Top Health Tools
Top Health Tools

Top Reports
Top Reports
Top Articles
Top Articles

Top Reviews
Top Reviews
YouBlog Archive

From Dee Nicholson
Welcome to the world government being established via the UN and
trade agreements like CETA... all our rights are being dismantled, and there is
no way out except to refuse, en masse, to do what they say. Your fellow sheeple
now have the power to excoriate your rights with their ignorance and acceptance
of this interference by government, meant to destroy the family entirely... as the
communists did in China and Russia.WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD, PEOPLE....

From Susan

Margaret Kuebler Every bit of Psychiatry which I have read on this topic recommends that prepubescent children never be stimulated with sexual images or sexual content. The reasons for this recommendation go on for chapters and for books. Is all this advice now controversial or suddenly in dispute? Or, is there some concerted effort by the media and businesses now in the U.S. to damage the psyches of children by design?

Wendy Youngblood Speer seems legit. ‎"concerted effort by the media and businesses now in the U.S. to damage the psyches of children by design" Well stated!

Margaret Kuebler But, is there any evidence that there are such motives behind the wings? Or, are businesses, as usual, just captitalizing on the "sex sells" paradigm, only this time the kids are in the way, since the target is their parents who might want to buy this stuff or watch these kids television shows to please themselves. I obviously am very confused as to why sales of such items is being allowed and why the media is following up in kind. Might advertisers be to blame, e.g., "show 'em sex," a sure fire seller, and we'll back your program/item with all the ads and publicity which you need?" It's a combination of both. The "sex sells" objective and to gradually destroy the psychological health of children through desensitization. There is ample evidence to suggest latter, especially if we pursue research done on the indoctrination of the child mind and what it offers to the sinister elite powers of the world once corrupted. Children are objects to them, whose energy must be manipulated to ultimately quench the thirst of those in powerful positions who thrive on the sexual energy of children, especially before puberty. This is an area of study which goes far deeper than we can imagine and its consequences and implications are far reaching in our society. We live in a very sick and disturbed world on the superficial layer, but there is a purpose as there always is.

Margaret Kuebler You have stated exactly what I think in my deepest fears about U.S. society. I have graduate training in public health (UAB, Hopkins) and never am ceased to be amazed at how lifestyles and practices known to damage the pubic's health in the U.S. so frequently are promoted by both gov't and business. The sources of my ideas on sexuality and children are from Jon K. Meyer's books (a Hopkins prof), a psychoanalyst, albeit one known to be a traditional Freudian. These sources (many NIMH-soonsored research reports) almost demand that all prepubescent children be allowed no sexual "stimulation" for fear of the ultimate damage which may be done to their psyches. To someone as I, there is no need to read about this, as instinct alone should tell one what likely is not appropriate for kids (after all, we all were kids once and should have our own memories of how we perceived certain adult topics at various ages as we grew up). Yet, one way to perpetuate the sexual exploitation of children is to beget sexual predators of children, isn't it? Research shows that child molestors likely were molested as children themselves and tend to believe that "sexual maturity" is achieved at whatever age at which they first were assaulted. Our gov't certainly knows better than to allow the sexualization of children and is aware of the negative repercussions throughout our society of doing this. Yet, our gov't also knows that children's life chances improve exponentially according to their mothers' educational levels and the presence of about two children in their familes. What does the GOP do with this knowledge? It persists at encouraging all young women to reproduce to their heart's content, even if this must be done to the exclusion of achievement in school. Great comments Margaret, but as far as reproduction goes, it appears there is a major movement to convince the masses not to reproduce. Abortion laws, family planning initiatives and contraceptive technology all support the fact that world powers no longer want humanity to reproduce. It also stems from the proliferation of scientists and researchers (under their guidance) who have attempted to convince the world that we have an overpopulation problem which is a fallacy, especially when it comes to the earth and its resources.

Margaret Kuebler ‎9 billion people now. You really think that this planet is not overly saturated with people? Fossil fuels set to run out in under 150 years, etc.? What about water shortages? I once was a doctoral student in Population Dynamics and can assure you that zero population growth presents the only hope for the future of our species on Mother Earth. I am aware that certain ethnic groups always assume that they are being targeted whenever anyone mentions our population explosion problem, but it doesn't matter. Stable population theory and its result in a so-called population pyramid which is shaped more like a column than a genuine pyramid improve the health and wealth of every society which commits to ZPG. I suspect that you disagree on principle alone, but this is one area of science in which I can assure you that a genuine public health problem, if not crisis, exists. Observe the population pyramids in developing countries sometime and ask yourself intuitively, "How may that country survive economically, and even hope to become a democracy, if something like 70+% of its population are dependents, e.g., under 18-21 + over 65?" The math alone will not allow such a society to amass wealth among its population (which always leads to better health on an aggregate level), let alone implement a gov't which seeks to distribute the society's wealth evenly among its citizens. No one from a democratic country ever may condone how China eliminated the starvation rate among its people and brought itself into developed world status; however, a study of its Draconian population policies and measures and the results which they achieved prove beyond a doubt just how injurious certain population events are to the overall socioeconomic status of any country. No country may maintain developed world status, nor even maintain a democracy, if the ratio of its societal dependents exceeds that of those of in its "supporting" age groups by a certain extent. This is simple math and political science. Also, the health status of its women is the single most significant factor with which to determine a society's overall socioeconomic status -- all attempts made to help women control their reproduction and to assure that all births are healthy ones for both mother and child lead only to more empowered societies. It is only in the impoverished developing countries where one finds totalitarian control in the hands of gov't agents who seek the enforce the so-called "reproduce or else" mandates among the people. Remember Romania under Ceausescu? Ever live in Nicaragua? At least here in the U.S., if you disagree with birth control or abortion or family planning, you are free to eschew these influences in your life, but, please, make sure they you are able to pay for the alternatives.

Lilly Gabriella I find it amusing that their cry is "Conservatives are fighting this" and their main example is a show on FOX.
Also, the first pregnant barbie came out in the 80s. And which tattooed Barbie are they talking about? Amazonia Barbie, from the dolls of the world collection has culturally applicable tattoos. the Tokidoki Barbie doll is $50 and only available from the Barbie Collector catalog or website. It's not a playline doll, and is therefore irrelevant to their discussion.
I also have to wonder if they are lumping all cartoons together as being aimed at children, as is common in American culture. I have had to get after my grandmother for letting my six year old watch Cartoon Network after about 6 pm. More than once I've gone up there to collect him and found Family Guy on. (Not that he was paying attention to it, but still.)

I do agree that sexualized marketing aimed at children (esp. girls) is a growing problem. I hadn't heard about Dora, as we don't have Nickelodeon anymore, and if it is true, I will be disappointed. But as a parent, I believe that parents need to take responsibility for knowing what their children are watching/playing.

And if you (parents) don't think a toy is age appropriate, then for pity's sake grow a spine and don't buy it! I can't count the number of times I have said No in a store when my kids wanted something.

Margaret Kuebler ‎Lilly Gabriella: I think that the sexualization of children is hallmarked by that incident in CO in which the crotchless panties for lower school aged girls were being sold publicly -- and I have to report that my mind was blown at just the thought that anyone would dream up such a product, let alone the fact that any reputable (not Black Market) business actually would sell it. There appears to be quite a large segment of parents in the U.S. who lack all your common sense and intution if such a clothing item ever found its way onto the shelf and had any sales at all. I don't have children but do have friends who have told me story after story of how other children have attempted to simulate sexual activity onto their kids. This usually happens in school bathrooms where children as young as four are allowed to go in on their own. Again, when I heard these stories, e.g., a four yr. old boy asking another 4 yr. old boy to "kiss" his penis, I wanted to throw up. As you might suspect, all the kids who approached their schoolmates in this fashion (i.e., in the stories told to me by friends about their own kids) were discovered to have "witnessed" something at home, and too frequently, they were the children of single mothers. I still get chills when wondering what sorts of things must be going on in the homes of children who are interested in "sex" at ages as young as four. One tragedy, in my opinion, is that, as I am told, school officials must report such children to authorities as either perpetrators or victims of child abuse, even if such a thing happens in a private school. This fact leaves the parents of the accosted children in quite a dilemma, i.e., either to report what happened to one's child at school to the teachers or to attempt to counsel one's child all on one's own (and avoid all gov't intrusion into one's child's life in the process) in order to allow one's chld just to forget that anything so "strange" ever happened. My point: I have heard so many of these stories from friends when their children were so young ... and I cannot imagine what IS going on with America's children right now. I think that this issue goes well beyond the exotic Barbie dolls and cartoon characters on kids' television. Again, excellent comments Margaret. However, with all due respect and regardless of your assurances or education, overpopulation is a misnomer, a problem that exists only in dramatically erroneous theories that are not mathematically based and it is simply one of the most flawed concepts right up there with global warming. Firstly, there are only 7 billion people on the planet, not 9 billion (not sure if that was typo on your part). Secondly, overpopulation theories are based on myths not science or accurate statistical correlations or causation principles (please review These myths are radical and dangerous in nature to the human species and are currently aggressively promoted by elite and international societies. The unproven notion, as Malthus believed, that higher wages and welfare should be withheld from the great unwashed because he believed that these two factors would allow the poor to survive and exponentially breed, thus compounding the overpopulation problem. Thirdly, most of your statements are based on false assumptions that can be countered with one truth, "overpopulation cannot exist in a close system designed to maintain homeostatic balance." This is what Mother Earth does for us. She balances our entire planet with all the resources required to maintain the status quo. Should that population exceed the necessary resources, the earth will naturally purge as all marco ecosystems do. Peak populations, peak resources, peak oil, peak food, peak water are all invented fabrications by world governments who are always trying to convince the masses that we are running out of something and need to do something to correct it. This is simply not true, never has been and never will be. When it comes to human studies, not one ethological population study of non-human primates nor cross-cultural or ethnographic data on more universal patterns have ever successfully been used comparators to establish overpopulation theories as fact, especially considering the unique nature of human culture. Instead, western social ‘folk’ assumptions about what constituted population problems are often based on resource justifications reflecting cultural ideas about what population growth really is and how it evolves. The extent to which the junk science which serves as the basis for overpopulation theories and especially peak resources concepts are held captive by government ideologies (biases) and ethnocentrism especially with regard to the culturally perceived relationships of monetary systems cannot be overstated. Simply put, people are not the problem, but our systems of government and democracy are. The earth recycles itself every X thousands of years and human intervention has never been needed. We have always survived and always will.

Margaret Kuebler am about to read this article. My area of expertise is not in natural resources and how Mother Earth may regenerate them on her own when her population depletes readily available supplies. My argument primarily is how nations become developed countries versus why those which remain 'undeveloped," or in third world status, continue on. Think of where China was in, say, the 1970s when Nixon opened its doors to the West and where it is today. Of course, people in Africa starve only because tribal leaders withhold food so as to keep the so-called "masses" impoverished and starving, not because there is any genuine food shortage. Of course, there are people who live in poverty and with disease right here in the U.S., because even here we keep money and access to health care rationed from many segments of society. Just because gov'ts may be corrupt with many segments of their populations does not justify the abandonment of stable population theory on the ruse that it is not the fact of too many people which is at the heart of the problem, only the harsh manner in which the people are treated. As I wrote, I am about to read this article, but Johns Hopkins does not teach "junk science," and the theories which underlie population pyramid analyses, stable population theory, and economic development are quite sound, i.e., if one acknowledges that life in, say, a thriving area of the U.S. is a far healthier place in which to live than is, say, life in the squalor of El Salvador. Moreover, how else would one explain the complete turn around in China in less than 50 years? No more starving children over there, only a current and startling increase in those living in hunger over here.

Margaret Kuebler A few points: 1) Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health (now the Bloomberg School) feeds graduates straight into the World Bank, as well as into WHO and the CIA. The thoughts of the leaders at these organizations were formed at the exact same place at which my ideas were bred. 2) The Population Research Institute is not an organization which is independent and interdisciplinary in nature; it is as much of a thinly veiled front for so-called "pro life" groups as is USAID for the CIA. Its aim is to combat birth control measures in general, and my hunch is that it will twist any argument and research out there in order to prove that people who think to the contrary really just want to "kill all the little babies in the womb." 3) Infrastructure -- PRI's solution to poverty -- costs money; if only 20-30% of the population is at work, where's the money for the construction of infrastructure to come from? 4) The amorphous, but "feel good," construct of "community" as a solution to poverty also costs money, and again where is it to come from? 5) So, all Africa needs is "legitimate, concrete" aid ... what's wrong with its leaders, i.e., why aren't they doing this if this is what is needed? Africa's leaders, like those in most of the developing nations, are hoarding the nations' wealth for themselves. Why? Because the people are too ill educated to know the difference. Why? Because they have no adequate access to good schools, sanitation, and primary health care. Why? Because these amenities cost societies money, and the money available isn't being used to benefit the population equally. Why? Because these nations are not democracies. Why? Because "the masses" are too ignorant to know the difference. And, the cycle of poverty goes on and on. In this context, the actual numbers of people who inhabit these countries does appear to be irrelevant; however, history has shown us time and time again -- to wit, China and Japan -- that replacement level population growth leads to stronger children and adults, no matter what circumstances in life from which they emerge. There are doctoral dissertations ad infinitum which explain how this "natural process" occurs. 6) Japan's TFR now is at below replacement level solely because Japan does not have the land mass to support its population. Ever try to purchase beef in Japan? There is not enough land there to graze cattle for beef, and most of it must be imported. I, for one, trust the Japanese to know what its appropriate population level should be. After all, look what it found out during WWII when it attempted to secure more land mass for itself and its people. China still worries about too many people within its borders to care for; yet, the starvation rate there is practically non-existent today. Check what this rate was in the 1950s-1960s. And, yes, I know first hand of the slaughter and abandonment of children and the flat out infanticide which took place in China due to its "one child family" policy. The point is that it worked to bring China into First World Nation status and in less than two generations, while nothing else which the Chinese ever tried before in their history to combat poverty ever did work. The highest price for any people ever to pay for economic development of their nation, but let's also not forget that China is another one of those picky totalitarian gov'ts which considers human rights of individuals, e.g., like their right to reproductive freedom of choice, subservient to the overall well being of the country as a whole. And do you believe the World bank, WHO and CIA are independent interdisciplinary in nature. Of course they are not. They are some of the most corrupt agencies in the world so the fact that Bloomberg graduates feed into them is not encouraging. Moreover, the data stemming from any of these organizations including Bloomberg school (the name says it all) is fanatical in nature to serve higher interests. It always has been and this is well-established. Science is no longer science out of any organization that serves higher interests. It is simply junk science based on outcomes with extreme bias and prejudice. Just scan through our pandemic flu archive and you'll see what the WHO are all about. OR query "junk science" on our website and the results will speak for themselves. The point is, every single post-secondary institution that has any influence on private or public sector policy or technology has been hijacked by special interests. Every single one. What the Chinese government has done to their people is unfathomable....simply murder, regardless of what is claimed to have "worked" to obtain first world nation status which is simply a ridiculous argument. This has become rather off topic from the original points made on overpopulation, but the point is, overpopulation concepts and theories are nonsense when it come to ultimate human survival. It does not even come close to anything else but theory and opinion. It is only greed and power influenced by our current economic infrastructure and monetary systems (which is presently failing) which has indoctrinated this myth of overpopulation to promote further control on populations. Our world as we see it today will not exist, politically, monetarily, govern-mentally and culturally in 5-8 years. The current shift underway will see all these systems fall in less than a decade ( and the mindset brought forth will render almost any established mainstream current school of thought on economics, social justice and government systems as obsolete. We are entering into what will be the most incredible period for humankind where the entire planet will align itself with love and morality rather than hatred and greed. It is a wonderful time to be living on earth and it's about to get very interesting.

Margaret Kuebler The only school of public health in which I ever have been a student and at which the professors were willing to acknowledge to their non-physician students, as I, that vaccines usually comprise the crux of all public health scandals was Hopkins. Lies and propaganda are not spread there; the intellects collected at such a medical institution are too temperamental to be kept under control even by each other, let alone by any conspiracy groups or gov't cliques with nefarious plans for the world. Only the AMA rears its ugly head to breathe down necks from time to time. In fact, Hopkins is so independent that medical students there do not even have to take exams if they prefer not to ... of course, all medical graduates eventually have to pass national examinations after medical school and their residencies/fellowships. But, in the meantime, if medical students at Hopkins think that they are smart enough not to have to prove it either by taking notes or passing routine exams, they may opt out. I simply cannot see how promoting the best in maternal and child health care of which modern man knows could be construed as a tragedy to anyone whose mind entertains a rational thought process. I worked tirelessly on one PAHO project which taught us how to eliminate poverty in Yoruba women in Lagos, Ngeria in less than a generation. It worked, and so well that Reagan shut down our medical journal which was reporting on the results of this pilot project. Hint: the key was education of these women; no abortion services ever were required. There was only one end point of success: women and their families who no longer lived in poverty. As it turns out, these women by their own choice went on to have only 2.2 children on average, but their kids all were healthy and grew up to become well educated themselves and never lived in poverty either. The "science" which is promoted by Hopkins professionals indeed is tried and true science, not mumbo jumbo or voodoo. I even had a Chinese physician who was a planner of China's population control department then as one of my professors. Did all of us (i.e., those of us not Chinese) tell him exactly what we thought of his gov't's brutality? We certainly did, albeit politely; after all, he was not the primary "brains" behind his gov't's policy. I don't doubt that Hopkins has a high standard and even morality at least to some extent within the boundaries of their own system, however compartmentalization typically prevents researchers and well-intentioned scientists from knowing exactly what the end product of their research will be, and many times it's nefarious in the end. Case in point is genetically modified foods:
Genetically Modified Bread Is Next For The Mad Scientists at John Hopkins University

Compartmentalization is how researchers, educators, and entire educational systems/institutions are kept under control. It would be naive to think that Hopkins is immune from this infective system which is worldwide. Please review and specifically the section on compartmentalization.

The crux of the matter is that most departments at any University, including John Hopkins, will never receive funding unless they abide by the standards that are expected by world powers (i.e which funnels down to industry and government). That means corruption and greed (even though not as proliferate) do exist just like anywhere else. Case in point which is run by John Hopkins promotes dangerous vaccines and excludes extremely pertinent and verifiable information regarding these dangers. The site has an extraordinary amount of influence and misinformation from not only pharmaceutical conglomerates but information based on mainstream junk science studies (i.e. Thimerosal) which has been largely disproven. This link alone demonstrates the irresponsible and dangerous nature of the flu vaccines that John Hopkins condones and promotes

John Hopkins is not immune from the corruption that has affected educational systems for hundreds of years.

From Dee Nicholson


Kevin Annett brought these very bones to the studio today as we recorded the Real Health Show on I held them in my hand, these tiny testaments to a horrific crime. I cannot tell you what I was feeling in those moments because quite frankly it is beyond description.


I also challenge the so-called human beings in those institutions to ask themselves what they would want if it were their child: Would they want to know what happened to their son or daughter? Would they want to know who did this to them? Would they want justice? And would they want to bury their child in the tradition of their family?


These things are being asked of these institutions now. The churches remain stonily silent, while the government puts on a dog and pony show and calls it " truth and reconciliation", while enforcing a code of silence: no revelations of perpetrators and actual events allowed.


We Canadians, and indeed, we human brothers and sisters, cannot allow crimes such as these to go unresolved, even if the perpetrators are dead. We cannot allow history to simply fade out of view, or we risk a repetition of events. We cannot allow children to be used, abused, and otherwise mistreated by adults anywhere, and our system is rife with abuse to this day, and getting worse.

I urge everyone to forward this video link, and to view the archive of the November 28th Real Health Show, the link for which I will be sending out as soon as it is available. And send it to your Member of Parliament as well.

Ask him or her: "What if it were your child?"


From Eileen Dannemann
Baby made deaf by the MMR vaccine is refused compensation because she wasn’t damaged “enough”.

Author, Christina England, Namaste Magazine Issue.htm

From Eileen Dannemann
Blow you away....News coverage on Gardasil gals...personal stories WHEW


This site is owned and operated by © 1999-2017. All Rights Reserved. All content on this site may be copied, without permission, whether reproduced digitally or in print, provided copyright, reference and source information are intact and use is strictly for not-for-profit purposes. Please review our copyright policy for full details.
volunteerDonateWrite For Us
Stay Connected With Our Newsletter