activistpost--2019-11-24--Chemtrails Exposed: The Research Corporation for Science Advancement and the Origins of the New Manh

Chemtrails Exposed: The Research Corporation for Science Advancement and the Origins of the New Manhattan Project

Recently uncovered evidence indicates that the New Manhattan Project – otherwise known as ‘geoengineering’ – goes back further than previously thought.  As the name ‘New Manhattan Project’ implies, the author was previously under the impression that this ultra-massive, super-secret scientific project (the biggest of all time, in fact) only went back to the mid-1940s; directly after the end of the original Manhattan Project. Your intrepid author has recently found evidence suggesting that the New Manhattan Project should be called the Old Manhattan Project because it now looks like its roots actually go back about 35 years earlier.  The findings presented here have everything to do with an organization called The Research Corporation for Science Advancement and the origins of The Research Corporation for Science Advancement (Research Corporation) have everything to do with the life and work of one Frederick Gardner Cottrell (1877-1948).  Today the Research Corporation for Science Advancement has a website, a Twitter feed, and a Facebook page.  If you don’t know what the New Manhattan Project is, please refer to the author’s book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project available exclusively at Amazon.  In the early 1900s Frederick Gardner Cottrell pioneered the field of large-scale, electrostatic removal of coal fly ash from the emissions of coal-fired electrical power plants. This is relevant to the New Manhattan Project for a few reasons.  It is relevant because it has been scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt by Dr. Marvin Herndon and his peer-reviewers all over the world that the substance with which we are being routinely sprayed today is coal fly ash. You see, coal fly ash is the smoke that rises from burning coal. It’s a toxic waste by-product of the electrical power industry. There’s a big, cheap supply of it all over the world and if they don’t spray it into our atmosphere, it costs the electrical power companies big money to properly dispose of it. The low cost and ready availability of coal fly ash makes it suitable for geoengineering purposes because geoengineers are talking about spraying tens of thousands of megatons of toxic substances such as this from airplanes ANNUALLY. For more about coal fly ash, please refer to the author’s 2017 article “Chemtrails Exposed: Coal Fly Ash and the New Manhattan Project.”  Not only that, but electrical power companies have a long history in weather modification, and the New Manhattan Project is a global, second generation weather modification project. Specifically, electrical power companies have for many decades openly sprayed silver iodide from ground-based generators in order to make it snow. The runoff from this artificially nucleated snowpack then fills up their mountain reservoirs and is subsequently used to generate hydroelectric power. How much does the Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation love you?  Furthermore, when coal fly ash is electrostatically removed from the exhaust system of a coal-fired power plant, a mini-New Manhattan Project takes place. This is what originally inspired the author’s investigation here. You see, today’s coal fly ash is removed from a power plant’s exhaust system using something called an electrostatic precipitator. These electrostatic precipitators collect fly ash by first electrically charging the airborne ash particles, then attracting them to oppositely charged plates where the ash is then taken away. This is analogous to how, in the course of today’s New Manhattan Project, atmospheric particles are electromagnetically ionized (charged) and then manipulated. This use of electromagnetic energy is the defining aspect of the project and, strangely enough, we see it replicated in this NMP sub-operation of fly ash sequestration. Frederick Cottrell was the American pioneer in the field of electrostatic precipitation.  So, let us learn more about this intriguing Frederick Cottrell character, whose life’s work was so inextricably intertwined with air pollution and, most pertinently, coal fly ash air pollution. Like your author, Cottrell was born in the San Francisco Bay Area. This is his story.  Frederick Gardner Cottrell was born in Oakland, CA in 1877. As a boy, Cottrell marveled at the swift proliferation of applied electrical power. At the age of 19 he received a Bachelors degree in chemistry from the University of California and subsequently became a chemistry teacher at Oakland High School. He then traveled abroad to the Mecca of science, Germany. During this time he also traveled extensively throughout Europe as well as throughout the eastern half of America, visiting just about all of the big scientific universities while meeting and studying under many famous European and American scientists. Upon his return to America, from 1902 to 1911 Cottrell taught physical chemistry at UC Berkeley. Cottrell was gregarious, universally well-liked, and an extraordinarily sharp scientist.  In America, Cottrell traveled to many universities which have since been implicated in the production of the New Manhattan Project such as: The University of Chicago, Cornell, Harvard, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).  Most notably, though, on his return journey Cottrell also visited Schenectady, New York; the home of W.R. Whitney’s General Electric Laboratories which was just beginning its long and storied history in the realm of industrial scientific discoveries. In fact, General Electric and Whitney would go on for many years trying unsuccessfully to sign Cottrell as an employee. As readers of this work already know, General Electric appears to be central to the production of the New Manhattan Project.  In 1906 Cottrell first successfully collected and removed unwanted airborne particles with electrical precipitation as part of an industrial process at a DuPont plant engaged in the manufacture of acids and explosives in Pinole, CA. It was not to improve the quality of the breathable air, though. For DuPont, Cottrell found a way to eliminate certain arsenic mists which were a by-product of their industrial processes that were causing production difficulties. Elimination of the arsenic mists during the production of sulphuric acid allowed the DuPont plant to produce their goods much more efficiently. It was during this time that Cottrell drew up his first two successful U.S. patents pertaining to electrical precipitation and a new industry was born.  Once Cottrell had successfully demonstrated his new and improved methods of electrical precipitation, one of Cottrell’s friends, a man by the name of Harry East Miller was sure that Cottrell ‘had something’ and promptly incorporated and became the primary funder of something called the Western Precipitation Company.  The parent corporation of the Western Precipitation Company was something called the International Precipitation Company. The International Precipitation Company held the patents while the Western Precipitation Company was the operating unit. Miller, Cottrell, E.S. Heller, a well-known San Francisco attorney, and Berkeley professor Edmund O’Neill were the original shareholders with seed money investment coming from all except Cottrell. An additional early loan was secured from the Wells Fargo Nevada National Bank.  After returning to Pinole to perfect and definitively demonstrate their improved methods, Western Precipitation’s first real job came in 1907 at the Selby Smelting and Lead Company in Selby, California. This job was all about cleaning up the ambient air.  The troubles at the Selby Smelting and Lead Company were not uncommon. Ever since the Industrial Revolution and all throughout the 19th century, much of the industrialized world (especially Europe and the industrialized centers of America) struggled with poor air quality due to the emissions coming from local factories. At Selby, the downwind residents of Solano County were reporting foul odors, reduced agricultural production, corroded metals, and other significant environmental problems due to the pollution coming from the Selby plant. It got so bad that the residents of Solano County had banded together back in 1905 to petition for an injunction against the Selby plant’s offending emissions.  When officials at the Selby plant heard about Western Precipitation’s successful demonstration of their improved methods at nearby Pinole, they immediately looked to Western Precipitation for a solution to their problems. Western Precipitation’s efforts at Selby were ultimately successful, the air quality in Solano County was restored, and the Selby Smelting and Lead Company continued operations there. It was a win win.  In the years following the successes at Pinole and Selby, Western Precipitation solved emissions problems at industrial facilities such as large copper smelters and cement factories.  In July of 1910, at the first annual meeting of the American Chemical Society in San Francisco, Cottrell held his first major public discussion of his work in the field of electrical precipitation and his speech was well received both domestically and abroad. A variety of air pollution-producing industries as well as civic organizations gave inquiries. Cottrell’s International Precipitation Company was well on its way to prosperity.  In 1911 Cottrell resigned from his position at the University of California at Berkeley and took a job as a physical chemist with the U.S. Bureau of Mines. He took the job because the then director of the Bureau, a man by the name of Joseph A. Holmes, was cultivating an expanded role for the newly created Bureau. One of Holmes’ initiatives was that of organizing efforts related to ameliorating the problem of pollution caused by the burning of coal. Holmes saw air pollution from the burning of coal as an issue for the Bureau of Mines because coal is a mined substance and the organizations burning said coal had intimate business relationships with the miners. Cottrell’s experience in electrical precipitation made him a natural fit.  It was not long after his arrival in Washington, D.C. for his job with the Bureau of Mines in June of 1911, when Cottrell started taking steps towards forming the Research Corporation, as it was originally called. With help from Holmes, the Director of the Bureau of Mines, as part of this process, Cottrell began negotiations with the Smithsonian Institution to let them take over ownership of his patents pertaining to electrical precipitation. It was suggested that the Smithsonian Institution could use funding from the royalties generated by the business development of International Precipitation Company’s patents to fund scientific efforts which had the potential to improve Americans’ daily quality of life.  You see, unlike Bill Gates, George Soros, or so many others, Cottrell was a real philanthropist. He actually wanted to use his patents to foster development of the greater good. He may have been naïve, but his intentions were good.  Cottrell soon returned to the San Francisco Bay Area where he went about organizing a Bureau of Mines office and laboratory in San Francisco. Also at this time, he and his business associates (Miller, Heller, and O’Neill), as a preliminary step to handing their patents over to the Smithsonian, signed over both the Western Precipitation Company and the International Precipitation Company (without patents) to one of Cottrell’s former pupils named Walter A. Schmidt, who became the manager of both the International Precipitation Company and the Western Precipitation Company.  By this time, there was huge interest and activity associated with the Cottrell group’s new technologies and the job offers were coming in from all over the world. With the signing over of the companies, Cottrell and his associates received only modest compensation. With the disposition of his businesses, Cottrell plunged into his work at the Bureau.  In December of 1911, the Regents of the Smithsonian decided to accept Cottrell and associates’ offer with a caveat. The Regents of the Smithsonian advised that a stock corporation be organized which was to take title of the patents. The Regents advised that the Smithsonian Institution be directly represented in this new corporation by the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution – at the time, a man by the name of Charles D. Walcott (1850-1927). From this arrangement and from the royalties generated by the International Precipitation Company patents, the Smithsonian Institution, they suggested, would stand to benefit financially. This suggested corporation would later be formed as the Research Corporation.  At the time of the Smithsonian’s decision, Cottrell happened to be back east again in Washington D.C. attending an important meeting. Being that the Smithsonian’s Executive Committee was ready to act, Cottrell extended his stay.  After attending the executive session of the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents where they announced their decision pertaining to Cottrell’s patents, Walcott (Secretary of the Smithsonian) and Cottrell adjourned to a restaurant across the street where they ran into Arthur Dehon Little (1863-1935). The presence of Arthur D. Little is important to our discussion because his eponymous corporation (a research organization, no less) was later to do lots of serious work in the vein of the New Manhattan Project. From little acorns mighty oaks grow. Little was a staunch supporter of Cottrell’s efforts to establish this new corporation – he even suggested the name Research Corporation. Little offered lots of other advice and volunteered to steer Cottrell towards the ‘right’ people. It was Little who put Cottrell in touch with T. Coleman DuPont (1863-1930) who enthusiastically took a seat on the nascent Research Corporation’s board of directors. Little took a seat on the first board as well. Du Pont stayed on the Research Corporation board of directors from 1912 to 1930 while Arthur D. Little remained as a Research Corporation board member from 1912 to 1921.  The newly christened Research Corporation needed more members of the board to oversee their important work. For upwards of two months following the Smithsonian’s decision, Cottrell and Bureau of Mines chief Holmes communicated with about one hundred men from many different vocations in order to find directors for the new Research Corporation. They eventually decided upon 14 well-known men from academia, government, and industry, including a man named Elihu Thompson (1853-1937) who was the founder of something called the Thompson-Houston Company. The Thompson-Houston Company was one of the precursors of the General Electric Company which has only the most serious implications for the New Manhattan Project. Thomson was also the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1920 to 1923. Another original board member was one Charles A. Stone (1867-1941) who was a trustee of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This is significant because the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is another organization highly implicated in the science history of the New Manhattan Project. Smithsonian Secretary Walcott took a seat on the Research Corporation board as well. By early February of 1912, the Research Corporation’s original board of directors had been chosen and its Articles of Incorporation were ready to be filed.  Although years later the Research Corporation bought back all of its stock, members of its original board initially paid for founder’s stock which filled the nascent Research Corporation’s coffers and gave the corporation its seed money needed for starting operations.  Over the years, many other luminaries of the New Manhattan Project have served on the Research Corporation’s board of directors including: Karl T. Compton (1887-1954), James R. Killian Jr. (1904-1988), Alfred Lee Loomis (1887-1975), and Vannevar Bush (1890-1974). All four of these men have strong implications for the New Manhattan Project with Loomis and Bush possessing only the strongest. Alfred Lee Loomis was a Research Corporation board member from 1930 to 1933, then again from 1948 to 1959. In 1938 the Research Corporation awarded a grant to Vannevar Bush. Vannevar Bush was a Research Corporation board member from 1939 to 1946.  On February 16 of 1912 the Research Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the state of New York, a one-room office was leased at 63 Wall St., and a manager by the name of Linn Bradley was hired. Cottrell returned to his office work for the Bureau of Mines in San Francisco. A prospectus was printed up and, in order to increase revenue, Bradley went about finding new contract opportunities.  Back in the San Francisco Bay Area once again, Cottrell applied the principals of electrical precipitation to weather modification. This is significant because, as noted earlier, the topic of our study, the New Manhattan Project is, largely and in its essence, a global weather modification project. Specifically, Cottrell experimented with the electrical dissipation of low-lying fogs. Here Cottrell was following in the footsteps of Sir Oliver Lodge (1878-1955) who had successfully performed similar experiments in London many years earlier. This type of weather modification activity, utilizing a charged wire to cause the coalescence of fog, is duly noted in the historical weather modification literature.  Cottrell and his wife moved to Washington D.C. in November of 1916, where they then lived for the next 28 years.  The International Precipitation Company and its subsidiary the Western Precipitation Company flourished under Walter Schmidt’s management. Immediately following the end of hostilities in Europe, Schmidt returned to rejuvenate International Precipitation’s business there. In the course of doing so, he joined forces with Sir Oliver Lodge’s Fume Deposit Company to form the British firm Lodge Cottrell Ltd. To this day Lodge Cottrell Ltd produces and services industrial electrostatic precipitators, mostly outside of America.  In the first two years of its existence, the Research Corporation got its revenue almost entirely from the fees associated with their engineering consultancy work pertaining to the design, installation, and maintenance of electrostatic precipitators. In the first few years of its existence, the Research Corporation mostly went about building up cash reserves.  During this time there were large precipitators being built around the country. By January 1915, about three years after its creation, the Research Corporation had $65K in cash and $100K in secured notes, subsequently, the previously issued founders’ stock was bought back in that same year.  In 1920 Cottrell briefly served as the chief of the Bureau of Mines for 8 months. Beginning in 1921 Cottrell also served as the chairman of the National Research Council’s Division of Chemistry and Chemical Technology. The National Research Council was funded by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations, among others. This put him in touch with Rockefellers and Carnegies – two family names highly correlated with the New Manhattan Project.  With the exception of an early grant to Cottrell as part of a company promotion, the Research Corporation didn’t really start giving out money for the advancement of science until 1923. In 1923 the Research Corporation made their first real grant when they paid $5K toward the atmospheric sounding rocket experiments of the American rocketry pioneer Robert H. Goddard (1882-1945). This was an investment in the atmospheric sciences as sounding rockets are used to gather atmospheric data. From the beginning, the Research Corporation was funding projects highly relevant to the New Manhattan Project. As we will soon see, many others were funded later.  At the Research Corporation, the way it worked was that Howard Poillon ran day-to-day operations while Cottrell was largely responsible for developing new inventions and ideas, accepting new patents, and the granting of funds. Cottrell’s official status was that of a paid consultant.  Another early recipient of Research Corporation money was Ernest Orlando Lawrence (1901-1958): Manhattan Project scientist and the father of the cyclotron. In 1931 the Research Corporation made the first of many grants to Ernest Lawrence for the development of his cyclotron.  In late July of 1931, after Lawrence had successfully produced a million-volt proton with an eleven inch accelerator, Fred Cottrell encouraged his friend from UC Berkeley to ask the Research Corporation for funding. Before the end of the month, Lawrence was in New York, asking the Research Corporation for $10-$15K. Cottrell came along to personally introduce Lawrence and plead his case before the board of directors. The Research Corporation was impressed with Lawrence and they decided to make a $5K grant, even though they had to go to the bank and borrow the funds because they were in the throes of the Great Depression. William Buffum of the Chemical Foundation followed up with a promise of another $2.5K.  On different occasions between 1931 and 1940, the Research Corporation gave to Lawrence’s work at the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory: $5K, $1.8K, $2K, $2K, $3K, $1K, $5K, $1.7K, $7.5K, $5K, and $50K. That’s a grand total of $84K, or, conservatively, about $1.5M in today’s dollars.  The Research Corporation, as the assignee, also applied for one of Lawrence’s patents for him. Their collaborative patent “Method and Apparatus for the Acceleration of Ions” covers methods of the cyclotronic production of radioactive substances discovered by Lawrence.  Cottrell’s biographer Cameron writes, “In the thirties, when the period of intensive study of atomic energy began, the earliest diversified support and encouragement of the development of the techniques of nuclear physics in America came from Research Corporation.” He also writes, “The Lawrence patent had, by 1949, been licensed free of royalties to twenty-eight universities and scientific institutions to build cyclotrons. More than that, it was income from the precipitation patents that helped in several instances to build or operate these cyclotrons which the corporation licensed.”  Along with funding Lawrence, the Research Corporation funded other early cyclotron work at: Columbia University, the University of Rochester, the University of Chicago, and Cornell University.  The Research Corporation also funded Robert Van de Graaff’s (1901-1967) electrostatic generator, also known as a Van de Graaff-Trump accelerator after the Donald’s uncle, John G. Trump (1907-1985). Van de Graaff’s work was conducted at MIT. Cameron writes, “[The Van de Graaff group of patents on the electrostatic generator] were assigned to Research Corporation under a general agreement with Massachusetts Institute of Technology and in turn were ultimately licensed back to the High Voltage Engineering Corporation formed by Van de Graaff and his associates.” Van de Graaff’s associates included John Trump. As readers of this work already know, John Trump was the MIT professor who looked over Nikola Tesla’s posthumously confiscated documents.  In 1938 it was reported that the Research Corporation had donated funds to Columbia University in order to support their program of supplying, “artificial radioactive materials for use as tracers in biochemical processes.” Today the New Manhattan Project uses atmospheric radioactive tracers along with satellites to actively map atmospheric activity.  At some point during this time, the Research Corporation moved out of its original offices on Wall St. and moved into offices in the steeple of the Chrysler Building in Manhattan.  In the early thirties, the Smithsonian had established a laboratory for Cottrell’s use. In this laboratory Cottrell installed a man by the name of Chester Gilbert who was formerly the president of the American Coal Corporation. At the Smithsonian laboratory, after receiving an anonymous donation of $6K, Gilbert initially investigated the production of lime-gypsum plaster based on some Research Corporation patents. Gilbert’s lime-gypsum work led him to work pertaining to the use of coal fly ash. This work put Gilbert and Cottrell among the pioneers in the field of coal fly ash utilization, a field that continues to this day. Gilbert and Cottrell figured that coal fly ash could be processed and then used as a filler in cements and plasters. They also went about processing coal fly ash for use as a household cleaning powder.  The author of Cottrell’s biography, Frank Cameron describes the Research Corporation’s Smithsonian laboratory in a very interesting way. Cameron describes the Smithsonian laboratory as analogous to a phenomenon germane to weather modification and the atmospheric sciences: nucleation. Curiously, when referring to the laboratory where Gilbert and Cottrell performed pioneering work in the field of coal fly ash utilization, Cameron writes, “They [Gilbert and Cottrell] did not foresee it as the mote, the speck of dust around which Cottrell’s ideas and those of his protégés, like so many particles of moisture, would begin to coalesce to form the drop of rain.”  It may have been during this time that Gilbert, Cottrell, or other pioneers in the field of coal fly ash utilization noticed or figured that the smoke from coal-fired, electrical power plants causes precipitation. It had been noted for many years previously that explosions and smoke from burning fires cause precipitation. Maybe the Research Corporation and their Smithsonian laboratory attempted to determine the validity of these claims by doing a study about whether or not, under the appropriate atmospheric conditions, the smoke from coal-fired electrical power plants can be scientifically proven to cause precipitation. It is known today that if coal is finely pulverized before combustion, then many of the resultant fly ash particles will be the optimum size for atmospheric nucleation (.1 micron). Maybe they even collected some of this coal fly ash from one of their electrostatic precipitators and dumped it out of an airplane to see if it caused atmospheric precipitation. Just sayin’. And if the reader is aware of just how many of the author’s speculations have turned out to be directly over the target, then the reader should be just listenin’.  As the years went on, the Research Corporation’s electrostatic precipitator business grew and grew. In 1928 Research Corporation had 43 contracts in hand to build and install electrostatic precipitators. In 1941 Research Corporation had 95 contracts to build and install electrostatic precipitators. In 1942 Research Corporation had 130 contracts.  During WWII something called the Research Construction Company, which was formed by the Research Corporation, served as a ‘model shop’ for MIT’s Radiation Laboratory. Under contract to MIT, the Research Construction Company produced over $12M worth of radar apparatus. In their book commemorating their centennial anniversary, the Research Corporation for Science Advancement tells us, “Research Construction Company made small production runs for immediate military needs. Successful prototypes were turned over to government contractors for mass production.” This is significant because the wartime MIT Radiation Laboratory has serious implications for the New Manhattan Project. For more information about the MIT Rad Lab, please refer to the author’s 2017 article “Chemtrails Exposed: Truly a New Manhattan Project.”  Cottrell eventually returned to Berkeley and died in his chair during a morning meeting of the National Academy of Sciences on the campus of UC Berkeley in November of 1948. Cameron writes, “About nine-thirty he slumped in his chair, his head back, an audible rattle in his throat.  “He died among friends. Hildebrand, of the university’s chemistry department, helped Farrington Daniels lay him on the floor, and it was thought that death had come instantly. A doctor arrived and after the body had been removed it was the sentiment of those attending that Cottrell would have wished the meeting to go on.  The Research Corporation for Science Advancement writes of significant developments in the post-war era, “In 1954, as a result of [a] change in the tax law, Research Corporation reorganized its precipitator business as Research-Cottrell, a wholly-owned but taxable subsidiary.” The authors continue, “From 1957 to 1967 Research Corporation was supported mainly by the earnings of its commercial precipitation subsidiary, Research-Cottrell, and royalties from inventions in its patent portfolios.” “By the mid-1960s, further federal efforts to limit nonprofit control over commercial activities prompted Research Corporation to lower the percentage of its ownership in the precipitator business, and Research-Cottrell became a publicly held company in 1967.  “The [Research Corporation] Foundation’s endowment was established during the second half of the twentieth century, coming primarily from the Research-Cottrell stock offering. Research Corporation finally divested itself of all of the precipitator firm’s stock in the 1980s.” “The Foundation’s precipitator business, Research-Cottrell, survives as Hamon-Research Cottrell, a public corporation headquartered in New Jersey that is a major provider of air-pollution control technology.”  The Research Corporation has historically given many grants to scientific studies conducted in areas relevant to the New Manhattan Project. The Research Corporation has consistently funded work in the areas of: plasma physics, astrophysics, microwave spectroscopy, radioactive tracers, atmospheric physics, electromagnetic fields, particle physics, meteorology, ionospheric research, nucleation, biology, and more.  Famous scientists implicated in the New Manhattan Project such as Merle Tuve (1901-1982), Isidor Rabi (1898-1988), and CalTech’s Lee DuBridge (1901-1994) have all been Research Corporation grantees.  In 1965 Alfred Y.F. Wong of the University of California at Los Angeles’ Plasma Physics Lab received $6K for work in, “Experimental studies of fundamental plasma physics.” Again in 1972 Wong received $10K from the Research Corporation. The following year Barrett H. Ripin, Reiner L. Stenzel, and the aforementioned Alfred Wong of UCLA got $10,200 to study ion beam-plasma wave interactions.  This is the same Alfred Y.F. Wong who went on, in the 1980s, to found and direct the High Power Auroral Stimulation (HIPAS) ionospheric heater in Alaska. The HIPAS ionospheric heater was a precursor to the infamous High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) antenna. Further, my science advisor tells me that weather modification work prominently mentioned by Vice Admiral William F. Raborn, Jr. was conducted at the HIPAS facility.  This is the same Alfred Y.F. Wong that got busted for fraudulently producing phony invoices pertaining to U.S. government contract work. He pled guilty, was sentenced to 5 days behind bars, as well as six months home detention, and was ordered to pay nearly $1.7M in restitution.  Wong is currently listed on UCLA’s website as a Professor Emeritus of ‘Exp. Plasma & Environmental Physics.’  For more about Vice Admiral Raborn and his implications for the New Manhattan Project, please see the author’s previous article “William Raborn and the New Manhattan Chemtrail Project.”  Oddly enough, the cover of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement’s 2008 annual report features a question mark made of clouds high above the Earth, appearing as though it has been written in the sky by aircraft. In this same report they reveal that the so-called Scialog program, which they originally disclosed in the previous year’s annual report, is all about tackling ‘global climate change.’ Oddly enough as well, so is the New Manhattan Project.  In their 2009 report they refer to global climate change as a ‘looming challenge.’  In their 2010, 2011, and 2012 reports, they note that Cherry A. Murray served on their Presidential Advisory Committee. For the fact that Cherry A. Murray is the former Director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, the author has identified her as a person of interest in the New Manhattan Project. You know that the original Manhattan Project became the Atomic Energy Commission, which, in turn, became the Department of Energy, right? Murray also was the principal associate director for science and technology at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) from 2004-2009. LLNL is the author’s number one choice for a New Manhattan Project command center location. Murray got her B.S. and Ph.D. in physics from MIT.  In their 2010 and 2011 reports, their then president and CEO James M. Gentile identified himself as a climate zealot as he characterized climate change as a daunting challenge to be overcome.  A managing director of Brown Brothers Harriman, G. Scott Clemons sits on the Research Corporation for Science Advancement’s board of directors. This is significant because of Brown Brothers Harriman’s affiliation with the Bush family as well as the fact that Brown Brothers Harriman acquired another producer of electrostatic precipitators known as Dresser Industries in 1928. For more about Brown Brothers Harriman, the Bush family, and Dresser Industries, please refer to the author’s 2018 article “Chemtrails Exposed: Dresser Industries and the New Manhattan Project.”  Other interesting individuals from organizations such as: The Chase Manhattan Bank, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., the Aeronautic Division of the Ford Motor Company, the Carnegie institute of Technology, MIT’s Radiation Laboratory, CalTech, and something called Energy Global all have sat or currently sit on the Research Corporation’s board of directors.  The Research Corporation has always funded what we call ‘basic science.’ These are the small, highly specific studies that produce results which are often in turn used as the building blocks of much larger scientific efforts. Over the years, the Research Corporation has funded thousands of basic science studies.  Furthermore, we know that one of the 3 ways that the Research Corporation has funded itself over the years is from corporate stock dividends – the other two being patent royalties and electrostatic precipitator engineering services fees. For many decades now, the Research Corporation has maintained an investment portfolio consisting mostly of the dividend-paying stocks of large, American companies.  Doesn’t it make sense, then that the Research Corporation would fund basic science studies which might produce new discoveries helpful to the corporations that fund the Research Corporation? This is probably what has been taking place.  Given this, doesn’t it also make sense, then that, over the years, the Research Corporation may have funded basic science studies which produced new discoveries which were then used as building blocks of the New Manhattan Project? The Research Corporation has owned the dividend-paying stocks of companies like General Electric, Boeing, and Standard Oil which all have strong implications for the NMP. As noted earlier, one of the Research Corporation’s founding members, Elihu Thomson was also a founding member of General Electric and General Electric appears to be the most instrumental corporation in the NMP’s history. Furthermore, we have seen many people strongly connected to the NMP also working for the Research Corporation such as Alfred Lee Loomis, Vannevar Bush, and Arthur D. Little.  For the production of the New Manhattan Project, use of an operation like the Research Corporation would be very advantageous. The New Manhattan Project, being that it is the biggest scientific project in history, has necessarily required gargantuan boatloads of basic scientific studies. And here is a self-sustaining organization that, for over 100 years and to this day, due to the efforts of Frederick Cottrell, produces an endless amount of this stuff. It’s even better than making the taxpayer pay for it!  It is hoped that this article provides more clarity about the biggest scientific effort in Human history and that our continuing investigations of coal fly ash air pollution will illuminate us and contribute to relieving us of our burdens. As these investigations have repeatedly found, when one investigates coal fly ash air pollution, one finds the New Manhattan Project. It’s funny how that works, isn’t it? Let’s keep moving in this direction. Thank you, Dr. Herndon.  The greatly revised and expanded second edition of my book “Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project” is coming! It’s looking like spring 2020. There’s just so much here! For one, the new Chemtrail Fleet chapter is going to be a real BARN BURNER. Have I ever disappointed you? Stay tuned. To be among the first to be notified of the second edition’s publication, please join my email list at my website peterakirby.com  Bibliography (in order of first appearance)  “Chemtrails Exposed: Coal Fly Ash and the New Manhattan Project” an article by Peter A. Kirby, published by Activist Post, July 24, 2017  Cottrell: Samaritan of Science a book by Frank Cameron, published by Doubleday, 1952  “Frederick Gardner Cottrell 1877-1948” a National Academy of Sciences Biographical Memoir by Vannevar Bush, published by the National Academy of Sciences, 1952  100 Years of Supporting Science Innovation: Research Corporation for Science Advancement: 1912-2012 a book by the Research Corporation for Science Advancement, published by the Research Corporation for Science Advancement, 2012  US patent #1,948,384 “Method and Apparatus for the Acceleration of Ions” by Ernest O. Lawrence  An American Genius: The Life of Ernest Orlando Lawrence, Father of the Cyclotron a book by Herbert Childs, published by E.P. Dutton & Co., 1968  “Chemtrails Exposed: Truly a New Manhattan Project” an article by Peter A. Kirby, published by Activist Post, March 13, 2017  “Former UCLA Physics Professor Agrees To Plead Guilty In Federal Contract Fraud Case And Pay Nearly $1.7 Million In Damages” a press release by the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Central District of California, published by the United States Department of Justice, May 9, 2013  “William Raborn and the New Manhattan Chemtrail Project” an article by Peter A. Kirby, published by Activist Post, May 24, 2017  The Research Corporation (1912-1952): Dedicated to Progress in Education and Science a booklet containing a transcript of a speech by Dr. Joseph Warren Barker, published by the Newcomen Society, 1952  PeterAKirby.com   My Minds page   My Steemit page   My GoodReads page   My YouTube channel  Peter A. Kirby is a San Rafael, CA researcher, author, and activist. Buy his book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project available now exclusively at Amazon.  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


buzzfeed--2019-06-06--The Trump Administration Announced New Restrictions On Fetal Tissue Research

Anti-abortion marchers rally at the Supreme Court during the March for Life rally in January.  WASHINGTON — Government scientists must stop research that uses human fetal tissue, the Department of Health and Human Services announced Wednesday in a series of new restrictions.  The changes follow a monthslong agency review of medical research that involved fetal tissue that HHS announced in September.  The administration cast the restrictions as part of President Donald Trump’s agenda to restrict abortion rights and remove protections for reproductive rights. In recent months, Trump has pushed to end health care nondiscrimination protections for those who have had abortions, moved to allow health care workers with a moral objection to abortion to refuse to perform the procedure, and pulled US funding from international aid groups that promote or perform abortions.  “Promoting the dignity of human life from conception to natural death is one of the very top priorities of President Trump’s administration,” HHS said in a release Wednesday on the new fetal tissue restrictions.  Research projects using fetal tissue that are funded by the National Institutes of Health, but conducted outside the federal government, will continue to the end of their grant terms, according to HHS. As part of the changes, new funding for projects that use fetal tissue will require additional approval from an ethics review board. The agency also announced the end of a contract at the University of California, San Francisco, related to fetal tissue research.  Three active projects at the NIH, which funds $39 billion in biomedical research annually, will be affected by the new rules, an HHS spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. The spokesperson did not identify the research projects or indicate how much grant money was affected. The NIH referred questions to HHS.  This announcement ended “a 30-year partnership with the NIH,” UC San Francisco chancellor Sam Hawgood said in a statement to BuzzFeed News. “UCSF exercised appropriate oversight and complied with all state and federal laws. We believe this decision to be politically motivated, shortsighted and not based on sound science.”  Scientific and medical groups have warned that cutting access to fetal tissue could obstruct progress toward lifesaving medical advances.  A raft of public and private universities and professional medical groups sent a letter to Congress last year, arguing that fetal tissue research was necessary for the development of vaccines and the formulation of treatments for diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, cystic fibrosis, and hemophilia.  “It is a clear indication that this administration values symbolic statements over research aimed at saving lives,” Alta Charo, a bioethics professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School, wrote to BuzzFeed News in an email Wednesday. “Indeed, in one of the greatest ironies, this tissue might be used for research on the Zika virus that can cause devastating birth defects, so a policy aimed at symbolically valuing fetal life may end up devaluing the lives of actual children.”    Doug Melton, president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, said in a statement Wednesday that HHS's restrictions "have no scientific or ethical basis and will roll back decades of consensus in the US, delaying the development of new medical treatments.” The new rules would result in the US "ceding its role as the global leader in the development of cellular therapies and regenerative medicine.”  Anti-abortion advocates welcomed the news Wednesday, including the Susan B. Anthony List, which called the move a “major victory” and thanked President Donald Trump for his “decisive action.” March for Life also said in a statement that it “applauds the Administration for halting funding for research that requires aborted fetal organs and tissue.”  In the wake of the HHS audit last year, NIH labs stopped acquiring new fetal tissue. Science magazine reported in December that labs at the National Eye Institute (NEI) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and at the National Cancer Institute, were affected by that suspension.  The political fight over fetal tissue research has reignited under the Trump administration. Congress last held major hearings on the issue in 2016, after an anti-abortion activist covertly taped Planned Parenthood doctors and employees of a cell tissue firm, and released heavily edited and misleading videos.    Charo said that the government required a similar ethics review decades ago for research involving human embryos: “The [ethics advisory board] review was required but no one was appointed to the Board.”


cnbc--2019-08-24--Trumps tariffs on monkeys could severely damage US medical research and send labs to China

Trump's tariffs on monkeys could 'severely damage' US medical research and send labs to China

A rhesus monkey on a calorie-restricted diet (left) and a control group monkey (right) who were subjects in a pioneering long-term study of the links between caloric restriction and aging at the University of Wisconsin's Wisconsin National Primate Research Center.  Researchers who use laboratory monkeys to study human diseases are worried that President Donald Trump's new tariffs on China will damage U.S. biomedical research and send animal testing labs to China.  The Trump administration is set to impose a 15% levy on $300 billion worth of Chinese imports as part of the escalating U.S.-China trade war. The first of those tariffs will go into effect Sept. 1 with the remainder imposed Dec. 15.  The new tariffs are a concern for U.S. researchers who are struggling to acquire live animals in the midst of intense scrutiny from animal rights groups and continued bans by airlines on transporting them. Animal rights activists, in contrast, view the tariffs as a temporary victory that could slow down the imports of monkeys.  "Subjecting nonhuman primates to increased tariffs would severely damage vital primate research in the United States, [and] create a strong incentive for U.S.-based research and development to migrate to China," said Matthew R. Bailey, executive director of the National Association for Biomedical Research.  Roughly 80% of all imported nonhuman primates used in scientific research in the U.S. come from China, according to the NABR. Monkeys are used to develop treatments for illnesses like AIDS, Ebola and Parkinson's.  As demand for lab monkeys continues to rise, U.S. scientists are reporting delays in research projects because they can't obtain enough animals, according to the National Institutes of Health.  Since most U.S. research projects are constrained by grant-dependent budgets, they would be unable to absorb a 5% to 25% cost spike for monkeys, according to the NABR. While some researchers will be forced to scale back projects due to the tariffs, others might cease U.S. operations and move research to China.  "The proposed tariff would hand China an even greater cost advantage, which will incentivize many researchers to conduct studies in China instead of the United States," Bailey wrote in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer.  For instance, when the U.S. restricted research on chimpanzees in 2015, research moved to China, where scientists obtained the primates for substantially less money — $1,500 in China compared with $6,000 in the United States, according to the NABR.


cnn--2019-05-31--USDA moving ahead with reorganization plan opponents argue would eviscerate research units

USDA moving ahead with reorganization plan opponents argue would 'eviscerate' research units

(CNN) Hundreds of professional researchers at the US Department of Agriculture are waiting to hear where outside the Washington area their jobs will be relocated -- part of a drive by Secretary Sonny Perdue to cut costs in the federal bureaucracy that many workers also see as a way to disrupt climate research and other work their bosses disagree with.  The looming changes have triggered unionization drives, with workers in charge of research grants set to vote June 11 on joining the American Federation of Government Employees, one of the major federal workers' unions, after USDA economists voted to join earlier this month.  One watchdog group opposed to the relocation says the relocation is a "back-door" way to cut staff at the Economic Research Service (ERS), which provides research and statistical analysis for lawmakers, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), which oversees the allocation of federal funding for primarily academic research across the country.  "If Secretary Perdue wishes to eviscerate ERS and NIFA research that is opposed by the White House, let him make that case to Congress, rather than hide behind an unjustified, criticized plan to force world class researchers to make the decision to uproot their families or leave their careers," Institute for Agriculture and Trade senior policy analyst Steve Suppan said in a statement  The Trump administration has been focused on remaking the federal bureaucracy , triggering a steady outflow of career civil servants. The Environmental Protection Agency's workforce, for example, has decreased by nearly 1,200 employees in the last two years, according to federal data -- many of whom were scientists, according to records obtained by the Washington Post  The ERS and NIFA units have produced research with conclusions that contradict the Administration's talking points, especially on topics like the impacts of climate change on crop or livestock production, or how changes in trade or tax policy, like tariffs or Trump's tax plan, can affect US agriculture. For example, two ERS researchers presented a paper last year that suggested Trump's 2017 tax reform would benefit the wealthiest farmers at the expense of lower-earning farm households , according to the New York Times.  "These are knowledge-based organizations," said Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, which tracks the federal bureaucracy. "Employee engagement is directly correlated to performance."  The USDA says workers will be able to remain in their jobs, but for most, that will mean moving from Washington, DC, to a new location.  Three location finalists -- Indiana, Kansas City or North Carolina's Research Triangle -- were announced earlier this month by Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue. In addition to the relocation, Perdue plans to move both the ERS and NIFA under the Office of the Chief Economist, a political branch of the department.  The USDA said the only goal is efficiency.  "It's been our goal to make USDA the most effective, efficient and customer-focused department in the entire federal government. In our administration, we have looked critically at the way we do business, with the ultimate goal of ensuring the best service possible for our customers, and for the taxpayers of the United States," Perdue said in a statement to CNN. "In some cases, this has meant realigning some of our offices and functions, or even relocating them, in order to make more logical sense or provide more streamlined and efficient services. None of this reflects on the jobs being done by our ERS or NIFA employees."  But three longtime agency employees, one from ERS and two from NIFA, told CNN that researchers and economists view the move as an intentional decision to undercut their work. All three employees requested anonymity out of fear of retaliation.  These workers described a steady flow of coworkers leaving since Perdue's initial announcement about the relocation plans last year, with one saying they are receiving goodbye emails from colleagues at a rate of roughly two per week.  "People who have families are hanging in limbo," one of the NIFA employees said. "Many of the decisions they have to make are based on the school year and they simply can't make those decisions without any certainty."  The ERS employee said that ERS employees have been told that there will be a limited number of buy-outs and that they will be offered on a first come, first served basis. The rest will have to choose whether to move or quit. They've been told they will receive some kind of assistance with a move, but those details aren't clear.  A USDA spokesperson told CNN that USDA has not yet determined how many people will be offered separation or retirement packages.  "We continue to openly and transparently share information with our employees, stakeholders and Congress," the spokesperson added.  Peter Winch, an American Federation of Government Employees representative who helped organize the ERS union, said that the union will try to stop the move and, failing that, will bargain to help make the transition as "soft as possible."  Winch said that there are about 225 NIFA staff eligible to participate in the June 11 unionization vote, which covers all professional and non-professional employees. There were 204 ERS staffers eligible to vote earlier this month, Winch said.  Former USDA officials and scientific and agricultural associations have also come out against the plan, arguing that it may push trained staff out the door and pose a risk to the agency's independent and objective analysis.  Other agencies within the USDA are also experiencing tumult.  The ERS employee said that even if the move never happens, damage may already have been done.  "My fear is that the quagmire will continue to bleed us," the ERS employee said. "That's what is so nefarious about all this, just how strategic this feels."


cnsnews--2019-10-15--Grounded Test Animals Leaves Medical Research Up in the Air

It’s not a strain of the H1N1 disease or an E. coli epidemic, but it could be even more dangerous to the health of unsuspecting Americans if research animals are unable to be transported on airlines.  Despite dubious claims from fear-mongering advocates of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), scientific animal research testing is a necessity for the health and safety of Americans across the nation.  This fall, the U.S. Department of Transportation is considering a regulation that would require commercial airlines to not discriminate in the transportation of animals simply on the grounds that they are going to be used as models in biomedical research. Despite the general public and the scientific community's continued support of the need for animal testing, animal protection organizations have maintained that commercial airlines should not, under any circumstances, transport research animals.  Bizarrely, animals intended for research, such as mice and guinea pigs, have created more of a hullabaloo with the DOT than the transportation of service animals like miniature horses, which were recently granted clearance to fly on commercial airlines. The old saying “when pigs fly” seems to be coming true, but why prohibit other, much smaller animals from flying, when their service is tantamount? Why help one individual but not help thousands, maybe millions?  The recent change in American culture—mainly the idolization and pampering of family pets—can be seen at every corner, whether it’s designer dog grooming boutiques, pet-friendly gourmet treats, or even upscale pet hotels. Airlines have no issue with in flight or steerage transport of these doted on dogs and cats, but they change their tune when research animals are called into question. It seems that the health of the nation has taken a back seat in favor of frivolous spending on pets.  Well-respected and renowned organizations within the scientific community have vocalized their support of transporting research animals, such as the Association of American Universities, Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges, Society for Neuroscience, Society of Toxicology, American Physiological Society, The Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, along with 150 other accredited universities and scientific organizations. They recognize the impending negative impact on the advancement of healthcare and the hindering of the development of a plethora of medications if the regulation is not put in place.  Distinct universities with internationally ranked scientific research programs such as Harvard and Johns Hopkins have written formal letters to the DOT imploring those officials to recognize the necessity for research animal transportation.  Denis Wirtz, Ph.D., Professor and Vice Provost for Research at Johns Hopkins University, wrote the following to the DOT, “Researchers must rely on live-animal research to safely develop treatments for both people and animals alike. Access to live-animal subjects is required in order to conduct this revelatory work. At the same time, current laws and regulations mandate this kind of research before life-saving medicines and treatments may be approved for use in humans.”  And Steven Niemi, DVM, Director of the Office of Animal Resources at Harvard University asserted the following, “Today Harvard scientists investigate life-threatening conditions such as ALS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, and spinal cord trauma by relying, in part, on laboratory animals so that better treatments may emerge. Access to laboratory animals is necessary to conduct this research. Otherwise, the unavailability of possibly unique animal models to share amongst scientists here and elsewhere threatens the nation's entire life sciences enterprise.”  The true disservice here stands to impact those across the country who rely on lifesaving medical treatments--treatments that would not be developed without crucial animal research. Families across America today are intact because their loved ones were able to receive medications—is this something we can afford to overlook?  Martha Boneta is a farmer and executive vice president of Vote America First.


collectiveevolution--2019-01-04--Los Alamos Research Explains How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA

The first eight months of WWII with no fighting was called The Phoney War. Using millimetre waves as a fifth-generation or 5G wireless communications technology is a phoney war of another kind.  This phoney war is also silent, but this time shots are being fired – in the form of laser-like beams of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from banks of thousands of tiny antennas[1] – and almost no one in the firing line knows that they are being silently, seriously and irreparably injured.  In the first instance, 5G is likely to make people electro-hypersensitive (EHS).[2] Perhaps it was sitting in front of two big computer screens for many of the 18 years I worked at the UN that made me EHS. When the UN Office at Vienna installed powerful WiFi and cellphone access points – designed to serve large, public areas – in narrow, metal-walled corridors throughout the Vienna International Centre in December 2015, I was ill continuously for seven months.  I did my best for two and a half years to alert the UN staff union, administration and medical service to the danger to the health of UN staff of EMR from these access points, but was ignored. That’s why, in May 2018, I took the issue to the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres[transcript]. He is a physicist and electrical engineer and lectured on telecommunications signals early in his career, yet asserted that he knew nothing about this. He undertook to ask the World Health Organization to look into it, but seven months later those public access points remain in place. I received no replies to my many follow-up emails.  As a result, I welcomed the opportunity to join the effort to publish an International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space because it was clear to me that, despite there having been 43 earlier scientific appeals, very few people understood the dangers of EMR. My experience as an editor could help ensure that a new 5G appeal, including the issue of beaming 5G from space, was clear, comprehensive, explanatory, and accessible to the non-scientist. The International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space is fully referenced, citing over a hundred scientific papers among the tens of thousands on the biological effects of EMR published over the last 80 years.[3]  Having spent years editing UN documents dealing with space, I know that outer space is hotly contested geopolitically and any untoward event involving a military satellite risks triggering a catastrophic response.[4] Space law is so inadequate – just one example is the complexity of space liability law[5],[6] – that we could really call the Earth orbits a new Wild West. China caused international consternation in 2007 when it demonstrated an anti-satellite weapon by destroying its own satellite. Space debris is the main concern among space-faring nations, with a so-called Kessler syndrome positing a cascade of space debris that could make the Earth orbits unusable for a thousand years.[7] Does launching 20,000+ commercial 5G satellites in such circumstances sound rational to you?  I live in Vienna, Austria, where the 5G rollout is suddenly upon us. Within the last five weeks, pre-5G has been officially announced at Vienna airport and 5G at the Rathausplatz, the main square in Vienna, which attracts tens of thousands of visitors to its Christmas market each December and skating rink each January, which are special treats for children. Along with birds and insects, children are the most vulnerable to 5G depredation because of their little bodies.[8]  Friends and acquaintances and their children in Vienna are already reporting the classic symptoms of EMR poisoning:[9] nosebleeds, headaches, eye pains, chest pains, nausea, fatigue, vomiting, tinnitus, dizziness, flu-like symptoms, and cardiac pain. They also report a tight band around the head; pressure on the top of the head; short, stabbing pains around the body; and buzzing internal organs. Other biological effects such as tumours and dementia usually take longer to manifest, but in the case of 5G, which has never been tested for health or safety, who knows?[10]  Seemingly overnight a forest of 5G infrastructure has sprouted in Austria. In the space of three weeks one friend has gone from robust health to fleeing this country, where she has lived for 30 years. Each person experiences EMR differently. For her, it was extreme torture so she and I spent her last two nights in Austria sleeping in the woods. Interestingly, as she drove across southern Germany, she suffered torture even worse than in Austria, while in northern Germany she had no symptoms at all and felt completely normal, which suggests that there has been as yet no 5G rollout there.  There are no legal limits on exposure to EMR. Conveniently for the telecommunications industry, there are only non-legally enforceable guidelines such as those produced by the grandly named International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, which turns out to be like the Wizard of Oz, just a tiny little NGO in Germany that appoints its own members, none of whom is a medical doctor or environmental expert.[11]  Like the Wizard of Oz, ICNIRP seems to have magical powers. Its prestidigitation makes non-thermal (non-heating) effects of EMR exposure disappear into thin air, for taking into account the tens of thousands of research studies demonstrating the biological effects of EMR would invalidate its so-called safety guidelines.[12] It has bewitched the International Telecommunication Union, part of the UN family, into recognizing these guidelines.[13] And one little email sent to ICNIRP in October 2018 to submit Professor Martin Pall’s comments on ICNIRP’s new draft guidelines conjured up an immediate explosion of interest in the sender’s online presence – which had hitherto attracted none – from companies and individuals worldwide, one country’s immigration authorities, the office of the Austrian Chancellor (head of government), a firm of lawyers in Vienna and even Interpol![14],[15]  I hope that people read and share our Stop 5G Space Appeal to wake up themselves and others quickly and use it to take action themselves to stop 5G. Even eight short months of this 5G Phoney War could spell catastrophe for all life on Earth. Elon Musk is set to launch the first 4,425 5G satellites in June 2019 and “blanket” the Earth with 5G, in breach of countless international treaties. This could initiate the last great extinction, courtesy of the multi-trillion-US-dollar 5G, the biggest biological experiment and most heinous manifestation of hubris and greed in human history.10  People’s first reaction to the idea that 5G may be an existential threat to all life on Earth is usually disbelief and/or cognitive dissonance. Once they examine the facts, however, their second reaction is often terror. We need to transcend this in order to see 5G as an opportunity to empower ourselves, take responsibility and take action. We may have already lost 80 per cent of our insects to EMR in the last 20 years.[16] Our trees risk being cut down by the millions in order to ensure continuous 5G signalling for self-driving cars, buses and trains.[17] Are we going to stand by and see ourselves and our children irradiated, our food systems decimated, our natural surroundings destroyed?  Our newspapers are now casually popularizing the meme that human extinction would be a good thing,[18],[19] but when the question becomes not rhetorical but real, when it’s your life, your child, your community, your environment that is under immediate threat, can you really subscribe to such a suggestion? If you don’t, please sign the Stop 5G Appeal and get active in contacting everyone you can think of who has the power to stop 5G, especially Elon Musk[20] and the CEOs of all the other companies planning to launch 5G satellites, starting in just 20 weeks from now. Life on Earth needs your help now.  The transcript of my exchange with the UN Secretary-General of 14 May 2018 follows.  UN staff have repeatedly been told that they are the most important resource of this Organization.  Since December 2015, the staff here at the Vienna International Centre have been exposed to off-the-scale electromagnetic radiation from WiFi and mobile phone boosters installed on very low ceilings throughout the buildings. Current public exposure levels are at least one quintillion times (that’s 18 zeros) above natural background radiation according to Professor Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.  The highly dangerous biological effects of EMFs have been documented by thousands of studies since 1932 indicating that we may be facing a global health catastrophe orders of magnitude worse than those caused by tobacco and asbestos.  Mr. Secretary-General, on the basis of the Precautionary Principle, I urge you to have these EMF-emitting devices removed immediately and to call a halt to any rollout of 5G at UN duty stations, because it is designed to deliver concentrated and focused electromagnetic radiation in excess of 100 times current levels in the same way as do directed energy weapons.  In line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, to “Protect, Respect and Remedy”, 5G technologies MUST be subjected to an independent health and safety assessment before they are launched anywhere in the world.  There is currently an international appeal (https://www.emfscientist.org/index. php/emf-scientist-appeal) signed by 237 EMF scientists from 41 nations urging the UN and particularly the WHO to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development.  Mr. Secretary-General, we have a unique opportunity here at the UN Office at Vienna. Since our medical records are digitized, you have the possibility of releasing data on a closed population exposed to off-the-scale levels of electromagnetic radiation to establish if there have already been abnormal health consequences for the UN staff here in the last 28 months.  I urge you to do so and stop any 5G rollout in these buildings immediately.  UN Secretary-General: Sorry, because you are talking to someone who is a little bit ignorant on these things. You’re talking about the WiFi systems?  Staff member: On the ceilings of these buildings, WiFi boosters and cell phone boosters were installed without consultation, without information to staff in December 2015. Now, if you understand electromagnetic radiation, the signal is – if you cannot get a signal from your mobile phone, the signal goes to maximum strength and that then bounces off metal walls affecting the body multiple times at maximum exposure levels. So the situation here is extremely dangerous. I have heard anecdotally of many people who have had health problems. I don’t know if they are related but the Precautionary Principle would dictate that we use our medical records to look into this and that we remove these dangerous devices immediately. Thank you.  UN Secretary-General: Well, I’m worried because I put those devices in my house. [Laughter & applause]  UN Secretary-General: This I will have to – I confess my ignorance on this but I’m going to raise this with WHO [World Health Organization] – which I think is the organization that might be able to deal with it properly for them to put someone – their staff or organizations to work on that because I must confess I was not aware of that danger – [humorously] to the extent that I put those things in the rooms of my house – in the ceiling.  Staff member: I would suggest that everybody start looking into this issue and particularly into 5G, which 237 scientists from 41 countries consider a threat that is far worse than the tobacco and asbestos threats of the past.  UN Secretary-General: Well, maybe I have learned something completely new. I hope it will be very useful to me but I confess it is the first time I hear about it.  The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the authors of the Stop 5G Appeal.  Donations are urgently needed to publicize the Stop 5G Space Appeal further and educate people throughout the world about the threat from 5G, especially from 5G satellites, set to begin operation as of June 2019 and blanket the Earth with 5G, from which there would be no escape for any living organism anywhere on the planet (www.5gspaceappeal.org/donate/).  Claire Edwards can be contacted at stop5gappeal@protonmail.com.   Arthur Firstenberg can be contacted at spaceappeal@fastmail.fm or www.5gspaceappeal.org/contact/.  [1] Delos, Peter. “The Way to a New Phased Array Radar Architecture.” TechTime: Electronics & Technology News. January 15, 2018. Accessed January 1, 2019. https://techtime.news/2018/01/ 15/analog-devices-phased-array-radar/. “Although there is a lot of discussion of massive MIMO and automotive radar, it should not be forgotten that most of the recent radar development and beamforming R&D has been in the defense industry, and it is now being adapted for commercial applications. While phased array and beamforming moved from R&D efforts to reality in the 2000s, a new wave of defense focused arrays are now expected, enabled by industrial technology offering solutions that were previously cost prohibitive.”  [2] “Electrosensitive Testimonials.” We Are The Evidence. 2018. Accessed January 1, 2019. http://wearetheevidence.org/adults-who-developed-electro-sensitivity/. “WATE intends to expose the suppressed epidemic of sickness, suffering and human rights crisis created by wireless technology radiation; elevate the voice of those injured; defend and secure their rights and compel society and governments to take corrective actions and inform the public of the harm.”  [3] Glaser, Lt. Z. “Cumulated Index to the Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (‘effects’) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-frequency Radiation: Report, Supplements (no. 1-9).” BEMS Newsletter B-1 through B-464 (1984). Accessed January 1, 2019. http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Zory-Glasers-index.pdf. Lt. Zorach Glaser, PhD, catalogued 5,083 studies, books and conference reports for the US Navy through 1981.  “However, as more countries integrate space into their national military capabilities and rely on space-based information for national security, there is an increased chance that any interference (either actual or perceived) with satellites could spark or escalate tensions and conflict in space or on Earth. This is made all the more difficult by the challenge of determining the exact cause of a satellite malfunction: whether it was due to a space weather event, impact by space debris, unintentional interference, or deliberate act of aggression.”  [5] “Space Law: Liability for Space Debris.” Panish, Shea & Boyle LLP. 2018. Accessed January 1, 2019. https://www.aviationdisasterlaw.com/liability-for-space-debris/. “Filing a lawsuit against SpaceX for space debris is a little different than one against the commercial industry or state-sponsored launch. Since SpaceX is a private company, injured parties can file claims directly against the establishment in accord with the state’s personal injury laws. For the claim to be successful, the plaintiff will have to prove that SpaceX was negligent in some way that caused the space debris collision. Space law is notoriously complex, making it very difficult for injured parties to recover for [sic] their damages in California.”  [6]Von Der Dunk, Frans G. “Liability versus Responsibility in Space Law: Misconception or Misconstruction?” University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law: Space, Cyber, and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty Publications 21 (1992). Accessed January 1, 2019. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/spacelaw/21/?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu/spacelaw/21&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages.  [7]Kessler, D. J., P. M. Landry, B. G. Cour-Palais, and R. E. Taylor. “Aerospace: Collision Avoidance in Space: Proliferating Payloads and Space Debris Prompt Action to Prevent Accidents.” IEEE Spectrum 17, no. 6 (1980): 37-41.  [8] Morgan, L. Lloyd, Santosh Kesari, and Devra Lee Davis. “Why Children Absorb More Microwave Radiation than Adults: The Consequences.” Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 2, no. 4 (December 2014): 197-204. Accessed January 1, 2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583. Highlights: (1) Children absorb more microwave radiation (MWR) than adults. (2) MWR is a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen. (3) The fetus is in greater danger than children from exposure to MWR. (4) The legal exposure limits have remained unchanged for decades. (5) Cellphone manuals warnings and the 20 cm rule for tablets/laptops violate the “normal operating position” regulation.  [9]Electro Hypersensitivity: Talking to Your Doctor. PDF. Canadian Initiative to Stop Wireless, Electric, and Electromagnetic Pollution. http://weepinitiative.org/talkingtoyourdoctor.pdf.  [10]FCC Chairman on 5G: “We won’t study it, regulate it, have standards for it.” Youtube. June 20, 2016. Accessed January 1, 2019. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwgwe01SIMc. Notes in video: Ultra-high frequency radiation (24 to 100 GHz or more); aimed and amplified signals; massive deployment of towers; worth billions; no standards, no testing; sharing with satellite and military operations; all areas (including rural areas) to be saturated with radiation; all local deployments to be fast-tracked; everything to be microchipped.  [11] Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD. “Is ICNIRP Reliable Enough to Dictate Meaning of Science to the Governmental Risk Regulators?” Between a Rock and a Hard Place (blog), April 8, 2018. Accessed January 2, 2019. https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/type/gallery/. “The major problems of ICNIRP are: (1) it is a “private club” where members elect new members without need to justify selection; (2) lack of accountability before anyone; (3) lack of transparency of their activities; (4) complete lack of supervision of its activities; (5) skewed science evaluation because of the close similarity of the opinions of all members of the Main Commission and all of the other scientists selected as advisors to the Main Commission.”  [12] Matthes, Rüdiger. “EMF Safety Guidelines: The ICNIRP View.” International Telecommunications Union Workshop on Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, May 9, 2013. Accessed January 1, 2019. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/climatechange/emf-1305/Documents/Presentations/s2part1p1-Rued igerMatthes.pdf.  [13] ITU Telecommunication Development Sector Study Group 2: Session on Modern Policies, Guidelines, Regulations and Assessments of Human Exposure to RF-EMF. Session 1: Recent Activities on Human Exposure to RF-EMF in ITU and ICNIRP, Geneva, Switzerland. October 10, 2018. Accessed January 2, 2019. www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Study-Groups/2018-2021/Pages/ meetings/session-Q7-2-oct18.aspx. “Session 1 will discuss some of the recent activities held in ITU and describe the latest updates to the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines.”  [14] Martin L. Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University. Response to 2018 ICNIRP Draft Guidelines and Appendices on Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (100 KHz to 300 GHz). October 8, 2018. Accessed January 2, 2019. www.5gexposed.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/FINAL-Martin-L-Pall-Response-to-2018-Draft-Guidelines-8.10.18.pdf.  [15] Cooperation Agreement Between The International Criminal Police Organization Interpol and The International Telecommunication Union. Plenipotentiary Conference (PP-18) Dubai 29 October–16 November 2018. Accessed January 2, 2019. https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/18/pp/c/S18-PP-C-0047!!MSW-E.docx. “2. In implementing the Agreement, each Party shall act within their respective areas of competence. More specifically, the implementation of the Agreement by ITU shall not exceed beyond its mandate pertaining to building confidence and security in the use of ICTs, in accordance to Plenipotentiary Conference Resolution 130 (Rev. Busan, 2014) and to its role on child online protection in accordance to Plenipotentiary Conference Resolution 179 (Rev. Busan, 2014), whereas the implementation of the Agreement by INTERPOL shall not exceed its mandate as defined by article 2 of its Constitution which include activities pertaining to cybercrime and online child exploitation”. (emphasis added)  [16] Hallmann C.A., M. Sorg and E. Jongejans. “More than 75 per cent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas.” PLOS One 12, no. 10 (2017): e0185809. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809&type=printable. Accessed January 1, 2019.  [17] Laville, Sandra. “Millions of Trees at Risk in Secretive Network Rail Felling Programme.” The Guardian, April 29, 2018. Accessed January 1, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/ apr/29/millions-of-trees-at-risk-in-secretive-network-rail-felling-programme.  [18] May, Todd. “Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?” The New York Times, December 17, 2018. Accessed January 1, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/opinion/human-extinction-climate-change.html.  [19] Davis, Nicola. “Falling total fertility rate should be welcomed, population expert says: figures showing declining birth rates are ‘cause for celebration’, not alarm.” The Guardian, December 26, 2018. Accessed January 3, 2019. www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/26/falling-total-fertility-rate-should-be-welcomed-population-expert-says.  [20] “Planet Earth: Worldwide 5G Radiation from Orbit?” Letter from Claus Scheingraber, Roland Wolff and others to Elon Musk. June 18, 2018. Brunnthal, Germany. “… We are sure that your satellite project is already at an advanced stage. But even if much money has been invested, one should consider that it is only a matter of time until the fact of damaging health potential of mobile communications – and especially of 5G-mobile communication – can no longer we overlooked. Therefore we emphatically recommend not to implement the satellite project.” (Letter in German) (Letter in English)


collectiveevolution--2019-01-17--Tylenol Damages The Brains of Children Research Reveals

Tylenol Damages The Brains of Children, Research Reveals

A number of non-peer-reviewed articles have been written and published on the web claiming that there is literally nothing to fear from acetaminophen during pregnancy. There are two types of articles that fall into this category. First, reputable watchdog organizations have weighed in on the issue, declaring acetaminophen use during pregnancy and during childhood to be proven safe. In particular, the National Health Service of the UK and the Center for Accountability in Science have both strongly criticized the Spanish study from 2016 showing a link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and ADHD/autism.  The second type of article is generally written by a science writer working for an organization that runs a website. Often quoting one to three experts who claim that is perfectly safe and that pregnant women and families should not be concerned, many of these articles are published by reputable sources that are generally trustworthy. Typically, an expert is being asked to comment on one particular publication showing a link between acetaminophen use (usually during pregnancy) and some sort of neuropsychiatric problem (autism, lowered IQ, hyperactivity, and/or social/behavioral problems, depending on the study). There are several important things to consider when evaluating these articles:  1.  There are a number of University Professors who have studied the use of acetaminophen on the developing brain and who are keenly aware of the potential dangers. A partial list of these individuals is provided below.  2.  Being an expert in acetaminophen neurotoxicity during development means that considerable time has been invested in studying the issue. Any true expert in this issue will be aware of basic facts regarding acetaminophen neurotoxicity. These facts include the following:  (a) Studies in animal models (both in mice and in rats) demonstrate that acetaminophen use during a sensitive period of brain development causes long-term alterations in the brain and is manifested as problems with social function.  (b)  Margaret McCarthy, Chair of Pharmacology at the University of Maryland, has worked out the probable mechanism by which acetaminophen-induced brain damage occurs. Her research team has found that the male brain is considerably more sensitive to acetaminophen than the female brain, possibly accounting for the gender bias in autism.  (c) There are (as of January 2017) a total of 8 published studies evaluating the long terms effects on children of acetaminophen use during pregnancy or during childhood. Two of these (one in 2014, one in 2016) were published in JAMA Pediatrics, one of the most highly respected pediatric journals. All studies point toward acetaminophen use being associated with long-term problems with neurological function. Each study design has included some attempt to control for indication. In all studies, acetaminophen use rather than indication has been identified as the key factor associated with cognitive problems. A formal meta-analysis is not currently possible because of the varied outcome measures and study designs, but all 8 studies point in the same direction: Acetaminophen is neurotoxic to the developing brain. The studies are not “cherry picked”, selecting only those which find an effect. All studies point toward a neurotoxic effect of acetaminophen in the developing brain.  (e)  Testing of acetaminophen safety in children did not include any evaluation of brain function, and no long-term studies were ever conducted. The primary manufacturer of acetaminophen in the US acknowledges that the drug has never been shown to be safe for brain development when used during pregnancy or in childhood. All safety tests were performed with the assumption that any side effects would be acute in nature (e.g., bleeding or acute organ damage). This assumption was based on observations made with acetaminophen in adults and with aspirin in children. It was not based on any experience with acetaminophen use in children.  3.     Having prescribed tens of thousands of doses of acetaminophen does not make anyone an expert on the neurotoxicity of acetaminophen, any more than eating thousands of pounds of chips makes somebody an expert in the effects of an inflammatory diet. Credentials and certifications that allow physicians to prescribe acetaminophen do not make them experts, and elevated positions in the medical community do not qualify anybody as an expert on the effects of acetaminophen. If somebody does not know those basic facts listed above, then they are not an expert on the neurotoxicity of acetaminophen. Usually, the experts will have published one or more peer-reviewed manuscripts on the topic. Those are the people to ask when an expert is needed.  4.     It is tempting to point accusing fingers at physicians who say that acetaminophen is safe when they literally have no grasp whatsoever of the relevant scientific literature. However, this would be a mistake. I have tracked down a few of these individuals who were quoted in a very public format, and one individual, in particular, didn’t even remember having made a comment on the topic. The most likely explanation is that a reporter asked them if acetaminophen was safe, and their response based on their training (not on the knowledge of the literature) was that it is safe. After all, if they didn’t think it was safe, they would not be administering it dozens of times per day. So, if a reporter asks a physician if something is safe, and they provide their knowledge based on what they have been taught and how they practice, then it is hard to blame them. The reporter didn’t ask them to spend days or even weeks reviewing the literature in detail, but rather assumed that any physician administering something dozens of times per day would know the literature. (This is a false assumption. No physician has the time to study all current literature on every drug they administer.) So, in a nutshell, a tragic propagation of incorrect information is occurring despite the best of intentions of all parties involved.  5.     Unless an organization such as the National Health Service has the time to review a topic thoroughly, they should remain silent on an issue. It took a team of us two years to put together our summary of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, regarding the potential neurotoxicity of acetaminophen during development. It took the NHS only days to publish their recent criticism of the 2016 Spanish study. Offering questionable criticisms of a single paper without reviewing the literature to see how that publication fits into the big picture is a disservice to the public being served.  6. Reading the published quotes from many “experts” who exonerate acetaminophen, it is apparent that the logic falls into one of two categories.  (a) Everybody is doing it, so it must be OK.  (b) This single study is not perfect, so no change in practice should be made.  Neither of these criticisms is logically sound, of course. These two criticisms are often combined and were, in fact, part of the critical comments directed toward the first paper showing that acetaminophen probably has substantial neurotoxicity during development (published in 2008 by Steve Shultz). Further, the evaluation of study weaknesses is usually skewed and not entirely valid. Since the idea that acetaminophen is safe is being embraced, then any merit in the paper is often undermined to make the case. This is certainly true of the published (peer reviewed) criticisms of the 2008 Shultz paper.  7.     Many on-line sources support the view that acetaminophen can be very dangerous to the developing brain. Probably the most reliable source, the FDA, is remaining silent on the topic until something more definitive is done. The FDA knows that this is extremely urgent, but unfortunately, our FDA is not linked well (in a practical manner) with our NIH, and thus they can’t dictate research priorities.  8.     Here is a list (not comprehensive) of experts regarding the neurotoxicity of acetaminophen during brain development.  a) First, I’ll thank the wonderful team of individuals who helped put together our comprehensive review on this topic. Shu Lin, a professor with me in Duke’s Surgery Department, is a very dear and long-time friend of mine who has supported me through countless projects over the past 22 years. Staci Bilbo, director for research on Autism at Harvard, is a friend and collaborator who has helped me understand what causes inflammation and the role of inflammation in brain dysfunction. Chi Dang Hornik, a pediatric pharmacist at Duke, contributed greatly to our understanding of the frequency of acetaminophen administration and the available formulations of the drug. Many thanks to Martha Herbert. As a Harvard professor and clinician, she has a great appreciation for the clinical data obtained from patients with autism. Cindy Nevison, a professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, rounds out our team, providing critical information about the epidemiology of autism. (Thanks also to our interns (Rasika Rao and Lauren Gentry) and research analyst (Zoie Holzknecht) who were a tremendous help in compiling information and preparing that information for publication.)  b) Margaret McCarthy, chair of Pharmacology at the University of Maryland, it the most knowledgeable person I know regarding the biochemistry of the human brain and how that is affected by acetaminophen and other drugs in that class.  c) Chittaranjan Andrade, Chair of Psychopharmacology at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India, has written a peer reviewed paper on the topic of acetaminophen induced brain damage. He nicely summarized a number of studies looking at the connection between acetaminophen and neurological damage. His final conclusion is that the drug is probably more associated with ADHD than autism, but the conclusion was limited to exposure during pregnancy and his work was conducted before some critical studies were published in 2016.  d) Henrik Viberg is a professor in the Department of Organismal Biology at Uppsala University in Sweden. He has studied how exposure of mice to acetaminophen during development can cause long term brain damage.  e) In 2015, a group of scientists working with Laurence de Fays at the Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products in Brussels acknowledged the clinical studies and the studies in animal models which indicated that acetaminophen could be dangerous to the developing fetus, but concluded that paracetamol is “still to be considered safe in pregnancy”. At the same time, they state that “additional carefully designed studies are necessary to confirm or disprove the association (between acetaminophen and brain damage to children)”, and that “care should be taken to avoid raising poorly founded concerns among pregnant females”. We very strongly agree with the conclusion that more studies are needed, but very strongly disagree with the conclusion that women should be kept in the dark about the matter. It is important to point out that several more studies have come out since Laurence de Fays’ report. One of those is a 2016 manuscript in JAMA Pediatrics(see the next expert), a highly reputable peer reviewed journal, which addresses the concerns raised by de Fays, so it is possible that de Fays’ group may now have a different opinion.  f) A team of scientists and doctors working with Evie Stergiakouli at the University of Bristol analyzed data from a prospective birth cohort, and concluded that “children exposed to acetaminophen prenatally are at increased risk of multiple behavioral difficulties”. They found considerable evidence indicating that the association was not due to the confounding factors that concerned de Fays’ group (previous expert).  g) Jordi Julvez at the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona, Spain worked with a team of a dozen clinicians and scientists to publish their 2016 study linking acetaminophen with autism and ADHD.  h) Amany A. Abdin, a professor in the Department of Pharmacology, Tanta University, Egypt, wrote a review of the acetaminophen/autism connection and published it in the journal Biochemistry and Pharmacology: Open Access. Her conclusion in 2013 was that the drug is not safe and that the acetaminophen/autism connection should receive attention.  i) The original paper that identified a connection between neuropsychiatric disorders and acetaminophen was published by Steve Shultz while at the University of California at San Diego. Coauthors on the paper included Hillary Klonoff-Cohen, currently an Endowed Professor and Director of the MPH program at the University of Illinois.  j) Four scientists, including research scientist Ragnhild Eek Brandlistuen and professors Hedvig Nordeng and Eivind Ystrom in the Department of Pharmacy at the University of Oslo, coauthored a study showing a connection between adverse neurodevelopment and acetaminophen use during pregnancy.  k) Jorn Olsen, Professor and Chair of the Department of Epidemiology at UCLA, published one of the more recent papers (2016) showing a connection between autism and acetaminophen use during pregnancy.  l) Five professors (John M. D. Thompson, Karen E. Waldie, Clare R. Wall, Rinky Murphy, and Edwin A. Mitchell) from four different departments at The University of Auckland published their findings in PLOSone in 2014 which “strengthen the contention that acetaminophen exposure in pregnancy increases the risk of ADHD-like behaviours. Our study also supports earlier claims that findings are specific to acetaminophen.”  For evidence-based research on the dangers of acetaminophen, visit the GreenMedInfo.com Research Dashboard.\  Tylenol Kills Emotions As Well As Pain, Study Reveals  Sign Up For The Greenmedinfo Newsletter HERE.  William Parker is an Associate Professor at Duke University, where he has worked in the Department of Surgery since 1993.  William is currently investigating a number of issues associated with inflammation and Western society, including vitamin D deficiency, heart disease and alteration of the symbionts of the human body (“biota alteration”). He has been interested in “natural” immune function for some time, which has led him down a path that includes the first studies of immune function in wild rats and the discovery of the function of the human appendix.