes from the Sun and the Sun’s energy output is currently declining, it would appear that, if anything, we might be entering a global cooling period19
Thus, based on the independent sound science, as he understands it, this reviewer finds that this writer’s assertions here may be, as she put it, “dead wrong”.

Why are so many Christians concerned about gay marriage but not about GMOs?

Why are so many Christians concerned about gay marriage but not about GMOs?

At the base of it, what is the reason why many Christians oppose same sex marriage*? The answer is very is not an answer filled with hate or is just the bottom line of it all – it goes against God’s design.

GMOs are genetically modified organisms.. A genetically modified organism is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques.   I do not want to feed my children genetically modified food because genetically modified food goes against Gods design. We are talking about DNA here. The DNA..the genetic makeup of gmo food has been changed from the way that GOD created it. We are taking DNA of one thing and forcing it into the DNA of another thing. DNA..DNA! I wish that there was a way for me to further allow you to hear the urgency I feel as I type this. DNA is GOD’S design for life!

What kind of outcomes are possible here? What happens when we try to out do God’s design? God created our bodies and God created the food that we put into our bodies. Food is our life source here on earth..without it we would die. Do you not think that God would have created the food that runs his other creation, our bodies, with the utmost perfection?


All the science that has shown the multitude of harmful health effects of GMOs, the lack of human health studies of GMO foods, or the fact that GMO seeds are illegal and that GMO foods must be labeled in many European countries is NOT the main focus of my writing this. At the end of the day..I come back to one thing – I do not want to fuel my children’s bodies with food that goes against the design of the one and only Almighty God. The outcomes of this could never and will never be good because man can not and will not EVER outdo God.. man may try, but at the end of the day.. after learning from history and from the word of God, when man tries to change God’s has led to nothing but confusion and destruction. As a parent who is giving it my all to raise my children according to God’s word, feeding my children gmo food is something that I will avoid in every way possible.

Yes, it is a pain in the neck and a huge financial burden to supply them with food as God created it..but it is a conviction and a stand that I will sacrifice to make. If more Christians joined me in, how things would change. If more Christians would become vocal about this issue and stand up for God’s design in the supermarket and with their wallets..Washington and industry would take notice. But until things do change..I will continue to support God’s design in my own home and in the lives of my children. God gave me trinitee and rory and I feel a very convicting urgency to raise them according to the word of God in all aspects of life because something that I have learned is that when you follow Gods instructions and God’s design – you find LIFE. When you stray from it (as I should definitely know about) – you find pain and destruction.


Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit AFTER THEIR KIND with seed in them”; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed AFTER THEIR KIND, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, AFTER THEIR KIND; and God saw that IT WAS GOOD.” ~ Genesis 1:11-12

*(This is not a post to stir up debate about same sex marriage. I do not hate gay people.I do not look down on them or judge them. I love them and my heart is burdened for them..Jesus gave his life for every single person ever born on this planet..and to not love gay people and to reach out to them with love would be an action that goes against the heart of our lord and savior, Jesus Christ.)


cries from a soul astray – wandering without God – post 1

I have very few possessions left from my past. When I look around my house, it is difficult to find something that was in my house 10 years ago. There are a few reminders from my past hanging on the walls around me.. there are a couple of things scattered about in my kitchen cupboard,but that’s about it. Most everything else has disappeared along with the last decade of my life. There is one piece of my past that I still have in full though. Starting with a diary that my mom got me in 1992 (reading that one is hilarious), I have all of the journals that I have written into during my life. I am so thankful to have these still.

For some reason, I’ve started pulling them out lately. I feel like I should post some of the things in them. Sharing this stuff isn’t necessarily what I really want to do here.. wow, for once in my life, im actually kind of sheepish about sharing something. Facing and sharing these sad bits and pieces of my life kind of wears on me. The feelings I get when I see these old scribblings are bittersweet. A part of me is grieved for the time I lost. Running from God consumed all of my teenage years and many of my young adult years as well. I could have been whole if I would have only held tightly to my Lord. Its hard not to ask myself,

what if?..where would I be now if I hadn’t lived in rebellion against God for all of those years?

When I do find myself pondering the “what if’s”.. I am quickly reminded by a consuming peace from the Lord that there are no “what if’s” when he is involved. He has had his hand upon my life through it all.   Every rebellious step that I took.. as I desperately tried to run away from His call..every frantic stride that I made – they were all apart of the plan he had for me and the good of my family.

Jesus can change the actual course of our lives.  IF – we let him.

If we allow him to, not only will he erase the darkness and shame of who we used to be, but he will also cause great things to come from our new lives in him. Giving your life to Jesus will change the course of will change the path of your family. He will tear down and destroy the curses that have stretched out for generations over your family .. all in an instant.


Thank you my merciful father for being patient. Thank you for giving me this song to sing. I pray that  – by your mighty works – others can hear this song and be drawn to the selfless and pure love that you have for us.  Thank you my merciful father for bringing me – a lost and forgotten little ragdoll back to LIFE!

This is the first of several journal entries that I will share over the next few days. This is the background of my life that I use to help me when I am trying to measure just how unbelievable the redeeming power of Jesus Christ truly is. The words that you will soon read are the words of a girl battered by years of living for herself..a soul aching without God.

I feel that I am nothing more than a ragdoll — A pretty little ornament that was once the center of my owner’s life.

In days past, DAYS FAR AWAY FROM NOW, I heard laughter, felt such love — because I was of such use.

Now, after some endlessly dark nights, I have become nothing more than a motionless pile.

Occupant of my lonely corner — where I am forgotten.

The crimson paint that once proved my beautiful smile has dimmed to be nearly erased — and I am expressionless.

Little Ragdoll eyes stare with such desire to see the one who once loved me.

No amount of hope will bring them back.

I’ll remain this discarded little doll until the wind comes and finally unravels my soul.

With a fierceness, I will be sent into the void of a damned eternity still forgotten and unclaimed.

– dated, October 9, 2004

No matter how long you run or how much you try to fool yourself as you fill the hole in your soul with other things..we all yearn for God. We are all programed with a gap in our soul that ONLY he can fill. If you find yourself in a place of solitude and longing for love, like what is written below..hang around these next few days as we work through all of this together. Jesus gave himself as a sacrifice on the cross so that we could be made “clean” enough to go before God. The cross that Jesus died upon was stretched out across the heavens to bridge the gap that once fell between God and his fallen creation. All you have to do is ask Jesus to reveal himself to you..and he will. Tell him that you believe that he died for your that you could be made whole. He will enter into your life and work things out day by day. Jesus is not a savior of confusion.. He is the opposite of confusion. He is freedom! .


my response to a friend who fears vaccination and is unsure what to do.

A friend of mine posted this on my facebook wall tonight.  There is only one reason why I am sharing our conversation. I want to share our conversation because there are many other parents out there who feel the same as my friend. If this is you, and you have stumbled upon this blog for one reason or another.. this is my humble response to you. (forgive any spelling errors..i am copy and pasting this from facebook and its 2 am..this girl is tired 🙂

my friend’s concerns:

Oh help. I am so conflicted. I just got a letter from my Dr listing all the vaccines we have missed. There are 8 vaccines with multiple doses. My head might explode. I don’t want to take her in :/

The best response that I could offer her via a facebook comment box at 2 am :):

so don’t take her in. Is she sick? if she is sick and nutrition, rest and other natural healing methods aren’t making her better then, yes..definitely take her to the doctor. but why take a healthy child to a place where sick people go, if you are not going to the doctor with the intention of getting your childs shots..and since you are still so unsure..ill say what ive been saying to you for a while now 🙂 what ever your decision is..just be confident in your choice don’t do anything until you are at peace with it. now I understand that this is how I make sense of things..i am not might see things differently, so from this point on just keep in mind that I am not trying to tell you what to do..i am just telling you what I would do. let me get back to the point here..if you are wanting to take Valerie in for checkups for progress reports and such..then either find a pedi who respects the fact that you need more time, or find a GP to take your kids to. Lots of people on my page do not even have pediatricians. they just take their kids to a family doctor..and from what ive doctors are much more willing to work with parents when it comes to vaccinations.

Vvaccines are not the bread and butter of family doctors..pediatricians, on the other hand, base much of their practice around vaccinations so of course its gonna be a bit tougher to find one that respects your parental rights and your ablilty to raise your children as you see fit. As long as a parent researches and is confident in what they decide to do..i say right on. If you dig in and from your digging decide that vaccinations are the road you want to go down..then right on to you..i wish more parents would do this before blindly following the untested 49 dose before the age of 6 cdc schedule..because once you research this stuff it will benefit your family. even if you decide to vaccinate, there are safer ways to vaccinate..there are things a parent can do to minimize risks, just as there are things that parents who do not vaccinate can do to minimize risks.

I would bet that more parents who do not vaccinate are aware of the things they can do to minimize risks..once you  come to the point of making such an important decision….a decision that goes against the “accepted norm,” you have ran yourself into the ground researching every last piece of information that you can start off questioning your thoughts and wondering why you are even taking the time to research this, but then the more you learn, the more you find yourself displeased with the science that is telling you give your baby 8 vaccines in one start to immedietly look at the conflicts of interest disclosures before even reading the article. The sad thing about this all – is that its nearly impossible to find any study that is enthusiastically in support of vaccination that does not have an author that is financially tied to a pharmaceutical company or is not conducted by or funded by an organization that stands to benefit both financially and politically from vaccinations. Studies like these are the ones telling parents that the benefits of the chickenpox vaccine outweigh the risks of actually contracting  chickenpox..or these are the studies that tell a parent its ok to give their children 8 vaccines in one day..ohh wait, my bad dude..i almost forgot..the cdc nor any other government agency has ever taken the time to study the health outcomes of the vaccination schedule. they have never openly considered the cumulative effect that all these multiple immune system activations and toxic ingredients have on a developing infant or child. They have never studied the vaccination schedule  as it is administered. Instead, they publish articles with little integrety and participate, with the help of the biased media, in making sure that everyone knows that people who question vaccines are crazy and have nothing creditable to back up why they are afraid to have their child vaccinated.  Parents are being kept blind to the truth..the truth is that it IS ok to research a potentially life or death medical procedure before consenting to it for your child. It IS ok to ask questions before consenting to the injection of multiple viruses, foreign dna, neurotoxins, and things that have not been proven as safe to be injected into your own child..your own flesh and blood..if you didn’t ask questions before hand, that is what seems more odd to me than a parent asking about the safety of this ballooning, out of control vaccination schedule.

Just an sure that this past month you have heard in the news how the UK is experiencing a measles epidemic and how it is an urgent matter that parents have their children vaccinated with the very safe and effective MMR vaccine so that they will be protected from a life threatening disease. That is the only side presented by the media. Not a word is mentioned about how maybe the measles isn’t such a deadly threat. This  article was written by a doctor and it explains it far better than I can and it is well referenced.

According to the CDC, prior to the introduction of the vaccine, measles was a nearly universal infection occurring most commonly in 5-9 year olds with 90% of U.S. children immune by age 15.  Most kids recovered fully within a few weeks with life-long immunity. Reported complications from data collected between 1985-1992 included pneumonia (6%), encephalitis (.1%), seizures (.6-.7%), and death (.2%). These occurred most frequently in children under 5 and adults over 20. These complications may, in fact, have been exacerbated by allopathic interventions to treat common symptoms such as fever reduction using antipyretics.[15,16]

CDC data appears to indicate that the live-virus vaccine has been very effective at decreasing classic measles incidence in our population, however, it can take little credit for the decreased mortality in the developed world considering the death rate had decreased over 98% prior to the vaccine.[18] Never the less, vaccine advocates hail this as a victory.  The problem is that few of them question whether it was wise to prevent children from acquiring this infection naturally.  Many well-respected doctors and researchers believe that measles is a right of passage that allows a child’s immune systems to develop and strengthen. It has been documented that kids in 3rd world countries who get a wild measles infection are less susceptible to malaria and parasitic infections.[3]  Medical literature from the 1940’s documents children being cured of a kidney disorder known as nephrotic syndrome following measles.[4]

The number of classic measles cases in the US appears to have declined but any protection afforded by the vaccine is limited and often short-lived.[5]  Natural infection with wild measles creates long-lasting viral-specific and viral-neutralizing antibodies that are not acquired following vaccine-introduced infection. There are numerous documented cases of measles occurring in highly vaccinated communities [6-8, 17] which can be attributed primarily to short-term efficacy (secondary vaccine failure).  This has important implications considering the fact that measles has an increased rate of complications in adults when compared to school age children.  In 1973, persons 20 years of age or older accounted for approximately 3% of cases, however, by 2001 that number had increased to 48%.[1]

Not only are measles complications more frequent and severe in adults, but infection during pregnancy increases the risk of spontaneous abortion, premature labor and low-birth weight infants.[1]  Additionally, vaccination appears to have increased infants susceptibility to measles.

“Infants whose mothers were born after 1963 had a measles attack rate of 33% compared with 12% for infants of older mothers.”[10]

Women of childbearing age, who in the pre-vaccine era acquired measles naturally in childhood, no longer have the robust, life-long viral-specific and viral-neutralizing immune factors to pass to their infants through the placenta and breast milk.  Injecting a measles virus produces antibodies in the serum but not in the mucosa.  Natural measles infection creates mucosal antibodies that are produced in the mammary gland providing passive immunity to the infant during breast-feeding as well as higher levels of vaccine-specific antibodies in the serum.

Measles in infancy is a risk factor for a fatal degenerative central nervous system condition known as Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE).[5]  Could we be setting the stage for disaster if and when measles reignites here in the U.S. due to either imported cases from abroad or a novel mutated strain caused by the vaccine itself?  I can predict, with absolute certainty, the response from our government health officials…more vaccines!

What about the possibility of vaccine-induced disorders not typically associated with a measles infection?  Wild measles exposure occurs through contact with the human respiratory tract. The measles vaccine introduces a lab altered, live-virus through an unnatural route of exposure.  This weakened, man-made virus can bury deep into the tissues and create a slow infection in practically any area of the body including the gastro-intestinal (GI) tract and central nervous system (CNS). The consequences of these vaccine-induced infections may not show up for months, years or decades later.

A vaccine induced form of SSPE known as Measles Inclusion-Body Encephalitis (MIBE) has been documented in children months to years following measles vaccination.[10]  Could the rapid rise in chronic inflammatory bowel and neurological disorders be caused by these slow infections? How many doctors would ever think to investigate the possibility that these illnesses may be with a distant vaccination?  To further complicate the issue, in a phenomenon known as recombination, the measles virus can combine with other live viruses in the vaccine to create a novel virus with unknown effects.[5]

The fear surrounding measles stems from ignorance.  In a well-nourished child with a properly functioning immune system, viral infections are typically subclinical or exceedingly mild.  Certain infections, such as measles, even appear to provide long-term health and immune system benefits.  Malnourishment, in particular vitamin A deficiency, is a primary cause of poor outcomes.[1] One of the most effective ways to ensure that a viral illness runs a mild or benign course is to provide children with adequate stores of vitamin A prior to exposure.

As well, high doses of vitamin A given during an acute measles infection has been shown to prevent mortality.[12]  Vitamin A works by signaling cell-mediated immune cells known as macrophages to produce an anti-viral messenger known as interferon.[13]  Young infants are unable to produce high levels of interferon [14] and, therefore, rely on passive immunity from mom for protection. It should be noted that measles vaccination has been shown to deplete levels of serum vitamin A.[2]

Many fruits and vegetables provide beta-carotene which is converted by the liver into active vitamin A (retinoids), however, the efficiency of uptake and conversion can vary based on a variety of factors.  Particularly during illness, I prefer pre-formed vitamin A from high quality, whole-food sources like cod liver oil and high-vitamin butter oil.

The studies that built the above article are never mentioned..unless parents have the desire to search for it, they will never hear the other side. Ohh yeah..i almost forgot about this. All the reporters who covered the UK measles deadly outbreak have remained pretty silent this week..even though reports where released that show a misdiagnosis rate of 3700% in these UK ‘measles’ cases. Something like 5 cases out of 400 something reported cases actually turned out to be clinically diagnosed as the measles. (to see a report about this see here) But we didn’t hear one thing about that. All we heard about is  how measles is deadly, its  spreading, unvaccinated kids pose a threat to society and how we must get the mmr to be safe. That’s all people will remember becase that’s all people are told about. I didn’t hear one person mention the importance of vitamin A… but anyways..ive said all this just to let you know that you are not crazy for being worried about vaccinations. Listen to what your gut is telling you.

The most important thing is to PRAY ABOUT IT. I honestly believe that God opens the eyes of some people out of love and mercy to prevent them from a negative outcome.  Really pray about it..I did, and I can honestly say that I have never heard the voice of God so loudly and distinctively as I did when praying for guidance regarding vaccinations. And if you do get Valerie caught up on her shots..dear not allow her to receive 8 vaccines at one visit. Ive obviously written a book already so I wont go into this..but just take my word for it..there is so much evidence out there that shows this is a terribly dangerous and very foolish thing to do to a child.  And why don’t you like my page already!! You don’t have to be all out anti vaccine to be apart of it.. all are welcome. Me and the other two admins post scientifically sound things for parents to educate themselves with..i am going to repost your question on my page so that you can get some other opinions. Ohh and here is a list I just put is over a years worth of digging.

God did not create us with a vaccine deficiency ..he created us with strong immune systems that- if nourished well and if treated in the manor that God intended – have amazing abilities to protect, heal and to strengthen our bodies.  Gods got his hand on my children no matter what..good or trusting in him.



Read the back of your toothpaste – fluoride IS poison. if there’s doubt – GET IT OUT!

What is put into our water is not the element that occurs naturally in nature called fluoride. What they put into our water is called fluorosilicic acid, which is actually a toxic waste product produced in the smokestacks of phosphate plants. If they weren’t selling this substance to cities, they would have to pay a lot of money to have it handled as an environmental hazard and buried in EPA-approved landfills. It is illegal to take this fluorosilicic acid and bury it in the ground or dump it in rivers or streams in this country, but it is perfectly legal to sell it to cities that drip this known poison into the water supply with the intended purpose of it being ingested by human beings. I am sick of having no other option other than to bathe my children in poisoned water. I am sick of lugging heavy glass gallons of water home every other day – simply because I have to buy clean water elsewhere..the water that I pay for..the water that pours from my kitchen sink is poisoned.

This awesome review sums it up far better than I can:

They call them “wet scrubbers” – the pollution control devices used by the phosphate industry to capture fluoride gases produced in the production of commercial fertilizer. 

In the past, when the industry let these gases escape, vegetation became scorched, crops destroyed, and cattle crippled.

Today, with the development of sophisticated air-pollution control technology, less of the fluoride escapes into the atmosphere, and the type of pollution that threatened the survival of some communities in the 1950s and 60s, is but a thing of the past (at least in the US and other wealthy countries).

However, the impacts of the industry’s fluoride emissions are still being felt, although more subtly, by millions of people – people who, for the most part, do not live anywhere near a phosphate plant.

That’s because, after being captured in the scrubbers, the fluoride acid (hydrofluorosilicic acid), a classified hazardous waste, is barreled up and sold, unrefined, to communities across the country. Communities add hydrofluorosilicic acid to their water supplies as the primary fluoride chemical for water fluoridation.

Don’t believe me? Here is a letter written by former EPA Deputy Administrator  , Rebecca Hamners, that clearly admits where the fluoride that pollutes our water comes from


and just in case you cant read what this letter says..

In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them” – Rebecca Hanmer, EPA, 1983

*ohhh I see..somehow the same stuff that pollutes the environment becomes ok after it is added to the water that we drink and give to our children.

Another EPA official, Dr. J. William Hirzy, the current Senior Vice-President of EPA Headquarters Union, recently expressed a different view on the matter. According to Hirzy:

If this stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing… There’s got to be a better way to manage this stuff.

Read just a few of these quotes..the following statements are all quotes from the National Research Committees scientific review of EPA standards on water fluoridation.

Cognitive Effects

Several studies from China have reported the effects of fluoride in drinking water on cognitive capacities. Among the studies, the one by Xiang et al. (2003a) had the strongest design. This study compared the intelligence of 512 children (ages 8-13) living in two villages with different fluoride concentrations in the water. The populations were not exposed to other significant sources of fluoride, such as smoke from coal fires, industrial pollution, or consumption of brick tea. Thus, the difference in fluoride exposure was attributed to the amount in the drinking water. Using the combined Raven’s Test for Rural China, the average intelligence quotient (IQ) of the children in Wamiao  (the high fluoride area. if you read the whole study then it will give you trying my best to keep this short) was found to be significantly lower (92.2 ± 13.00; range, 54-126) than that in Xinhuai (100.41 ± 13.21; range, 60-128) (the low fluoride area). The IQ scores in both males and females declined with increasing fluoride exposure. Pg 205-206

A study conducted by Lu et al. (2000) in a different area of China also compared the IQs of 118 children (ages 10-12) living in two areas with different fluoride concentrations in the water (3.15 ± 0.61 mg/L in one area and 0.37 ± 0.04 mg/L in the other). The children were lifelong residents of the villages and had similar social and educational levels. Urinary fluoride concentrations were measured at 4.99 ± 2.57 mg/L in the high-fluoride area and 1.43 ± 0.64 mg/L in the low-fluoride area. IQ measurements using the Chinese Combined Raven’s Test, showed significantly lower mean IQ scores among children in the high-fluoride area (92.27 ± 20.45) than in children in the low-fluoride area (103.05 ± 13.86). Of special importance, 21.6% of the children in the high-fluoride village scored 70 or below on the IQ scale. For the children in the low-fluoride village, only 3.4% had such low scores. Urinary fluoride concentrations were inversely correlated with mental performance in the IQ test. [wow..that mean that the more fluoride a child had in their urine..the lower their IQ wow] Qin and Cui (1990) observed similar negative correlation between IQ and fluoride intake through drinking water” pg 206

Zhao et al. (1996) also compared the IQs of 160 children (ages 7-14) living in a high-fluoride area (average concentration of 4.12 mg/L) with those of children living in a low-fluoride area (average concentration 0.91 mg/L). Using the Rui Wen Test, the investigators found that the average IQ of children in the high-fluoride area (97.69) was significantly lower than that of children in the low-fluoride area (105.21). The investigators also reported that enamel fluorosis (discoloring of the teeth) was present in 86% of the children in the high-exposure group and in 14% of the children in the low-exposure group and that skeletal fluorosis was found only in the high-exposure group at 9%.” pg 206-207

Another Chinese study evaluated fluoride exposure due to inhalation of soot and smoke from domestic coal fires used for cooking, heating, and drying grain. Many of the children exhibited moderate to severe enamel fluorosis [remember in the last study ^^ how 86% in high fluoride areas had enamel fluorosis compared to 14% in the low fluoride area?]. The average IQ of 900 children (ages 8-13) from an area with severe enamel fluorosis was 9-15 points lower than the average IQ of children from an area with low or no enamel fluorosis. Urinary fluoride concentrations were found to be inversely correlated with IQ, as measured by the China Rui Wen Scale for Rural Areas, and were monotonically related to the degree of enamel fluorosis.” Pg 208

After recording the data, the authors go on to say:

The significance of these Chinese studies is uncertain.. Despite this, the consistency of the collective results warrants additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence in populations that share similar languages, backgrounds, socioeconomic levels, and other commonalities.

Side personal note: this was published in 2006. No studies have been conducted in the US to follow up on this. Does anyone else not think that these findings are important? WHY haven’t they done a follow up study? WHY is the fluoride program more important to our government than our children? Why are people not alarmed that there have been multiple studies completed that had the same the results: the more fluoride – the lower the IQ. Are people not concerned that fluoride could be hindering the future success of entire generations?

They go on to say,

It should be noted that many factors outside of native intelligence influence performance on IQ tests. One factor that might be of relevance to fluoride is impairment of thyroid gland function (see Chapter 8 for more on thyroid issues). For example, hypothyroidism produces tiredness, depression, difficulties in concentration, memory impairments, and impaired hearing. In addition, there is some evidence that impaired thyroid function in pregnant women can lead to children with lower IQ scores (Klein et al. 2001).

Personal side note: we are damaging children’s IQs two different ways now. I will just share this one quote on fluoride and thyroid disease. Is is from chapter 8..there is a lot of reading and studies to look at on this connection.

An effect of fluoride exposure on the thyroid was first reported approximately 150 years ago. In 1923, the director of the Idaho Public Health Service, in a letter to the Surgeon General, reported enlarged thyroids in many children between the ages of 12 and 15 using city water in the village of Oakley, Idaho ); in addition, the children using city water had severe enamel deficiencies in their permanent teeth. The dental problems were eventually attributed to the presence in the city water of 6 mg/L fluoride, and children born after a change in water supply (to water with <0.5 mg/L fluoride) were not so affected..” pg 225 [turn off the fluoride and the problems stop!]

Mental and Physiological Changes

There are numerous reports of mental and physiological changes after exposure to fluoride from various routes (air, food, and water) and for various time periods (Waldbott et al. 1978). A number of the reports are, in fact, experimental studies of one or more individuals who underwent withdrawal from their source of fluoride exposure and subsequent re-exposures under “blind” conditions. In most cases, the symptoms disappeared with the elimination of exposure to fluoride and returned when exposure was reinstated. In some instances, when the fluoride was given in water, this procedure was repeated several times under conditions in which neither the patient nor the provider of the fluoride knew whether the water contained fluoride. Also reported are instances when fluoride-produced symptoms occurred when people moved into a community with fluoridated water but disappeared when the individuals moved to a nonfluoridated community.

Spittle (1994) reviewed surveys and case reports of individuals exposed occupationally or therapeutically to fluoride and concluded there was suggestive evidence that fluoride could be associated with cerebral impairment. A synopsis of 12 case reports of fluoride-exposed people of all ages showed common sequelae of lethargy, weakness, and impaired ability to concentrate regardless of the route of exposure. In half the cases, memory problems were also reported. pg 208-209

the next things documented are truly scary for any mother to think about.

adding sodium silicofluoride  or fluorosilicic acid (this is what is in my public water supply) to drinking water has been reported to increase the accumulation of the neurotoxicant lead in the body (Masters and Coplan 1999; Masters et al. 2000). This association was first attributed to increased uptake of lead (from whatever source) caused by fluoride. However, enhanced lead concentrations were found only when the water treatments were made with a fluorosilicate and in children already in a high-lead exposure group.” Pg 209

Personal side note: I am skipping around a bit here but what I want to show you now, ties in to what is mentioned fluoride increases a childs exposure to toxins. This awesome article explains..

silicofluorides, as obtained from the scrubbers of the phosphate industry, contain a wide variety of impurities present in the process water – particularly arsenic and possibly radionuclides. While these impurities occur at low concentrations, especially after dilution into the water, their purposeful addition to water supplies directly violates EPA public health goals. For instance, the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for arsenic, a known human carcinogen, is 0 parts per billion. However, according to the National Sanitation Foundation (see this link for document ), the addition of silicofluorides to the water supply will add, on average, about 0.1 to 0.43 ppb, and as much as 1.6 ppb, arsenic to the water.

Ok getting back to the EPA fluoride document..

Immune System

There is no question that fluoride can affect the cells involved in providing immune responses. The question is what proportion, if any, of the population consuming drinking water containing fluoride at 4.0 mg/L on a regular basis will have their immune systems compromised? Not a single epidemiologic study has investigated whether fluoride in the drinking water at 4 mg/L is associated with changes in immune function. Nor has any study examined whether a person with an immunodeficiency disease can tolerate fluoride ingestion from drinking water. (no studies done..this was published in 2006)

Epidemiologic studies should be carried out to determine whether there is a higher prevalence of hypersensitivity reactions in areas where there is elevated fluoride in the drinking water. If evidence is found, hypersensitive subjects could then be selected to test, by means of double-blinded randomized clinical trials, which fluoride chemicals can cause hypersensitivity. In addition, studies could be conducted to determine what percentage of immunocompromised subjects have adverse reactions when exposed to fluoride in the range of 1-4 mg/L in drinking water. More research is needed on the immunotoxic effects of fluoride in animals and humans to determine if fluoride accumulation can influence immune function. It is paramount that careful biochemical studies be conducted to determine what fluoride concentrations occur in the bone and surrounding interstitial fluids from exposure to fluoride in drinking water at up to 4 mg/L, because bone marrow is the source of the progenitors that produce the immune system cells. Pg 303( studies have been done)

Reproductive and Developmental

“NaF (sodium fluoride..think toothpaste) caused lessened fertility rate when normal cycling female mice were mated with treated mice.  Significant recovery in sperm count, sperm motility, and fertility rate was observed after withdrawal of treatment for 2 months”. Pg 183

“Sperm maturation process was affected, leading to decline in cauda epididymal sperm motility and viability. Significant reduction in fertility rate and cauda epididymal sperm count.” Pg 183

Structural and metabolic alterations and reduced activity of the enzymes in sperm resulted in a significant decrease in sperm count and poor fertility rate. Cessation of NaF treatment for 30 days did not bring about complete recovery. pg 184

“Implantation sites and viable fetuses were significantly reduced in females mated with males that had ingested NaF” pg 184

“There was inhibition of lactation in rats with chronic fluorosis, as measured by slower rates of body weight gain in pups and lower amount of milk suckled in 30 minutes compared with control pups.” Pg 185

“Significant reductions in body weight, feed consumption, absolute uterine weight, and number of implantations (pregnancies). Significantly higher incidence of skeletal and visceral abnormalities. pg 185

“Significant decline in fertility attributed to decreased sperm motility and count.” Pg 186

“Decline in fertility related to reduced sperm motility and count and changes in morphology and metabolism. No recovery after withdrawal for 30 days from treatment.Pg 189

Human Studies

“In an ecological study of U.S. counties with drinking-water systems reporting fluoride concentrations of at least 3 mg/L (Freni 1994), a decreased fertility rate was associated with increasing fluoride concentrations.” Pg 192

“There is wide variation with some correlation between fluoride concentration in maternal serum and cord blood, indicating that fluoride readily crosses the placenta.. Therefore, potential toxicity to the developing embryo and fetus in the setting of high maternal ingestion of fluoride has been a concern evaluated in both animal and humans.” Pg 193

“In this ecological study, there was an association between decreasing total fertility rate and increasing fluoride concentrations in most regions.” Pg 195

“Two small studies have raised the possibility of an increased incidence of spina bifida occulta in fluorosis-prone areas in India” pg 196

  • Study 1: “Blood fluoride concentrations of children were 0.9 ppm and 1.1 ppm. Serum fluoride concentrations ranged from 1.6 to 1.9 ppm. Of    30 skiagrams of the lumbosacral region, 14 (47%) showed spina bifida occulta” pg 200
  • Study 2: “A total of 22 (44%) of the 50 children in the study group, and 6 (12%) of the children in the control group revealed spina bifida occulta in the lumbosacral region. Proportion of children with spina bifida occulta in fluoride-rich areas was 44%.” Pg 201

“The possible association of cytogenetic effects with fluoride exposure (see Chapter 10) suggests that Down’s syndrome is a biologically plausible outcome of exposure.” Pg 197

Link to epa fluoride summary:

For anyone that has made it to this point..i have a question for you. Even if all of this evidence was wrong…is it still worth the risk just to “prevent cavities?” Most of Europe doesn’t fluoridate their water and tooth decay and cavity rates are the same as in the US. We need to stand up and demand that this poison is taken out of our water. This isn’t a conspiracy. Everything you just read came from a scientific review of the EPA’s standards for fluoride in our drinking water. The government is aware of how toxic this stuff is. GET IT OUT OF OUR WATER. If people want to take fluoride then let them buy it and administer it themselves. STOP FORCE MEDICATING SOCIETY with a substance that is a well known TOXIN. If enough people called city hall tomorrow or went down to city hall things would eventually change. It is time we demand change. It is black and white! Fluoride is poison and if even if it wasn’t..if one study showed that it could hurt our children then it shouldn’t be in our water. I urge you to call city hall your representative or congressmen. Our voices have got to be heard on this issue…WHEN IN DOUBT – GET IT OUT!

What is really scary is that despite 50 years of water fluoridation, the EPA has no chronic health studies on silicofluorides. All safety studies on fluoride to date have been conducted using pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride, not industrial-grade silicofluorides. Just look at the EPA correspondence below

                          fluoride no studies

Fluoride is a hazardous waste. It is against the law to dump the same chemicals into the ocean or waterways because it will kill the marine life..yet they dump it into the water that we are to consume and give to our children. Some side effects of fluoride exposure are – lowered IQ, thyroid disease, bone disease, cancer, dental fluorosis, a weakened immune system.

Mabye this expains why the following countries have such things to say about fluoride as,

Austria: Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.” SOURCE: M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000.

Belgium: “This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.” SOURCE: Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000.

Denmark: “We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated.” SOURCE: Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999.

Finland: “We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.” SOURCE: Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000.

**for more statements on fluoride from other governments look here 

Well if we take the fluoride out of our water we will all start to get cavities..i can just hear someone saying this now. are some quick facts:

  • Most developed nations do not fluoridate their water. In western Europe, for example, only 3% of the population consumes fluoridated water.
  • While 25 countries have water fluoridation programs, 11 of these countries have less than 20% of their population consuming fluoridated water: Argentina (19%), Guatemala (13%), Panama (15%), Papa New Guinea (6%), Peru (2%), Serbia (3%
  • ), Spain (11%), South Korea (6%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Vietnam (4%).
  • Only 11 countries in the world have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water: Australia (80%), Brunei (95%); Chile (70%), Guyana (62%), Hong Kong (100%), the Irish Republic (73%), Israel (70%), Malaysia (75%), New Zealand (62%), Singapore (100%), and the United States (64%).
  • In total, 377,655,000 million people worldwide drink artificially fluoridated water. This represents 5% of the world’s population.
  • There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.
  • There is no difference in tooth decay between western nations that fluoridate their water and those that do not.



all it would take is enough people to get angry..and that switch would turn.