‘In continuation of a proposal first pushed by Labour, the Coalition Government are going full force behind plans to microchip all puppies in England with details of the owner. The reason? They claim it will help reduce attacks by dangerous dogs, but this flies in the face of all common sense and basic facts.

The controversial chips that are implanted under the animal’s skin will store the name and address of the owner, as well as a unique number to identify the dog in a database open to the RSPCA, a charity that ordinarily would be breaching data protection laws by accessing the information. As well as all puppies, the proposal seeks to chip existing dogs before they can be sold on or handed in to rescue centres. According to estimates the procedure will cost between £5 and £35.

Although the likes of Government mouthpiece the BBC are repeating the proposal ever hour, stating that “some dog charities say it just isn’t enough”, ministers and mainstream media outlets completely fail to address the fundamental question. How will microchipping tackle the problem of dangerous dogs? Why is it even part of their plans?

The Blue Cross pet charity have been framed in to the debate to bolster the proposal because they support legislation that would muzzle dogs after instances of anti-social behavior, but they openly admit that microchipping “will not help to protect the public from dog attacks or tackle the wider problems of irresponsible ownership.”[1]

Common sense tells us that irresponsible owners or yobs who lack the ability to train stronger dogs are not all of a sudden going to gain the motivation or ability to train their dogs correctly just because they are microchipped. The presence of a chip cannot physically stop an attack or freak accident. Angela McGlynn the mother of John Paul Massey admitted during an interview with the BBC this morning that: “It wouldn’t have made a difference at all” if the dog who mauled her 4 year old son to death was microchipped.’

‘The entire cosmetic industry is in a buyer beware state of alert, thanks to the latest additions to the melting pot of chemicals and pollutants in skin care, above and beyond the usual parabens. Consumers are warned by experts toput on the watch listany makeup which contains synthetic coloring ingredients, emulsifiers, leads, copolymer, triclosan, and “urea as a preservative.” Also contributing to the chemical compounds are phthalates, formaldehyde, and petroleum.

Without proper regulations, especially regarding testing howchemicals react to one another in combinations, it is scary how quickly the industry has become a problem for women and men alike. Some lipsticks are loaded with lead. If you think it doesn’t matter because it’s just on your skin, think again. Deodorants and shampoo must also be included in the equation. There are plenty of solutions to the problem, but where do you begin?’

‘Facing direct opposition from the public, biotechnology giants like Monsanto and Dow are now making a disturbing attempt to brainwash developing minds into accepting their genetically modified foods using blatant lies and propaganda.

In a last ditch effort to potentially sway public opinion, the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI)  has launched the “Biotechnology Basics Activity Book” for kids.

With the intent to be used by ‘agriculture and science teachers’, the activity book spreads absurd lies about GMO crops — even going as far as to say that they ‘improve our health’ and ‘help the environment’.

‘Disturbing new research published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology indicates that genetically modified (GM) crops with “stacked traits” — that is, with multiple traits such as glyphosate-herbicide resistance and Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) insecticidal toxins engineered together into the same plant, are likely far more dangerous to human health than previously believed, due to their synergistic toxicity.’

‘Alcohol kills approximately 70,000 people per year. Prescription pills, which have helped overdose become the leading cause of accidental death in America, result in more than 20,000 deaths per year. Marijuana has never killed anybody.

Although scientific research is available to show that pot is relatively harmless, and in fact medically beneficial, myths and propaganda about the plant’s alleged harm lead to marijuana laws so severe they often have the unintended consequence of driving people to drink alcohol, a much more dangerous substance than pot.’

‘The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.

A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain’s biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979. Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.’

‘When natural health advocates warn against mainstream medicine’s arsenal of weapons used to fight cancer, including chemotherapy and radiation, their concerns often revolve around how these therapies can weaken and damage a person’s body in numerous ways. But scientists are finding other reasons to question some of these therapies. It turns out that while chemotherapies may kill or shrink tumors in the short term, they may actually be causing malignancies to grow more deadly in the long term.

For example, NaturalNews previously reported that scientists at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Comprehensive Cancer Center and UAB Department of Chemistry are currently investigating the very real possibility that dead cancer cells left over after chemotherapy spark cancer to spread to other parts of the body (metastasis). And now comes news that a little-explored specific cell type, the pericyte, found in what is called the microenvironment of a cancerous tumor actually may halt cancer progression and metastasis. And by destroying these cells, some anti-cancer therapies may inadvertently be making cancer more aggressive as well as likely to spread and kill.’

‘Airport security officers are to be monitored for exposure to dangerous levels of radiation from the controversial scanners which are used to screen passengers before flights.

The Transport Security Administration’s decision to give radiation-measuring devices to security officers in 100 U.S. airports comes after years spent dismissing claims that the scanners pose any health threat.

Security workers have long-complained that they were not being properly informed about the health risks by the TSA, and the federal agency’s decision for further study only confirms their fears.’

‘It was only a few years ago that if you labeled fluoride as a dangerous substance, you would be laughed at and scorned. For years, a select minority of individuals were the only ones raising the awareness of this health concern. Their cries have been and continue to be met with dissonance, despite the fact that the public’s opinion on fluoride has changed much in just a short time.

In fact, even the United States government has called for lower levels of water fluoridation following a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, which found that increased fluoride consumption led to decreased IQ in children.

Communities are attempting to end water fluoridation, mainstream news is acknowledging its negative effects, and even a number of professional dentists have recognized the dangers of fluoride, and spoken out against its use and distribution. Most recently, the Palmer City Council of Alaska passed an ordinance repealing the town’s water fluoridation mandate.

Sodium fluoride, the voyage from rat poison to toothpaste’