Thursday, January 10, 2013

The UN and the ruse of a Mercury Ban (sort of)

Defining the  UN:  A festering, yet organized, pustule filled with elites and their lackeys that go about secreting their pestilence on the planet.
 A blight, presented as a cure. In case you haven’t figured it out yet..... there is not much good that can be said of the UN.

Today's news: UN finds mercury threatens health, need for global accord 
Mercury is horrific and is a global problem. 
Mercury is toxic to all living things.
Human and otherwise.
Despite the headline the UN doesn't really want a global accord... Not really

The UN wants a happy shiny facade to mask the ugliness. Business as usual for the UN.
The U.N. environment agency says mercury pollution in the top layer of the world's oceans has doubled in the past century, part of a serious man-made problem that will require international co-operation to fix.

A man-made problem? What ‘man’ made this problem?
Oh yes the corporate man!

The report, an update on its previous global tallies of mercury in 2002 and 2007, comes in advance of talks in Geneva next week between nations negotiating a new legally binding treaty to reduce mercury emissions worldwide.

Mercury, a toxic metal that accumulates in fish and goes up the food chain, is widely used in chemical production and small-scale mining, particularly gold.

This article is very short on specifics. What chemical productions?
Pharmaceutical productions perhaps?
Why, yes.

Flashback to a previous post: Treaty Ban on Mercury worries WHO (World Health Organization) Treaty Ban on Mercury worries WHO? 

Wait just one darn minute! UN worried about Mercury? WHO worried about Mercury ban?
Mercury bad in food chain because it accumulates...Mercury not bad according to the WHO?
(World Health Organization and part of the UN)

Quoting from previous blog post

The World Health Organization is trying to fend off an effort to include a mercury derivative used in vaccines from being banned in a global treaty on mercury currently under negotiation.

The next round of talks for the proposed binding treaty begin on Oct. 31, and the Geneva-based UN health agency is trying to lobby for support of its position that banning thimerosal would be a mistake.

Thimerosal (mercury "derivative") is a preservative used in many vaccines that are shipped to doctors and clinics in multi-dose vials.

-Do you understand?
Mercury is bad in the environment because it goes up the food chain, accumulates and is toxic.
Mercury is not bad in vaccines.
-You follow that logic, right?
Some mercury is good if it helps big pharma with profits, but otherwise, it is bad
-You follow that logic, right?
You don’t?
How could any normal thinking, living breathing human follow that nonsense?!?!  
That line of thinking does not make any sense whatsoever!

The linked article  in my original post is unavailable, though the post contains direct quotes. Fortunately, the  NYT’s still has an article up regarding the vaccine/mercury concerns.
Original link to the story as first published, take note of the change in headline and ask yourself, why?

Vaccine Rule Is Said to Hurt Health Efforts
Was the mention of a thimerosal ban in tandem with a mercury ban just too obvious?
"a mercury compound used as a preservative in vaccines, would devastate public health efforts in developing countries. "
“But a proposal that the ban include thimerosal (because it is mercury) which has been used in vaccines”

A mercury ban that would include thimerosal? Of course! Thimerosal = Mercury.

They say that the ethyl-mercury compound is critical for vaccine use in the developing world, where multidose vials are a mainstay.

Banning it would require switching to single-dose vials for vaccines, which would cost far more

Cost far more = Reduce pharmaceutical profits

In an open letter to the United Nations Environmental Program and the World Health Organization this year, the Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs, a nonprofit group that supports the ban, disputed the assertion that scientific studies had offered proof that thimerosal is safe, and urged member states to include it in the ban.

Read here: Mercury Free

Many pdf’s refuting the bogus claims by big pharma about the safety of mercury in vaccines

 Daft Review of Thimerosal Issues in: A Report by WHO's 'Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, June 2012' (28 September 2012; 18 pages) Rev 1"
"The Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs (CoMeD) Soundly Refutes World Health Organization's Arguments for Using Thimerosal in Vaccines (20 July 2012; 10 pages)"
"TRACES: The Dangers of Mercury in Vaccines -- Special Edition -- UNEP/INC4 (27 June 2012; 19 pages)"

If Mercury in the environment is not safe then Mercury in vaccines is NEVER going to be safe.
The charade must stop

Relinking this from my previous post-

Our Preferred PoisonA little mercury is all that humans need to do away with themselves quietly, slowly, and


  1. Mercury MSDS

    Nasty to say the least, even when combined into other molecules. We all DO know that. Once again the UN is showing its hypocrisy.

    Don't forget about light bulbs Penny! I've bought up so many incandescents I think I am good til my death. We are getting rid of all our compact flourescents.

    1. Oh yes, right incandescent are being banned because they are very bad... and if one of your compact fluorescent bulbs break it has to go to the "hazardous waste' depot
      And how are you supposed to get it there?
      Without inhaling the mercury?
      f'n joke


      all those compact fluorescent bulbs, all with small amounts of mercury will accumulate, leach into the ground and water
      and poison living things
      but hell you know 'global warming' blah, blah blah
      nuclear power is green and mercury in lightbulbs is good
      With the average home having dozens of lightbulbs times millions and millions of homes