The faces of forced irradiation in the FSD: Pletka’s all star cast.

Everyone that you will see in this video knows about the two sides of this issue. There are many other key players in this saga who are not in this 7 minute damage control piece. Ladies and gentlemen. We all make choices and the choices we make will have to be lived with for the rest of our God given lives. I have no problem with technology. This message was produced and delivered via a hardwired desktop computer. The problem that I have is with the wireless radiation that the district has chosen to spray from wireless access points into the classrooms to bridge the gap from the fiber optic cables in the walls to the students devices. I am not alone. It is the position of many scientific experts in the fields of neurology, physics, biochemistry, engineering, public health, environmental medicine and mainstream medicine that wireless microwave radiation DOES NOT BELONG IN A
CLASSROOM. Yes this is marketing plain and simple, Madison Avenue style complete with airbrushing. They are candy coating a jawbreaker on this one gang, believe me.

No, what you won’t see here are the stacks of thousands of scientific studies that show wireless radiation is harmful. What you won’t see here are the RF meters picking up wireless microwave radiation emissions whose levels are trillions of times the normal background levels coming off of the district’s wireless access points and wireless devices. What you won’t see here are the impassioned pleas to the board members and staff to stop the wireless proliferation until it has been proven safe. What you won’t see here are the interviews with the scientists whose credentials vastly exceed anyone employed by the district that warn against the very things Robert Pletka is doing with wireless in the FSD. What you won’t see here is Karent Whisnant, and Nancy Regitz at a parent teacher conference refusing to accept peer reviewed scientific literature warning against the forced wireless exposure and the potential for harm to the children. What you won’t see here are the potential biological effects of chronic microwave exposure to the brains and reproductive organs of these students. What you won’t see here is the 100 page electrical contract that the Fullerton Joint Union High School District entered into in order to HARDWIRE ALL OF THEIR COMPUTERS. What you won’t see here are the decisions being made at all of the Fullerton High Schools to put student safety in front of an agenda. What you won’t see here is Acacia Principal Karen Whisnant calling the police on our group as we peacefully handed out literature to parents on the public sidewalk in attempts to warn of the potential irreparable biological harm to students. What you won’t see here, in my opinion, are people who are worthy of their positions.

WHAT YOU WILL SEE HERE IS AN ALL STAR CAST COMPRISED OF THOSE WHO HAVE DECIDED TO IGNORE THE REPEATED WARNINGS AND PARTICIPATE IN THE LARGEST FORCED IRRADIATION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN THAT THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN. What you will see here are children with microwave transmitters in direct proximity to their sensitive developing reproductive areas. What you will see here are students using wireless devices crammed into close quarters all day long being exposed to unprecedented levels of microwave radiation trillions of times the levels that you and I were exposed to growing up. The classroom microwave radiation levels are higher than those of a cell tower 100 meters away. Yes ladies and gentlemen, what you will see here are your children and those who are making the crucial health decisions for them in a manner, in my opinion, which demonstrates callous disregard for the well being of these children as well as current State Law. They sugar coat all this and slickly sell it to you. These are the faces of the irradiated and the irradiators, plain and simple. We are the faces of those who want caution exercised when it comes to something so unnecessary and dangerous as wireless classrooms.

  1. #1 by Joe Imbriano on May 19, 2014 - 9:44 pm

    Open letter by British Medical Doctors: Health and Safety of Wi-Fi and Mobile Phones
    Additionally, doctors are encountering a significant and growing number of people presenting with a range of acute (short-term) symptoms from wireless radiation, including headaches, palpitations, rashes, fatigue, sleep disturbance, allergies and memory and concentration problems.
    Wi-Fi in Schools: Dr. Stephen Sinatra M.D. (8min)
    Dr. Sinatra cautions ’this exposure is the greatest medical threat of our time.’ Students in WiFi schools experience ‘unexplained’ cardiac and other symptom.

    Cell Phone Chatter Linked to Triple Risk of Brain Tumors
    The latest study, which analyzed 253 cases of glioma and 194 cases of meningioma reported in four French departments between 2004 and 2006, revealed that people who spend 900 hours on the phone during the course of their career are significantly more likely to develop brain tumors.

    EMR Safety for kids…BY KIDS
    Wireless machines are dangerous for kids because the radiation makes our cells shut down – so they can’t breathe properly and they can’t get rid of toxins. Then our DNA in our cells gets damaged and our cells don’t work properly. After years of this harmful microwave radiation you can get leukemia or cancer. But, before you get cancer, look at these immediate results of WiFi radiation. Have you noticed that your friends have gone home early because of headaches, nausea, nosebleeds etc?

    • #3 by amateur night on May 20, 2014 - 11:41 am

      Rollin’ out the red carpet for everyone. Lights, camera, irraditaion.

  2. #4 by vilify yourself on May 20, 2014 - 7:11 am

    These are hard working, dedicated people who are devoting their all to these kids. Shame on you and this fearmongering hate blog.

    • #5 by Joe Imbriano on May 20, 2014 - 8:46 am

      Is that you Michele?

      Hard working? You mean hard working at ignoring thousands of studies that warn against what they are doing?

      Dedicated? You mean dedicated to blowing millions of taxpayer dollars on potentially harmful wireless devices which emit a class 2b carcinogen in classrooms in potential violation of the California Education code?

      Devoting their all? You mean devoting all of their efforts into denying the reality of the fact that they have all gone too far down the wrong road with this issue?

      The shame is on those, including yourself, that are turning their backs on the children.

      Fear mongering? You mean getting the word out on thousands of peer review scientific studies that contradict a trillion dollar industry’s position?

      Hate blog? You mean the comments from the first amendment hater lady?

      You gotta love it because that is why you are here.

      • #6 by Anonymous on May 21, 2014 - 12:25 pm

        Who is Michele?

        • #7 by high school musicul on May 23, 2014 - 4:19 pm

          Who cares?

    • #8 by Anonymous on May 21, 2014 - 7:39 am

      villify yourself,

      The Nazis were hard working, dedicated, too. This forced irradiation of the kids, which you appear to actively support, is a very slow, gentle holocaust. Yes, slow and gentle but for the ones that die immediately from cardiac arrest.

      • #9 by Joe Imbriano on May 21, 2014 - 8:11 am

        Yes but the Nazis were forced at gunpoint to conform to the edicts. These school district personnel are shamefully turning their backs on the children and falling into line out of cowardice and utter denial.

        Attend a school board meeting and observe the bizarre self congratulatory rituals as they continue to erect the molech statue of wireless technology on their new sabbath every other Tuesday night. Cult of mac? Pretty creepy.

  3. #10 by Arthur on May 20, 2014 - 8:08 am

    In 2007 the UK Health Protection Agency stated that a person could spend a year in a WiFi hotspot and only absorb as much radiation as a 20 minute phone call. This was blatantly misleading.

    In order to be fully transparent about the radiation emissions, not only do we need to consider the radiation emitted from routers, but we also need to examine the radiation emitted from the wireless devices that are being held near the body. Some of these devices, such as iPads, emit even more radiation than cell phones. This is according to information from the manufacturer itself. (Apple Product Guide)

    Now, consider that all long-term (over 10 years), case-control studies on cell phones have found an increased risk of cancer. Although no research has been done exclusively on children, studies have found that those under the age of 20 have over a 500% increased risk of developing cancer after only one year of using a cell phone.

    In 2012, after reviewing the scientific literature, the Italian Supreme Court ruled that cell phones cause cancer. The gates were thus opened internationally for legal cases involving cell phones. In 2013 an Israeli cell phone company settled with a customer who developed brain cancer.

  4. #11 by Jamie on May 20, 2014 - 8:58 am

    FSD is pathetic

  5. #12 by Anonymous on May 20, 2014 - 10:39 am

    If the surface is scratched, you will be astounded and the information will never see the light of day in print.

    As I understand it, the World Health Organization (WHO) assigns the carcinogenic class to substances.
    Currently, wireless radiation is classified as a 2b, probable human carcinogen (2011).

    2) Doctor Anthony Miller, World Health Organization EMF Group Scientist from the University of Toronto’s Dalla Lama School of Public Health, testified in November 2013 that wireless exposure should be classified more stringently, as a 2A (“a probable carcinogen”), based on accumulating research since 2011. If anything- I urge you to watch this very short clip of his official testimony to the City of Toronto:

    3) Dr Hardell of the World Health Organization EMF Working Group, now states radio frequency radiation meets criteria for a group 1 carcinogen and that “Current guidelines for exposure need to be urgently revised”.

    Conclusion: Based on the Hill criteria, glioma and acoustic neuroma should be considered to be caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones and regarded as carcinogenic to humans, classifying it as group 1 according to the IARC classification. Current guidelines for exposure need to be urgently revised.

    Please listen to this YouTube recording of a presentation to the Oregon House Committee on Health Care by Dr. Martin Pall on February 24, 2014. The Youtube is 14:51 minutes in length.

    Dr. Pall’s presentation:

    Please listen to Dr. Pall make known to Oregon committee members that EMF (electromagnetic frequency), wireless radiation is known to cause:

    1. Oxidative stress

    2. Single strand breaks in cellular DNA

    3. Double strand breaks in cellular DNA

    4. Cancer

    5. Male and female infertility

    6. Loss of melatonin . . .

    7. . . . Consequent sleep disruption

    8. Therapeutic effects

    “Possible effects:
    Various effects on brain function (these are diverse and the literature has not focused on a few specific effects).
    Effects on the electrical control in the heart including tachycardia (rapid heartbeat), and arrhythmia – (may lead to sudden cardiac death).”

    Attachments area

    Dr Anthony Miller to Toronto Council re: RF Exposure

    Wireless Radiation Produces Health Effects by Activation of Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels

  6. #13 by propaganda piece on May 20, 2014 - 11:01 am

    Yes and how much did we taxpayers have to pay for this lying propaganda?????

    Does pletka think he lives on his own planet, where the Truth does not exist?

    pletka needs to be fired, NOW!!!!!

  7. #14 by Willy Shakespeer on May 20, 2014 - 12:22 pm

    Me thinks I smell a mighty dose of FSD damage control.

  8. #15 by Anonymous on May 20, 2014 - 3:58 pm

    Please read the selected quotes from

    “Is Science Being Hidden from the Public?”
    Eileen O’Connor
    Director, Radiation Research Trust

    “As of March 28, 2014 representatives of the telecom industry, government officials, and WHO scientists absolutely, irrefutably have the latest science from Hardell and know that Hardell himself is calling for RF to be classified a Group 1 carcinogen. The clock has now started ticking on liability. No more excuses. SCENIHR, The industry, the EU Commission, and WHO are now fully informed.”

    The European Commission in collaboration with the Greek Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC) under the auspices of the EU Council Greek Presidency organized a major workshop in Athens on EMF electromagnetic fields and health effects with a focus on public awareness, conciliating scientific findings and uncertainties in policy making. The event took place on 27th & 28 March 2014 at Cotsen Hall, Athens, Greece and included presenters from various parties from the European Commission, WHO, public authorities, industry, operators, environmental and consumer associations and academia. The goal of the conference was to reach a common approach for the future in order to respond to public concerns about electromagnetic fields, to enhance information dissemination and discuss new studies and scientific evidence in relation to EMF, and to identify knowledge gaps needed for sound policy making. In this context, the new SCENIHR draft opinion on EMF and potential health effects was presented.

    SCENIHR, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, has been charged with providing reports for the European Commission and Members of the European Parliament which may be relied upon by all participating governments.

    Eileen O’Connor was invited as a representative for the UK Radiation Research Trust charity and was joined by Sissel Halmøy representing International EMF Alliance.

    The opening address was given by Marian Harkin MEP expressing the need for a review from up to date evidence and the need for accountability. She stressed importance of openness towards lobbying and diverse opinions and the need for transparency and inclusion of all stakeholders. She reminded the EU Commission and SCENIHR that public consultation should not simply be a box ticking exercise and that consultation is only meaningful if addressing negative outcomes along with reports that have positive outcomes. Furthermore and perhaps most profoundly, she gave the stark reminder that 500 million citizens are relying on SCENIHR’s review.

    Eileen O’Connor said “I was hoping for an equal and honest debate to be held in Athens, but was sadly surprised and extremely disappointed by the lack of inclusion for stakeholders with alternative views to scientists representing SCENIHR in Athens. I was one of only two voices invited to present with an alternative view and had taken time to prepare a presentation in the hope and anticipation of receiving a warm welcome and equal opportunity to be heard and taken seriously.”

    Sissel Halmøy said “It was plain for all to see that there was clear selection bias from SCENIHR’s review as they clearly cherry picked their own research and promoted it as gold standard while heavily criticising Lennart Hardell’s research.”

    The Hardell Group published five ground breaking studies in 2013, all of which have been ignored by SCENIHR in their report. The Hardell studies are the first to correlate mobile phone usage with incidences of brain tumours over a 20+year period of time, longer than any other epidemiological studies. They found a clear correlation between cell phone usage and two types of brain tumours, acoustic neuromas and the deadliest of all brain cancers, gliomas. Yet this startling risk of brain tumors was not only ignored, but denigrated by members of SCENIHR, the irony being IARC — the World Health Organization’s cancer committee — accepted Hardell’s science prior to 2013 for consideration when the IARC scientists almost unanimously voted for the 2B “possible carcinogen to humans” classification for the entire RF – EMF Spectrum.

    Eileen O’Connor reminded Joachim Schüz, Head of IARC’s Section of Environment and Radiation, that the highest court in Italy favored Hardell’s study over the 2010 Interphone Studies, which had failed to find a similar correlation. She also reminded him that the Italian court considered Hardell’s studies more reliable and independent than the Interphone study which had been part funded by the mobile phone industry.

    For years scientists have been offering incomplete, inconsistent and contradictory information, leading to confusion for the public and policy makers, resulting in members of the public seeking justice via the courts.

    “There is a lack of responsibility taken with policy makers saying they are relying on government and industry funded scientific reports from scientists. Then these same scientists say it is the duty of policy makers to protect public health. Who is truly speaking out for the 500 million citizens the European Commission oversees? Do we need to wait for the courts to hold those who are offering inexact, incomplete and contradictory information accountable?

    Eileen O’Connor held the five Hardell papers missing from SCENIHR’s report up high for all to see and called for them to be included within the SCENIHR review. Reading the conclusion from one of the papers she said

    “Conclusions Based on Hill’s viewpoints and his discussion on how these issues should be used, the conclusion of this review is that glioma and acoustic neuroma are caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones. According to the IARC Preamble (54), the classification should be group 1, i.e., “the agent is carcinogenic to humans”, and urgent revision of current guidelines for exposure is needed.”

    Former New York Times science writer Blake Levitt and University of Washington Professor Henry Lai said the report fails to do a thorough review of recent literature on non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) and biological health effects. Only selected papers were evaluated using ambiguous criteria.

    Most of the following publications since 2007 were not considered by SCENIHR.
    Genetic effects:
    RFR: 114 papers (65% reported effects)
    ELF EMF: 59 papers (83% reported effects)

    Neurological effects:
    RFR: 211 papers (68% reported effects)

    Oxidative status:
    RFR: 106 papers (88% reported effects)
    ELF EMF: 110 papers (88% reported effects)

    Lai and Levitt said, “It is outrageous to ignore any effect of EMF exposure on human health and a crime to humanity not to recommend any action to curtail the exposure.”

    “The public and policy makers deserve to know the truth as 500 million citizens are relying on their opinion,” demanded O’Connor. “The time has come and as a matter of urgency to demand the inclusion of truly independent scientists with a reminder that it is not just the 500 million citizens at risk today, but future generations due to the epigenetic properties this agent carries.”

    “The world urgently needs to be informed that these five papers by the esteemed Hardell Group were dismissed and ignored by Schüz, by IARC, by WHO, and as we witnessed in Athens, by SCENIHR,” Eileen O’Connor stated. “These papers have been placed directly into the hands of the EU Commission along with the report from Lai and Levitt outlining hundreds of missing research papers demonstrating positive results in the hope that policy makers can hold SCENIHR accountable.”

    Sissel Halmøy continued, “Our European Community is being irradiated by microwaves; people are becoming ill and suffering with many conditions including electrosensitivity. The World Health Organization has also declared a possible correlation to cancer in humans. It’s not rocket science. It’s just common sense and sound science.”

    Eileen O’Connor is the co-founders for the UK Radiation Research Trust and co-founder for the International EMF Alliance. In 2011, she became a member of the European Commission’s DG SANCO expert group of stakeholders on electromagnetic fields. Eileen talked about her mission with this campaign since developing breast cancer in her 30’s and discovering a cancer cluster surrounding the T-Mobile phone mast in 2001 in the tiny hamlet of Wishaw. She highlighted 10 epidemiological studies that assessed for health effects of mobile phone base stations. Seven of these studies explored the association between base station proximity and neurobehavioral effects and three investigated cancer. Eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances 500 meters from base stations.

    Residents of Wishaw engaged with T-Mobile while searching for the truth in science and pleading for their lives and for T-Mobile remove the phone mast after the discovering the cancer cluster. T-Mobile shamefully highlighted the Stewart report claiming the mast was operating within Safety guidelines, while burying a report commissioned by T-Mobile in 2000. The ECOLOG report of over 220 peer-reviewed and published papers found evidence for the following:

    Adverse effects on central nervous system,
    Cancer initiating and promoting effects,
    Impairments of certain brain functions,
    Loss of memory and cognitive function.

    In addition, the Insurance industry worryingly highlights the implications for human health, in particular with regard to the use of mobile phones, power lines or antennas for broadcasting. Potential impacts are rated as high and likely to hit the casualty area of insurance business over the next decade.
    Professor Lukas Margaritas, leader for the Department of Cell Biology at University of Athens, along with Dr Adamantia F. Fragopoulou and fellow researchers attended the event. Experts famous in this field having published many peer-reviewed papers, including research on the impacts of mobile phone and DECT cordless phone base radiation on key proteins in the brain, demonstrating that radiation from mobile and cordless DECT phones can affect proteins of the mouse brain that are critical to learning, memory, and thinking.

    Eileen O’Connor announced to the assembled scientists, “As of March 28, 2014 representatives of the telecom industry, government officials, and WHO scientists absolutely, irrefutably have the latest science from Hardell and know that Hardell himself is calling for RF to be classified a Group 1 carcinogen. The clock has now started ticking on liability. No more excuses. SCENIHR, The industry, the EU Commission, and WHO are now fully informed.”

    Please contact: Eileen O’Connor
    For more information visit:

  9. #16 by Infowarrior on May 27, 2014 - 11:22 am

    The local PTA here is Austin is all for the same technology push too. Apple has a huge, almost cult like presence in town. The yuppies just love the stuff.

  10. #17 by Anonymous on May 29, 2014 - 9:58 pm

    with regard to your public health and safety information re: wifi hot
    spots, you have neglected to inform that the world health organization
    has now classified these emissions as class 2b carcinogens. you may
    not have been aware but this change came into effect may 2011.

    the below may also be of interest with regard to wifi providers and
    insurance or lack thereof with regard to potential health effects.

    “Can an Italian Court Change the Insurance Landscape in America?
    By Gloria Vogel | November 29, 2012

    Italy’s Supreme Court recently upheld a ruling that allowed
    disability payments to a businessman who claimed his brain tumor was
    tied to his excessive cell phone use. Can this ruling potentially lead
    to future litigation in the U.S. and elsewhere? Can it somehow alter
    the insurance landscape? Yes, it can.

    Until now, studies conducted over the years attempting to link cell
    phone usage to cancer have been inconclusive. The World Health
    Organization (WHO) most recently noted that radiation from cell phones
    can ‘possibly’ cause cancer, and it listed mobile phone use in the
    same carcinogenic hazard category as lead, engine exhaust and
    chloroform. But, the definitive causal link between cell phones and
    cancer has been missing.

    The CTIA-Wireless Industry Association noted that WHO researchers did
    not conduct any new research, but rather reviewed published studies.
    Notably, most of those prior studies were funded by the wireless
    industry itself. However, this Italian court case introduced new
    evidence – the case referenced an independent study conducted by a
    cancer specialist in Sweden. The court ruling thus broke new ground in
    its decision.

    While a single case and a single study may be challenged, any ruling
    by the Supreme Court of a nation has the potential to be used as legal
    precedent for subsequent cases. As such, the Italian court case may
    open the gates for future litigation, and its decision may extend
    beyond Italy’s national borders, since wireless has such a global
    The Insurance Factor

    The insurance industry is in the business of insuring risk. However,
    top and bottom line growth has been sluggish in recent years, hurt by
    record catastrophe losses, price competition and slowing economies.

    Pressured by low investment yields and the fact that many are not
    earning their cost of capital, insurers are attempting to raise
    premium rates in order to improve underwriting margins. Hurricane
    Sandy might further boost premium rate hikes. But new business remains
    a challenge, as slowing economies are still restraining new business

    Moreover, many insurance industry customers are becoming disengaged.
    As Michael McGavick, CEO of XL Group plc noted at the annual Monte
    Carlo Rendezvous, the insurance industry’s share of global GDP is
    shrinking. Insurers are unable to handle emerging risks, to provide
    innovative solutions, or to create new products wanted and needed by
    its customers. The insurance industry thus appears to be losing its
    relevance to the field of risk management, and its top line may be
    experiencing structural decline.

    New risks are always emerging, and in the past the insurance industry
    would work with its clients to try and find solutions to mitigate
    those risks. For example, ACE Limited was established in 1985 by a
    consortium of 34 Fortune 500 companies to provide hard-to-find excess
    liability and directors’ and officers’ liability insurance. In
    1986, 68 of the world’s largest companies came together and founded
    what is now XL Group to solve complex risks.
    Insurance Link to Wireless

    The risks of the mid-80s seem simple by today’s standards, and the
    industry is at a loss to understand, price and underwrite today’s
    emerging risks. No consortium of buyers and/or insurers is coming
    together to find an underwriting solution for those difficult risks.
    Instead, insurers are taking the easy path by simply excluding
    coverage for today’s hard-to-price risks. Solutions to the risk
    problems are being left to the businesses themselves. Consequently,
    many Fortune 500 companies are setting up captives for self-
    insurance. The insurers and reinsurers are losing out in this process
    – they aren’t providing needed risk management solutions and they
    are thus losing customers.

    The big risks insurers face today – major catastrophic loss,
    terrorism, emerging risk of RF radiation, cyber security, etc. – are
    mostly being left out of the mainstream industry premium picture, with
    the expectation that future losses will also be eliminated.
    Unfortunately, that is not the most likely case scenario.

    Flood from tsunami or storm surge is mostly covered by the government
    flood plan, while wind is covered by the private sector. But
    determination of wind versus flood as a cause of loss is often open to
    interpretation, and applicable deductibles can also create
    uncertainty. In addition to property damage, insurers can be faced
    with significant business interruption claims from such events.

    Cyber attacks sponsored by foreign governments pose a threat to
    businesses on many levels, with contingent business interruption risk
    most probable. Such interruption can lead to reputational damage
    claims, D&O claims, etc. Exclusions in general liability policies will
    not necessarily protect the insurers from those other policy claims.

    With respect to RF radiation risk, third-party workers performing
    their jobs on numerous properties with wireless transmission antennas
    are in a position to sue not just the wireless service providers for
    bodily injury liability damages, but also the property owners and any
    others that facilitated the placement of those antennas without hazard
    notification. Indeed, if cell phone usage can be linked to cancer,
    then workers who get close to transmitting antennas that are many
    times more powerful than cell phones, are even more likely to succeed
    with such litigation than the cell phone users. Given the many years
    of past exposure and number of workers involved, putting exclusions on
    current policies won’t eliminate future claims from prior policies.

    Solutions to other emerging risks still need to be developed, but
    there is already a readily available no-cost solution for handling
    third-party worker over-exposure to RF radiation. While an immediate
    solution may not yet be available to protect those exposed to RF
    radiation from their handsets, a San Diego-based company, RF CHECK,
    Inc., has developed a solution to protect participants in the wireless
    ecosystem exposed to RF radiation at the numerous wireless antenna
    sites across the country. The wireless ecosystem includes service
    providers, and all those property owners hosting antenna sites,
    including government entities, healthcare, transportation and
    educational facilities. This viable solution will not only protect the
    third-party workers from exposure to RF radiation, but will also
    preserve a revenue stream for the insurance industry while improving
    customer service.

    The Italian court ruling could open the floodgates on RF radiation
    claims. Without adoption of any solutions, the insurance industry
    could be faced with a repeat of its asbestos experience, even as it
    avoids writing current coverage via exclusions. That would most
    certainly change the insurance landscape.

    Gloria Vogel is senior vice president at New York-based Drexel
    Hamilton; a service disabled veteran broker-dealer. An adjunct
    professor at NYU-SCPS, she has worked at Swiss Re and as an equity
    research insurance analyst at several major investment banks,
    including Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.”

  11. #18 by totally safe for the kids on May 30, 2014 - 8:38 am

    Yes Dr. Pletka since they are not your kids. You are a despicable human being. In 20 years you will be looked at as a disgrace refusing so much compelling, and relevant information yet remaining determined to ignore what is potentially being done to 15,000 children every year. No amount of money will ease your conscience.

    • #19 by amateur night on June 4, 2014 - 7:07 pm

      What’s a conscience?

(will not be published)

Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved. is the legal copyright holder of the material on this blog and it may not be used, reprinted, or published without express written permission. The information contained in this website is for entertainment and educational purposes ONLY. This website contains my personal opinion and experience based on my own research from scientific writings, internet research and interviews with doctors and scientists all over the world. Do not take this website, links or documents contained herein as a personal, medical or legal advice of any kind. For legal advice, please consult with your attorney. Consult your medical doctor or primary care physician for advice regarding your health and your children’s health and nothing contained on this website is intended to provide or be a substitute for medical, legal or other professional advice. The reading or use of this information is at your own risk. Readers will not be put on spam lists. We will not sell your contact information to another company. We are not responsible for the privacy practices of our advertisers or blog commenters. We reserve the right to change the focus of this blog, to shut it down, to sell it, or to change the terms of use at our discretion. We are not responsible for the actions of our advertisers or sponsors. If a reader purchases a product or service based upon a link from our blog, the reader must take action with that company to resolve the issue, not us. Our policy on using letters or emails that have been written directly to us is as follows: We will be sharing those letters and emails with the blogging audience unless they are requested to be kept confidential. We will claim ownership of those letters or emails to later be used in an up-and-coming book,blog article,post or column, unless otherwise specified by the writer to keep ownership. THE TRUTH WILL STAND ON ITS OWN AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE-SEEK IT AT ALL COSTS!