Saturday, February 10, 2018

OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU REGARDING THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND FRAUDULENT BANKING POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF THE BANK OF CANADA.



“ Until the control and the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of Parliament and democracy is idle and futile. Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation.”  
~ William Lyon Mackenzie King, longest serving Prime Minister of Canada.

03 November, 2016

OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A OA2
 

cc:  

Bill Morneau
Canadian Finance Minister
Ottawa, Canada

Stephen Poloz
Governor of the Bank of Canada
Ottawa, Canada

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau,

I am writing to you with reference to a landmark lawsuit filed against the government of Canada, The Bank of Canada, the Minister of Finance, the Attorney General of Canada, the Minister of National Revenue and the Queen by COMER – a Canadian economic think thank represented by constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati for "abdicating their statutory and constitutional duties with respect to article ss. 18 (i) and (j) of the Bank of Canada Act which stipulates that the Minister of Finance and the Government of Canada are required to request and the Bank of Canada is statutorily required to make interest-free loans for the purpose of human capital expenditures, infrastructure expenditures and federal, provincial and municipal expenditures." Details about the lawsuit can be found at www.comer.org

Both the COMER lawsuit as well as my personal research into the subject reveals that the Bank of Canada was constitutionally created as a public bank in 1938 and constitutionally mandated with the exclusive power and right to issue and loan the federal, provincial and municipal governments interest-free money for budgetary support, public infrastructure development and “human capital” expenditures such as education, health and other social programs.

Prior to 1938, Canada did not have a public bank. As a result, the government had to borrow money for government expenditures from private commercial banks at interest. The country's largest private commercial bank – the Bank of Montreal – was the government's de facto bank. However, on the eve of the Great Depression (1929), the interest on the government debt had reached an alarming one third of government expenditure. As a result, a Royal Commission was set up in 1933 to study the setting up of a Canadian public Central Bank to issue and loan interest-free money to the government for budgetary support and public expenditure.

In 1974 (under your late father Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau) the Bank of Canada became a member of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)( an apex private central banking organization regrouping all private Central Banks around the world) which started dictating monetary, financial, fiscal, economic and budgetary policy in Canada. Furthermore, under the BIS, the Bank of Canada was forbidden to provide interest-free loans to the government, contrary to the Bank Act of 1938. 


Instead, the Canadian government started borrowing fiat money created ex nihilo (out of nothing) from private commercial banks at exorbitant compounded interest rates. As a direct result, the Canadian so-called "public debt" has since exponentially increased from $24 billion in 1974 (before the Bank of Canada joined the BIS) to over $600 billion in 2014. 
Source: www.qualicuminstitute.ca/federal-debt/

Furthermore, according to official statistics published by the Canadian Ministry of Finance, Canadian taxpayers paid $28.2 billion in compounded interest on the so-called "public debt" in 2014 alone, representing 10% of total government expenditure for 2014 ($271.7 billion), exceeding health and other social expenditures, employment insurance, children's benefits, Public Safety and National Defense. Source: http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxdollar/index-eng.asp

 
Public debt, budget deficits and austerity policies and measures
 

It is truly alarming and incomprehensible that you Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and your government are spending over $30 billion annually to pay the compounded interest on the “public debt,” while imposing deadly austerity measures on the Canadian public, slashing federal, provincial and municipal budgets and borrowing additional billions of dollars from private banks at compounded interest to fund infrastructure development and “human capital” expenditures such as education, health care and other public and social services!

Moreover, according to Paul Hellyer (the former Canadian Defense Minister and author of The Money Mafia: http://www.paulhellyerweb.com), Canadian taxpayers have paid over $ 1,100 billion ($1.1 TRILLION) in compounded interest payments on the “public debt” over the last 30 years from 1974-2004 (twice the current “public debt”!) With the current level of government debt ($ 611.9 billion/2014), Canadian taxpayers will pay another TRILLION dollars in compounded interest only over the next 20-25 years, ad infinitum...

Why should the government borrow fiat money created ex nihilo at exorbitant compounded interest rates from private commercial banks when it can create and issue its own currency interest-free...?

The obvious question that any sane and thinking person would ask you as Prime Minister of Canada and that I hereby ask you Justin Trudeau is why does the government have to borrow fiat money created ex nihilo from chartered private commercial banks at exorbitant compounded interest rates which hard-working Canadian taxpayers are coerced to repay through taxation, when the Bank of Canada Act of 1938 gives the Bank of Canada the constitutional mandate and the exclusive right, power and obligation to issue and loan money to the government for public infrastructure, human capital expenditures and budgetary support ?

In 1939, Mr Graham Towers – the first Governor General of the Bank of Canada from 1934 to 1954 - testified in front of the Canadian Government's Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, during which he provided factual evidence and openly revealed much about the modus operandi of the private banking system in Canada.

In one question he was asked by the Committee:"Will you tell me why a government with power to create money, should give that power away to a private monopoly, and then borrow that which parliament can create itself, back at interest, to the point of national bankruptcy?" To which Mr Towers replied:"If parliament wants to change the form of operating the banking system, then certainly that is within the power of parliament" 

Source: http://www.michaeljournal.org/appenE.htm

I hereby ask you the same question as Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau.

Last but not least, I wish to share with you a quote by the late Honourable Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King on the dangers of surrendering and granting a monopoly of the Canadian money supply to private international central bankers:

“Until the control and the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of Parliament and democracy is idle and futile. Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation.”

I await your response.

Arya Vrilya
A very concerned Canadian citizen.

OPEN LETTER TO DR. JANE PHILPOTT - (FORMER) CANADIAN MINISTER OF HEALTH - REGARDING THE FLAWED RISK ASSESSMENT AND RE-EVALUATION OF GLYPHOSATE BASED HERBICIDES (GBH) IN CANADA.







17 October, 2016

Dr. Jane Philpott
Canadian Minister of Health
Health Canada
Ottawa, Canada

Dr. Richard Aucoin
Executive Director
Pesticides Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)
Ottawa, Canada

cc:

Justin Trudeau
Prime Minister of Canada
Ottawa, Canada

Rona Ambrose
Official Opposition Leader
(Former Canadian Minister of Health)
Ottawa, Canada

RE: Proposed Re-evaluation Decision PRVD2015-01, Glyphosate:

Dear Dr. Jane Philpott and Dr. Richard Aucoin,

I am writing to you regarding the ongoing risk assessment and re-evaluation of glyphosate by Health Canada/PMRA (Proposed Re-evaluation Decision PRVD2015-01)

I hereby wish to share with you some recently published peer reviewed scientific literature, data and evidence on the toxicity of Glyphosate Based Herbicides (GBH) residues in our food and water.
Monsanto, the industry and regulatory agencies in the US (EPA), EU (EFSA) and in Canada (Health Canada) have (erroneously) discredited and dismissed the recent WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) credible and alarming classification of glyphosate as a "probable human carcinogen” by arguing that a health hazard is not a health risk because - they erroneously argue - a health risk is based on the level of human exposure to glyphosate/Roundup.

As Health Canada writes in its own risk assessment and proposed re-evaluation decision of glyphosate:

Excerpts:

" The World Health Organization's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently assigned a hazard classification for glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans". It is important to note that a hazard classification is not a health risk assessment. The level of human exposure, which determines the actual risk, was not taken into account by WHO (IARC). Pesticides are registered for use in Canada only if the level of exposure to Canadians does not cause any harmful effects, including cancer.

Only uses for which exposure is well below levels that cause no effects in animal testing are considered acceptable for registration. Toxicology studies in laboratory animals describe potential health effects from varying levels of exposure to a chemical and identify the dose at which no effects are observed. The risk assessment approach ensures that the level of exposure to humans is well below the lowest dose at which these effects occurred in animal tests."

GBH residues in our food and water

Health Canada further writes:

" Dietary risks from food and water are not of concern."

" Reference doses define levels to which an individual can be exposed over a single day (acute) or lifetime (chronic) and expect no adverse health effects. Generally, dietary exposure from food and water is acceptable if it is less than 100% of the acute reference dose or chronic reference dose (acceptable daily intake). An acceptable daily intake is an estimate of the level of daily exposure to a pesticide residue that, over a lifetime, is believed to have no significant harmful effects.

The chronic dietary exposure estimate for the general population represents 30% of the acceptable daily intake (ADI). Exposure estimates for population subgroups range from 20% of the ADI (for adults aged 50 years or older) to 70% of the ADI (for children 1-2 years old). Thus, acute and chronic dietary risks are not of concern. Food containing a pesticide residue that does not exceed the established MRL does not pose a health risk concern."
Source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/…/…/_prvd2015-01/prvd2015-01-eng.php…

Moreover, the recently held joint WHO-FAO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) - the arm of the WHO that determines and sets the so-called "safe" level of pesticide residues allowed in our food and water - has also (erroneously) declared that glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer through pesticide residues in our food. The summary report from the JMPR is available at this link: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1
Source: http://www.reuters.com/…/us-health-who-glyphosate-idUSKCN0Y…

GLYPHOSATE/ROUNDUP/GBH: ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING CHEMICALS (EDC) TOXIC AT LOW/MINUTE DOSES:

What both Health Canada/PMRA and the joint WHO-FAO/JMPR omit to indicate and take into account in their risk assessment and in setting the ADI for GBHs, is that both glyphosate (Active Principle), Roundup (formulation) and each one of its so-called “inert” and "secret" co-formulants have alarmingly been found to be endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) which are extremely toxic to human health at low/minute doses.

As the following paper explains:

" The endocrine disrupting effect of glyphosate and its commercial formulations (i.e. Roundup) is their most insidious and worrying toxic effect. This is because EDC's do not function like normal poisons, where a higher dose gives greater toxicity. Often, endocrine disruptive effects are seen at lower doses but not at higher doses. The studies conducted by industry for regulatory purposes use relatively high doses and are not able to detect these effects. Endocrine disruption in humans is thought to contribute to some cancers, birth defects, reproductive problems such as infertility, and developmental problems in foetuses, babies, and children.

Governments recognize the threat posed by endocrine disruption, which are believed to be implicated in serious diseases, such as cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, and birth defects. These effects are thought to result from very low doses over a long period of exposure or from exposures in critical windows of development, such as foetal development in the womb.
Source: http://detoxproject.org/glyphosate/hormone-hacking/

Alarmingly, professor Gilles-Éric Séralini and his team of prominent and eminent scientific researchers have recently found both glyphosate, Roundup as well as each one of its so-called “inert” and “secret” co-formulants to be endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC).

Excerpts:

" A new study shows that the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), the supposedly safe level for glyphosate is unreliable in terms of assessing the risks of the complete commercial formulations that we are actually exposed to. The co-formulants were shown in the new study to have a far more powerful endocrine-disrupting effect at lower doses than the isolated active ingredient i.e. glyphosate. The complete formulations (i.e. Roundup) were also found to have much greater endocrine disrupting effects at lower doses than glyphosate alone. The research shows that the ADI should be calculated from toxicity tests on the commercial formulations as sold and used. The new study is the first ever demonstration that the endocrine disrupting effects of glyphosate based herbicides (GBH) are not only attributable to glyphosate, the declared active ingredient, but above all to the co-formulants."
Link to the study: http://www.gmoseralini.org/new-research-shows-regulatory-s…/

As the following paper further explains:

" The so-called safe levels of glyphosate exposure have never been tested directly to determine if indeed they are really safe to consume over the long term. Instead the “safe” levels are extrapolated from higher doses tested in industry studies. Industry toxicity study protocols are out of date. All toxicity tests conducted by industry for regulatory purposes are based on the old adage: “The dose makes the poison” – that is, the higher the dose, the greater the degree of toxicity. However, in some cases, low doses corresponding to human exposures can be more toxic than the higher doses tested in laboratory animals in industry studies. This is especially true for chemicals that disrupt the hormonal system (endocrine disruptors). Safe levels of these chemicals cannot be extrapolated from effects at higher doses. Evidence from in vitro and animal experiments shows that glyphosate may be an endocrine disruptor at levels permitted in tap water in the EU.

Findings that glyphosate and its commercial formulations may be endocrine disruptors imply that the standard industry long-term animal studies are inadequate. These studies are conducted on adult animals, and fail to test the effects of exposure during important windows of development, such as foetal development. Yet hormones are vital regulators of development. A subtle hormonal effect during early life can modify organ morphology and function for the rest of the life, as well as potentially leading to chronic diseases such as cancer and reproductive dysfunction in adults.

The complete glyphosate herbicide formulations as sold and used contain additives (adjuvants), which are toxic in their own right and/or increase the toxicity of glyphosate. Safety limits are set for the isolated ingredient glyphosate, but the whole formulations, which are generally more toxic, are never tested to determine long-term toxic effects. This limitation of the regulatory process applies to all pesticides in all countries worldwide. Studies in rats confirm that the complete glyphosate herbicide formulations are toxic at levels deemed safe by regulators for the isolated ingredient glyphosate. Other feeding studies in pigs and rats directly comparing the toxicity of formulations with glyphosate alone found that the formulations were far more toxic.

Even glyphosate alone may not be as safe as claimed. Industry tests on glyphosate alone revealed toxic effects, notably birth defects, below the levels that regulators claimed showed no toxic effect – but these results were ignored or dismissed by regulators in setting the supposedly safe ADI. Independent studies have found toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations at environmentally realistic levels, which have never been tested by regulators. Effects include oxidative stress on liver and kidneys and endocrine disrupting effects. These findings, taken as a whole, suggest that the levels of Roundup we are exposed to may not be safe over the long term." 
Link to the article with references: http://detoxproject.org/…/how-safe-are-safe-levels-of-roun…/

The following independent peer reviewed published studies have also found both glyphosate and Roundup to be EDCs:
http://www.endocrinedisruption.org/…/tedx-l…/chemicalsearch…

Moreover, a peer reviewed Scientific Consensus Statement recently published by a number of prominent and eminent scientists states:

Abstract:

" Our Statement of Concern considers current published literature describing glyphosate based herbicides (GBH) uses, mechanisms of action, toxicity in laboratory animals, and epidemiological studies. It also examines the derivation of current human safety standards.
We conclude that: (1) GBHs are the most heavily applied herbicide in the world and usage continues to rise; (2) Worldwide, GBHs often contaminate drinking water sources, precipitation, and air, especially in agricultural regions; (3) The half-life of glyphosate in water and soil is longer than previously recognized; (4) Glyphosate and its metabolites are widely present in the global soybean supply; (5) Human exposures to GBHs are rising; (6) Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human carcinogen; (7) Regulatory estimates of tolerable daily intakes for glyphosate in the United States and European Union are based on outdated science." (emphasis is mine.)


" We offer a series of recommendations related to the need for new investments in epidemiological studies, biomonitoring, and toxicology studies that draw on the principles of endocrinology to determine whether the effects of GBHs are due to endocrine disrupting activities.
We suggest that common commercial formulations of GBHs should be prioritized for inclusion in government-led toxicology testing programs such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program, as well as for biomonitoring as conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

Link to the complete Scientific Consensus Statement:
http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/…/10.1…/s12940-016-0117-0

The Endocrine Society has also recently published an alarming (2nd) Scientific Statement on the toxicity of EDC's:

" This Executive Summary to the Endocrine Society's second Scientific Statement on environmental endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) provides a synthesis of the key points of the complete statement. The full Scientific Statement represents a comprehensive review of the literature (1300 studies) on seven topics for which there is strong mechanistic, experimental, animal, and epidemiological evidence for endocrine disruption, namely: obesity and diabetes, female reproduction, male reproduction, hormone-sensitive cancers in females, prostate cancer, thyroid, and neurodevelopment and neuroendocrine systems."

"Scientific advances over the past 5 years (encompassing 1300 studies) reveal numerous EDC effects on obesity, diabetes, male and female reproduction (including cancer), the prostate and thyroid glands, and neurodevelopment. The past 5 years represent a leap forward in our understanding of EDC actions on endocrine health and disease."

Link to the complete Scientific Statement:
http://www.healthandenvironment.org/partnership_calls/18015

Glyphosate Risk Assessment: Health Hazards vs Health Risks

Furthermore, the risk assessment of GBHs carried out by Health Canada/PMRA and all regulatory agencies is scientifically flawed and outdated for the reasons briefly explained below.

1) “The dose makes the poison”

The health hazards vs health risks assessment carried out by Health Canada/PMRA and by all regulatory agencies is scientifically flawed and outdated because regulators erroneously believe the five century old adage that the “dose makes the poison.” However, recent toxicology peer-reviewed and published scientific research has shown that this outdated dogma is in many cases inaccurate and quite often the opposite is true (i.e. linear vs nonmonotonic dose-response curves) Study link:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419778

2) Active Principle (glyphosate) vs Formulation/product (Roundup)

Regulatory agencies only review the toxicity of the Active Principle alone (i.e. glyphosate) and not the whole product formulation (i.e Roundup) which contains other highly toxic and synergistic “secret” adjuvants. However, a recent landmark peer-reviewed and published study has alarmingly found Monsanto's Roundup and other pesticide formulations to be 125-1000 times more toxic than their declared Active Principle.

The authors of the study alarmingly found and write:

“We tested the toxicity of 9 pesticides, comparing active principles and their formulations, on three human cell lines[...] Despite its relatively benign reputation, Roundup was among the most toxic herbicides and insecticides tested. Most importantly, 8 formulations out of 9 were up to one thousand times more toxic than their active principles. Our results challenge the relevance of the acceptable daily intake for pesticides because this norm is calculated from the toxicity of the active principle alone. Chronic tests on pesticides may not reflect relevant environmental exposures if only one ingredient of these mixtures is tested alone.”
Study Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955666/

EPA and EFSA recognize the toxicity of GBH formulations

Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have publicly recognized the toxicity of glyphosate based herbicides (GBH) formulations.

In its own risk assessment of glyphosate, the EPA publicly admits and states that it evaluated only the "human carcinogenic potential for the active ingredient," not that of "glyphosate-based pesticide formulations." The EPA acknowledges that the formulations may be more toxic than glyphosate and expresses the need to evaluate the toxicity of the entire formulation i.e. Roundup.  The EPA is developing a “research plan” with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to “evaluate the role of glyphosate in product formulations and the differences in formulation toxicity.”

Similarly, EFSA's risk assessment of glyphosate was based exclusively on the toxicity of glyphosate alone, not on the complete formulation; although EFSA acknowledged that one common ingredient in glyphosate based herbicides - POE-tallowamine - is more toxic than glyphosate itself, EFSA publicly admits and writes that the carcinogenic potential of GBH formulations "should be further considered and addressed."

3) Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)

Health Canada/PMRA and regulatory agencies worldwide determine and set the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of glyphosate/Roundup based exclusively on the Active Principle alone (AP) (i.e. glyphosate) and not on the complete product formulation (i.e. Roundup). However, the actual product that is approved by regulatory agencies and copiously sprayed in our food, soil, water, air and environment is not only glyphosate (AP) but the whole product formulation (i.e. Roundup). This constitutes a flagrant and dangerous flaw in the risk assessment of GBHs and a serious health risk to public health

ROUNDUP (GBH) RESIDUES IN OUR FOOD AND WATER

Roundup residues have alarmingly been found in various common food items i.e. flour, bread, cereals, lentils, peas, beans, potatoes, dairy, eggs, fruits, vegetables, wine, beers, etc., as well as in human urine, blood and breastmilk!
http://beyondpesticides.org/…/glyphosate-residues-found-in…/

Roundup is alarmingly ubiquitous in our daily food supply, as the following recent investigative articles and reports alarmingly reveal:

https://usrtk.org/…/CFIA_ACIA-9123346-v1-FSSD-FSSS-Glyphosa…
http://www.cbc.ca/n…/health/cfia-report-glyphosate-1.4070275
http://www.truth-out.org/…/35919-not-just-for-corn-and-soy-…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/fda-tests-confirm-oatmeal_b…
https://s3.amazonaws.com/…/FDN_Glyphosate_FoodTesting_Repor…

In fact, Roundup is not only used on GMO crops; it is also widely used as a dessicant to dry and kill non-GMO grain crops such as wheat, oats, barley, flax, etc. a few weeks before harvest; it is also copiously sprayed on nuts, lentils, peas, beans, potatoes, fruits and vegetables.

In its “pre-harvest staging guide” Monsanto states: “A preharvest weed control application is an excellent management strategy to not only control perennial weeds, but to facilitate harvest management and get a head start on next year’s crop.”
Source: https://usrtk.org/…/Monsanto-application-guide-for-preharve…

Roundup is also present in our daily drinking water supply. The following recently published study also found ultra-low dose exposure to Roundup in drinking water to adverse impacts on rat livers and kidneys: http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/…/10.1…/s12940-015-0056-1

Monsanto and the industry of course deny that glyphosate/Roundup residues in our food and water supply are dangerous to human health. "According to physicians and other food safety experts, the mere presence of a chemical itself is not a human health hazard. It is the amount, or dose, that matters," Monsanto senior toxicologist Kimberly Hodge-Bell said in the Monsanto blog; "trace amounts are not unsafe".
Source: http://www.reuters.com/…/us-food-agriculture-glyphosate-idU…

However, this misleading and false public statement by Kimberly Hodge-Bell and Monsanto is not supported by the peer reviewed published scientific literature, evidence and data and is contradicted by the science of toxicology and endocrinology, as I have argued and demonstrated in this paper.

Conclusion

To summarize and to conclude, Monsanto, Health Canada, regulatory agencies and the Joint WHO-FAO JMPR claim and argue that glyphosate/Roundup residues in our food and water are safe for human consumption and pose no human health risks; they erroneously believe in the five century old and outdated dogma that “the dose makes the poison.” However, recent toxicology research has shown that this belief is in many cases inaccurate and quite often the opposite is true i.e. linear vs nonmonotonic dose-response curves.

Furthermore, glyphosate, Roundup and each one of its so-called “inert” and “secret” co-formulants have been found to be endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC) which are extremely toxic to human health at low/minute doses. Endocrine disruptive effects are seen at lower doses but not at higher doses. The studies conducted by industry for regulatory purpose and approval use relatively high doses and are not able to detect these effects.

EDCs in humans are believed to contribute to some cancers, birth defects, reproductive problems such as infertility, and developmental problems in foetuses, babies, and children. These effects are thought to result from very low doses over a long period of exposure or from exposures in critical windows of development, such as foetal development in the womb.

Furthermore, Health Canada/PMRA and all regulatory agencies only review industry-funded and supplied studies on the toxicity of the Active Principle (AP) alone (i.e. glyphosate), not on the whole product formulation (i.e. Roundup) which contains other highly toxic and synergistic “secret” adjuvants. However, a recent landmark peer-reviewed published study has alarmingly found Roundup and other pesticide formulations to be 125-1000 times more toxic than their declared Active Principle.

Health Canada/PMRA sets the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of pesticide residues in our food and water based exclusively on the toxicity of glyphosate alone and not on the entire formulation i.e. Roundup. However, the actual product that is approved by Health Canada/PMRA and copiously sprayed in our food, water, soil, air and environment is not only glyphosate (AP), but the complete pesticide formulation i.e. Roundup. This constitutes a major flaw in the risk assessment of glyphosate/Roundup and all GBH formulations and a serious danger and risk to public health.

Therefore, it is fair to conclude that both the risk assessment of glyphosate/Roundup and all GBH formulations as well as the ADI set by Health Canada/PMRA are scientifically flawed and outdated and extremely toxic to human health since they expose us to extremely high doses of glyphosate based herbicides (GBHs) and endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) residues in our food and water.

I hereby ask you both Dr. Jane Philpott and Dr. Richard Aucoin to urgently and carefully read, study and take into account the above published peer reviewed scientific literature, data and evidence on the toxicity of Monsanto's Roundup and all GBHs in your ongoing risk assessment and final re-evaluation decision of glyphosate/Roundup/GBHs and to BAN all ongoing and future usage of GBHs in our food, water and environment to protect our health, our lives and our environment.

Both you Dr. Jane Philpott as Canadian Health Minister and Dr. Richard Aucoin have a public mandate and a legal obligation and responsibilty to make sure that the food we eat and the water we drink is safe for human consumption and to protect the health and the lives of all Canadians.

HEALTH CANADA FINAL RE-EVALUATION DECISION ON GLYPHOSATE

Tragically but unsurprisingly, Health Canada and Health Minister Jane Philpott have re-approved the unrestricted use of glyphosate/GBH/Roundup in Canada for another 15 years! Health Canada writes: " Following a rigorous science-based assessment, Health Canada has determined that when used according to the label, products containing glyphosate are not a concern to human health and the environment." 

Link to the Final Re-Evaluation Decision: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2017/04/statement_from_healthcanadafinalre-evaluationdecisiononglyphosat.html?wbdisable=true


With grave concern,

Arya Vrilya

Sunday, January 28, 2018


As above, so below...

Before Galileo revealed and proved that the earth revolved around the sun and did not stand motionless at the centre of the Universe (heliocentrism), both Ptolemy and the Church claimed and humanity wrongfully believed that the earth stood motionless at the centre of the universe and that the sun revolved around the earth (Ptolemaic view of the universe).

Similarly, today both religions and science wrongfully claim and believe that humans are the only "intelligent" lifeform in the Universe. However, the following insightful book from Marshall Vian Summers reveals that the Universe is teeming with myriads of highly intelligent and both technologically and spiritually evolved lifeforms which are already covertly interacting with this planet...

Sunday, December 31, 2017


What vanity or lack of wisdom drives
The guiding spirits of this age to doubt
The fact that laws celestial rule the lives
Of men and cannot be infringed without
Incurring penalties that must be paid
For individual or collective breach,
In strict accordance with the canons laid
For our collective crimes or sins of each?


Undoubtedly impartial jurists sift
The actions which debase us or uplift,
And after judging the ancestral pool
Decree a just reward, delayed or swift.

When deathless laws, we clearly understand,
Rule mighty suns and planets, sea and land,
Could not the wise Creator find one which
Would keep this moving lump of clay in hand?

Nor learned skepticism nor other trash,
Now ranked as wisdom, shall survive the crash,
Which soon will come to teach our wiseacres
That godless reason can become a curse,
And breed Satanic minds, if left alone,
With matchless intellect but hearts of stone:
A crop which is inevitable if
The attitude of scholars, hard and stiff
Towards sublime belief and faith, does not
To Revelation its true place allot.

Can we determine, when we ponder deep
On it that heaven has framed no laws to keep
Mankind upon the Path to reach the goal
It has appointed for the human soul;
And men are free to act as they decide,
To wallow in sin or to drown in pride,
And there is no Almighty Power to deal
With them, the fever of the mind to heal?

Hence, I do not predict but just inform
The world about a mighty Cosmic Law,
Which soon may raise a hideous global storm,
Out of the present groove mankind to draw.

Existence of this Force may soon be felt
When steel and cement walls like wax will melt,
And fuse to rise in clouds of fiery dust;
The Wrath of Heav'n on man's unbridled lust,
Against which every prophet raised his voice,
But often failed to sway the fatal choice.

Those who treat nature as a lifeless rock,
Insensible to virtue, vice and crime,
And fancy that its motion, like a clock,
They can adjust at will from time to time,
One awful day must see it come to life
Confronting them with fierce, aggressive swarms,
And then with loss, distress and slaughter rife
The whole of nature will seem up in arms.

Hence when disastrous situations rise,
Producing consternation and dismay,
A wise man can with confidence surmise:
The Law has been infringed in some way.

Destructive wars that cause the world concern
Present no riddle to the enlightened mind,
Which in the raging tempest can discern
The attempt of nature safety-vents to find.

Behold the time has come when once again
The auguries of prophets shall come true,
And man, a rebel grown too proud and vain,
With tears for heaven's clemency shall sue.

Gopi Krishna ~ The Shape of Events to Come

PM JUSTIN TRUDEAU - AGA KHAN CONFLICT OF INTEREST REPORT


Last Christmas (2016), the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his family, a Minister from his Cabinet ( Seamus O'Regan) and his "husband" (he is homosexual), the President of the Liberal party Anna Gainey and her husband Tom Pitfield spent their holidays on the Aga Khan IV's private Bell island in the Bahamas (pictured above).

Earlier this month, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner of Canada - Mary Dawson - released her scathing investigative report in which she found and wrote that PM Justin Trudeau violated 4 clauses from the Conflict of Interest Act and Code by travelling on the Aga Khan's private helicopter and vacationing on the Aga Khan's private island.

In her report, Dawson writes (excerpts):

"Subsection 14(1) of the Members’ Code prohibits a Member and any member of the Member’s family from accepting, directly or indirectly, any gift or other benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the Member in the exercise of a duty or function of his or her office. Paragraph 11(2)(b) of the Act provides an exception from this prohibition where the gift or advantage is given by a relative or friend.

I found that Mr. Trudeau, as Prime Minister, contravened section 11 of the Act when he or his family accepted the gifts of hospitality from the Aga Khan and the use of his private island in March and December 2016. Because there was ongoing official business between the Government of Canada and the Aga Khan at the time each invitation was accepted, Mr. Trudeau, as Prime Minister, was in a position to be able to advance some of the matters of interest to the Aga Khan. As well, the Foundation was registered to lobby the Office of the Prime Minister at that time. For these reasons, I determined that the vacations accepted by Mr. Trudeau or his family might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence Mr. Trudeau.

I found that the exception provided in paragraph 11(2)(b) of the Act for gifts from relatives and friends did not apply in this case. Mr. Trudeau’s relationship with the Aga Khan was based on a family connection rooted in a friendship between the Aga Khan and Mr. Trudeau’s father thirty years earlier. However, there were no private interactions between Mr. Trudeau and the Aga Khan until Mr. Trudeau became Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. This led me to conclude that their relationship cannot be described as one of friends for the purposes of the Act."
Link to the entire report (PDF): https://www.google.ca/url…

In response to her damning report, PM Justin Trudeau offered Canadians a brief apology on TV by saying "I am sorry," all the while defending himself of breaching any conflict of interest and/or ethical codes by arguing that the Aga Khan is nothing more than a close family and personal "friend" who had invited the PM, his family and friends to spend the holidays with him on his private island in the Bahamas.

However, Mary Dawson wrote in her report that she did not find any convincing evidence during her investigations to support the claim that PM Justin Trudeau and the Aga Khan were only "friends" in the legal and true sense of the word. " I have already concluded in relation to section 11 that the relationship between Mr. Trudeau and the Aga Khan does not fall within the meaning of “friends” as contemplated for the purposes of the Act," writes Dawson.

Moreover, in 2016 while Justin Trudeau was serving as PM of Canada, the Aga Khan Foundation lobbied the Canadian government for funds and the Trudeau administration gave the Aga Khan Foundation a grant of +$49 MILLION, as the following official document from the Canadian government/Canadian Revenue Agency reveals: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/…/sr…/t3010form23sched6-eng.action…


The Aga Khan is the Chairman and one of the directors of the Aga Khan Foundation which is registered in Canada to lobby the Canadian government for funds, including the Prime Minister's Office. To date (2017), the Canadian government has granted the Aga Khan Foundation in excess of $330 MILLION for so-called "humanitarian" and "development" projects in mostly Africa and Asia.

As Mary Dawson writes in her report:

" The Aga Khan is the founder and chair of the board of directors of the Aga Khan Development Network, the Aga Khan Foundation Canada (Foundation) and the Global Centre for Pluralism. He has a long-standing relationship with the Government of Canada, which since 1981 has contributed nearly $330 million to projects supported by the Foundation.

I found that Mr. Trudeau contravened section 21 of the Act when he did not recuse himself from discussions that provided an opportunity to improperly further the private interest associated with one of the institutions of the Aga Khan and that he contravened section 5 for failing to arrange his private affairs to avoid such an opportunity. As well, the Foundation was registered to lobby the Office of the Prime Minister at that time."

In response to questions by the press about these blatant conflict of interests, PM Justin Trudeau had difficulty forming a coherent sentence let alone uttering a coherent response, as this embarrasing video reveals: https://globalnews.ca/…/trudeau-explains-why-he-didnt-consi…

Note: The princely Christmas vacation of Prince Minister Justin Trudeau and his family cost Canadian taxpayers + $215,000 ~ the equivalent of several years of labor/wages for the average Canadian! And while Prince Minister Justin Trudeau and his family lavishly celebrate Christmas on a private island in the Bahamas with his lobbyist "friend" using Canadian taxpayers money, millions of hard working canadians are struggling daily to make ends meet every month in Canada...

Arya Vrilya

DEL BIGTREE'S LEGAL NOTICE TO THE SECRETARY OF THE HHS FOR "SAFE" VACCINES (AN OXYMORON)



Del Bigtree is threatening to sue the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for failing to enforce and provide "mandates for safer childhood vaccines" as stipulated under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). Link to his letter: http://www.icandecide.com/white-papers/ICAN-HHS-Notice.pdf

In his letter, Del BigTree is clearly arguing and lobbying in favor of "mandates for safer childhood vaccines" and "safer vaccines" (an oxymoron). Del Bigtree writes:

"The 1986 Act expressly requires that you, as the Secretary, “shall make or assure improvements in … the licensing … and research on vaccines, in order to reduce the risks of adverse reactions to vaccines.” (42 U.S.C. § 300aa-27(a)(2).) The 1986 Act expressly provides that you, as the Secretary, “shall make or assure improvements in … adverse reaction reporting … in order to reduce the risks of adverse reactions to vaccines.” (42 U.S.C. § 300aa-27(a)(2).) The 1986 Act expressly provides that you, as the Secretary, “shall promote the development of childhood vaccines that result in fewer and less adverse reactions” and “shall make or assure improvements in … the … labeling, warning, … and research on vaccines, in order to reduce the risks of adverse reactions to vaccines.” (42 U.S.C. § 300aa-27(a)(2)."

How can you Del Bigtree threaten to sue the HHS under the 1986 NCVIA for failing to enforce and provide "mandates for safer childhood vaccines" when in fact Congress voted the 1986 NCVIA to shield the industry from State design-defect lawsuits resulting from vaccine-related injuries and deaths based on the industry's own arguments and fact that vaccines are inherently and "unavoidably unsafe" and dangerous by their very nature ?

In 1986 the US Congress voted a law - The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) - that granted vaccine manufacturers legal immunity and impunity against all vaccine-related injuries and deaths. The Act stipulates that: " No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death: (1) resulting from unavoidable side effects; or (2) solely due to the manufacturer's failure to provide direct warnings."

In other words, vaccine manufacturers are not legally liable for vaccine-related injuries and/or death if the injury or death resulted from "side effects" that were "unavoidable" even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings. The NCVIA clearly stipulates and admits that vaccine-related injuries and/or deaths resulting from "side effects" are "unavoidable" even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.

Therefore, it is not possible for the Secretary of the HHS to enforce and provide "mandates for safer childhood vaccines" since vaccines are by their very nature inherently and "unavoidably" unsafe and dangerous as the 1986 NCVIA clearly stipulates and admits and carry "unavoidable adverse side effects" as the US Supreme Court ruled in 2011.

In 2011, The US Supreme Court (in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth) was asked to rule on whether Congress had intended for the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to preempt State design-defect lawsuits. Although the Supreme Court did not specifically address and study the safety of vaccines, it nevertheless ruled that the NCVIA preempted State design-defect lawsuits due to the fact that vaccines carry "unavoidable adverse sid effects." As a result, the industry was de facto granted legal immunity and impunity from all injuries and deaths resulting from vaccines in the US! http://www.washingtonpost.com/…/…/02/22/AR2011022206008.html

In lieu of sueing vaccine manufacturers for vaccine injuries and deaths in the courts, victims could only file a claim for compensation through the (US taxpayers-funded) National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). According to official data published by the NVICP and the HHS, the US government (i.e. US taxpayers) has paid over 3,5 BILLION dollars in compensation to 17,732 victims of vaccine injury in the US from 1988-2017 ~ 16,523 injuries and 1,209 deaths (see data enclosed): https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensa…/…/statisticsreport.pdf

Instead of lobbying and threatening to sue the Secretary of the HHS to enforce and provide "mandates for safer childhood vaccines" and "safer vaccines," you Del Bigtree and your +50 signatory organizational partners and millions of supporters should instead lobby Congress to REPEAL the 1986 NCVIA which has de facto given the industry legal immunity and impunity related to all vaccine-related injuries and deaths (the source of the problem).

You Del BigTree write:

"The first step in assuring safer vaccines is to identify what harms they cause." I vehemently disagree with this statement. In my opinion, the first step in protecting pregnant women, newborns, children and adults alike from the inherently and "unavoidably unsafe" and dangerous nature of vaccines is to REPEAL the 1986 NCVIA so that the industry (not the HHS) is both held legally responsible for "vaccine safety" (never mind the oxymoron) and held legally liable for all vaccine-related injuries and deaths in a court of law, thereby sealing the murderous vaccine industry's coffin in lieu of ours.

You further write:

" HHS can do better. With hundreds of vaccines in the pipeline it must do better. Avoiding injury to these children is not only a moral and ethical duty, but will in fact strengthen the vaccine program. Every parent that does not witness their child suffer a serious reaction after vaccination, such as a seizure or paralysis, is another parent that will not add their voice to the growing chorus of parents opposed to HHS’s vaccine program due to safety concerns. The first step in avoiding these harms and helping children already harmed is admitting there are deficiencies and working diligently to improve vaccine safety. Vaccines can and do cause serious injury and HHS needs to work diligently to identify and reduce these harms."

So you Del BigTree want to "improve vaccine safety" to "strengthen the vaccine program" "with hundreds of vaccines in the pipeline" ?🤔
http://www.phrma.org/…/list-of-medicines-in-development-for…

"Vaccine safety" is an oxymoron. Vaccines are inherently unsafe and dangerous as the 1986 NCVIA clearly stipulates and "unavoidably unsafe" as the US Supreme Court has upheld and ruled in 2011.
Last but not least, the science behind "vaccine safety" is corrupted by the industry, as this investigative article reveals: http://vaccineimpact.com/…/the-corruption-of-science-who-f…/

BREAKING UPDATE (14 November, 2017):

TRUMP APPOINTS FORMER TOP PHARMA EXECUTIVE AS SECRETARY OF THE HHS: PUTTING THE FOX IN CHARGE OF THE HENHOUSE...

President Donald J. Trump has appointed a former top pharmaceutical executive (Alex Azar) as Secretary of the Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS) tasked with regulating the phamaceutical industry and assuring the safety, effectiveness, quality, and security of pharmaceutical products manufactured and sold in the U.S, including the safety of vaccines: https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/ad6a4e16-c408-11e7-84bc-5e…

" While at Lilly, Azar oversaw the sale of some of the company’s most profitable and controversial products. These include: recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), which Lilly bought from Monsanto and which increases the risk of developing breast and gastrointestinal cancers; Thimerosal, a mercury-containing vaccine preservative linked to neurodevelopmental problems in infants and children; and Prozac, a highly profitable drug used to treat depression that was later found to actually do nothing more than a placebo to decrease most forms of depression but instead increased suicidal tendencies. If confirmed, Azar would be tasked with “assuring the safety, effectiveness, quality, and security of pharmaceutical products manufactured and sold in the U.S," including the "safety" of vaccines": http://www.mintpressnews.com/big-pharmas-azar-head-hhs-t…/…/

"Eli Lilly is the inventor and was the primary manufacturer of thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used in vaccines that is linked to autism and other neurological disorders. Prior to employment at Eli Lilly, under George W. Bush, Azar was general counsel and later deputy secretary of HHS at the time the decision was made to give an expedited efficacy and safety review to Gardasil, a vaccine for human papilloma virus produced by Merck that has enormous safety issues."

"As general counsel (head attorney) for HHS, Azar participated in the Autism Omnibus Proceeding that denied more than 5000 claims of vaccine injury, even though HHS settled one of the test cases that found that Hannah Poling’s autism was indeed caused by vaccine injury. " http://healthimpactnews.com/…/president-trump-nominates-bi…/

Now connect the dots with Del Bigtree's legal notice to the Secretary of the HHS to enforce "mandates for safer childhood vaccines" and ensuring "vaccine safety" Once Azar/HHS accepts and implements Del Bigtree's legal notice to enforce and provide "safer childhood vaccines" and "safe vaccines," the HHS will then rubber stamp and label vaccines as "safe" and the US govt will legally mandate and forcefully inject pregnant women, newborns, children and adults alike with hundreds of "safe" vaccines waiting in the pipeline (+250 as of 2017), opening the floodgates to the Vaccine Holocaust...

Link to Del Bigtree's Youtube video on his legal notice to the Secretary of the HHS/Alex Azar:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=116&v=7JFENSq-YaM

Arya Vrilya

ROBERT F. KENNEDY LOBBYING FOR "VACCINE SAFETY" (AN OXYMORON)


" We are not anti-vaccine. We are pro vaccine safety. It's time to bring scientific integrity to our nation's vaccine program." Robert F. Kennedy, Jr
 
Robert F. Kennedy has embarked on a crusade for "vaccine safety." (an oxymoron) In his own words, Kennedy says and writes:

" State legislatures and governors throughout the US are considering passing mandatory vaccine mandates, and the facts in this video (link below) are facts that every political leader ought to have and understand. The government is asking healthy children to be vaccinated with shots that have not undergone a rigorous safety process. Vaccine injuries can and do happen. Our children deserve better. We are asking for everyone’s help to demand vaccine safety science. Our government health leaders in charge of protecting children’s health are urging parents to vaccinate without doing the science necessary to prove all vaccines are safe for all children.

“We all want the best for America’s children. We need to start with good science and a clean regulatory process. We want to make sure that the conflicts are removed from the regulators who are making decisions over our vaccines and that the vaccines that our children get are as safe as they can possibly be, that the science is strong and robust. None of that is possible unless we first accomplish World Mercury Project’s 6 steps to vaccine safety. Our 6 Steps to Vaccine Safety will create scientific integrity and a robust, transparent regulatory process."

We are not anti-vaccine. We are pro vaccine safety. It's time to bring scientific integrity to our nation's vaccine program. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/vaccine-safety-project#/

Personal observations and comments:

Primo, Kennedy is exclusively blaming vaccine-related injuries and deaths on the lack of "vaccine safety science" and on a flawed and corrupt regulatory system, without addressing let alone mentionning the inherently and "unavoidably unsafe" and dangerous nature of vaccines as clearly stipulated in both the 1986 National Childhood Vaccination Injury Act (NCVIA) and in the 2011 US Supreme Court ruling that upheld and ruled that vaccines come with unavoidable adverse side effects.

In 1986 the US Congress voted a law - The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) - that granted vaccine manufacturers legal immunity and impunity against all vaccine-related injuries and deaths. The Act stipulates that: " No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death: (1) resulting from unavoidable side effects; or (2) solely due to the manufacturer's failure to provide direct warnings." https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546

In other words, vaccine manufacturers are not legally liable for vaccine-related injuries and/or death if the injury or death resulted from "side effects" (including brain damage, paralysis and death) that were "unavoidable" even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.

Moreover In 2011, The US Supreme Court (in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth) was asked to rule on whether Congress had intended for the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to preempt State design-defect lawsuits. Although the Supreme Court did not specifically address and study the safety of vaccines, it nevertheless ruled that the NCVIA preempted State design-defect lawsuits due to the fact that vaccines come with "unavoidable adverse side effects." As a result, the industry was de facto granted legal immunity and impunity from all injuries and deaths resulting from vaccines in the US. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…/…/02/22/AR2011022206008.html

In lieu of sueing vaccine manufacturers for vaccine injuries and deaths in the courts, victims could only file a claim for compensation through the (US taxpayers-funded) National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). According to official data published by the NVICP and the HHS, the US government (i.e. US taxpayers) has paid over 3,5 BILLION dollars in compensation to 17,732 victims of vaccine injury in the US from 1988-2017 ~ 16,523 injuries and 1,209 deaths (see data enclosed): https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensa…/…/statisticsreport.pd


However, it should be noted that this data does not take into account and reflect all of the vaccine-related injuries and deaths in the US since not all victims file a claim of compensation through the NVICP, and of those that do only about a third receive compensation related to vaccine-related injuries/deaths.

Incredibly however, Kennedy does not address let alone mention the 1986 NCVIA and/or the 2011 US Supreme Court ruling that clearly stipulates and admits that vaccines come with "unavoidablye adverse side effects." The NCVIA clearly stipulates and admits that vaccine-related injuries and/or deaths resulting from "side effects" are "unavoidable" even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.

Therefore, simply addressing "vaccine safety" science and the flawed and corrupt regulatory system without acknowledging and adressing the fact that vaccines are inherently and "unavoidably unsafe" and dangerous by their very nature will NOT result in achieving your stated goal of "vaccine safety" (never mind the oxymoron.)

The first step in protecting pregnant women, newborns, children and adults alike from the inherently and "unavoidably unsafe" and dangerous nature of vaccines is to REPEAL the 1986 NCVIA so that the industry is both held legally responsible for "vaccine safety" (not the HHS) and held legally liable for all vaccine-related injuries and deaths in a court of law, thereby sealing the murderous vaccine industry's coffin in lieu of ours.

"Vaccine safety" is an oxymoron. Vaccines are inherently unsafe and dangerous as the 1986 NCVIA clearly stipulates and "unavoidably unsafe" as the US Supreme Court has upheld and ruled in 2011.
Last but not least, the science behind "vaccine safety" has been hijacked and corrupted by the industry itself, as the following investigative article reveals: http://vaccineimpact.com/…/the-corruption-of-science-who-f…/

Furthermore, Kennedy argues and writes: “We want to make sure that the conflicts are removed from the regulators who are making decisions over our vaccines and that the vaccines that our children get are as safe as they can possibly be, that the science is strong and robust. None of that is possible unless we first accomplish World Mercury Project’s 6 steps to vaccine safety.” https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/vaccine-safety-project#/

Step 3 of the World Mercury Project's "steps to vaccine safety" stipulates: "ENSURE ALL INVOLVED WITH FEDERAL VACCINE APPROVALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FREE FROM CONFLICTS OF INTEREST."

However, Alex Azar, the Secretary of US Dept of Human Health and Services (HHS) (the federal agency mandated for regulating the pharmaceutical industry and insuring the "safety" of vaccines) is a former top pharmaceutical executive. In fact, on 13 Novembre 2017 President Donald J. Trump appointed a former top pharmaceutical executive (Alex Azar) as Secretary of the Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS) tasked with regulating the phamaceutical industry and assuring the safety, effectiveness, quality, and security of pharmaceutical products manufactured and sold in the U.S, including the safety of vaccines: https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/ad6a4e16-c408-11e7-84bc-5e…

" While at Lilly, Azar oversaw the sale of some of the company’s most profitable and controversial products. These include: recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), which Lilly bought from Monsanto and which increases the risk of developing breast and gastrointestinal cancers; Thimerosal, a mercury-containing vaccine preservative linked to neurodevelopmental problems in infants and children; and Prozac, a highly profitable drug used to treat depression that was later found to actually do nothing more than a placebo to decrease most forms of depression but instead increased suicidal tendencies. If confirmed, Azar would be tasked with “assuring the safety, effectiveness, quality, and security of pharmaceutical products manufactured and sold in the U.S," including the "safety" of vaccines. http://www.mintpressnews.com/big-pharmas-azar-head-hhs-t…/…/

"Eli Lilly is the inventor and was the primary manufacturer of thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used in vaccines that is linked to autism and other neurological disorders. Prior to employment at Eli Lilly, under George W. Bush, Azar was general counsel and later deputy secretary of HHS at the time the decision was made to give an expedited efficacy and safety review to Gardasil, a vaccine for human papilloma virus produced by Merck that has enormous safety issues."

"As general counsel (head attorney) for HHS, Azar participated in the Autism Omnibus Proceeding that denied more than 5000 claims of vaccine injury, even though HHS settled one of the test cases that found that Hannah Poling’s autism was indeed caused by vaccine injury. " http://healthimpactnews.com/…/president-trump-nominates-bi…/

Therefore, how can you Robert Kennedy achieve your stated objectives of obtaining "vaccines that are as safe as possible & science that is robust" given the fact that vaccines are inherently and "unavoidably unsafe" and dangerous as both the 1986 NCVIA and the 2011 US Supreme Court ruling clearly stipulate and admit, and advocating for "a regulatory agency that has unquestionable integrity and is free from conflicts of interests" with Alex Azar as Secretary of the HHS mandated to regulate the pharmaceutical industry and the "safety" of vaccines ?

Arya Vrilya