Babies Are being Born Without Arms In France

Too many babies have been born without arms and they all have one thing in common, they live in rural areas. The parents suspect it might have something to do with pesticides since it's not occurring in cities. In one area even chickens and calves have been born without limbs.

The parents are getting suspicious of a cover up and that the authorities want to protect the large corporations.

France's public health agency has postponed the release of a report on an investigation into the abnormal numbers of babies being born without arms in rural regions — a medical mystery which has baffled experts.

Three infants were born with no arms between June and November 2016 within a 30km radius of Vitrolles in the Bouches-du-Rhône region. That followed another cluster of cases near the area of Ain, where eight babies were born with the defect within a 17km radius. Similar cases have also been observed in other regions of rural France.

https://www.rt.com/news/450278-france-babies-arms-mystery/​

 

They should move to the United States, where they'd have a right to keep and bear arms.

 

Are they somehow being subjected to thalidomide??

 

And this is why you need government regulation and oversight.

 

AND

Why we need RT!

Find the story in a Western Media outlet!

Moi

FREE Meng Wanzhou!

She has been charged and seeks extradition.
What took so long?
Blame !
Extradition hearing set for March 6.
Arrested December 1. Some speedy trial ​

 

Find the story in a western media outlet?
No problem, the guardian, bbc, reuters, thelocal, spiegel, focus, abc, cnn, independent, etc., there's even a wiki article. Using google isn't that hard.

https://www.google.com/search?clien...0..0.53.53.1......0....1..gws-wiz.7T9i_H9MITE
https://www.google.com/search?clien...0i8i7i10i30j0i7i30i19j0i8i7i30i19._yHtN7gPsKU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Case_of_babies_born_without_arms_in_France

 

You would think that, wouldn't you. An intelligent person would assume that other supposedly intelligent people would take the seconds required to use a search engine before making easily researched claims.

Of course, that person would be wrong. Apparently search engines are so hard to use that a surprising number of people on this forum seem incapable of using them before making claims that are easily fact checked. It is almost as if they would rather believe something that fits their view of the world than risk any challenge to that view.

A fascinating phenomenon.

 

I recall during the Kennedy administration that the FDA wouldn't allow a drug to be marketed unless they had more tests. In Europe where the drug was allowed and taken by pregnant women, thousands of babies were born with only partial arms. John Kennedy at the time gave an award to the head of the FDA for resisting pressure to let the drug through.

What a difference from today. We once had the best protection in the world and anyone who bought American products and especially food, was assured of getting the best quality. Oh well, I guess corporate profits supersedes everything else.

 

It may be a dark ops. An

 

Good; question.

 

I would suggest that every major city in the world has its drinking water contaminated with pesticides or drugs, there is a price even though it's not always visible like sadly in the same way as France

Platypus anxiety: 'Alarming' drug levels found in Melbourne streams

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...und-in-melbourne-streams-20181105-p50e1c.html

 

I can support that so long as there is an opt out option.

If you have done your due diligence, know its experimental and has risks, and are persistent in wanting the drug - you should have a path to getting it.

 

I'm curious as to the fertilizer that the French farmers are using, and what country it's coming from? Is it artificial fertilizer, or is it coming from animals that are contaminated in some way? Also what about the pesticides? It's ironic that France which had passed a law at one time not to allow Monsanto's Round Up would end up with something like this.

 

Canada also allowed Thalidomide with about 100 babies born with defects. As a result Canada today has very tough regulations around approval of new pharmaceutical products.

 

If only they had the 2nd amendment!

 

Surely they should be compulsorily aborted when the scans show the deformity?

 

You guys need to cut it out. It's a very sad thing to be born with a birth defect. Having only one arm is hard enough. The parents of these kids are in agony every second of the day. Not funny.

 

Should the babies be aborted? Isn't that Eugenics, and isn't that what the world fought against in WWII? There's a big problem going on in US today over this late term abortion. Some states are passing laws that will allow mothers to kill their infant the minute they are born.

 

That was my first thought also: thalidomide all over again. Maybe from amongst the many drugs that the fish in the sea are subjected to.

 

Cut out what! Shouldn't it be brought to the world's attention so that whatever caused it will be taken off the market? No one can change what happened to these children, but we can keep it from happening to others.

 

If someone has a terminal or a very painful illness, of course they should be able to get the drug. It just shouldn't be marketed and readily available if it hasn't been tested enough. Anyway I avoid drugs like the plague, and prefer a healthy diet instead. I think doctors are given kick backs from the drug companies. It's probably the only way they could survive what with the cost of liability insurance and everything else.

 

Apologies, couldn't resist.

 

In the context, supposing someone gives birth to an armless baby? Not only will that child be totally dependent from the cradle through childhood, adulthood, unto the grave, but will also become totally isolated from its peers in all of those stages of life, and never know the security and joy of someone to care for, and who will care for them in return. And supposing the dedicated mother should become incapacitated or die prematurely? The child would then become institutionalised for the remainder of its life, and we all know what goes on in care institutions for the vulnerable in all the guises of vulnerability these days don't we?? Would you want that for your child? Or for somebody else's whom, when you've forgotten all about the incident, that 'somebody' is still having to deal with her (it's usually a her?) onerous responsibilities every day of her life? And let's not use the emotive 'kill' word, let's use terminate, as in compassionate termination?

 

One cannot designate on their own what is compassion, and what is not compassion. If you kill that baby, then why not kill everyone that has a physical disability?

 

Perhaps the real story here is that France chose a winner, just happened to be the wrong thing, and is having to endure the suffering that choice cost them in the long term. French regulatory arrogance is the reason these folks are being so irreparably harmed.