Family of autism specialist Dr. Jeffrey Bradstreet says forensic evidence points to murder, impossible for bullet entry to be self-inflicted

by Julie Wilson staff writer http://www.naturalnews.com/054302_Jeff_Bradstreet_murder_autism.html

(NaturalNews) Nearly one year has passed since Dr. Jeffrey Bradstreet, a renowned physician known for his skepticism of immunizations (particularly the MMR vaccine) and his progressive autism research was found dead, floating in a North Carolina river with a single gunshot wound.
Leading up to his death, Bradstreet was working with a highly controversial molecule that occurs naturally within the human body and is believed to be capable of treating and reversing autism.

Researchers claim that GcMAF (Globulin component Macrophage Activating Factor), which becomes the GC protein after combining with vitamin D in the body, is effective for treating HIV, diabetes and diseases of the liver and kidneys. More importantly, GcMAF experts predict that the natural molecule has the potential to be a universal cure for cancer.

Due to the controversial nature of Bradstreet's research, as well as the fact that his office was raided by officials with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the days leading up his death, the physician's family hired a private investigator in hopes of finding the truth about Bradstreet's untimely demise.

'It is our 100 percent belief that Jeff did not commit suicide'

Finally, new details regarding Bradstreet's death have been revealed through a recent interview conducted by the producer of the documentary VAXXED. Polly Tommey sat down with Bradstreet's baby brother Thom and his lovely wife Candice at the AutismOne conference held towards the end of last month at the Loews Chicago O'Hare Hotel in Rosemont, Illinois.

Thom said that while the family knew in their hearts that Bradstreet was murdered, it wasn't until they had the opportunity to review the case forensically that they realized the evidence supports their theory that his death was in no possible way a suicide, as has been reported by police and the mainstream media.

"People who knew him knew he would never take his own life," said Thom, adding that information uncovered by a forensic scientist hired by the family validates that conjecture. After meeting with the medical examiner and reviewing case files and photographs, the private forensic scientist ruled that Bradstreet's death was absolutely not a suicide.

"It is our 100 percent belief that Jeff did not commit suicide. Not only because of who Jeff was as a person, but because we looked at the science of it; we looked at the medical proof and it's just not possible that Jeff took his own life," commented Thom.

"Unfortunately, there's an ongoing investigation so there's not a lot we can share about the specifics. But the way the bullet entered into the body, it's almost impossible for an individual to do that and it was far enough away that it left no tattooing, no significant burn marks or anything like that."

'Where would the world of autism be without Jeff Bradstreet?'

Bradstreet's younger brother noted that while it would be easy to say the murder was a conspiracy due to his controversial (and highly effective) work, they can't yet say for sure, adding that they must know for sure before reaching any conclusions regarding the perpetrator(s)' identity.

The family said that while they are still overcome with immense sadness, they know that Bradstreet is in heaven because he was a "great man of faith" who loved God.

"The sadness is to know that there's all these parents out here, existing patients of Jeff or recently diagnosed, where do they go? Where would the world of autism be without Jeff Bradstreet? [Without] his 20 years of knowledge and input and experience, where would we be?" asked Thom.

The Bradstreets asked the public for patience while they attempt to uncover who may have been behind their loved one's death.

"Have patience. Be in prayer. Stay actively involved in the world of autism," said Thom, adding that supporting projects like VAXXED is a great way to continue Bradstreet's legacy.

(Photo credit: AutismOne/Facebook)

Sources:

HealthNutNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

The 'Great Glyphosate Rebellion' once again blocks Europe's attempt to relicense Monsanto herbicide

by Julie Wilson staff writer

(NaturalNews) Europe is still scrambling to reach a decision regarding the relicensing of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, which was declared "probably carcinogenic" by the World Health Organization last spring. If European Union nations fail to reach an agreement by the end of June, the license for glyphosate will expire. As a result, application of the widely used herbicide will be completely withdrawn from Europe within six months, Natural News has reported.

The European Commission originally proposed renewing the license for 15 years, but failed to garner support following uproar from environmentalists that meticulously outlined the severe health and environmental effects associated with glyphosate.

In response, the EU suggested renewing the herbicide for 12–18 months while the European Chemicals Agency completes a "scientific study" it hopes will lay mounting concerns regarding the safety of glyphosate to rest.

But that won't work either, because it's too late. The science on glyphosate is already in, and everyone knows it. Research shows that even ultra-low dose exposure to the chemical has the ability to permanently alter DNA, according to recent studies.

The science on glyphosate is already in: It's toxic to humans, the environment and it needs to be banned!

The EU's proposal to extend the license for glyphosate for 12–18 months "failed to win the qualified majority needed for adoption," Reuters has reported. Seven member states abstained from the vote, while 20 backed the proposal.

Bart Staes, a spokesman for Green environment and food safety applauded the EU governments that stuck to their guns and refused to authorize the toxic herbicide. "There are clear concerns about the health risks with glyphosate, both as regards it being a carcinogen and an endocrine disruptor.

"Moreover, glyphosate's devastating impact on biodiversity should have already led to its ban. Thankfully, the significant public mobilization and political opposition to re-approving glyphosate has been taken seriously by key EU governments, who have forced the EU Commission to back down," said Staes.

Technically, the EU may "submit its proposal to an appeal committee of political representatives of the 28 member states within a month." And if that doesn't work, the European Commission could adopt its own policy.

'Three strikes must mean the approval of glyphosate is finally ruled out'

However, Staes argues that three failed attempts to reach an agreement regarding the relicensing of glyphosate means the Commission "must stop continuing to try and force through the approval of glyphosate. Such a move would raise major democratic concerns about the EU's decision-making process.

"The process of phasing out glyphosate and other toxic herbicides and pesticides from agriculture must begin now, and this means reorienting the EU's Common Agricultural Policy towards a more sustainable agricultural model," said Staes.

In April, the European Parliament issued a non-binding resolution to renew the license for glyphosate for another seven years. The resolution recommended that glyphosate be used for professional use only, withdrawing its application on parks, playgrounds and gardens open to the public.

The proposal was passed 374 to 225, with 102 abstentions, according to reports. While it was not the outright ban environmentalists had hoped for, it was a step in the right direction.

The dangers of Roundup's co-formulants

In addition to the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, we're now learning that Roundup's "inert ingredients" (meaning they're supposedly inactive), are potentially more harmful than glyphosate itself.

Robin Mesnage, a cellular and molecular toxicologist in London, successfully reverse-engineered some of the components in Roundup in order to evaluate their safety. Because Monsanto and other biotech companies consider co-formulants a trade secret, scientists were forced to recreate the chemicals so they could be studied.

Robin and his team found that five of the co-formulants interfere with "the function of both the mitochondria in human placental cells and aromatase, an enzyme that affects sexual development," The Intercept revealed in a groundbreaking report.

Sources:

EcoWatch.com

Reuters.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

SustainablePulse.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

Mass Voter Disenfranchisement in US Elections   ~  hehe yea NO SHIT ! the "cream" always rise~is ...we got D 'the dump's~terd & hellery "the fucking hag from hell"  ....fucking only in America....could our"elite" ass pipes ...pick  these 2 TERD'S Lol

By Tom Carter

Global Research, June 09, 2016

World Socialist Web Site

Region: USA

Theme: Police State & Civil Rights, Poverty & Social Inequality

In-depth Report: U.S. Elections

In recent weeks, numerous reports have emerged of arbitrary mass disqualifications, tampering with registration data, confusing and arcane voting procedures, and other efforts at voter suppression in the course of the primary elections and in advance of the US general election.
According to preliminary surveys, many voters were prevented from voting because they did not understand voting regulations, particularly early registration deadlines. Others were the subject of deliberate purges of voter rolls, the switching of their party affiliation without their knowledge or consent, their omission from the rolls at their polling places even though they were properly registered, or otherwise being turned away from polling places.
The brazen and provocative character of these voter suppression efforts is linked to the reactionary 2013 Supreme Court ruling gutting the enforcement provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a major reform of the period of civil rights struggles. The Voting Rights Act struck down arbitrary voting restrictions at the state and local level, a pillar of the Jim Crow system of segregation in the South.
Since the 2013 Supreme Court ruling, the Democrats have not introduced a single bill onto the floor of either house of the federal legislature that would mitigate the impact of the decision. Emboldened by this climate, state legislatures have unleashed a barrage of anti-democratic measures, such as “voter ID” laws, which discriminate against working class, poor, elderly and minority voters.
Voter ID laws are already in effect in 33 of 50 states. This year, new restrictions on voting will be operative in 17 states for the first time in a presidential election: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Voter disenfranchisement, gerrymandering and other forms of electoral corruption are increasingly accepted as a normal part of the American political system. Both capitalist parties have engaged in redistricting efforts that have twisted America’s election districts into absurd shapes that have no historical or geographical justification.
New anti-democratic provisions are often passed in election years by state legislatures in violation of federal law with the knowledge that by the time a judge can determine that the provisions are illegal, the elections will have already taken place and the desired result obtained.
The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Education Fund estimates that new voter ID laws will effectively disenfranchise 875,000 Latino voters this year.
The state of Missouri passed a voter ID law in May that is expected to disenfranchise 220,000 mainly poor and working class voters, although it is not expected to go into effect before this year’s November election. Wisconsin’s new law is expected to disenfranchise 300,000 voters.
Ohio election officials have purged tens of thousands of citizens from poor areas from the voter rolls on the spurious grounds that they have not “voted enough” in the past. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit in an attempt to halt the purges. If voters who have been purged do not re-register by a certain deadline they may turn up at polling stations in November only to discover that they are not able to vote.
“These people are perfectly eligible to vote,” Ohio ACLU Legal Director Freda Levenson told reporters. “They’ve lived in the same house since they’ve been registered, they haven’t moved, they haven’t been convicted of a felony, and they didn’t cancel their registration.”
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in Georgia has also filed a lawsuit in an attempt to prevent similar purges of the voter rolls. The lawsuit alleges that purges of voters who have not “voted enough” violate the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
On Tuesday, just as the polls were opening in six states, including California, multiple TV and media networks announced that Hillary Clinton had secured the Democratic nomination in a transparent effort to discourage supporters of the self-described “socialist” Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders from voting. The report was purportedly based on a survey of anonymous superdelegates; neither Clinton nor Sanders have secured the 2,383 pledged delegates necessary to secure the nomination without superdelegates.
A lawsuit filed by Election Justice USA, a voter advocacy group, alleges that 125,000 Democratic voters were dropped from the rolls and prevented from voting in the New York primary elections. More than 200 voters have joined the lawsuit. The group has also alleged that voters who requested provisional or affidavit ballots were falsely told that “there was no such thing.”
The attorney general’s office in New York received more than 1,000 complaints from voters, a rise from 150 reports in the 2012 elections. At least one voter reported a forged signature on a voter registration sheet.
In California, the most populous state, reports are emerging of many voters receiving the wrong ballots, with registered Democrats receiving Republican ballots or non-party ballots. Voters who received non-party ballots may have cast them without realizing that doing so would preclude them from voting in the presidential primary for either party. A vote cast with the wrong ballot cannot be corrected.
The “non-party” ballot contains blank pages where the presidential candidates would otherwise be listed, with only an arrow and the words “GO TO NEXT PAGE.” A voter receiving the ballot could read the 23-page document, packed with dense legalese, from beginning to end without seeing the names “Clinton,” “Sanders” or “Trump.”
Under existing California regulations, a person who is designated as a “no party preference” (NPP) voter in California would have had to re-register as a Democrat or Republican by May 23 in order to vote for the presidential candidates of either party. There are approximately 2.2 million such voters in California. This means that a Bernie Sanders supporter who was listed on the rolls as an independent or “NPP” voter, and who did not know about the May 23 deadline, could have been handed a ballot on June 7 that did not have the name of his candidate on it.
Sanders campaigners were compelled to issue emergency instructions such as the following to their supporters:

“California, DO NOT WRITE IN Bernie Sanders on your ballot. If you do not see Bernie Sanders’ name printed on your ballot, then you have the wrong ballot and you need to exchange it for the proper ballot. Do NOT send it back, go exchange it for A Dem party CROSSOVER ballot.”

The Los Angeles Times reported “chaos” at polling places on June 7 in an article headlined “Broken machines, incomplete voter rolls leave some wondering whether their ballots will count.” The article describes many polling places with broken or jammed machines, missing voter rolls, purged lists of party members, and poll workers who themselves did not understand the applicable rules and regulations.
Many voters were immediately handed a pink provisional ballot because the standard voting infrastructure had broken down. Others protested the provisional ballots because they are not counted immediately, take longer to read and fill out, and are frequently rejected as improperly marked–at a rate of about 10 to 15 percent.

The original source of this article is World Socialist Web Site

Copyright © Tom Carter, World Socialist Web Site, 2016