Dr. Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Harm
An Open Letter To Legislators Currently Considering Vaccine Legislation From Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD In Immunology July 5 2015 | From: VaccineImpact / ThinkingMomsRevolution
Canadian physician Dr. Andrew Moulden provided clear scientific evidence to prove that every dose of vaccine given to a child or an adult produces harm. The truth that he uncovered was rejected by the conventional medical system and the pharmaceutical industry.
Nevertheless, his warning and his message to America remains as a solid legacy of the man who stood up against big pharma and their program to vaccinate every person on the Earth.
Dr Moulden died unexpectedly in November of 2013 at age 49.
Because of the strong opposition from big pharma concerning Dr. Moulden’s research, I became concerned that the name of this brilliant researcher and his life’s work had nearly been deleted from the internet. His reputation was being disparaged, and his message of warning and hope was being distorted and buried without a tombstone.
I prepared a series of articles as a tribute to a great physician and as a memorial to a courageous individual who was not afraid to speak the truth about medical corruption and a flawed healthcare system that does more to harm health than it does to cure disease.
This is the first in a series of four articles about Dr. Moulden — the man, the physician, and the powerful advocate for ending all vaccine use. In future articles, I will summarize his detailed scientific evidence, which shows how vaccine damage occurs. I will explain the common mechanisms behind vaccine damage and how vaccines harm the health of everyone who receives them regardless of whether or not they notice any adverse reactions at the time they take the shots.
Dr. Moulden stated:
What we have done to each other [with vaccines] has produced the most profound damage to humankind by humankind in the history of humanity. And the reason why we got here is partly because of:
1. Our arrogance in thinking that we know everything. In physiology and medicine we do not know everything!
2. [Our greed] to advance our own self-interest to make money, to sell products and to advance corporate alliances. Commercialization has overtaken the fundamental human value of “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”
When society turns toward this human value, then we would all be working together for the greater good of each other. [However, other values have become more important] I don’t care whose feet I step on or how I get there as long as my American dream is realized. I don’t care who has to pay for it on the way of getting there."
Dr. Moulden’s Credibility
Was Dr. Moulden a crackpot as some sources claim, or was he a brilliant physician and researcher? This series of articles will set the record straight, and summarize the contribution that his work has made to medical knowledge.
When I evaluate the credibility of people who are unknown to me, I begin by seeking answers to a few basic questions. For example: Is this person offering opinion, or can he or she back up the claims with valid science? Does he have educational credentials? Are there other physicians and scientists who support his or her beliefs and recommendations? Is this person controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, allopathic medical associations, or the US FDA (US Food and Drug Administration)? And finally, what do Quackwatch and their friends have to say about the person?
Dr. Moulden had a PhD in Clinical Psychology and Neuropsychology. He had a master’s degree in child development, and was also a medical doctor. His work was respected by other researchers who don’t march to the drumbeat of the pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Moulden was a threat to the pharmaceutical industry, and their Quackwatch family of 21 related websites treated him as an enemy.
Resigning from Medical Practice to Testify on Vaccine Safety
Dr. Moulden resigned from his medical practice in 2007 to travel throughout North America delivering the message that every dose of any and all vaccine types causes harm to those who receive it. He stated:
“As many know, I officially quit my medical career in 2007. I did this in order to travel around North America to do research into vaccine safety and to present my research on vaccine safety across Canada and the United States. I only spoke the truth. I was not well received."
During those years, he showed that many cases of Shaken Baby Syndrome were actually vaccine-related damage. His testimony freed many parents from false accusations that they had abused their infants.
Retreat from Public View: Attacks and Death Threats
In 2010 Dr. Moulden disappeared from public view. He stated:
“In 2010-11 I returned to my PhD training to complete a full year accredited Clinical Neuropsychology internship at the Baycrest Center for Geriatric Care in Toronto. During this time I also taught a University course on Health Medicine at York University in Toronto. I stopped talking about my research and vaccines.
The Public Health Department advocated that I NOT be allowed to return to clinical medicine as they were incensed by the message (truth) of my lectures and teaching prior to ‘disappearing.’ The only way I was allowed to return to organized medicine to work with medical patients was if I signed a contract drawn up by the public health department which states:
1) I am mentally ill and therefore my research and teachings on vaccine safety were delusional.
2) I am not allowed, whatsoever, to speak or present my research or views on vaccine safety, in public, at all, as a condition of being allowed to return to clinical medicine, receiving a medical license, and for maintaining that license."
Even before Dr. Moulden retreated from public view, a group of professional character assassins went to work to destroy his reputation in any way possible. They published lies and deceptions on the internet and did everything possible to bring him down. After he retreated, his websites were hacked and access to his teachings was largely destroyed. Yes, there were even death threats.
The Mysterious Death of Dr. Andrew Moulden
The death of Andrew Moulden is shrouded in mystery. Some sources say he had a heart attack and others say he committed suicide.
A colleague of Dr. Moulden who wishes to remain anonymous reported to Health Impact News that he/she had contact with him two weeks before he died in 2013.
Dr. Moulden told our source and a small number of trusted colleagues in October of 2013 that he was about to break his silence and would be releasing new information that would be a major challenge to the vaccine business of big pharma.
He was ready to come back. Even though he had been silent, he had never stopped his research.
Then, two weeks later, Dr. Moulden suddenly died.
Dr. Moulden was about to release a body of research and treatments, which could have destroyed the vaccine model of disease management, destroyed a major source of funding for the pharmaceutical industry, and at the same time seriously damaged the foundation of the germ theory of disease.
Death Threats Against Vaccine Critics are not Unusual
In another case of vaccine damage cover-up, Dr. Garth Nicolson received death threats. He was part of a research team that became aware of biological warfare testing that was done on prisoners in Texas. The biological warfare agents later showed up in vaccines that were given to US service personnel during the Persian Gulf Wars. The result was thousands of cases of Gulf War Syndrome and vaccine-related deaths.
Professor Emeritus Garth L. Nicolson, PhD, is the President, Chief Scientific Officer and Research Professor of Molecular Pathology at the Institute for Molecular Medicine in Huntington Beach, California, and has taught in medical schools in the US and Australia. He is one of the most often cited scientists in America today.
Dr. Nicolson explained what happened to him when he and others learned about the Texas prison experiments and the vaccine damage that occurred among US troops in the Gulf War. He stated:
“We were actually forced to leave Texas. I was an endowed full professor and department chair at the University of Texas and I literally had to leave Texas because it became too dangerous. Several of my colleagues died.
My boss was shot in the back of the head in his office, because he was going to blow the whistle on the prison testing experiments. So, it became very dangerous."
Preserving Dr. Moulden’s Legacy
The powers who wish to suppress the work of Dr. Moulden have done a very good job of erasing most all of the information that was once available on the internet. Before it all disappears, I would like to take the time to summarize some of his teachings.
In this article, and in those that follow, I will condense the key points from the 6 hour video series called “Tolerance Lost.” At the moment, this is still available on YouTube.com. The information was given in three videos, which are presented on YouTube in 51 segments.
If you want to hear Dr. Moulden explain his findings, then I highly recommend spending the time watching his videos. The images of vascular and brain physiology are very instructive as are the numerous photos of children, Gulf War veterans, and other adults who display visible signs of vaccine damage.
Listen to Dr. Moulden in his own words give evidence to the mechanisms that cause vaccine damage in “Tolerance Lost.” See the evidence of vaccine damage in the faces of children.
Listen to a presentation from Dr. Moulden that summarizes key principles of his Research.
I have also used various other resources for preparing this summary. There are a few transcripts of interviews given by Dr. Moulden and three chapters from an unfinished book  that are still available on the internet. Text was collected and summarized from all of these sources.
In some cases I needed to do additional research to fill in the details that were not fully explained by Dr. Moulden in these resources. My independent research also confirmed the facts of blood physiology and neurological functioning that Dr. Moulden described.
How the Germ Theory of Disease Produced the Vaccine Era
Most people, myself included, were taught that every disease has a single cause. Thus, if we want to prevent that disease, then all we need to do is eradicate the cause of the disease. Once we do this, then the disease will disappear from the face of the Earth.
According to this theory, if there is a disease, then there must be a single cause, which could be a bacteria, virus, parasite, or some type of environmental exposure. We might not understand the process of how a microbe, for example might cause illness or death, we only need to be reasonably confident that the microbe is associated with the disease.
In other words, germs cause disease and we can stop the spread of infectious diseases through the use of vaccines, which are supposed to give the body immunity against experiencing disease. In theory, vaccines create a situation in the human body where exposure to a disease causing pathogen no longer triggers the disease.
The vaccine era that started in earnest in the middle of the 1800s was a direct outgrowth of the belief in the germ theory of disease. The vaccine movement took a giant leap forward in the late 1950s after the so-called polio epidemic supposedly threatened the lives of thousands. The high visibility of the epidemic in the media produced great fear, which made Americans eager to take the polio shot and eat the vaccine-laced sugar cubes as soon as they became available.
We were told that we should be proud of the dedicated researchers and their American ingenuity which led to the creation of the first polio vaccine in the 1950s. Whether or not the polio vaccine was effective and whether it actually caused more deaths than would have been caused by the wild polio virus is still hotly argued. But one thing is clear, the marketing of that vaccine caused Americans to become believers in the health preserving power of vaccines.
Dr. Moulden Rejected the Theory that Modern Diseases are Caused by a Single Agent
Dr. Moulden challenged the single cause germ theory of disease. He, along with a select group of other physicians and scientists, recognize that we can no longer think in terms of a single germ causing a single disease.
The modern epidemic of syndromes and diseases that began to afflict us in the last half of the twentieth century, and continues to afflict us today, are the product of multiple causes that work together to bring about disability, disease, and death. The multiple causes produce multiple illnesses and syndromes.
Many, in fact most all, physicians and scientists still cling to the single cause single disease way of thinking. The pharmaceutical industry develops its drugs in the same way. Every problem, every illness, every disease can be treated by a specific substance of their creation. Of course their treatments rarely cure disease, they just treat symptoms. When the symptoms disappear, then the problem is resolved as far as they are concerned.
Dr. Moulden rejected this way of thinking, because he knew that it was failing to cure people from what ailed them. It was based on flawed and ineffective medical science. He chose not to stay within the confines of mainstream medical thinking, but insisted on getting out of the box and looking deeper than most anyone else was willing to look.
People who get out of the box are always criticized, attacked, and threatened by the established order, especially when a person clearly has more training and expertise than those who are doing the criticizing.
Dr. Moulden had a PhD and a medical degree. His education focused on brain functioning and psychological/behavioral responses to brain dysfunction. He could see what other people didn’t see, because few people had his background or his tenacity to look beyond conventional medical diagnosis and treatment. He pulled together different aspects of science to create a comprehensive model of disease, which could explain numerous modern diseases.
Dr. Moulden Could not Ignore the Fact that Vaccines were the Greatest Threat to Human Health
Based on his training and clinical experience, Dr. Moulden could not ignore the fact that vaccines were the greatest threat to human health in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. He could not ignore it, because it was literally staring him in the eyes as he looked at the faces of his patients. He could see the evidence of cranial nerve damage caused by vaccines when he observed the abnormal facial expressions and movements of the eyes of those who had been exposed to vaccines.
Dr. Moulden was convinced that the widespread use of large numbers of vaccines did not mark the beginning of a new age of disease-free living, rather they introduced a new era of universal sickness.
Vaccine Damage does not Produce just a Single Symptom
Vaccine damage does not produce just a single symptom; rather the reactions are many and varied. Additionally vaccine reactions can occur shortly after receiving the injection or they can occur years later. Often, the reactions only become noticeable after many doses of different vaccines have been given.
The variability in reactions and the unpredictable time frame for reaction gives the pharmaceutical industry and the medical establishment that they control, the statistical confidence to assert that vaccines do not produce harm. If they don’t see a large number of adverse reactions of a single type within a specific short time period, then they conclude that harm was not produced.
The US is the #1 in number of vaccines injected into babies prior to age 1 year
We are told that vaccines are so safe, that a child could receive 10,000 vaccines and not have an adverse reaction, yet the pharmaceutical industry has never done twenty-year longitudinal studies to even measure what happens to children who receive 69 or more doses of vaccine during the first 18 years of life.
They have not done it and they will not do it, because they know that vaccine damage would be revealed. They also will never compare the health history of vaccinated children with unvaccinated children. It is estimated that one million children in the US have not received any vaccinations.
So, it would be easy to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children. But if this was done, the results would prove that vaccines do in fact cause illness, disability, and death.
Dr. Moulden was convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that vaccines do cause harm. He saw the evidence of disability, lifelong suffering, and premature death. Those of us who are willing to think outside of the box that has been created by the pharmaceutical industry accept the fact that vaccine damage represents a broad spectrum of conditions and syndromes, which can be traced back to vaccine use and exposure to various environmental toxins.
Damage from Vaccines and from Environmental Exposures
Dr. Moulden understood that vaccines were a serious problem, but he also recognized that numerous environmental factors could also cause modern diseases.
The combination of vaccine use, pesticide exposure, chemicals in food, toxic chemicals in the water and air, to name a few, are all working together to destroy our health, damage our fertility, and decrease the world population. He also understood that poor nutrition increased the severity of vaccine reactions.
Primary Mechanisms in Vaccines that Cause Harm
Dr. Moulden identified two primary mechanisms that explain how vaccines and environmental toxins cause the numerous neurodevelopmental diseases that have spread through the United States, Canada, and other so-called developed countries. The two components are M.A.S.S. and zeta potential. These will be discussed in detail in the next articles. At this time I just want to introduce you to M.A.S.S. (Moulden Anoxia Spectrum Syndromes).
The damage to human health that occurs from vaccines and environmental toxins interferes with normal blood flow and triggers extreme immune system reactions. The result is oxygen deprivation at the microvascular (capillary) level. The capillaries are the smallest blood vessels in the body. It is estimated that the human body has 600,000 miles of capillaries.
When blood flow is stopped and oxygen is no longer available to cells in certain highly sensitive areas, then cellular damage and normal body functioning will be damaged. When this happens in the brain and the digestive system, autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions can develop. Essentially, vaccines, certain environmental toxins, and poor nutrition can create conditions in which tiny strokes occur in microvascular regions of the body.
An Open Letter to Legislators Currently Considering Vaccine Legislation from Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD in Immunology
Re: VACCINE LEGISLATION
My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.
Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?
It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide. You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement.
I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases. People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.
1. IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #1). Wild poliovirus has been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Even if wild poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces. Please note that wild poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine, OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine. Despite being capable of preventing wild poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the USA and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.
2. Tetanus is not a contagious disease, but rather acquired from deep-puncture wounds contaminated with C. tetani spores. Vaccinating for tetanus (via the DTaP combination vaccine) cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is intended to render personal protection only.
3. While intended to prevent the disease-causing effects of the diphtheria toxin, the diphtheria toxoid vaccine (also contained in the DTaP vaccine) is not designed to prevent colonization and transmission of C. diphtheriae. Vaccinating for diphtheria cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is likewise intended for personal protection only.
The acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine (the final element of the DTaP combined vaccine), now in use in the USA, replaced the whole cell pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s, which was followed by an unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #2). The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial finding.
Furthermore, the 2013 meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC revealed additional alarming data that pertussis variants (PRN-negative strains) currently circulating in the USA acquired a selective advantage to infect those who are up-to-date for their DTaP boosters (see appendix for the CDC document, Item #3), meaning that people who are up-to-date are more likely to be infected, and thus contagious, than people who are not vaccinated.
Among numerous types of H. influenzae, the Hib vaccine covers only type b. Despite its sole intention to reduce symptomatic and asymptomatic (disease-less) Hib carriage, the introduction of the Hib vaccine has inadvertently shifted strain dominance towards other types of H. influenzae (types a through f). These types have been causing invasive disease of high severity and increasing incidence in adults in the era of Hib vaccination of children (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #4). The general population is more vulnerable to the invasive disease now than it was prior to the start of the Hib vaccination campaign. Discriminating against children who are not vaccinated for Hib does not make any scientific sense in the era of non-type b H. influenzae disease.
Hepatitis B is a blood-borne virus. It does not spread in a community setting, especially among children who are unlikely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as needle sharing or sex. Vaccinating children for hepatitis B cannot significantly alter the safety of public spaces. Further, school admission is not prohibited for children who are chronic hepatitis B carriers. To prohibit school admission for those who are simply unvaccinated – and do not even carry hepatitis B – would constitute unreasonable and illogical discrimination.
In summary, a person who is not vaccinated with IPV, DTaP, HepB, and Hib vaccines due to reasons of conscience poses no extra danger to the public than a person who is. No discrimination is warranted.
How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?
It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse events. Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science. A recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established that vaccination actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730 children following their 18-month vaccination appointment (see appendix for a scientific study, Item #5).
When the risk of an adverse event requiring an ER visit after well-baby vaccinations is demonstrably so high, vaccination must remain a choice for parents, who may understandably be unwilling to assume this immediate risk in order to protect their children from diseases that are generally considered mild or that their children may never be exposed to.
Can discrimination against families who oppose vaccines for reasons of conscience prevent future disease outbreaks of communicable viral diseases, such as measles?
Measles research scientists have for a long time been aware of the “measles paradox.” I quote from the article by Poland & Jacobson (1994) “Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons.” Arch Intern Med 154:1815-1820:
“The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.”
Further research determined that behind the “measles paradox” is a fraction of the population called LOW VACCINE RESPONDERS. Low-responders are those who respond poorly to the first dose of the measles vaccine. These individuals then mount a weak immune response to subsequent RE-vaccination and quickly return to the pool of “susceptibles’’ within 2-5 years, despite being fully vaccinated.
Re-vaccination cannot correct low-responsiveness: it appears to be an immuno-genetic trait. The proportion of low-responders among children was estimated to be 4.7% in the USA.
Studies of measles outbreaks in Quebec, Canada, and China attest that outbreaks of measles still happen, even when vaccination compliance is in the highest bracket (95-97% or even 99%, see appendix for scientific studies, Items #6&7). This is because even in high vaccine responders, vaccine-induced antibodies wane over time. Vaccine immunity does not equal life-long immunity acquired after natural exposure.
It has been documented that vaccinated persons who develop breakthrough measles are contagious. In fact, two major measles outbreaks in 2011 (in Quebec, Canada, and in New York, NY) were re-imported by previously vaccinated individuals.
Taken together, these data make it apparent that elimination of vaccine exemptions, currently only utilized by a small percentage of families anyway, will neither solve the problem of disease resurgence nor prevent re-importation and outbreaks of previously eliminated diseases.
Is discrimination against conscientious vaccine objectors the only practical solution?
The majority of measles cases in recent US outbreaks (including the recent Disneyland outbreak) are adults and very young babies, whereas in the pre-vaccination era, measles occurred mainly between the ages 1 and 15. Natural exposure to measles was followed by lifelong immunity from re-infection, whereas vaccine immunity wanes over time, leaving adults unprotected by their childhood shots. Measles is more dangerous for infants and for adults than for school-aged children.
Despite high chances of exposure in the pre-vaccination era, measles practically never happened in babies much younger than one year of age due to the robust maternal immunity transfer mechanism.
The vulnerability of very young babies to measles today is the direct outcome of the prolonged mass vaccination campaign of the past, during which their mothers, themselves vaccinated in their childhood, were not able to experience measles naturally at a safe school age and establish the lifelong immunity that would also be transferred to their babies and protect them from measles for the first year of life.
Luckily, a therapeutic backup exists to mimic now-eroded maternal immunity. Infants as well as other vulnerable or immunocompromised individuals, are eligible to receive immunoglobulin, a potentially life-saving measure that supplies antibodies directed against the virus to prevent or ameliorate disease upon exposure (see appendix, Item #8).
1) due to the properties of modern vaccines, non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus is not transmissible at all;
2) there is a significantly elevated risk of emergency room visits after childhood vaccination appointments attesting that vaccination is not risk-free; 3) outbreaks of measles cannot be entirely prevented even if we had nearly perfect vaccination compliance; and 4) an effective method of preventing measles and other viral diseases in vaccine-ineligible infants and the immunocompromised, immunoglobulin, is available for those who may be exposed to these diseases.
Taken together, these four facts make it clear that discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted as the vaccine status of conscientious objectors poses no undue public health risk.
~ Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD
Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD, is the author of the book Vaccine Illusion. She has studied immunology in some of the world’s most prestigious medical institutions. She earned her PhD in Immunology at the Rockefeller University in New York and did postdoctoral training at Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA and Stanford University in California.
Dr. Obukhanych offers online classes for those who want to gain deeper understanding of how the immune system works and whether the immunologic benefits of vaccines are worth the risks: Natural Immunity Fundamentals.
To read the Appendix for this article at the source, click here.
Proposal To Temporarily Sterilise All New Zealand Teenage Females Should Raise Serious Red Flags June 24 2015 | From: LeadingEdge / NewZealandHerald
Yesterday the NZ media featured coverage of a new proposal that has been put forward by two “senior” academics from the University of Otago, who would like to see all young New Zealand females temporarily sterilised with long-acting chemical contraceptive implants.
In their ideal vision for the future of New Zealand young people, these academics would like temporary sterilisation to be the default policy that young girls would have to deliberately be opted out of if they didn’t want their new and still-developing fertility to be chemically shut down for months or years at a time.
Firstly, these academics don’t seemed to have considered the possible impacts that temporarily sterilising an entire population of females from a very young age could have.
As far as I am aware, no attempt at the population-wide temporary sterilisation of very young females, whose physiology is still new and still developing, has ever been attempted – meaning that the outcome of such an experimental scheme is totally unknown.
We are talking here about synthetic hormonal interference with the female fertility system while that system is still very young and developing, and there is no reliable way of knowing how such interference could turn out (for all of us) in the long-run.
We already know that chemical contraceptives are an environmental pollutant that end up in waterways, and from there cause harms to wildlife populations. Imagine how devastating this environmental impact could become if every female in NZ was temporarily sterilised with these agents at a young age?
I think people are right to be extremely wary of any attempt to introduce any sort of mass sterilisation programmes – even temporary chemical sterilisations – because these can very easily morph into state-mandated sterilisation programmes for economic or social reasons (the old saying: ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’ is still as true today as it was the day when it was first uttered.)
And none of this even touches on the negative impact that synthetic hormonal contraceptives can have on female health and wellbeing, or the fact that such a scheme would not actually do anything to alleviate the far more serious problem of sexually transmitted diseases.
(By the way, I hoped everyone took notice of the fact that these academics have rightly pointed out that condoms have a failure rate of 18% per annum (that’s 18 pregnancies per year, for every 100 couples using condoms) – which makes condoms only 4% more effective than the woefully unreliable withdrawal method! This is important, because pregnancy can only occur for a very limited window each month (due to the way that female fertility works). Sexually transmitted diseases, on the other hand, can be transmitted 24/7 – meaning that condoms are a far less reliable form of protection against sexual disease than some people wrongly believe and tout them to be.)
I think that most people are rightly very concerned by this proposal for the automatic temporary sterilisation of all young New Zealand females – and for lots of very good reasons.
For me, one of the most troubling aspects of this proposal is the way in which it so flippantly treats normal healthy female fertility as if it were something that needs to be shut down or medicated against – like we would a disease, or some other physiological problem.
At the end of the day, this proposal would actually create far more social problems, and expose us to far more risks and unknown factors than we are currently experiencing in this country – which is precisely why I think that it is one of the worst health policy proposals that has been mooted in this country in quite some time.
EPA Knew Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMFs) Were A “Probable Human Carcinogen” Decades Ago And Covered It Up July 1 2015 | From: ActivistPost
Did you know that back in 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency was all set to release a report that admitted electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are dangerous to our health, including that EMFs have been linked with “the development of various cancers” but stopped short of straight up admitting they are “probable carcinogens”?
Isn’t it ironic the newspaper thought to tack a Radio Shack add onto the end of this article?
The clipping, published in the October 4, 1990 edition of The Indiana Gazette, reported:
“Now the Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of publishing a report suggesting that EMF is linked with the development of various cancers. And at one point, someone within the agency had considered an even more drastic step - classifying low-frequency electromagnetic fields as probable cancer-causing agents in the same rank as dioxin or PCBs.
Wow. They were all set to classify low frequency EMFs in the same rank as dioxin, a highly dangerous chemical thought by some even today to be among the most toxic substances out there. Continuing:
“But the EPA has stopped short of the probable carcinogen conclusion, which could have drastic implications for regulation of the American utility industry and in the workplace. Louis Slesin, power-industry watchdog and the editor of Microwave News, published in his journal’s most recent issue a paragraph from a rough draft of the EPA study recommending that low-frequency electromagnetic fields be classified as probable human carcinogens.
The paragraph, Slesin said in a recent interview with The Morning Call, has since been deleted from the report, which won’t be issued in official, final form until this month, according to the July 20 issue of TIME magazine.
According to Microwave News, the paragraph was deleted after the EPA presented its initial draft of report to the White House Office of Policy and Development."
Isn’t that nice? Guess the megacorporations who run the government were none too pleased that the truth might come out about the harmful effects of EMFs and what that information might do to bottom lines and what was about grow into a booming business that would essentially take over our entire world in the next thirty years.
Keep in mind this is from 1990, well before every single one of us was bathing in EMFs all day long from Wi-Fi hotspots, cell phones, computers, iPads, and a thousand other “smart” devices… Well before there were millions of antennas popping up all over the country on school buildings and playgrounds, in church steeples, on our water towers, all along our roadways…
The Internet of Things isn’t even fully implemented yet, but now we already live in a world that has “smart pajamas” for small children which are encoded so they can be scanned with smart devices that will then read bedtime stories to them over Wi-Fi.
The reason Slesin ended up with the original draft of the report, by the way, is that the EPA staffer in the office of research and development for the report who was “overruled” on the probable carcinogen finding turned whistleblower after they took the paragraph out and leaked the original draft to Microwave News.
At the time the Gazette article was printed, the report did, however, retain information regarding the fact that epidemiological studies of brain tumors, lymphomas, and leukemias showed a causal link with EMFs, though no concrete link was admitted obviously.
In addition, the article goes on to note that extremely low EMFs inhibit the production of the tumor-suppressing hormone melatonin and that these fields have also been known to inhibit the immune system.
The point is, even back then, they knew. They knew how dangerous this was to our health, and they failed to fully inform the public.
Shocking report reveals psych drugs have a 98 percent “failure rate”
Here’s a revolutionary idea: Let’s stop giving people dangerous drugs that don’t work.
I know that sounds like plain old common sense, and so obvious that no one should even have to suggest it.
But common sense flew out the window long ago. Today, countless people are being drugged with dangerous pills they never needed in the first place. And millions are paying the ultimate price, according to a damning new report.
The analysis, published in BMJ, found that more than half a million Americans and Europeans die needlessly each year because of unnecessary psychiatric drugs. And a shocking 98 percent of the patients given antidepressant, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and dementia drugs don’t actually need them.
Which means, of course, that a measly 2 percent of the people who are handed heavy-duty psych drugs, could actually benefit from them. The rest are unknowingly taking unnecessary risks — including the ultimate risk of all, death.
There have been persistent links between antidepressants and suicide, which the drug industry has tried its best to downplay. But the new editorial from a leading Cochrane researcher reports the risk is not only real, but there have been 15 times more suicides among antidepressant users than reported by the FDA.
And at a 98 percent “failure rate” it should come as no surprise that most of the drugs were only approved in the first place because of studies so rigged they could sail the Pacific.
Patients recruited for studies of psychotropic drugs are often already on other meds. To participate in the study, they’re taken off those drugs for a “washout” period and suffer withdrawal as a result.
The new drug that’s being tested is then given and, naturally, it eases the terrible withdrawal, so the patient of course reports feeling better. On paper, that looks like a solid victory for the drug.
In reality, all the drug did was feed the urge for medication.
And when drugs do actually beat placebos, it’s often not by much. In some cases, patients on a placebo report the same benefits… just a few days later.
Unfortunately, as revealing as it is the new report still falls short. It fails to mention that many people battling so-called psychiatric problems can get the help they need from nondrug therapies such as natural remedies, homeopathic medicine and good nutrition.
In other cases, detoxification treatments and hormone therapies are what are called for. Work closely with a holistic medical doctor who can offer you real solutions - NOT deadly drugs.
These Workers Have A New Demand: Stop Watching Us June 22 2015 | From: TheNation
How workplace surveillance has become a menace to 'health and safety'.
Four years ago, I was out jogging with an old friend when she told me a puzzling story: Her longtime UPS driver had just reappeared after more than a monthlong absence. He’d been hospitalized for stress, she told me.
Stress? How stressful could that job be? So I asked to meet him.
Over coffee, the deliveryman, whom I’ll call Bill (he asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation from the company), explained that United Parcel Service had been upgrading its systems for tracking employees. Now the truck he drove was full of sensors.
They reported when he opened the bulkhead door. When he backed up. When his foot was on the brake. When he was idling. When he buckled his safety belt. A high-resolution stream of data, including all that information and his GPS coordinates, flowed back to the UPS offices. The system is called “telematics.”
With more than 15 years on the job, Bill already knew how to follow classic UPS protocols, with names that sounded like dogma from a productivity-worshipping cult: “The Five Seeing Habits,” “The Ten-Point Commentary,” “The 340 Methods.”
Guidelines derived from time-and-motion studies told him the most efficient way to do everything: how to handle his ignition key, which shirt pocket to use for his pen (right-handed people should use the left pocket, and vice versa), how to pick a “walk path” from the truck, and how to occupy time while riding in an elevator.
But telematics ratcheted up that pressure. Now drivers were called to account for a litany of small sins. They were asked to justify bathroom breaks and any other deviations - “stealing time” in corporate-speak - that could chip away at their SPORH (pronounced “spoor”) count, or Stops Per On-Road Hour.
“I have no problem doing a heavy, hard job,” Bill told me. “But now, after you do the job, you have to look back every day and say, ‘Did I do this? Did I do that?’ They have a report that tells them everything that you did wrong.
For instance, if you turned the truck on before you put on your seat belt, that’s wasting gas.”
For UPS, whose revenues topped $58 billion in 2014, tracking worker productivity goes straight to the bottom line. Time is money, and management knows exactly how much:
“Just one minute per driver per day over the course of a year adds up to $14.5 million,” the company’s senior director of process management, Jack Levis, told NPR last year.
He appeared on a boosterish episode of the Planet Money podcast titled:
“The Future of Work Looks Like a UPS Truck.”
Levis and other UPS executives have a favorite quip:
“We’ve moved from a trucking company that has technology to basically a technology company that just happens to have trucks.”
But UPS trucks aren’t driven by robots - at least not yet - and of the 10 current and former drivers I’ve interviewed, all felt like they were handling packages in the Panopticon.
“Data is just a proxy for control,” said Sam Dwyer, 26, a former screenwriter and marketing-industry analyst who spent eight months as a driver last year.
A current driver, who also asked to remain anonymous for fear of getting fired, said:
“It’s like you’re fighting for your job every day. They harass you: ‘Why did it take you 10 minutes here? Why did it take you this long there?’… They want you to hate your job and quit so they can hire somebody at half the pay.”
The metrics-based harassment of workers is common, said Tim Sylvester, the president of Teamsters Local 804, when I visited his Long Island City union hall in March. He told the tale of one UPS driver, Domenick DeDomenico, who spent 10 days in a coma after getting hit by a car while delivering packages.
A year later, after surgery and extensive physical therapy, DeDomenico was back on the job. When the tracking data indicated that he’d dipped below his pre-accident delivery rate of 13.23 packages per hour, managers threatened to fire him, DeDomenico said at a union rally.
Some UPS supervisors post printouts of drivers’ data every day to keep up the pressure. “Guys get scared,” said Josh Pomeranz, Local 804’s in-house counsel. “They start cutting corners.” According to Pomeranz, knee and back surgeries are very common among UPS workers. One driver lodged a protest by posting a telematics-inspired parody of “Santa Claus Is Coming to Town” on YouTube. (Sample lyrics: “He sees you when you’re driving. He knows when you’re on break!”)
Job stress is a popular topic on BrownCafe, an independent chat board for UPS workers. In two separate forum threads, when some members referred to apparent driver suicides in Atlanta, Georgia, and Paris, Tennessee, others began talking about management pressures. In September, when a recently fired UPS deliveryman in Birmingham shot two supervisors to death before killing himself, forum members speculated about the role played by a pressure-driven corporate culture.
“It was just a matter of time before somebody went ballistic,” wrote one.
Another added: “We are people, damn it, not some stupid metric.”
How did we get here? A mere 48 years ago, on his weekly program The Twenty-First Century, Walter Cronkite proclaimed:
“Technology is opening a new world of leisure time. One government report projects that by the year 2000, the United States will have a 30-hour workweek and monthlong vacations as the rule.”
Machines, many people thought, would lift the yoke of labor from humanity’s shoulders. A Time magazine essay predicted that:
“by 2000, the machines will be producing so much that everyone in the U.S. will, in effect, be independently wealthy.”
The pundits had one thing right: Advances in technology did increase national productivity. In the three decades following World War II, productivity and hourly wages grew roughly in tandem, by 97 percent and 91 percent, respectively.
Then they were decoupled: Workers produced steadily more and earned proportionally less. From 1973 to 2013, while output rose 74 percent, the average worker’s pay rose just 9 percent, according to a January report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI);
“All the productivity gains have been harvested and turned into corporate profits,” explained Michael Childers, the director of the School for Workers at the University of Wisconsin.
CEOs now make 296 times as much as the typical worker, according to the EPI; a half-century ago, they made only 20 times as much.
Likewise, after-tax corporate profits hit their highest level on record as a share of the GDP in 2013, even as workers’ salaries and wages hit their lowest level.
UPS demonstrates perfectly how technology now governs the US workplace. Metrics enable“management by stress,” said Childers. Two years ago, he met workers who were processing insurance claims at a Pennsylvania call center, where managers monitored every conversation and keystroke.
They used that data to discipline employees, he said, constantly urging more speed;
“If you get a few calls where people speak slowly in a row, you know you’re going to hear about it next week,”Childers recounted.
“Always in the back of your mind as a worker is, ‘Oh my God, I wish this person would talk faster.’”
The workers’ anxiety and exhaustion were palpable:“You had 20-year employees quitting, people throwing up in the parking lot.”
In the winter of 2013, Reynalda Cruz, 42, took a job as a FedEx warehouse temp in Edison, New Jersey. She was issued a computerized package scanner and told to strap it to her right forearm. But the weight of the device became unbearable, she said.
As she reached repeatedly for boxes that were above her chest level, stacking them on pallets and then wrapping them in plastic, her arm grew inflamed. Coworkers told her this was normal. They counseled her to take a Tylenol or Motrin.
Meanwhile, her data-gathering wrist scanner had registered a troubling trend: Her pace was dropping. When supervisors confronted Cruz, she told them she was in constant pain. The same device that was tracking her speed was inhibiting it, too. They urged her to “pick it up,” she said.
“At the beginning, when they put it on my arm…I said, ‘Oh, wow!’ But after the hours went by, I saw this really wasn’t good for me at all,” she recalled, speaking in Spanish through an interpreter.
“How is it human beings can end up working like this? They were measuring our time, our production, as if we were robots.” Today, Cruz is an organizer for New Labor, a nonprofit advocacy group representing immigrant workers in New Jersey.
Laura Graham was a seasonal worker last year in Coffeyville, Kansas, at one of the infamous Amazon warehouses. She was born in 1965, when the techno-utopian dream was ascendant, but the workplace she describes, like Cruz’s warehouse, is the inverse of those earlier predictions.
Every time she scanned a piece of merchandise, another countdown began on her screen, indicating how many seconds she had to reach the next item, as if she’d graduated to the next level in a video game. Her progress toward hourly goals was also tracked.
When an accidental trip down a wrong aisle left her more than five minutes behind, a supervisor arrived to scold her. Graham’s body rebelled against the demands of the device, which directed how she walked from 10 to 20 miles a day on concrete in the 915,000-square-foot complex for $11.25 an hour.
“There’s nothing to describe the misery, physically,” she said. “I started getting these really sharp pains through my arches…it ended up being plantar fasciitis.”
Putting new insoles in her shoes didn’t help. To cope, she took two ibuprofen tablets halfway through the graveyard shift, which ran from 5:30 pm to 3:30 am, and another two at the end. On days off, she tried to keep from using her feet, lying in bed except for visits to the bathroom or shower.
Amazon and UPS, two of the most successful companies in the United States, both use technology to drive their workers hard. But there’s a big difference: UPS has a union. Amazon does not. As a result, UPS drivers make a decent wage - $18.75 an hour to start, rising to $32 after four years on the job - and can negotiate for protections.
In May 2011, Teamsters across the country began wearing stickers on which UPS stood for “Unfair Production Standards.” This was four months before Bill broke into a cold sweat on the job, couldn’t breathe, and was rushed to the hospital in the throes of his first panic attack.
While the Teamsters’ contract with UPS has a clause stipulating that workers can’t be disciplined based on telematics data alone, a gaping loophole in that agreement - it’s invalid in cases of worker “dishonesty,” although the contract doesn’t specify what such cases may include - renders such protections toothless.
Local 804 representatives said they’d hoped to see more robust language added in the last round of contract negotiations between UPS and the Teamsters, but it didn’t happen.
Meanwhile, the pressure to produce more and faster keeps intensifying. Some UPS employees and union reps told me about the tricks workers use to keep up. Drivers have been known to sit on top of already-fastened seat belts to save time. (Recently, they’ve been getting busted for that, however, since sensors can tell if a seat belt hasn’t been unbuckled at a delivery stop.)
In one warehouse in Queens, they said, a safety shut-off mechanism had been disabled - someone taped a reflector against the electric eye tracking the conveyor belt - because it meant fewer false alarms stopping production.
And workers are not looking forward to the arrival of a new routing system for drivers - called On-Road Integrated Optimization and Navigation, or ORION - that UPS is rolling out across the country. The company claims it will cut mileage and save $300 million annually. Teamsters elsewhere in the country have called it “telematics on steroids.” They worry that it’s a new way to erode workers’ earning power by dumbing down - or “deskilling” - the job to make them expendable.
If workers are to prevent companies from turning their workplaces into Panopticons, and firing them based on increasingly inflexible metrics, they will have to organize around new types of demands. That means bargaining for very narrow language about what kind of data may be gathered - from e-mail to phone recordings and GPS movements - and setting clear boundaries on how employers can use such information. It also means setting times and places that are off-limits.
This will be a challenge, because unions themselves are under attack. In March, Wisconsin became the 25th “right-to-work” state, enacting anti-union legislation that critics have aptly nicknamed “right-to-work-for-less.” Legislators in Missouri and New Mexico may follow suit. In November, a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board required Amazon to post notices in its warehouses stating that employees are free to unionize.
When I asked Laura Graham if she planned to work another holiday season there, she said yes. She’s applying to one of the company’s warehouses in Texas - a right-to-work state since 1993 - and expects her experience as a seasonal worker to be pretty much the same as last time.
“A big part of it for me, and the reason I can go back, is psychological: I know I’m only going to be there for two months,” she said. “I’ll be miserable for two months, and then just call it a day.”
Former Vaccine Salesman Refuses to Vaccinate His Son.“If you believe what you are told by the AMA and the CDC and your doctor, you’re not doing enough research.”
In 1991 Scott Cooper and his wife researched vaccine safety and efficacy, determined vaccines are NOT safe or effective, and refused to vaccinate their son. Interestingly, their son was much healthier than his vaccinated peers throughout childhood.
At the time, Scott worked as a sales rep for Merck & Co., a large vaccine manufacturer, and he had dived deep into researching vaccines and the risk associated with vaccination.
His Pediatrician was befuddled that Scott would not vaccinate, especially because he worked for a large vaccine manufacturer! His son continues to be healthy, and Scott and his wife have no regrets about not vaccinating their son.
Bombshell Secret Documents Show Monsanto Knew About Glyphosate Link To Cancer Over 35 Years Ago
+ How You Can Have Yourself Tested For Glyphosate Contamination June 20 2015 | From: AllHealthWorks / FeedTheWorld
Research Scientist Dr. Anthony Samsel has a long history of studying the damaging effects of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, on the human body.
Recently, Samsel’s work led him to a place few have ever gone before: inside the pages of files containing safety tests on glyphosate that had been sealed away since 1981 as a “Trade Secret” by the request of the Monsanto Company.
Dr. Samsel was able to get the EPA to finally unseal these secret files, which contain information the public was never meant to see (at least according to Monsanto).
And while Samsel is legally not allowed to show anyone else the files, he is allowed to share his thoughts on them, as well as information that could implicate the company in a cancer cover-up of epic proportions.
Samsel sat down for an interview with journalist Tony Mitra; you can hear the bombshell interview in the video below.
A Disturbing Pattern of Cancer, Long Before the WHO Knew
Recently the World Health Organization weighed in on the safety of glyphosate, calling it a “probable human carcinogen” in a study that made world headlines, and added up to a PR nightmare for Monsanto.
But according to the files obtained by Samsel, these effects, and perhaps ever worse effects in general, were known by Monsanto decades ago.
In the bombshell video below, Samsel is interviewed by journalist Tony Mitra about what he found - shocking evidence that showed “significant incidences of cell tumors of the tests and tumor growth in multiple organs and tissues” in lab animals, for starters.
Feed the World has set up the first ever validated glyphosate testing (LC/MS/MS) for the general public worldwide, which will be provided in the U.S. with the support of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).
If you live in the U.S. and would like to test your urine, breast milk or tap water for glyphosate contamination please order and pay for the test in the form below.
If you live outside the U.S. you can send your urine or tap water samples (not breast milk) to the U.S. for testing, however our aim is to form partnerships with labs in your country to enable our validated testing to be made available to you at a cheaper price.
Other disturbing findings within these secret files include evidence that glyphosate enters bone marrow almost immediately, which prevents the formation of new cells in living organisms.
In fact, in every single instance, Samsel noticed a higher incidence of adenomas (benign tumors) and carcinomas (cancerous tumors that begin in outer tissues).
In other words according to Samsel, Monsanto knew that glyphosate caused cancer 35 years ago according to these files, and the truth is just now coming out.
In in the interview below (just under 20 minutes) with Mitra, Samsel discusses his findings, and makes the case for why Monsanto’s Roundup should not be merely considered a “probable” carcinogen, but an “unequivocal” carcinogen.
Samsel is legally bound not to show the documents to anyone, but he is allowed to say how he feels about them:
For more from Mitra you can subscribe to his Youtube Channel by clicking here. He also just released part two of his interview with Samsel which can be seen below.
Shocker: The Dangers Of Ultrasound June 19 2015 | From: JonRappoport
Jim West has released his unprecedented Bibliography of critical ultrasound research, as a book, available at Amazon.com. Ultrasound is a highly controversial topic. It can now be said, without hyperbole, that an understanding of its mysteries are essential to the well-being of the individual and the human species.
The word “ultrasound” commonly refers to diagnostic ultrasound, an acoustic technology utilized to view images of the fetus in real time, its position within the mother, and to view the mother’s reproductive organs. It is an economic boon to medical practitioners who advocate its routine use.
Every time Jim West releases a new finding, it is a revelation. Some years ago, I wrote this about Jim:
“I always find it riveting to come across an independent investigator who is breaking new ground, against all odds. Jim West is such a person. His meticulous analysis of West Nile Disease [in fact caused by toxic pollution, not a virus] has turned the establishment on its head. We should all thank him for his work.
If I were the king of Pulitzers, I would give him a dozen. He is what truly deep reporting is all about. In a sane world, his revelations would bring about the firing of scores of so-called medical journalists and disease researchers, and he would be sitting at the top of the heap — not in order to exercise arbitrary power, but simply because he has trumped the lazy and the incompetent and the lying professionals who are supposed to tell us what is going on.”
There are many other things I could say in praise of Jim’s work. Instead, I’ll present an excerpt from the notice of his new book. It’s a book you should have and read. It’s a book that should receive wide notice. It’s a book that should change standard medical practice. It’s a book that can save many lives.
Prenatal Ultrasound: A New Bibliography of Human Studies Conducted in Modern China
Jim West has released his unprecedented Bibliography of critical ultrasound research, as a book, available at Amazon.com.
Ultrasound is a highly controversial topic. It can now be said, without hyperbole, that an understanding of its mysteries are essential to the well-being of the individual and the human species.
The word “ultrasound” commonly refers to diagnostic ultrasound, an acoustic technology utilized to view images of the fetus in real time, its position within the mother, and to view the mother’s reproductive organs. It is an economic boon to medical practitioners who advocate its routine use.
Diagnostic ultrasound is widely declared to be “harmless” to the fetus (*), despite some mothers describing via online forums such as The Thinking Mother’s Revolution, vaginal bleeding and pain, and others describing every detail related to ultrasound and pharmaceutical or vaccine associated damage to their child. Ultrasound is now being applied to most of the entire world population during its fetal stage. The health implications are vast in terms of physical and psychological health for the individual and society.
Ultrasound appears to have set the human specie on a tragic path, due to the subtle and not-so-subtle effects of ultrasound exposure. Critics argue, for example, that the exponential rise in autism incidence is a product of fetal exposure to ultrasound. If they are correct, then it may take many generations to recover from this misguided application of medical technology.
Ultrasound imaging technology for diagnostic examinations evolved from a type of echo-imaging, originally developed as SONAR, a technology invented to detect submarines by pinging sound waves off the submarine hull and electronically measuring the echo, the duration required to reflect ultrasound from the submarine hull back to the source of the ultrasound.
In the medical field, ultrasound has been in use for many decades, employed to generate “echo images” of the fetus. Ultrasound is not ordinary sound, however.
It is a highly unusual form of sound when used for the purpose of prenatal or obstetric diagnostic examinations. Humans ordinarily are capable of hearing sounds in the range of 20 to 20,000 cycles per second (hertz). Ultrasound for fetal examination carries a frequency in the range of 3 to 9 megahertz, millions of cycles per second, above the EMF frequencies of the AM radio band.
Ultrasound imaging technology has supplanted, to an extent, the earlier imaging technology, X-rays. That older technology is now known publicly to be hazardous, to be carcinogenic, however, it took decades for this knowledge to become public. The history of medical X-ray imaging may be a parallel for ultrasound history. X-rays were previously known to be a risk though continuously advocated as harmless by the medical profession.
Ultrasound is known to have the potential to produce harmful biological effects in the fetus. This has been found via animal and cell studies. However, these hazards have supposedly not been confirmed by human studies. Funding for ultrasound studies has virtually disappeared since the late 1980s. despite the FDA raising ultrasound intensity limits in 1991.
Cibull et al (2013) provides definitive assurance.
“Although laboratory studies have shown that diagnostic levels of ultrasound can produce physical effects in tissue, there is no evidence from human studies of a causal relationship between diagnostic ultrasound exposure during pregnancy and adverse biological effects to the fetus.”
- Sarah L. Cibull, BS, Gerald R. Harris, PhD, and Diane M. Nell, PhD. “Trends in Diagnostic Ultrasound Acoustic Output From Data Reported to the US Food and Drug Administration for Device Indications That Include Fetal Applications.” J Ultrasound Med 32 (2013): 1921–32.
Confirmed in China:
Unknown to Western scientists, the hazards of ultrasound have been confirmed in China since the late 1980s, where thousands of women, volunteering for abortion, thousands of maternal-fetal pairs, were exposed to carefully controlled diagnostic ultrasound and the abortive matter then analyzed via laboratory techniques.
From these human studies, Professor Ruo Feng, of Nanjing University, published guidelines in 2000:
“Commercial or educational fetal ultrasound imaging should be strictly eliminated. Ultrasound for the identification of fetal sex and fetal entertainment imaging should be strictly eliminated. For the best early pregnancy, avoid ultrasound.”
Feng is very clear. He is also gentle. He could have written bluntly, “For a lesser quality pregnancy, use ultrasound.” He could have written “fetus” or “child” instead of “pregnancy”.
This is the most important bibliography and commentary ever compiled for the field of ultrasound criticism, though for legal reasons, its conclusions and implications should be suspended, pending trustworthy authoritative review.
The book presents human studies conducted in modern China, which examine the results of in utero fetal exposure to diagnostic ultrasound. They far exceed Western science in terms of technical sophistication, era relevancy, volume of work, and number of subjects. They bring empirical evidence for ultrasound hazards.
These studies involve the exposure of over 2,700 maternal-fetal pairs to diagnostic ultrasound. The number of scientists involved are approximately 100. Pregnant women were carefully selected and then exposed to controlled ultrasound sessions. Ethical concerns were carefully observed. Abortive matter was examined via state-of-the-art technology, e.g., electron microscopy, flow cytometry, and various biochemical analysis (immuno- and histo-). The results were compared against the results of sham-exposed pregnant women (exposed at zero intensity).
Chinese scientists measured damage to the brain, kidney, cornea, chorionic villi, and the immune system. They determined the amount of ultrasound exposure required to produce damage to the human fetus, and that amount was found to be very low. Ultrasound hazards to the human fetus were confirmed without doubt.
Western scientists had previously found hazards via animal and cell studies, however, their findings were deemed inconclusive because they were not confirmed by human studies.
Human studies can be of two types:
1) epidemiological studies, i.e., population reviews, and,
2) in utero exposure studies, where abortive matter is evaluated in a laboratory following diagnostic ultrasound exposure to the fetus in the mother.
Western scientists have conducted only a few epidemiological studies, and virtually no human exposure studies. Epidemiological studies are complex, have many statistical variables, and are thus highly vulnerable to biased interpretation. They are often published as moot or statistically insignificant, despite finding patterns of ultrasound damage.
Due to abortion ethics, in utero exposure studies were virtually banned in the Western realm. Within the entire world population, the medical industry has not reported one case of human damage. Thereby, without certain proof, authorities continued on with the assumption that humans were resistant to ultrasound toxicity.
The Chinese studies were unknown in the Western realm and little known even in the East. These represent 23 years of critical research, from 1988 to 2011. Unfortunately, these studies were overwhelmed by a tremendous flood of studies that promote medical and therapeutic innovations for ultrasound.
The Chinese studies have remained disconnected from the Western realm, beyond discussion outside of China, being the casualty of cultural and language gaps, and lacking a benefit for industry.
These studies are not generally available through global search engines or medical databases. Even if a researcher knew the titles, the studies would not be found, however, they are available through internal links within the Chinese databases.
The Research Path:
As of 2013, Jim West began his research out of frustration. He had experienced the impossibilities of discussion whenever the topic of ultrasound hazards was attempted, even with his nearest friends. He always brought eloquent documentation, though to no avail. He was met with reflexive blocks. These were passive and aggressive, apparently out of fear of the birth process and a belief that ultrasound would provide assurance.
Realizing that people require authoritative statements, Jim searched for a simple statement of empirical evidence that could not be denied.
After several months of intensive research within the Western scientific realm, he, like others, realized there was little definitive evidence that would satisfy the strict industrial requirements, that is, there were few human studies of any kind.
Human studies had been deemed by authorities to be essential for confirmation of hazards. He was aware of the hundreds of animal and cell studies, but they were known to be ill-designed and inconclusive. Excellent critical studies were contradicted by competing studies that declared ultrasound safe. Jim did find a few very strong animal studies that had not been contradicted, but they were ignored or rejected by mere authoritative assertion.
As a working research theory, Jim hypothesized that the ideal modern ultrasound study would utilize a very sensitive type of chromatography, called “electrophoresis”, to detect cell damage caused by ultrasound exposure. Electrophoresis is a simple technology, the moving of electric current through a sample of biological matter in order to draw its various components through a gel-covered plate.
The various components separate out through the gel, creating visual patterns for analysis. Electrophoresis is used to analyze biological complexes such as nucleic acid (DNA or RNA). It is employed, for example, in DNA fingerprinting, to identify people, their DNA, to detect their prior presence at a location, by examining samples of blood, hair, or tissue and matching those analytical results with suspects who had been similarly analyzed.
Jim’s focus on electrophoresis lead to a Chinese electrophoresis study of ultrasound causation for DNA fragmentation in abortive matter. The study is published in pristine scientific format and published in English. The study’s references lead to an expanding tree of studies located in Chinese online databases such as CNKI. Though these studies are primarily in Chinese language, many contained an Abstract, translated into English manually or by machine software.
Many studies were reviewed by professor Ruo Feng, of the Acoustic Institute at Nanjing University. He determined guidelines from the studies, stipulating that routine ultrasound be avoided. Only if there were exceptional medical indications should ultrasound be allowed, and at minimum intensity. Sessions should be very brief, no more than 3 minutes, 5 minutes at most. Multiple sessions should be avoided because hazards are cumulative. Sensitive organs were found damaged at 1 minute exposure.
Currently, the medical industry loudly claims that ultrasound is “harmless” while it advocates routine ultrasound for pregnant women and even prepubescent girls. It is not uncommon for ultrasound sessions to use intensities and durations far above those used in the Chinese studies.
Jim has done the math and graphically illustrates the evidence, for example, this comparison of Western critical studies and Chinese studies in terms of durations to damage, when subjected to the average device intensity for a common diagnostic ultrasound session in B-mode. These durations are approximated extrapolations.
Jim’s ultrasound causation model is fully compatible with the vaccine model, because it includes the concept of toxic synergy, and ultrasound is an effective synergist. Ultrasound is theoretically capable of initiating fetal vulnerabilities to subsequent toxic exposure.
Thus the risk of subsequent exposure to vaccines, birth drugs, antibiotics and other environmental stressors would be raised by prenatal ultrasound, not in addition, but as a multiplier.
This protein, dubbed "WNT16B," is taken up by nearby cancer cells, causing them to "grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy," said Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. He's the co-author of the study that documented this phenomenon, published in Nature Medicine.
This protein, it turns out, explains why cancer tumors grow more aggressively following chemotherapy treatments. In essence, chemotherapy turns healthy cells into WNT16B factories which churn out this "activator" chemical that accelerates cancer tumor growth.
The findings of the study were confirmed with prostate cancer, breast cancer and ovarian cancer tumors. This discovery that chemotherapy backfires by accelerating cancer tumor growth is being characterized as "completely unexpected" by scientists.
The chemotherapy fraud exposed
As NaturalNews has explained over the last decade, chemotherapy is medical fraud. Rather than boosting the immune response of patients, it harms the immune system, causing tumors to grow back.
This latest researching further confirms what we've known for years in the holistic health community: That chemotherapy is, flatly stated, poison. It's not "treatment," it's not medicine, and it's not prevention or a cure. It's poison with virtually no medicinal value except in perhaps one to two percent of cancer cases.
The No. 1 side effect of chemotherapy is, by the way, cancer. Cancer centers should technically be renamed "poison centers" because they are in the business of poisoning patients with a toxic cocktail of chemicals that modern science reveals to be a cancer tumor growth accelerant!
British Media Acknowledges Toxic Impacts Of Vaccines - MSM Censorship On Behalf Of Big Pharma Is Crumbling?
+ The Vaccine Racket: Amazing Infographic Reveals Financial Connections Behind Criminally-Run Vaccine Industry June 11 2015 | From: Global Research / NaturalNews / iHealthTube
The censorship Berlin Wall on vaccine injuries is starting to crumble… in the UK, at least, where mainstream media outlets there are suddenly covering the thousands of young girls and boys who are routinely damaged by toxic vaccines.
The pharma-controlled, vaccine-worshipping U.S. mainstream media, of course, hilariously pretends vaccines cause no damage to anyone. That’s part of the reason why no one believes the mainstream media anymore, which explains why mainstream media readership is plummeting while New Media readership is exploding.
Junk science media outlets like the Washington Post - now entirely controlled by Monsanto - attack vaccine skeptics as anti-science people for pointing out that children are being maimed and sometimes killed by vaccines.
It makes me wonder: Will the junk science mainstream media in the United States now ridiculously condemn the UK mainstream media as “anti-science” for reporting on the thousands of children being neurologically damaged by vaccines? Does the lamestream media in the USA even remember what journalism is in the first place?
Major media outlets across the UK now practicing actual journalism on the vaccine issue
Check out what’s happening in the UK press now all of a sudden. No doubt the vaccine industry is pushing hard to censor all these stories, so you might want to check them quickly while they still exist online: (h/t to Health Impact News for pointing these out)
“Emily is one of the thousands of teenage girls who have endured debilitating illnesses following the routine immunisation. She is yet to recover and has no idea when her health will return to normal.”
”In the 10 years to April this year the agency received almost 22,000 ‘spontaneous suspected’ adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports in 13 routine immunisation categories including flu, MMR, tetanus, diphtheria and polio, according to a Freedom of Information response released earlier this month.”
PoTS and fibromyalgia are among the diseases he believes have developed after HPV vaccination, and that clinicians should be aware of the possible association between HPV vaccination and the development of these ‘difficult to diagnose’ painful syndromes.”
“Side effects including chest and abdominal pains, exhaustion, breathing difficulties, fibromyalgia and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome.”
”Some have been left wheelchair-bound by apparent effects of vaccine.”
“Worried mothers have told how their previously healthy daughters have suffered fits, extreme tiredness and even been left wheelchair-bound after being vaccinated in their early teens. In some cases, the girls started to feel ill on the day they were vaccinated. Others became sick several weeks later.”
Even France is now covering the vaccine debate with a sense of logic
In the US, Canada and the rest of the English-speaking world, questioning vaccine safety is a taboo subject, one the mainstream press fears to touch, let alone to debate. Not so in France…
“Should we have doubts about vaccines?” asked a popular radio program last month, marking European Immunization Week. The program, which ran on France Inter, a major public channel that is part of Radio France, introduced the subject by acknowledging the “doubts and concerns about the usefulness of vaccines” that have led the French to have “less and less confidence in vaccines.” France Inter then held a no-holds-barred debate between a controversial proponent of increased vaccine use…
[Another] example comes from Le Figaro, France’s second largest daily. After the French press last month reported that two infants died and hundreds had been injured after receiving rotavirus vaccines, Figaro examined the various issues at play, including conflict of interest — government regulators have had pharmaceutical industry ties — and the wisdom of having these vaccines recommended by public health authorities.
Vaccine violence against children totally ignored by the pharma-controlled U.S. media
All this vaccine violence being committed against children worldwide is purely imaginary, according to the U.S. mainstream media.
Anyone even citing such statistics is automatically labeled “anti-science” by pathetic vaccine pushers who profit from the continued medical mutilation of innocent children.
That’s how loony the corporate-controlled media has become: They label you a “conspiracy theorist” if you practice good science and good medicine by observing biological reactions to a routine medical intervention. Meanwhile, what they report as “facts” are actually fairytale delusions… such as the idea that vaccines harm no one and can be safely given to children in essentially unlimited quantities.
The real anti-science kooks, it turns out, are the blindly obedient vaccine pushers! (They also happen to be extremely angry egomaniacs who reek of vile hatred for humanity… and of children specifically.)
UK media has realized journalistic integrity requires the practicing of actual journalism
While tens of thousands of injured young children is no laughing matter, it is rather hilarious that the U.S. mainstream media’s obedience to the total quackery of “vaccine safety” is causing its own rapid loss of credibility, readership and revenues. That’s why the value of old media publishers is rapidly collapsing while, at the same time, alternative media websites are exploding in popularity.
THANK YOU, lamestream media, for creating the journalism vacuum now being filled by independent media outlets like Natural News — websites that never would have grown at all if the media had been doing its job in the first place.
And what do we want to see with vaccines here in the New Media? We’re not opposed to the theory of immunization, and we most certainly aren’t opposed to good science (I’m the science lab director of the Natural News Forensic Food Lab, conducting PhD-level atomic spectrometry analysis and original research on heavy metals in foods).
We merely want to see all toxic chemicals and heavy metals removed from vaccines and for government to respect parents’ rights in deciding what medical interventions are best for their own children. It doesn’t sound like much of a demand, really. It’s just a demand for protecting children and respecting fundamental civil rights.
I never thought I’d see the day that demanding we stop poisoning children with mercury in flu shots is called “anti-science.” But here we are, and that just tells you how insane the monopoly-run, criminal-minded vaccine industry has become these days. No wonder the public craves truthful reporting on this subject!
BOTTOM LINE: Any media outlet that tells you vaccines are safe is knowingly committingjournalistic malpracticeand lying to your face. They are paid by Big Pharma to tell such lies, and they knowingly put children in harm’s way for their own selfish profits.
Even the ethically challenged vaccine pushers they roll out to push vaccines - people like Paul Offit - totally abandon ethics by failing to disclose their own financial ties to the vaccine industry when they’re interviewed on TV.
Don’t get your news on the USA from mainstream media within the USA
Here’s an important takeaway point on all this: Never read the U.S. mainstream media for any purpose other than tabloid entertainment. Most mainstream outlets are totally clueless, compromised and corrupted.
Although there are intelligent reporters who work inside the U.S. media, they are handcuffed by censorship and editorial directives that prevent them from reporting the truth on GMOs, vaccines and other important topics.
(I know this because many of them have come to me asking for work and explaining the kind of Orwellian censorship under which they operate. You would not believe the number of formerly mainstream media reporters who now work for Natural News… and the number is growing by the week right now as we keep expanding…)
If you want news about the USA from a mainstream source, start reading the Daily Mail (UK). Or check out Der Spiegel, Al Jazeera, RT, Sputnik News or The Intercept. You’ll never get accurate news about the U.S. vaccine industry from the U.S. sellout media.
They are just propaganda tools of the drug makers, and they’re more than willing to see children harmed and even killed as long as they get their precious ad revenue from Big Pharma.
The Vaccine Racket: Amazing Infographic Reveals Financial Connections Behind Criminally-Run Vaccine Industry
This Vaccine Racket Infographic details the financial connections behind the criminally-run vaccine industry.
The infographic documents the nefarious players of the vaccine industry: the mainstream media, the CDC, deceitful vaccine propagandists like Paul Offit, the secretive vaccine court, the cover-up of vaccine-injured children, mainstream media propaganda that programs the public to worship vaccines, and much more.
I first sketched out this Vaccine Racket Infographic after observing the behavior of all the key players in the contrived Disneyland measles outbreak, which was used as a public panic springboard to launch a series of government-enforced vaccine mandate legislation efforts across the country.
Every player in the vaccine racket played its role in that "medical theater" episode, displaying uncanny coordination and a well-funded ability to gin up the kind of fear mongering that's only pursued when corporate profits are at stake.
Here's a scaled-down edition of the infographic. Click it to view a larger image:
Another CDC-linked fugitive from justice, Poul Thorsen
While you're examining the runaway criminality of the vaccine racket, don't forget the CDC-linked fugitive from justice known as Poul Thorsen, who absconded with millions of dollars in federal vaccine research funds (after faking vaccine research for the CDC to downplay the links between vaccines and autism).
She Did the Vaccine Research-You Won't Believe What She Found!
Dr. Sherry Tenpenny has spent many hours studying the effects of vaccines. The list of side effects is long, and that's just for one vaccine she mentions here! Find out what she found and what potential dangers might be!
A highly respected Australian doctor, currently in remission from brain cancer, is speaking out on his belief that radiation from wifi, cell phones and their towers is a major factor in increasing brain cancer rates.
Dr. John Tickell is attempting to raise awareness and is calling for more funding for brain cancer research, as it has become the number one most deadly cancer for young people in Australia. According to the Australian government, there are 35 new cases of the cancer discovered each week with four out of five cases being fatal in the first five years.
"Leukaemia was once the leading causes of cancer deaths in Australia for under 40s but it now has a five-year survival rate of over 80 per cent. Breast cancer is around 90 cent compared to brain cancer which is around 20 per cent," Tickell told the Herald Sun.
The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association is denying any detrimental health effects from their radiation, but the World Health Organization has recently upgraded the radiation threat to category B2, meaning "possibly carcinogenic."
"You can say you can't prove it — in my mind it is proven looking at the studies that are unfunded by industry," he said.
The largest study to take place so far was conducted among 5000 cancer patients. The study found that there was no increased risk of overall cancer, but cellphone use was linked to patients having a 40% increased likeliness of developing Glioma, a common type of brain cancer.
Tickell also blasted the United States’ Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the fact that they have seemingly left all investigation to the telecommunications companies themselves.
"The telco-funded studies say they’re safe but the FCC has not done any tests on radiation from phones in 20 years,"Tickell lamented.
"There's a million more times radiation in the air today than there was fifty years ago — that is frightening,"he said.
This Video Follows the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency's advice (ARPANSA Factsheet 14 - updated June 2013) on reducing wireless radiation - and explores the implications of children using wireless devices such as iPads, at home and at school.
The video includes an explanation of SAR values, a real life test of iPads vs iPhones and ARPANSA's practical advice on how to reduce exposure from mobile and other wireless devices.
Let's educate children on how to use wireless technologies safely.
Protect children from (RF EME) wireless radio frequency microwave electro magnetic radiation (EMR) until long-term exposure is proven harmless.
‘Safe use of technology – Your guide’ by WiFi in Schools Australia raises awareness on the new recommendations from the Queensland Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE) for the safe use of wireless radiation emitting technologies.
As of 12 December 2014 DETE’s Safe use of technology documents have still not been posted on their website and made publicly available.
Therefore, WiFi in Schools Australia have produced this video with links below to DETE’s documents. The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified all radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” - wireless technologies are now considered as a possible cancer causing agent.
In the absence of conclusive scientific evidence or safety standards that take into account biological effects from prolonged exposure, we need to use wireless technology consciously. Educate children on the safe use of technology and reduce wireless radiation exposure.
WiFiInSchoolsAustralia Posted by Blushield Global on Oct 9, 2014 This is the URL to the wi-fi in schools Australia website. It is fantastic, you must have a look at it.
Is Wi-Fi Making Your Child Ill?
As France bans Wi-Fi in nursery and primary schools, a British expert who has given up using wireless gadgets says we should do the same.
Six years ago, Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe moved to the country, stopped carrying a mobile phone and sacrificed a successful career in emergency medicine to focus on a new medical interest – radiation emitted by Wi-Fi, mobiles and other wireless devices.
She is now one of the country’s few professional advisers on medical conditions related to radiofrequency (RF) radiation and other electromagnetic fields (EMFs).
"I was using wireless devices before most people I knew – I loved it,” says Mallery-Blythe, who was ahead of the tech trend even in 1985 when she was handed her first mobile phone, aged 10.
“But as soon as I started digesting the literature on EMFs it was a no-brainer,”she says of her decision to relinquish wireless gadgets.
“I wasn’t willing to take that kind of risk for something that was purely convenient.”
Her interest in EMFs started in 2009 after she began noticing increasing trends in certain symptoms – headaches, insomnia, fatigue and palpitations, but also more serious conditions including brain tumours in young people, fertility problems and accelerating neurological diseases such as early onset Alzheimer’s and autism.
As yet there is still no scientific proof that relates these diseases to radiation, but Mallery-Blythe is among a not insignificant number of scientists and practitioners concerned by those studies that do highlight cause for more precaution.
Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe discusses the effects of Wi-Fi radiation with a class of schoolchildren
Over the past few years, as Wi-Fi, laptops and iPads have become increasingly prevalent in classrooms, Mallery-Blythe says “hundreds” of families have sought her help with what they believe to be EMF-related diseases and health issues.
One such case is that of nine-year-old Jessica Lewis’s family. In the autumn term of 2011, Jessica started to complain that she was getting bad headaches at school.
She was also feeling overly tired, developed rashes on her legs and her parents said she looked “completely washed out” after school, particularly on Mondays. A quick internet search threw up a forum where parents had written that their children complained of similar symptoms after installing Wi-Fi.
"I ignored it. We didn’t know anything about Wi-Fi then,” says Jessica’s father, Paul Lewis.
“We didn’t think her school had it.”
Later that term, at a parents’ evening, he noticed a Wi-Fi router near Jessica’s desk in her new form classroom. As it turned out, Monday was the day of the week the whole class worked on laptops.
When a local GP backed up Lewis’s suspicions about Wi-Fi being the probable cause of Jessica’s headaches, he went to some lengths to try to convince Spotbrough Copley Junior School in Doncaster to use wires instead of Wi-Fi, even offering to pay for the school building to be wired with cables.
The school pointed out that a government report advised that Wi-Fi exposures were well within internationally accepted standards. Guidelines were reviewed in 2011 and still stand today.
"We do not think the balance of available scientific evidence on radiofrequency has shifted and, as such, our position remains that PHE [Public Health England] sees no reason why Wi-Fi should not continue to be used in schools and in other places”
Dr Simon Mann at PHE, the [UK] Department of Health’s agency in charge of health protection.
Dr Mallery-Blythe tests radiation levels at a school internet router
“That just didn’t add up,” says Lewis.
Now Jessica is home-schooled, much to her frustration, because symptoms resurface when she’s exposed to Wi-Fi.
As well as founding the Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment (PHIRE) to inform doctors of the issues and advise on best health practice, Mallery-Blythe gives talks to teachers around the country, in which she presents scientific studies that reveal both short and long-term effects of EMF exposure.
One of the talks (below) has had more than 15,000 views on YouTube since last November. It’s an engaging summary of the issues that concerned scientists are discussing.
“I try to present the facts the authorities aren’t highlighting,” says Mallery-Blythe.
I was surprised to find myself glued to it. Particularly eye-opening are the number of widely held misconceptions about radiation safety that Mallery-Blythe sets about busting. Standing a good distance away from a Wi-Fi router may reduce radiation intensity, for example, but low-intensity windows of radiation have been shown to be more harmful in some studies than higher-intensity exposures.
"At the moment people think their children are safe because the router is far away – or we don’t have to worry about the phone because it’s not near the brain. That’s common sense but unfortunately we now know it’s not quite true,” she says, pointing out that the brain is better protected than some more vulnerable parts of the body.
“They’ve issued a caution saying children under 16 shouldn’t be using mobile phones except for essential calls, but they’ve been quite happy to support the one-to-one iPad scheme, though an iPad can have an equivalent or higher SAR (the rate at which energy is absorbed by the human body when exposed to a radio frequency) than a phone.”
Switch your phone to flight mode or turn it off as often as you can, advises Dr Mallery-Blythe
Associate Professor Olle Johansson, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, compares putting an iPhone near a baby’s head to “putting it next to several electric train engines”, pointing out that working with train engines is Sweden’s highest occupational exposure allowance.
Johansson has been researching the biological effects of radiofrequency (RF) wireless radiation for more than 30 years, but says it has become “extremely hard to get funding” in this area.“Given the importance of the subject I’d say that’s more than enigmatic.”
He predicts a “paradigm shift” in attitudes towards EMF. We are currently living in an environment estimated to contain more than 10 billion times more RF radiation than it did in the Sixties.
“If this environment is safe we’re talking about in the order of 15,000 to 25,000 papers – in peer-reviewed scientific journals – all being wrong. That has never happened before.”
“We just want to see some precautionary action put in place, and we’re not seeing it".
Wi-Fi at home: Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe’s advice
Try to keep your mobile switched off and don’t use it unless you need to. Keep it in flight mode when it is on and never carry your mobile close to your body, even on standby.
Don’t use Wi-Fi for internet. Instead use an Ethernet cable and buy a router with no wireless capacity or disable it. Disable Wi-Fi on your computer or tablet by disabling the wireless card via the control panel or putting it into flight mode.
Replace cordless landlines with corded ones. Most cordless telephones give off radiation whether they’re in use or not.
In February the French government banned Wi-Fi in nursery schools and restricted use in primary schools. The German government has recommended that the use of Wi-Fi in the workplace or home should be avoided where possible. LA has reduced student exposure to Wi-Fi radiation to 10,000 times below US government standard.
In 2000, a report commissioned by the Government concluded that no school should fall within 100 metres of a mobile phone mast; in 2007 a BBC Panorama programme found that the readings next to a classroom laptop showed radiation at double the level only 100 metres from a mobile phone mast.
A five-year-old absorbs up to 60 per cent more radiation than an adult due largely to their thinner skulls and the high water content of a young body. In Western countries brain tumours have overtaken leukaemia as the most common cause of cancer in children.
A 2008 study found a fivefold increase in the risk of glioma (a form of brain cancer now recognised by the World Health Organisation as being linked to mobile phone usage) for those starting mobile phone use under 20 years of age, indicating that the age group at first use is highly significant.
Within a fortnight, the government closed the heavy doors of Relationships Aotearoa and opened up a new floodgate for “private investment” into mental health [This is incrementalism in action - and most of the 'Sheeple' are too stupid to notice]
Health Minister Jonathan Coleman and Prime Sinister John Key
This is the culmination of five long years of deep funding cuts to various agencies and NGOs tasked with helping the most vulnerable: Relationships Aotearoa, which had 60,000 clients nationally and treated 30,000 Cantabrians for post-earthquake trauma, shut. Access to WINZ disability benefits has been narrowing for years. Women’s Refuge safehouses have been crowdfunding their operating hours. Rape Crisis centres close, as do local community NGOs such as New Plymouth’s Like Minds which shuttered last week.
To counteract these cuts and still retain a look of sincerity in the face of genuine pain, the government revealed its plan to privatise and commoditise mental health.
Social bonds, although cluttered with wretched biz-speak, are fairly simple to understand: An NGO partners with investors (banks, philanthropists) and signs a contract to deliver a particular service. If the “outcome” is favourable, the investor gets their money back. If not, the investors lose out.
Such an apparently radical scheme looks like a win-win-win for all involved. However, the first of four social bonds announced will ‘encourage’ mental health patients into work – not treatment.
Some very pressing questions arise from the idea: Has it been tested before? Will investors have sway over how people are treated? Isn’t this just selling out the most vulnerable?
Under Health Minister Jonathan Coleman, social bonds have come to fruition. Publicly, he has justified them by citing a tiny test case – about which nothing has been revealed. No figures, no data, no “outcomes”.
In a statement last weekend, Coleman referred to a;
“small and successful pilot delivering employment services to people with mental health conditions.”
This is the same pilot he again referred to on Morning Report, claiming it was “Very successful [in getting] people with mental health issues into work. It’s working.”
When asked about this pilot Coleman’s office refused to give details, insisting only that it was run from a single GP practice.
They would not say where in the country it was, nor how many patients it worked with. They claimed “confidentiality” when declining to reveal what type of employment the patients were encouraged to perform.
The obvious question should be asked: if the Minister wants to sing the praises of the very idea from which the wider social bonds plan takes its inspiration, why not reveal just how “successful” it is?
Of course, there is no reason at all why social bonds must be tested on mental health “guinea pigs” (as Annette King put it).
Instead, both the cabinet paper and the NZI report notes the trialling of social bonds in other countries to stop criminals reoffending. Recidivism has been the focus in the UK, three states in the US, and Canada. Mental health is not mentioned at all.
Inevitably, the focus on “outcomes” and “targets” for mentally unwell citizens casts aside any consideration of treating them in the long term. It is about employment, not treatment. Work, not genuine improvements in their lives. Paying tax, not ensuring they remain functioning members of society.
There is a clue to this mindset in the 2013 cabinet paper mentioned above. It says “government agencies are now focusing on what is being achieved, not how services are delivered.” [their italics]
Such abrasive commoditisation produces only one thing: human beings with very real and genuine sensations become statistics. Their reality is ignored in favour of slotting them into a spreadsheet which might earn an investor a nice five percent return on their cash.
In the UK, this monetised and numericised kind of existence has led to some very real humiliation. When the British government outsourced a scheme to get people with disabilities into work, some very troubling things happened:
A Falklands veteran with one leg and terminal cancer was deemed fit for work.
Absurdly, a woman in a coma was told she was suitable for “intensive job-focused activity.”
Doctors were told to keep quiet about work assessments while whistleblowers called attention to strict interpretations of what it meant to be able to perform work.
When investors are given sway over how services are delivered, this exploitation is likely. To his credit, Coleman has stated in parliament that mental health patients will not be abused, and investors will not be allowed to “fudge results”, but this is very faint assurance indeed.
There is also a larger point to be made here about language: the words and terminology that agencies, businesses, and ministries use to discuss complex problems, the weight of which cannot be understated.
Just like job cuts are referred to as “restructuring” and “disestablishment”, the lives of people living with disabilities are reduced to throwaway obfuscations like “social outcomes” and “performance targets”. The KPI-sation of society’s most pressing concerns should be very troubling for anyone who wants to treat real people as exactly that: real people.
The latest double-hand of funding cuts and privatisations are yet more evidence that this government has no intention of either treating mental illnesses with genuine compassion or sincerity.
The end goal, according to Jonathan Coleman, is “to help them get back into work”, and nothing more. Compassionate conservatism indeed.
The Government is set to give private investors the opportunity to invest in and make money from social services, beginning with our mental health sector.
These so called ‘social impact bonds', which the Government are using to privatise the mental health sector, have failed around the world. Kyle MacDonald, an expert from the New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists, explains: “our concern is that as we have seen in other areas profit becomes the primary motivation of funders, not optimal care”.
The mental health sector doesn’t need experiments - it needs more direct funding from the Government.
We can’t let our most vulnerable citizens be the subjects of this unproven experiment.
Social Bonds allow for private investors to invest in Government services - in this case contracts that involve getting people with mental health problems “back to work.” While this may sound like a good objective, experience overseas has shown that it carries risks such as people being pushed into work prematurely, and regardless of whether it suits their individual needs.
There is no evidence that this approach works, and in fact it has been shown to cause services to focus on profit not better outcomes for consumers.
We need to send a strong message to the Health Minister Jonathan Coleman that we do not want this funding experiment to put the wellbeing of Mental Health consumers at risk and that any spending on Mental Health needs to address the underfunding of core Mental Health services.
So what exactly is proposed? Social service providers and NGOs will be asked to team up with private investors to carry out their work. Later, that money is reimbursed to the investor by the Government, with interest, if the organisation meets specified performance targets.
This can lead to perverse incentives, where for example only “easy” clients are taken on, or organisations “game” the system. In New Zealand, we have already seen examples of this. To achieve elective surgery targets, District Health Boards removed people from waiting lists, creating a situation where individual health outcomes were made worse, but the target was achieved.
Experts, allies and advocates throughout New Zealand are speaking up to say issuing social bonds for mental health services risks being an unfortunate experiment undertaken with society's most vulnerable.
This Is What The Medical Profession Hopes You Never Find Out - Dr. Edward Group June 7 2015 | From: iHealthTube
Dr. Group discusses the brainwashing that goes on in University Medical Schools - and how Med Students are not taught how to analyse and break down pharmaceutical medications and analyse them; just how to prescribe them.
Dr. Group recounts his awakening whereby he realised that everything he was going to be taught was wrong - that all of the pharmaceutical medications were causing more and more problems in the human body; hence requiring more pharamaceutical medications - meaning phenomenal profits for the drug companies, from a perpetually sickened population.
He then goes on to talk about how he came to understand what causes disease and as a result, the very successful holistic approach that he uses to this day that prevents and eliminates all degenerative diseases, including cancer.
UK’s Independent Newspaper Blows The Lid Off Vaccine Damages June 4 2015 | From: ActivistPost
Finally it’s happened! A member of the mainstream press has the intestinal fortitude to publish the carefully ‘kept secret’, secret about vaccines and vaccinations: They cause dramatic life-altering damage and more frequently than “evidence-based medicine” or “consensus science” owns up to or MDs, the medical profession, public health agencies and pro-vaccine acolytes acknowledge.
The UK’s Independent Newspaper published some extremely damning vaccine adverse drug reaction (ADR) information on May 31, 2015 that said:
“In the 10 years to April this year the agency received almost 22,000 “spontaneous suspected” adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports in 13 routine immunisation categories including flu, MMR, tetanus, diphtheria and polio, according to a Freedom of Information response released earlier this month."
However, the vaccine ‘ante’ has just been upped on vaccines’ adverse events/damages according to the Freedom of Information (FOI) documentation dated May 14, 2015, according to the chart below.
Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency FOI Response 14 May 2015
The vaccine with the most ADR reports was the Human papillomarivus (HPV) for which there are three vaccines:
Gardasil®, Cervarix®, and recently licensed Gardasil 9® with 8,228 ADRs.
Next in line is the annual Influenza virus vaccine with 2,994 ADRs.
The MMR (Measles, mumps and rubella) with 1,594 ADRs is third highest.
Fourth highest ADR reporting count is Pneumococcal disease (PCV) with 1,560 ADRs.
Diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio and haemophilus influenza type B with 1,309 ADRs is fifth.
Sixth highest ADR is for Diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and polio with 1,190.
Seventh is Tetanus, diphtheria and polio with 1,076 ADRs.
Those ADRs represent health damage from what’s called “multi-valent” vaccines, meaning more than one disease active is contained in a vaccination or jab, as it’s called in the UK. Six other vaccines had ADRs reporting fewer than one thousand, which should not be regarded as insignificant.
The above information demonstrably demonstrates – and validates – what vaccine-safety-advocates (often referred to as anti-vaxxers) have been beating the drums about:
Vaccines cause irreversible damage and, as the U.S. VAERS reporting system - similar to the UK’s ADR reporting system - even deaths and for which the U.S. Vaccine Court has settled claims.
So, it’s indisputable that vaccines cause adverse health problems, which undeniably increase healthcare costs for everyone involved, plus promote more Big Pharma patented ‘products’ to deal with those ADRs. Can that be one of the hidden ‘aspects’ for promoting vaccines as assiduously as government health agencies do?
The UK is not unique in ADRs from vaccines.
Every country in the world that has any vaccine program reports serious ADRs.
However, what is unique is that in the USA those ADRs are not permitted to be discussed in the mainstream press and media.
The Independent’s report truly is refreshing insofar as the “cat is out of the bag” definitely, and let’s make certain it stays out; that journalists globally report vaccine damage, and especially in the supposed ‘free’ press of the United States of America.
Back in May of 2013, the U.K. revealed via FOI documents that there were 30 years of secret official documents showing that U.K. government vaccine/medical experts have:
1) known the vaccines don’t work;
2) known they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent;
3) known they are a hazard to children;
4) colluded to lie to the public; and
5) worked to prevent safety studies!
Can you imagine how many children worldwide would have been saved from lifelong health problems - or even premature deaths - caused by vaccines IF any one of the governments colluding on the above vaccine skullduggery would have had the integrity to tell the world the scientific facts about vaccines:
That Big Pharma’s vaccines actually cause harm; do not prevent disease but cause the very diseases in vaccines? Vaccines preventing diseases probably is the BIGGEST lie ever told! Why?
Because it’s been perpetuated for so long, that most gullible people believe it.
Please check out the Resources section below for additional information, which is only a fraction of what’s going on about vaccines that readers may not know about due to the controlled ‘free’ press in the USA.
The press and media are beholden to Big Pharma, probably because of all the advertising dollars Pharma spends in their daily newspapers and especially on TV. All those erectile dysfunction ads add up to advertising profits! The U.S. FDA also is beholden to Big Pharma for all the funding and consensus science it gets from them.
One last word about vaccines: They are not safe; never have been tested for the ability to cause cancer, interfere with reproduction or fertility, or their ability to cause birth defects (teratogenic). It states that right there on every vaccine package insert.
Next time your MD, employer or school wants to vaccinate you or your child, ask to see the vaccine package insert section that documents in print that the vaccine has never been tested for what was just discussed in the above paragraph.
Ask him/her if he/she knew that, plus why would he/she want to inject you with toxins that can harm, as it explicitly states in the rest of the vaccine package insert, especially when every MD is sworn to do no harm.
This week, only a week after they closed relationship Aotearoa, the government announced that they were introducing social bonds to private investors. They are doing so to allow private investors the chance to invest in mental healthcare.
The idea is that people invest in these bonds and only if the results are measurably positive will the investors get their money back!
Mental healthcare patients are among the most vulnerable of patients and here in “man up” New Zealand are also the ones most likely to avoid seeking treatment and if they do often end up between wall and ship because it is so hard to diagnose and treat. It is not for nothing this sector was chosen as the pilot for this new government initiative. Nobody likes a whinger and nobody ever expects to end up needing help for psychological problems.
Make no mistake however. This is a pilot. What that means is, they are testing the water. Expect bonds to be issued for other healthcare “products”. And if you borrow you have to pay it back. The argument that we only have to pay it back if the results are positive is a misleading one because no investor is going to invest in bonds unless there result is a return.
One of the ways in which the private organisations have to prove themselves is by earning money. The only way to earn money is by declaring people fit for work or no longer needing assistance. “Independent” but equally privately owned Assessment organisations do the assessment of people receiving treatment or funding for treatment.
These organisations depend on for their work on the results they deliver too. What that means for sick people is that not their health but their ability to go back to work at the most early convenience judged by privately owned company who wants to make money is the most important decision factor.
In England one such private assessors is Atos. Atos has been known to judge people lying on their deathbeds fit for work and cutting them off from much needed disability income. Atos forces people undergoing Cancer treatment to go back to work. They have also been known to cut off people with disabilities such as paralysed legs because they were able to push their wheel chairs with their hands.
As someone watching my husband, who had to go back to work way to soon after a serious operation because we didn’t have the funds for him to recover properly, suffer and who is now on ACC (He is one of the lucky ones) because he hit a psychological wall as well as having to deal with the physical consequences of what happened to him, I can assure you that this is not option for long term solutions in healthcare.
It will not help people get back to a normal healthy life. It will only make more and more damaged people trying to get on and deteriorating to a point were there are no solutions left. Expect higher rates of suicide, domestic violence, violent deaths and less social cohesion and community.
According to the Ministry of health web page these bonds are currently used or starting to be used in: The United Kingdom, United States, South America, Holland, South Africa, Belgium and Australia, and are being actively explored in Canada, Ireland and Israel.
The purpose for the pilot is:
Test the conceptwithin the New Zealand context to see whether this is an effective and efficient way for government to reduce social problems
Develop the conditions to use social bonds more widely in the future: including growing the social-investor market and building capabilities of service providers, government agencies and Intermediaries
Learn lessons that could be applied to other forms of payments-for-results and/or outcomes-based contracting
Enable Government to make more informed decisions on whether to use payments-for-results and outcomes based contracting more widely.
Kennedy Drops Bombshell: 70% News Ad Revenue From Pharma June 2 2015 | From: NaturalBlaze
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is at it again. After speaking in Sacramento, California against SB-277, pummeling the Centers for Disease Control during public testimony in Vermontand appearing on Bill Maher’s HBO show to do the same, he has now broke major news during a recent interview.
Speaking with former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura regarding the vaccine industry and big pharma, Kennedy confirmed what many have assumed by stating:
“I ate breakfast last week with the president of a network news division and he told me that during non-election years, 70% of the advertising revenues for his news division come from pharmaceutical ads.
And if you go on TV any night and watch the network news, you’ll see they become just a vehicle for selling pharmaceuticals. He also told me that he would fire a host who brought onto his station a guest who lost him a pharmaceutical account.”
These powerful admissions by Kennedy are made with the supporting backdrop of five-time Emmy Award winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson recently stated:
“If people were simply covering in terms of news value, facts, and fairness we’d be giving way more coverage to vaccine side effects, autism, ADD, and all the immune disorders that have emerged in the past and been made untouchable by this environment that I’ve discussed with you (referring to astroturfing.)"
Indeed it appears that we are seeing a major push by highly unethical, fraudulent pharmaceutical companies attempting to legally corral the entire American public into unwilling consumers of their vaccine products. This current move has revealed major conflicts-of-interest among many senators, news organizations and regulatory agencies.
In addition, there appears to be a near mutiny among good senators and congressmen who are rapidly introducing bills to counter the drug company-sponsored vaccine exemption removal push being witnessed in state houses across the U.S.
The tide is turning against the globalization of GMO-based agriculture and forced feeding with consumers leading the charge from the bottom up demanding informed consent (e.g. labeling, independent science) and organic alternatives.
The decision of the Chipotle restaurant chain to make its product lines GMO-free is not most people's idea of a world-historic event. Especially since Chipotle, by US standards, is not a huge operation. A clear sign that the move is significant, however, is that Chipotle's decision was met with a tidal-wave of establishment media abuse.
Chipotle has been called irresponsible, anti-science, irrational, and much more by the Washington Post, Time Magazine, the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, and many others. A business deciding to give consumers what they want was surely never so contentious.
The media lynching of Chipotle has an explanation that is important to the future of GMOs. The cause of it is that there has long been an incipient crack in the solid public front that the food industry has presented on the GMO issue. The crack originates from the fact that while agribusiness sees GMOs as central to their business future, the brand-oriented and customer-sensitive ends of the food supply chain do not.
The brands who sell to the public, such as Nestle, Coca-Cola, Kraft, etc., are therefore much less committed to GMOs. They have gone along with their use, probably because they wish to maintain good relations with agribusiness, who are their allies and their suppliers. Possibly also they see a potential for novel products in a GMO future.
However, over the last five years, as the reputation of GMOs has come under increasing pressure in the US, the cost to food brands of ignoring the growing consumer demand for GMO-free products has increased. They might not say so in public, but the sellers of top brands have little incentive to take the flack for selling GMOs.
From this perspective, the significance of the Chipotle move becomes clear. If Chipotle can gain market share and prestige, or charge higher prices, from selling non-GMO products and give (especially young) consumers what they want, it puts traditional vendors of fast and processed food products in an invidious position.
Kraft and McDonald's, and their traditional rivals can hardly be left on the sidelines selling outmoded products to a shrinking market. They will not last long.
MacDonald's already appears to be in trouble, and it too sees the solution as moving to more up-market and healthier products. For these much bigger players, a race to match Chipotle and get GMOs out of their product lines, is a strong possibility. That may not be so easy, in the short term, but for agribusiness titans who have backed GMOs, like Monsanto, Dupont, Bayer and Syngenta; a race to be GMO-free is the ultimate nightmare scenario.
Until Chipotle's announcement, such considerations were all behind the scenes. But all of a sudden this split has spilled out into the food media. On May 8th, Hain Celestial told The Food Navigator that:
"We sell organic products...gluten-free products and...natural products. [But] where the big, big demand is, is GMO-free."
According to the article, unlike Heinz, Kraft, and many others, Hain Celestial is actively seeking to meet this demand. Within the food industry, important decisions, for and against GMOs, are taking place.
Why the pressure to remove GMOs will grow
The other factor in all this turmoil is that the GMO technology wheel has not stopped turning. New GMO products are coming on stream that will likely make crop biotechnology even less popular than it is now. This will further ramp up the pressure on brands and stores to go GMO-free. There are several contributory factors.
The first issue follows from the recent US approvals of GMO crops resistant to the herbicides 2,4-D and Dicamba. These traits are billed as replacements for Roundup-resistant traits whose effectiveness has declined due to the spread of weeds resistant to Roundup (Glyphosate).
The causes of the problem, however, lie in the technology itself. The introduction of Roundup-resistant traits in corn and soybeans led to increasing Roundup use by farmers (Benbrook 2012). Increasing Roundup use led to weed resistance, which led to further Roundup use, as farmers increased applications and dosages. This translated into escalated ecological damage and increasing residue levels in food. Roundup is now found in GMO soybeans intended for food use at levels that even Monsanto used to call "extreme" (Bøhn et al. 2014).
The two new herbicide-resistance traits are set to recapitulate this same story of increasing agrochemical use. But they will also amplify it significantly.
The specifics are worth considering. First, the spraying of 2,4-D and Dicamba on the newer herbicide-resistant crops will not eliminate the need for Roundup, whose use will not decline (see Figure). That is because, unlike Roundup, neither 2,4-D nor Dicamba are broad-spectrum herbicides. They will have to be sprayed together with Roundup, or with each other (or all of them together) to kill all weeds. This vital fact has not been widely appreciated.
Confirmation comes from the companies themselves. Monsanto is stacking (i.e. combining) Dicamba resistance with Roundup resistance in its Xtend crops and Dow is stacking 2,4-D resistance with Roundup resistance in its Enlist range. (Notably, resistance to other herbicides, such as glufosinate, are being stacked in all these GMO crops too.)
The second issue is that the combined spraying of 2,4-D and Dicamba and Roundup, will only temporarily ease the weed resistance issues faced by farmers. In the medium and longer terms, they will compound the problems. That is because new herbicide-resistant weeds will surely evolve.
In fact, Dicamba-resistant and 2,4-D-resistant weeds already exist. Their spread, and the evolution of new ones, can be guaranteed (Mortensen et al 2012). This will bring greater profits for herbicide manufacturers, but it will also bring greater PR problems for GMOs and the food industry. GMO soybeans and corn will likely soon have "extreme levels" of at least three different herbicides, all of them with dubious safety records (Schinasi and Leon 2014).
The first time round, Monsanto and Syngenta's PR snow-jobs successfully obscured this, not just from the general public, but even within agronomy. But it is unlikely they will be able to do so a second time. 2,4-D and Dicamba-resistant GMOs are thus a PR disaster waiting to happen.
The most revolutionary and innovative part of that pipeline is a technology and not a trait. Many products in the GMO pipeline are made using RNA interference technologies that rely on double-stranded RNAs (dsRNAs). dsRNA is a technology with two problems. One is that products made with it (such as the "Arctic" Apple, the "Innate" Potato, and Monsanto's "Vistive Gold" Soybeans) are unproven in the field. Like its vanguard, a Brazilian virus-resistant bean, they may never work under actual farming conditions.
But if they do work, there is a clear problem with their safety which is explained in detail here (pdf).
In outline, the problem is this: the long dsRNA molecules needed for RNA interference were rejected long ago as being too hazardous for routine medical use (Anonymous, 1969). The scientific literature even calls them "toxins", as in this paper title from 1969: Absher M., and Stinebring W. (1969) Toxic properties of a synthetic double-stranded RNA. Nature223: 715-717. (not online)
As further evidence of this, long dsRNAs are now used in medicine to cause autoimmune disorders in mice, in order to study these disorders (Okada et al 2005).
The Absher and Stinebring paper comes from a body of research built up many years ago, but its essential findings have been confirmed and extended by more modern research. We now know why dsRNAs cause harm. They trigger destructive anti-viral defence pathways in mammals and other vertebrates and there is a field of specialist research devoted to showing precisely how this damages individual cells, whole tissues, and results in auto-immune disease in mice (Karpala et al. 2005).
The conclusion therefore, is that dsRNAs that are apparently indistinguishable from those produced in, for example, the Arctic apple and Monsanto's Vistive Gold Soybean, have strong negative effects on vertebrate animals (but not plants).
These vertebrate effects are found even at low doses.
Consumers are vertebrate animals. They may not appreciate the thought that their healthy fats and forever apples also contain proven toxins. And on a business front, consumer brands will not relish defending dsRNA technology once they understand the reality. They may not wish to find themselves defending the indefensible.
The bottom line is this. Either dsRNAs will sicken or kill people, or, they will give opponents of biotechnology plenty of ammunition. The scientific evidence, as it currently stands, suggests they will do both. dsRNAs, therefore, are a potentially huge liability.
The last pipeline problem stems from the first two. The agbiotech industry has long held out the prospect of "consumer benefits" from GMOs. Consumer benefits (in the case of food) are most likely to be health benefits (improved nutrition, altered fat composition, etc.). The problem is that the demographic of health-conscious consumers no doubt overlaps significantly with the demographic of those most wary of GMOs.
Show a consumer a "healthy GMO" and they are likely to show you an oxymoron. The health market in the US for customers willing to pay more for a GMO has probably evaporated in the last few years as GMOs have become a hot public issue.
The end-game for GMOs?
The traditional chemical industry approach to such a problem is a familiar repertoire of intimidation and public relations.
Fifty years ago, the chemical industry outwitted and out-manoeuvered environmentalists after the death of Rachel Carson (see the books Toxic Sludge is Good for You and Trust Us We're Experts). But that was before email, open access scientific publication, and the internet. Monsanto and its allies have steadily lost ground in a world of peer-to-peer communication. GMOs have become a liability, despite their best efforts.
The historic situation is this: in any country, public acceptance of GMOs has always been based on lack of awareness of their existence. Once that ignorance evaporates and the scientific and social realities start to be discussed, ignorance cannot be reinstated. From then on the situation moves into a different, and much more difficult phase for the defenders of GMOs.
Nevertheless, in the US, those defenders have not yet given up. Anyone who keeps up with GMOs in the media knows that the public is being subjected to an unrelenting and concerted global blitzkrieg.
Pro-GMO advocates and paid-for journalists, presumably financed by the life-science industry, sometimes fronted by non-profits such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are being given acres of prominent space to make their case.
But so far there is little sign that the growth of anti-GMO sentiment in Monsanto's home (US) market can be halted. The decision by Chipotle is certainly not an indication of faith that it can.
For Monsanto and GMOs the situation suddenly looks ominous. Chipotle may well represent the beginnings of a market swing of historic proportions. GMOs may be relegated to cattle-feed status, or even oblivion, in the USA. And if GMOs fail in the US, they are likely to fail elsewhere.
GMO roll-outs in other countries have relied on three things: the deep pockets of agribusinesses based in the United States, their political connections, and the notion that GMOs represent "progress". If those three disappear in the United States, the power to force open foreign markets will disappear too. The GMO era might suddenly be over.
Stevia Hailed By Overpopulation Propagandists As An Anti-Fertility Agent? May 29 2015 | From: YouTube
Maybe it's not so sweet now... If you've thought stevia, the natural alternative to sugar and artificial sweetners with aspartame, et al., is too good to be true, there may be a catch.
Check out this textbook written in 1970 by Paul and Anne Ehrlich, the precursor to the textbook Ecoscience they wrote with Obama Science Czar John P. Holdren seven years later.
The book advocates all manner of horrors to depopulate what they consider an overpopulated world, including everything from adding sterilants to the water and food to producing a sterilizing virus that requires a vaccine antidote one could apply for... it's a nightmare.
As such, it was pretty shocking to find a passage where the authors excitedly discuss using stevia rebaudiana — the same sweet leaf hailed everywhere today as a wonderful, healthy sugar alternative — as an anti-fertility agent. What's more, it had apparently been used traditionally by indigenous Indian populations in Paraguay for a long time, and rats in studies had shown a large drop in fertility after being administered stevia...
EcoScience: Authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarianmeasures to control the population
p796: One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption - especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it.
Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
p787-8: Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficultpolitical, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development.
To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must befree of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.
p838: In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
P942-3: Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.
Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans.The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.
More examples and specific page numbers to checkout can be found here.
Psychiatric Drugs Kill 500,000+ Western Adults Annually, Few Positive Benefits – Leading Scientist May 15 2015 | From: RT
Psychiatric drugs lead to the deaths of over 500,000 people aged 65 and over annually in the West, a Danish scientist says. He warns the benefits of these drugs are “minimal,” and have been vastly overstated.
Research director at Denmark’s Nordic Cochrane Centre, Professor Peter Gøtzsche, says the use of most antidepressants and dementia drugs could be halted without inflicting harm on patients. The Danish scientist’s views were published in the British Medical Journal on Tuesday.
His scathing analysis will likely prove controversial among traditional medics. However, concern is mounting among doctors and scientists worldwide that psychiatric medication is doing more harm than good. In particular, they say antipsychotic drugs have been overprescribed to many dementia patients in a bid to calm agitated behavior.
Gøtzsche warns psychiatric drugs kill patients year in year out, and hold few positive benefits. He says in excess of half a million citizens across the Western world aged 65 and over die annually as a result of taking these drugs.
“Their benefits would need to be colossal to justify this, but they are minimal,”he writes.
“Given their lack of benefit, I estimate we could stop almost all psychotropic drugs without causing harm.”
Gøtzsche, who is also a clinical trials expert, says drug trials funded by big pharmaceutical companies tend to produce biased results because many patients took other medication prior to the tests.
He says patients cease taking the old drugs and then experience a phase of withdrawal prior to taking the trial pharmaceuticals, which appear highly beneficial at first.
The Danish professor also warns fatalities from suicides in clinical trials are significantly under-reported.
In the case of antidepressants venlafaxine and fluoxetine, Gøtzsche casts doubt over their efficacy. He said depression lifts in placebo groups given fake tablets almost as promptly as groups who partake in official clinical tests.
He also stressed the results of trials of drugs used to treat schizophrenia are disconcerting, while those for ADHD are ambiguous. Commenting on the negative side effects of such pharmaceutical drugs, Gøtzsche argued the “short-term relief” appears to be replaced by “long term harm.”
“Animal studies strongly suggest that these drugs can produce brain damage, which is probably the case for all psychotropic drugs,” he said.
“Given their lack of benefit, I estimate we could stop almost all psychotropic drugs without causing harm – by dropping all antidepressants, ADHD drugs and dementia drugs … and using only a fraction of the antipsychotics and benzodiazepines we currently use.”
“This would lead to healthier and more long-lived populations.”
Gøtzsche says psychotropic drugs are “immensely harmful” if used for prolonged periods.
“They should almost exclusively be used in acute situations and always with a firm plan for tapering off, which can be difficult for many patients,”he adds.
Gøtzsche’s views are sharply contradicted by many experts in the field of mental health. But others, including a diverse group of medical experts and institutions affiliated with the Nordic Cochrane Centre, argue otherwise. The Nordic Cochrane Centre is an independent research hub dedicated to scrutinizing and monitoring the effects of health care.
The debate on psychiatric drugs has gathered momentum in recent times. In the discussion, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Gøtzsche’s arguments are contradicted by Professor of Mood Disorders Allan Young and John Crace. Crace, himself a psychiatric patient, writes for the Guardian.
US spends most on this drug… and no one knows how it works
Crace and Young say a broad body of research indicates the drugs are effective and that they are just as helpful as drugs for other ailments. They also argue mental health conditions are the fifth most significant contributor to disabilities worldwide.
While Gøtzsche stresses clinical trials bankrolled by pharma giants churn out skewered results, Young and Crace say the efficacy and safety of psychiatric medication continues to be monitored after research trials come to a close.
However, both Young and Crace acknowledge concern over the side effects and effectiveness of psychiatric medication.
“For some critics, the onus often seems to be on the drug needing to prove innocence from causing harm rather than a balanced approach to evaluating the available evidence,” they write.
“Whether concerns are genuine or an expression of prejudice is not clear, but over time many concerns have been found to be overinflated.”
The BMJ discussion is a preamble to the Maudsley debate at Kings College London on Wednesday. The debate takes place three times a year at the university’s Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN).
Wednesday’s debate focuses on the impacts of psychiatric medications, and poses the question of whether they prove more destructive for patients than beneficial.
Conquer Fear And Live Free! May 13 2015 | From: MyEClinik
Are we really helpless? Are you tired of watching the constant barrage of men in yellow suits transporting “Ebola” carriers from Africa? Due to our relative ignorance about its basic internal operations, we are left without any viable option other than to seek “professional help” at the slightest symptoms of a disease.
The discussion about our own anatomy, i.e. healthcare in particular, is heavily mystified, and deliberately complicated; it tends to sever us from fully understanding the whole subject. Moreover, there is seemingly a concerted effort to disrespect the sanctity of the human body itself.
But is healthcare really that hard to learn?
Besides, when government and relevant institutions seem to be lacking the needed resolve to end the problem, isn't it time for us to act and do something? Isn't it time for us to bypass the Middlemen?
We were taught that the human body is a very complex assembly of a gazillion delicate parts, and learning about them may take a lifetime. It may be true if the goal is to manipulate or modify their inherent forms and functions.
But if the objective is healthcare then our job is undoubtedly much simpler. Here's why...
When it comes to taking care of our own body, there are only three (3) things that we must be aware of:
The immune system is a complex defense mechanism which protects us from any parasitic infection, e.g. viral, bacterial, pathogenic.
It is doing this critical function continuously and even without our conscious will to do it.
Homeostasis is the body’s self-regulating process which maintains chemical balance among others, to maintain stability while dynamically adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival.
Just like the auto-immune system, it is doing this critical function continuously without our conscious will to do it.
To some degree, our own body has the ability to repair itself, e.g. wound and fracture healing, and just like the first two critical features, it is doing this nature's wonder without our conscious will to do it.
What do they mean?
Our body knows exactly how to take good care of itself, every single cell in it, and we don’t need to be an “expert” to help it cure whatever ailment it may be suffering from.
All we need to do is refrain from aggravating any undesirable condition by avoiding the use of chemicals and radioactive diagnostics, and never undergo any invasive surgery except in extreme cases of physical trauma.
Eventually, the human body develops resistance to an infection by producing antibodies. Similarly, the human body will also develop resistance to any toxic chemicals including those coming from administered antibiotics themselves!
These are natural immunoresponse mechanisms that should not be attenuated by any artificial means. The discovery of antibiotic resistance spells the end of modern medicine as we knew it.
The mainstream discussion about every diseases is so overblown; it is flooded with fatalistic statistics rather than the honest exploration of the solution itself.
The overall effect is the birth of unwarranted fear and panic which would then create a "need for institutionalized expert advice" and subsequent chemical, or invasive interventions. The conventional modalities effectively bypass intelligent and scientific home-based alternatives.
However, it is important to understand that there used to be only three (3) general causes of human ailments. But recent findings indicate a new and deceptive cancer inducing weapon has arrived:
All live organisms that feed through our body for their own survival are considered collectively as parasites.
We keep accumulating them from the day we were born, and throughout the years we've been breathing life on this planet.
Any chemicals that are taken excessively or those that should not have been in our body in the first place are considered toxic and should be removed by a method that truly neutralizes them for good.
Inadequate rest and bad nutrition deplete the energy supply, which the immune system and all other systems require for their proper and optimal operation.
This is the primary cause by which our body's auto-defense and auto-repair mechanisms become dysfunctional.
The use of mobile wireless gadgets like cell phones and tablets has brought us convenience in the way we communicate and conduct our business.
But the grave dangers of its prolonged use are just beginning to surface.
There is no such thing as a spontaneous cellular deterioration. All diseases are caused and our body has the ability to cure itself from them.
Every cell in the body, being the fundamental unit of life, has enough intelligence to take good care of itself. It has the ability to breathe from freshly oxygenated blood, feed from available nutrients and excrete waste by itself. It also has the versatility to transform itself into whatever tissue that any organ requires, e.g. wound healing, bone fracture.
All human cells die off only when oxygen and nutrient supplies are depleted, or is subjected to persistent parasitic attack and chemical intoxication, and not of aging. It is the imperfection of its environment that causes it to fail, rather than our illusory perception of the passing of time.
The human body can suffer only when there is a sustained parasitic replication, massive chemical intoxication, and inadequate supply of energy, in which time all three critical systems (i.e. auto-immune, homeostasis, and auto-regeneration), will start to fail and diseases will start to manifest.
And the only logical solutions are those non-toxic, non-invasive treatments that the mainstream institutions cannot provide, or are hesitant to do so.
"Does it make sense if i told you, “You’re really sick. I’ve got an idea, let me poison you?”
The most logical treatments for any disease of whatever severity should exclude the use of toxic chemicals and radioactive diagnostics. They should not include invasive surgery either because it would affect the normal operations of the organs, as delicate nerves are needlessly cut-off, and neural communication is impractically severed.
The most logical treatments should have the following characteristics:
It should enhance the operation of the immune system and not hamper the normal operation of the organs which could make recovery possible.
It should promote chemical balance rather than aggravate it further through a trial and error, carpet bombing scheme via measured doses of poison casually labeled as antibiotics.
Above all, the treatments should respect the inherent expertise of the body in restoring its normal condition by itself.
All the cells that make up the whole organism called human being have mastered the art of survival long before we discovered their existence and identified some of their functions. In fact, we have yet to fully understand and determine what they are truly capable of.
"I worked in the Pharmaceutical industry that do nothing but annihilate the population of this world."
Our philosophy is simple: Allow the body to cure itself naturally as it is more intelligent than we will ever be in defending itself from any diseases, and only use interventions which avoid worsening the condition; Strictly, avoid those which may have caused the ailments in the first place.
Do these logical treatments exist?
Yes, they've been here all along, and some of the reasons why they are not made available are that they are too easy, less costly to implement and would surely affect the profitability of "healthcare" companies, and drastically reduce the tax collection of the government.
Beyond adequate nutrition, sufficient rest, and regular exercise, which should eliminate energy depletion as a primary factor contributing to the reduction of our resistance to all forms of disease, the most logical treatments only involve the right application of Basic Science, like so:
There are at least three (3) most common causes of chemical intoxication:
High level of acidity
Neutralizing High Acidity & Radioactivity
If a person is sickly, there's a very high chance that his blood pH is lower than normal, i.e. acidic. In fact, most cancer patients do.
Based on the chart below, the antidote to acid is alkaline or base. So, in order to raise your pH towards alkalinity you need to have an alkaline diet, or a controlled intake of alkaline salt like baking soda.
The idea is to strike a pH balance as recommended on the chart below.
Normally, our urine pH should be between 6.5 to 8.0 pH.
Normally, our blood pH should be a bit higher than neutral; 7.41 pH is recommended.
Remember, the above values will be maintained automatically for you by your own body through a process known as homeostasis, and it is only during organ infection and energy depletion when this mechanism could fail, in which case the following intervention would become necessary.
Shown above is a procedure to verify that acid, vinegar in this case, can be neutralized with alkaline salt like baking soda. The mixture will result to bubbles of carbon dioxide and salty water, both of which are easier to flush out from the body.
Any acid can be neutralized by using baking soda, an alkaline salt. With careful monitoring, your acidic blood pH can be normalized by taking in appropriate amount of baking soda solution, making the blood inhospitable to any parasite.
It is also being used in hospital patients intravenously when undergoing chemotherapy, to protect them from its hazardous toxicity. So, why not bypass chemotherapy altogether?
70% of doctors surveyed don't even want to take chemotherapy in case they themselves are afflicted with cancer.
Another problem causing chemical intoxication is heavy metals, and there is a saner approach on how to effectively deal with them, that isn't subject to erratic availability once the gadget is already in your home.
This gadget is called ozonizer.
Ozonizer produces triatomic oxygen (known as ozone) on demand, and it is very useful in oxidizing or breaking down any metal upon contact.
That is the reason why we need to put oil on any machinery to prevent contact with oxygen in ambient air, thereby avoid rusting.
If an entire metal train car disintegrates with constant exposure to air containing oxygen, why not the heavy metals causing cancer inside our body?
Ozone is triatomic oxygen; it has one unstable atom that readily attaches to other element to oxidize it.
It turns out, we're not only neutralizing heavy metals but can also suffocate any parasite just by ozonizing our drinking water.
Parasites have smaller capacity for handling oxygen than the host.
Moreover, we are also neutralizing acidity even further by the addition of more oxygen atoms into the whole equation.
So, how great would that be when components of the whole protocol work in complementary to each other to achieve an objective?
Even better, the whole protocol is the most natural set of complementary treatments there is, i.e. baking soda, ozone, electricity, they all exist naturally.
Even our own pancreas is producing sodium bicarbonate to regulate acidity in our digestive system, aside from producing insulin.
When the pancreas is infected by parasites, it won't be able to perform these functions effectively.
Diabetic patients should, therefore, explore the possibility of directly reinforcing the supply of sodium bicarbonate into their system, while actively electrocuting the worms colonizing their pancreas.
In 1903, Edison publicly electrocuted dozens of animals, including an elephant, to prove his point that Nikola Tesla’s alternating current is deadly and that his direct current power system is safer.
In the process, he also proved our thesis, i.e. any type of parasite lurking inside our own body can be neutralized at will without chemical intoxication by using electric current.
Unfortunately for him, he lost the "war of the currents" to the more economically and technically superior alternating current [AC] system that we still use to power our homes and industries today.
It is important to understand that when blood is freed from all types of parasites, more than 2000 neuropeptides will return, among them is interferon, which interferes the growth of cancer cells. When this happens, the normal capability of the auto-immune system could return ensuring complete remission later on.\
Allowing your own immune system to recover first and let it naturally work for you is probably the best strategy you could ever have.
One should also understand that having the blood thoroughly cleansed of all parasites is just half of the task.
Through a regular physical workout that suits your current physical condition, your blood must be delivered into all extremities and deep recesses of your body where it could perform its functions, i.e. deliver nutrients, detect presence of and neutralize parasites, extract wastes and toxins.
Based on our own experience, the strategy fails only when patients take detoxification procedure for granted. Neutralizing parasites is the easy part; drinking water generously and doing regular exercise are hard for some, and they are bound to fail.
There's only one feasible way of neutralizing all types of parasites with one treatment, and that is the use of electric current, and we only need a weaker voltage to accomplish it, and not the dangerously high electrical pressure that Edison employed.
The smaller the parasite, the weaker the voltage needed to put the adversary into a devastating electric shock, giving ample time for the liver and kidneys to flush the parasite out of the system.
The beauty of this method is that, it won't have adverse effects on our healthy blood cells and tissues, and it won't discriminate any certain type of parasite. It neutralizes them all.
Shown above is a simple diagram of parasite electrification. In practice, alternating DC pulses will be used.
Realizing that you can electrocute all types of parasites on demand at the flip of a switch, for what do you need vaccines for?
Electrification of the blood alters the protein layer of any type of parasites flowing thereto, effectively neutralizing and preventing them from replicating any further until all of these parasites are flushed out through the liver and kidneys.
It is very important to flush all toxins, e.g. neutralized parasites, out from the body before the next treatment session.
This can be done by drinking generous amounts of ozonized water.
Otherwise, permanent liver and kidney damage are to be expected due to the accumulation of neutralized parasites and other toxins clogging these organs.
So, don't ever try this procedure if you are not fully committed.
What does it mean?
All chemicals and parasites can be neutralized at will using Elementary Science. When the body is freed from the primary causes of disease, i.e. quick replicating parasites and toxic chemicals, the body could focus more on the healing process and complete remission is thereby ensured, as what we have actually experienced, and the reason why Dr. Kaali was awarded a patent for the validity of such method.
Of course, a typical doctor that he is, he employed an invasive method in electrifying the blood, the core component of the immune system.
There is a different approach that doesn't involve invasive blood extraction, and we have written an entire eBook about how you can effectively do it on your own, and all other information that you might need in order to implement the whole protocol successfully.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. On Vaccines: Big Pharma Has Captured The Scientific, Regulatory, Law-Making Processes May 3 2015 | From: GlobalResearch / NaturalNews
In this address given on the California Capitol steps in Sacramento Robert Kennedy Jr. provides an inspired and detailed analysis of the extent to which the powerful pharmaceutical cartel has effectively captured the nation’s scientific, regulatory, and law-making processes.
Combined with the corporate news media’s dependence on drug advertising, this has put big pharma in a position where it is running roughshod over informed choice and dictating vaccine policies that have little-if-any basis in scientific research yet will greatly contribute to that industry’s already gargantuan profits.
This is Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s speech at the SB277 rally that took place in Sacramento, California at the State Capitol on April 8, 2015.
Kennedy offers an example of scientist and pediatrician Paul Offit, the developer of the rotavirus vaccine, whose personal stake in vaccine’s development and adoption is emblematic of the monied practices tending to corrupt vaccine science in America today. “In 1999 he sat on the [CDC] committee that added the rotavirus vaccine to the schedule.” Kennedy notes,
"At the time he was working on his own rotavirus vaccine. Opening that gateway, by adding that vaccine to the schedule, made his patent extremely valuable. Six years later he sold that patent for $182 million and pocketed about $40 million for himself. So, that kind of financial entanglement by the people to hare deciding what vaccines to add to the schedule makes it difficult, I think, for all of us to think that they only thing they’re thinking of is our children’s health."
He concluded his remarks by emphasizing that legislation such as California’s SB277 takes away the last barrier between the pharmaceutical companies’ bottom line mentality and children’s health–parental discretion itself.
"All of the barriers that are meant to protect our children–the government, the lawyers, the regulatory agencies, and the press, the checks and balances in our democratic system that are supposed to stand between corporate power and our little children–have been removed, and there’s only one barrier left, and that’s the parents, and we need to keep that in the equation."
Robert Kennedy, Jr. Is Right About Vaccines:
A Medically Induced 'Holocaust' Is Now Upon Us
At a recent screening of the powerful new documentary film Trace Amounts, which exposes the scientific connection between mercury in vaccines and autism, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. warned an audience of supportive viewers that vaccines are essentially poison vials causing a "holocaust" in our country.
The nephew of former U.S. president John F. Kennedy, RFK Jr. attended the screening in solidarity with California parents who are fighting to stop Senate Bill 277 from eliminating their freedom as Californians to exempt their children from "mandatory" vaccinations. Speaking to the crowd, Kennedy emphasized the proven dangers of vaccines.
"They can put anything they want in that vaccine and they have no accountability for it," stated Kennedy about the vaccine industry, which ironically maintains its own exclusive and unconstitutional exemption from legal liability for vaccines that injure and kill children.
Trace Amounts helped kill anti-freedom vaccine exemption elimination bill in OregonBoth entering and leaving the stage to exuberant standing ovations, Kennedy lauded Trace Amounts for helping persuade lawmakers in Oregon to scrap a bill similar to California's SB 277 that would have eliminated personal vaccine exemptions in the Beaver State.
He also empathized with parents of vaccine-injured children, who often have no support from the legal system, and sometimes even from their friends and family members, in addressing the damage caused by vaccine quackery.
"They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone," lamented Kennedy about how vaccine injuries progress. "This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country."
Not a single invited politician shows up to Trace Amounts screening
California lawmakers were reportedly also invited to the Trace Amounts screening where Kennedy spoke, with three rows specially cordoned off for their convenient viewing. But according to The Sacramento Bee, not a single lawmaker showed up except for a handful of random staffers. No bother, though, as the film was still shown, and the crowd invigorated to take a unified stand for medical freedom.
89.3 KPCC is now reporting that the proposed legislation SB 277 would unconstitutionally deprive unvaccinated children from receiving an adequate education by preventing them from attending public school. Its supporters, however, are planning to reintroduce it once again in the coming days.
Vaccines are a scam, and the government's revolving door with the vaccine industry proves it has no business trying to pass anti-exemption laws
As far as the idea of eliminating vaccine exemptions, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that those trying to push anti-exemption legislation work for or are being paid off by the vaccine industry.
"The former head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, is now the head of the Merck Vaccine Division," wrote one commenter at The Sacramento Bee concerning this issue. "The government is having a dirty little affair with the drug industry."
"They share ownership of patents. They created the unconstitutional 'Vaccine Court' that usurps our 7th Amendment and shields drug manufacturers from liability. The phony court has no judge, no jury and no justice for most people. They cherry pick cases to keep liability down and lie about the real number of vaccine injuries, yet they have still paid out about 3 billion dollars for the injuries they will admit to."
Check out this vaccine debate that aired on PBS Hawaii, in which the show's producers and hosts failed to mention its sponsorship from Merck, Pfizer and various other vaccine manufacturers: WaronWeThePeople.com.
The Medical Cartel: Too Big To Fail, Too Evil To Expose April 28 2015 | From: JonRappoport
There are several reasons why the medical cartel is too big to fail: the enormous amount of money at stake; its aim to control populations.
In this article, I want to examine a related reason. Suppose it was discovered that thousands of bridges around the US were in imminent danger of collapsing? Not because maintenance and repair were lacking, not because the materials used to build them were cheap and shoddy. But because the original designs were inadequate and broke basic rules of engineering.
Suppose five or six major manufacturers built their automobiles so the vast majority of power derived from the engines was transferred to one wheel? Suppose the US Dept. of Agriculture recommended that all farmers spray their crops with heavy chlorine instead of water?
In other words, the science itself is fraudulent.
This revelation, above all, is what the medical cartel tries to guard against. Their profession has shoved in all its chips on the propaganda proposition that it does impeccable science.
Science sells. The appearance of it sells. It’s the foundation stone of many industries.
Were that stone to crack and shatter, all bets would be off. A titanic fraud would come to light. The kind of fraud that would both freeze people’s minds and blow them away.
Science is the most powerful rationalization in the modern world. Consensus reality would fail and disperse without it.
Every credential behind that figure is immaculate.
The author of the paper that presented the statistics was the late Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public health expert who worked for many years at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
Her review, “Is US health the best in the world?”, was published on July 26th, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Starfield’s breakdown was as follows: the medical system kills 119,000 people a year in the US as a result of maltreatment in hospitals. The other 106,000 people are killed by FDA-approved medicines.
The FDA must approve every drug as safe and effective before it is released for public use.
It’s the medicines I want to focus on in this article. 106,000 deaths a year translates to an astonishing 1,060,000 deaths per decade.
How are these drugs approved?
Clinical trials are conducted. Reports of those trials are written. The reports, the studies, are published in peer-reviewed medical journals. The studies ARE the science.
If a million people per decade are being killed by the drugs, then a huge number of published studies proclaiming the drugs are safe are sheer fraud. There is no other way to put it.
This statement from Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, echoes the fact:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
The medical cartel rests on cataclysmic fraud, scientific fraud.
Imagine what would happen if just one major media outlet decided to take on this story and push it for all it’s worth. Not merely an article or two - an ongoing campaign of relentless exposure.
The silence from that quarter speaks volumes about the controlled press and what it stands for.
Over the years, I’ve written much about the the FDA. I thought I’d assemble a small fraction of it in one place, to reveal what this federal agency is really all about and why it should be dismantled, amid a blizzard of prosecutions and convictions for negligent homicide and, yes, murder.
The FDA website page is available under the heading, “Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions.” You can search for it using the Startpage.com search engine.
The FDA takes no blame, no responsibility for its own actions, and yet it admits the death statistics are accurate.
Understand this very clearly. No medical drug in America can be released for public use until and unless the FDA states it is safe. The FDA is the agency that makes every such decision on every drug. The buck stops there.
Yes, the FDA has a “special relationship” with the pharmaceutical industry. Yes, the FDA utilizes doctors on their drug-approval panels that have ties to the pharmaceutical industry. But, in the end, it is the FDA official seal that opens the gate and permits a drug to be prescribed by doctors and sold in the US.
In all my research on this medical-drug holocaust, I have never found a case in which any FDA employee was censured, fired, or criminally prosecuted for the killing effects of these drugs.
That is a track record Organized Crime would be proud of, and the comparison is not frivolous.
On this FDA website page, the FDA also readily admits that medical drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in America, ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile fatalities.
The FDA website page also states there are 2 million serious adverse reactions (ADRs) from the ingestion of medical drugs, annually, in the US. That would be 20 million ADRs per decade.
When the FDA says “serious,” they aren’t talking about headaches or slight dizziness or temporary nausea. “Serious” means stroke, heart attack, neurological damage; destruction of that magnitude.
Examining these figures for death and debilitation, can you find any comparable documented crime in the American landscape? This is the kind of story that would make Watergate look like a Sunday-school picnic.
If a paper like the New York Times let loose their hounds to relentlessly explore the horror, I assure you that, in time, doctors and medical bureaucrats and even drug-company employees would come out of the woodwork with confessions, and the resultant explosions and outcries would shake the medical/pharmaceutical foundations of America and the planet.
It would shake and destroy the SCIENCE.
But these major media outlets are an intrinsic part of the Matrix that protects and sustains the crimes and the criminals. It isn’t just drug-advertising profits that keep the leading newspapers and television networks silent. It’s collusion to protect “a revered institution” - the medical system.
"A leading New Zealand doctor has called on the Government to follow Australia’s example to cut child welfare payments to families who do not vaccinate their children, saying the policy would help protect the most vulnerable in our society.”
O’Sullivan should know better. He works with poverty-stricken families. He leads an initiative to build houses for the poor.
(I encourage you to read the above referenced New Zealand Herald article in its entirety).
The issue is not vaccines, when it comes to illness among his patients.
It’s weakened immune systems. Which means: lack of nutritious food; lack of proper sanitation; overcrowding; poverty; pollution; in the case of indigenous peoples, stolen land; toxic medical drugs and yes, toxic vaccines.
It doesn’t matter how much medical care you force on people living in these circumstances. They will get sick. They will suffer. They will die.
Vaccines might obscure the visible symptoms of some diseases and allow doctors to conclude the shots are working, but a) the vaccines are actually increasing the toxic load on the body; b) the people who are vaccinated will inevitably break out with new symptoms; and c) the vaccines won’t cure the obvious reasons (listed above) for immune-system suppression.
You can’t substitute vaccines for the factors that actually strengthen immune systems. That’s a fairy tale. Dr. O’Sullivan is whistling in the dark. He needs to go back and rethink his entire education. It failed to provide him with basic facts.
The circumstances of life in which his patients find themselves are causing dire illness. There is no way around that. There is no mystery about that. There is no final medical solution for that.
The idea that doctors moving into areas where, for generations, people have lived on the margins - and making medicine substitute for the essentials of health - that notion is absurd.
“Here, son. You don’t have nutritious vegetables and protein to eat, but I’ll give you a shot in the arm.”
A fantasy. A myth.
As for people in New Zealand who do have the essentials of life - good clean food, clean water, a warm home, plus money - guess what? Unless they abuse themselves with junk food and drugs, unless they’re exposed to toxic factors in their environment (e.g., pesticides), they’re in the process of strengthening their immune systems.
They don’t need vaccines in order to ward off illness. When children get sick, they’ll undergo a full and acute inflammatory response, recover, and their immune systems will be stronger.
These matters aren’t hard to understand. They’re only made more complex by the medical system, which needs sickness to survive.
My vote for persons of year in New Zealand are all the people who understand these simplicities and are willing to stand up for them.
The attack dogs for the vaccine manufacturing complex are on the move, worldwide. They’re saying and doing whatever they can to keep populations hypnotized and walled off from the truth about vaccines. They’re trying to pass more stringent legislation eliminating vaccine exemptions. They’re aiming to coerce everyone and eliminate freedom and choice.
They’re saying, as Dr. O’Sullivan does: We’re doing this for your own good. You don’t see that, but it doesn’t matter. We do. And we’re going to take control.
Don’t let this happen. Don’t fall for it.
MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide Will Cause Half Of All Children To Have Autism By 2025 April 17 2015 | From:HealthImpactNews
Why? Evidence points to glyphosate toxicity from the overuse of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide on our food.
For over three decades, Stephanie Seneff, PhD, has researched biology and technology, over the years publishing over 170 scholarly peer-reviewed articles. In recent years she has concentrated on the relationship between nutrition and health, tackling such topics as Alzheimer’s, autism, and cardiovascular diseases, as well as the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health.
At a [recent] conference, in a special panel discussion about GMOs, she took the audience by surprise when she declared,
“At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.”
She noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity, and presented data showing a remarkably consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops (and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds) with rising rates of autism.
Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder.
A fellow panelist reported that after Dr. Seneff’s presentation;
“All of the 70 or so people in attendance were squirming, likely because they now had serious misgivings about serving their kids, or themselves, anything with corn or soy, which are nearly all genetically modified and thus tainted with Roundup and its glyphosate.”
Dr. Seneff noted the ubiquity of glyphosate’s use. Because it is used on corn and soy, all soft drinks and candies sweetened with corn syrup and all chips and cereals that contain soy fillers have small amounts of glyphosate in them, as do our beef and poultry since cattle and chicken are fed GMO corn or soy.
Wheat is often sprayed with Roundup just prior to being harvested, which means that all non-organic bread and wheat products would also be sources of glyphosate toxicity.
The amount of glyphosate in each product may not be large, but the cumulative effect (especially with as much processed food as Americans eat) could be devastating. A recent study shows that pregnant women living near farms where pesticides are applied have a 60% increased risk of children having an autism spectrum disorder.
Other toxic substances may also be autism-inducing. You may recall our story on the CDC whistleblower who revealed the government’s deliberate concealment of the link between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps, and rubella) and a sharply increased risk of autism, particularly in African American boys.
Other studies now show a link between children’s exposure to pesticides and autism. Children who live in homes with vinyl floors, which can emit phthalate chemicals, are more likely to have autism. Children whose mothers smoked were also twice as likely to have autism. Research now acknowledges that environmental contaminants such as PCBs, PBDEs, and mercury can alter brain neuron functioning even before a child is born.
This month, the USDA released a study finding that although there were detectable levels of pesticide residue in more than half of food tested by the agency, 99% of samples taken were found to be within levels the government deems safe, and 40% were found to have no detectable trace of pesticides at all.
The USDA added, however, that due to “cost concerns,” it did not test for residues of glyphosate.
Let’s repeat that: they never tested for the active ingredient in the most widely used herbicide in the world. “Cost concerns”? How absurd - unless they mean it will cost them too much in terms of the special relationship between the USDA and Monsanto.
You may recall the revolving door between Monsanto and the federal government, with agency officials becoming high-paying executives - and vice versa! Money, power, prestige: it’s all there. Monsanto and the USDA love to scratch each others’ backs. Clearly this omission was purposeful.
In addition, as we have previously reported, the number of adverse reactions from vaccines can be correlated as well with autism, though Seneff says it doesn’t correlate quite as closely as with Roundup. The same correlations between applications of glyphosate and autism show up in deaths from senility.
Of course, autism is a complex problem with many potential causes. Dr. Seneff’s data, however, is particularly important considering how close the correlation is - and because it is coming from a scientist with impeccable credentials. Earlier this year, she spoke at the Autism One conference and presented many of the same facts; that presentation is available on YouTube.
Monsanto claims that Roundup is harmless to humans. Bacteria, fungi, algae, parasites, and plants use a seven-step metabolic route known as the shikimate pathway for the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids; glyphosate inhibits this pathway, causing the plant to die, which is why it’s so effective as an herbicide. Monsanto says humans don’t have this shikimate pathway, so it’s perfectly safe.
Dr. Seneff points out, however, that our gut bacteria do have this pathway, and that’s crucial because these bacteria supply our body with crucial amino acids.
Roundup thus kills beneficial gut bacteria, allowing pathogens to grow; interferes with the synthesis of amino acids including methionine, which leads to shortages in critical neurotransmitters and folate; chelates (removes) important minerals like iron, cobalt and manganese; and much more.
Even worse, she notes, additional chemicals in Roundup are untested because they’re classified as“inert,” yet according to a 2014 study in BioMed Research International, these chemicals are capable of amplifying the toxic effects of Roundup hundreds of times over.
Glyphosate is present in unusually high quantities in the breast milk of American mothers, at anywhere from 760 to 1,600 times the allowable limits in European drinking water. Urine testing shows Americans have ten times the glyphosate accumulation as Europeans.
“In my view, the situation is almost beyond repair,” Dr. Seneff said after her presentation. “We need to do something drastic.”
Federal Government Finally Admits Cannabis Can Help Kill Cancer Cells April 10 2015 | From: TheAntimedia
“…recent animal studies have shown that marijuana can kill certain cancer cells and reduce the size of others. Evidence from one animal study suggests that extracts from whole-plant marijuana can shrink one of the most serious types of brain tumors. Research in mice showed that these extracts, when used with radiation, increased the cancer-killing effects of the radiation."
In addition to the NIDA’s public acknowledgment, the government has made other admissions of the medical benefits of cannabis: it holds a patent on cannabinoids for use as antioxidants and neuroprotectants. In February of this year, the Surgeon General declared that the plant offers health benefits.
While the government has now openly admitted that cannabis can fight cancer, it should be noted that it knew this to be true as far back as 1974. That’s when it ordered a study on the matter but blocked further research when the results proved the plant’s positive potential. It suppressed similar evidence found in later federal studies conducted in the 1990s. Regardless, the recent admissions by the surgeon general, NIDA, and Congress reflect an evolving federal stance on the matter.
The updated NIDA fact sheet on medical marijuana also notes the effectiveness of CBD — a non-psychoactive cannabinoid — in treating ailments from Alzheimers Disease, inflammation and pain to seizures, mental disorders and substance abuse.
As Tom Angell, chairman of the Marijuana Majority said;
“It couldn’t be any clearer that marijuana has medical value…When even NIDA and the surgeon general are acknowledging that marijuana can help people who are suffering, it is time for the Obama administration to reschedule the drug. The attorney general can initiate that process today, and there’s no reason for him not to, especially when polling shows that such a huge majority of Americans supports medical marijuana."
Ex Pharmaceutical Sales Representative Comes Clean, Reveals Horrors Of Western Medicine April 2 2015 | From: GlobalResearch
An ex-pharmaceutical sales rep has come clean after fifteen years of being in the drug pushing business.
In her powerful book, Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher, Gwen Olsen explains why she left her lucrative career selling drugs for some of the biggest names in the business – Johnson and Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Abbott Laboratories.
Now she passionately advocates against the pharmaceutical industry, their unethical practices, and the hundreds of thousands of lives they lead to the grave. Gwen’s eyes were opened through a gradual course of tragic events.
“It was an awakening process, a spiritual and consciousness process where I started observing what was happening, what some of the drugs were doing, the misinformation, the disinformation. I was being encouraged to minimize side effects when I talked to doctors. I started to realize that these patients were literally being tortured by the drugs,” states ex pharmaceutical rep Gwen Olsen. “There is no such thing as a safe drug,” she reiterates.
Her book unveils her experience selling pharmaceuticals and the dirty secrets the industry doesn’t want anyone to know. Olsen explains that when drugs hit the market, no one knows even 50 percent of the side effects associated with the drug. Doctors are convinced of the drug’s effectiveness and their patients literally become test subjects or lab rats for the pharmaceutical companies. Olsen even confesses, “We were being trained to misinform people.”
Young woman pushed over the edge by pharmaceutical drug spiral, burns herself alive
For years Gwen Olsen thought she was helping others by selling pharmaceuticals, but in 2004, a family tragedy opened her eyes to the truth.
“My niece was 20 years old, she was attending Indiana University and she was a pre-med student, an extremely intelligent, beautiful woman, and just a beautiful spirit inside and out. She was in a car accident and was prescribed vicodin hydrocodone for the pain, and became addicted.”
The vicodin destroyed her niece’s concentration, leading the young woman to turn to a stimulant drug called ephedrine. The drug helped her stay awake long enough to study for school, but that’s when she had a drug interaction.
“She had a drug interaction and ended up in the hospital, and they tagged her with a bipolar disorder, not a drug toxicity or a reaction to the drugs she was on. They started giving her more antipsychotics and mood stabilizers, and that set her on the road to becoming a mental patient,” said Olsen.
Soon thereafter, the young woman quit going to school as the side effects of the medication took hold. The more she tried to wean herself off, the more violent the side effects became. A dependency had formed in the chemistry of her brain and the twenty-year-old battled a severe depression.
Gwen reveals, “Her mom was on her way home to take her back to the psychiatrist and get her back on drugs. [That is when] my niece walked into her younger sister’s room and took an angel lamp that was filled with oil, and poured it over herself and ignited it, burning herself alive.
The realization struck Gwen to the core and she left her career selling pharmaceutical drugs. Now she speaks out against the deception, telling the gripping story of her niece’s suicide.
“It was a promise made to her that I would not let her memory be sullied, and tell people what had happened to her. She would not be remembered as a mentally or genetically defective person, I would not allow that to happen. And I realize that there are thousands and thousands of people out there that need a voice, and I’m serving as that voice,” she says.
“A large number of psychiatrists are dishonest, because I see them giving people drugs that they know are brain damaging therapeutics, that they know do not have positive, long-term outcomes, that they know will not cure anything. They just take a list of symptoms and call it a mental illness or disorder.”
Children are given fake diagnosis left and right and put on mind altering drugs with suicidal side effects. Psychiatrists can diagnose mental illness today without any scientific proof. No blood tests, urine tests, or PET scans are required. The result is millions of children are labeled and stuck on these drugs, trapped in a culture of hopelessness.
“I was so disillusioned, as well as angry, when I found out how much deception, how much misinformation was taking place and how I’d been used in that game. I literally was the one on the frontlines. I was harming people unintentionally, but I was responsible. I carry a burden for that now.”
Natural Treatment For Depression & Other Mental Illnesses Explained – Niacin (Vit. B3) – Dr. Andrew Saul
May 3 2015 | From: DoctorYourself
If you’re suffering from depression, ADD, anxiety or even dementia, Autism or Alzheimers, fortunately, there is hope!
Dr. Andrew Saul discusses the link between nutrient deficiencies/dependencies and mental illness, and how simple nutritional supplements can correct these very serious conditions.
School Boards Left On The Hook For Wi-Fi Injuries
April 28 2015 | From: TheBridgeNewsService
School officials could be personally liable for exposing children and staff to microwave radiation in our schools
School districts, school boards and school medical health officers have been notified that Lloyd’s of London has now excluded any liability coverage for injuries;
“directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.”
This would include the microwave radiation emitting from the commercial wi-fi transmitters and wireless devices in our schools.
In response to a request for clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s:
“The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.”
Lloyd’s of London, one of the world’s largest insurance companies often leads the way in protection by taking on risks that no one else will. At the end of this article there is a copy of a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation.
In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) dropped a bombshell on the wireless industry. They designated exposure to wi-fi radiation to be a possible human carcinogen. As well in the 1990s illnesses resulting from asbestos exposure, covered by Lloyd’s at the time, almost destroyed the insurance company. Due to these issues, it appears Lloyd’s is acting fast to avoid another such financial fiasco by not covering illnesses that result from exposure to wireless radiation.
With the Lloyd’s of London announcement, parents and teachers are left with this question: exactly who is liable if their child is harmed by wi-fi in their school? Concomitantly, are the individuals who approved the installation of wireless internet networks in our schools to be held personally liable for negligence?
School officials and administrators appear to be in a bind as they have refused to acknowledge the 1000s of peer-reviewed, non-industry funded studies by scientists and medical experts that show that wi-fi radiation is harmful, especially to children.
Moreover, their dogged allegiance to Health Canada’s now invalidated safety guidelines have left parents with nowhere else to turn other than the courts. It appears that school boards’ intransigent position on the issue may have left board members themselves vulnerable to being personally sued.
School boards may be covered by directors’ insurance which applies to people who are performing their duties “in good faith.” The question is: are they still protected when it could be shown that they were being “willfully blind?”
“In good faith:” in contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract.
“Wilful blindness:” (sometimes called ignorance of law, wilful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting him or herself in a position where he or she will be unaware of facts that would render him or her liable.
FDA Tries To Destroy Homeopathy - Warns Doctors, Consumers To Beware Side Effects Of Supposedly 'Inert' Products
April 25 2015 | From: NaturalNews
Despite the fact that people have turned to homeopathic remedies for hundreds of years and enjoy their health-boosting benefits to this day, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is coming down hard on such products, issuing safety alerts and encouraging people to report any side effects.
Wait a minute. If anything, many people use these products to avoid the side effects they've incurred while ingesting or applying some physician-prescribed pill or cream in the first place.
Homeopathic remedies improve conditions, rather than make them worse, which is far more than what can be said of many conventional approaches.
Still, the FDA forges on, adamant that anything other than what Big Pharma and mainstream head-nodders espouse to be life-improving must be heavily scrutinized and done away with.
They're planting the "homeopathic is bad" seed in the minds of consumers and doctors using fear-based tactics such as the one in their safety alert about homeopathic products designed to help provide asthma sufferers with some relief.
What the FDA has to say in its alert about homeopathic remedies:
"FDA is warning consumers not to rely on asthma products labeled as homeopathic that are sold over-the-counter (OTC)," The alert begins.
What do they recommend? Surprise, surprise: prescriptions!
"Although there is no cure for asthma," the alert continues, "there are many prescription asthma
treatments approved by FDA as safe and effective, as well as some products that are marketed OTC in accordance with an FDA monograph."
The alert uses the fact that the FDA has not evaluated homeopathic remedies for effectiveness and safety as reasoning behind why people should turn to what they have approved, which are, of course, costly and often ineffective pharmaceuticals.
They clearly outline an us-versus-them mentality in their explanation and subsequent recommendation.
OTC asthma products labeled as homeopathic are widely distributed through retail stores and via the internet. Many of these products are promoted as "natural," "safe and effective," and include indications that range from treatment for acute asthma symptoms, to temporary relief of minor asthma symptoms.
The predictable, money-making FDA recommendation:
Following is their suggestion:
RECOMMENDATION: Speak to your health care provider if you think you or your child may have asthma. Consumers with asthma can take an active role in managing their condition by making certain they have appropriate treatments on hand in the event they experience an asthma attack or a worsening of asthma symptoms, and by consulting with a health care provider when needed.
From there, the FDA urges people to report any adverse reactions from homeopathic products, despite the mainstream media and medical establishment routinely claiming such products are "inert" due to dilution:
The FDA encourages health care professionals and consumers to report any adverse reactions related to OTC asthma care products labeled as homeopathic to the agency's MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program....
Downloadable forms and phone numbers follow in their alert.
What the FDA is leaving out:
What the FDA doesn't mention is that homeopathic remedies have been in place for hundreds of years and that, today, people the world over turn to them to help manage - successfully - everything from anxiety and depression to headaches and, yes, asthma. In fact, homeopathic remedies were first introduced to the United States in 1925 and have been in use ever since.
They also don't mention that researchers from Stanford and Cornell discovered a few years back that people using Serevent, Advair and Foradil for their asthma were "3.5 times more likely to die from asthma and 2.5 times more likely to be hospitalized (whether or not death resulted), compared with those taking a placebo."
But homeopathic remedies, whether OTC or suggested by a homeopathic professional? Run like the wind, the FDA suggests.
How to help ensure homeopathic remedies don't fall victim to FDA naysayers:
In fact, keep an eye on April 20 and 21, 2015, as those are the dates on which the FDA is expected to hold a hearing in which they will re-evaluate homeopathic remedies. They're poised to review regulations pertaining to the matter and, if their aforementioned alert is any indication, it's safe to assume that they'll tout the benefits of pharmaceuticals over natural solutions.
The hearing will be broadcast live during these dates at Collaboration.FDA.gov for those in the US interested in staying updated on this matter.
We also encourage people in the US to voice their opinions on this issue at Regulations.gov or by writing:Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Correspondence must be received by June 22, 2015.
Vicious Attack On Dr. Oz Actually Waged By Biotech Mafia; Plot To Destroy Oz Launched After Episode On Glyphosate
April 21 2015 | From: NaturalNews
Dr. Oz should be given a Congressional medal of some kind for his willingness to expose the truth about glyphosate (a component of Monsanto's Roundup) on national television.
In response to this episode, the so-called "Monsanto Mafia" went berserk with all their usual character assassination tactics, and now they've come up with a contrived plot - a campaign of intimidation and character smearing - to try to silence Dr. Oz by destroying his credibility.
A letter signed by ten doctors - all of whom have financial ties to industry - calls for Columbia University to force Dr. Oz to resign from the university's Department of Surgery. This letter is a tremendously educational exhibit of the mafia tactics used by the biotech industry, as it essentially claims Dr. Oz has lost his mind and is now endangering the public.
"Whatever the nature of his pathology, members of the public are being misled and endangered, which makes Dr. Oz's presence on the faculty of a prestigious medical institution unacceptable," the letter reads.
Of course, all the people who signed this letter have no qualms whatsoever with farmers spraying thousands of tons of cancer-causing glyphosate herbicide chemicals on all the foods we eat.
That's perfectly acceptable to them and poses "no danger," they claim.
It is Dr. Oz and his crazy, wild, irresponsible advice that people should eat wholesome foods and take charge of their own health that's now deemed a threat in this society... a society dominated by the financial interests of biotech and pharmaceutical corporations that profit from sickness and disease.
The real sickness, however, is found in the fact that these "Monsanto Mafia" operatives are given any credibility at all by the media. It doesn't take much poking around into their backgrounds to find out they're actually a gang of industry-funded junk science egomaniacs and hucksters.
The "Monsanto Mafia" is behind the attack on Dr. Oz
This plot to destroy Dr. Oz originates with all the usual "Monsanto Mafia" suspects such as Henry Miller, the indignant biotech puppet and Stanford biotech operative who helped run disinformation campaigns and fake science front operations for Big Tobacco. See the full details on Henry Miller here.
Also signing the attack letter against Dr. Oz was Dr. Gilbert Ross, executive director of the American Council on Science and Health -- a shady industry front group that spreads biotech disinformation and lies under the false label of "science."
Dr. Ross is a convicted criminal and Medicaid fraud artist. He was "convicted of racketeering, mail fraud and conspiracy," and was "sentenced to 47 months in jail, $40,000 in forfeiture and restitution of $612,855" in a scheme to defraud the Medicaid system, reports the U.S. Right to Know campaign in a page describing the ACSH's sleazy practices.
See the Sourcewatch entry on the ACSH here. Ralph Nader once described the ACSH as "...a consumer front organization for its business backers. It has seized the language and style of the existing consumer organizations, but its real purpose, you might say, is to glove the hand that feeds it."
The ACSH is pro-DDT, pro Agent Orange and loves asbestos. It promotes some of the most outlandish and mind-boggling quackery and junk science ever witnessed. From Sourcewatch.org:
"ACSH calls the U.S. ban on DDT one of the 20 worst unfounded health scares of the 20th century. It ridicules the risks that chemical "endocrine disruptors" pose to human health and fertility. In addition to pesticides and chemical food additives, it has defended asbestos, Agent Orange and nuclear power.
Whelan's nutritional advice has also raised eyebrows among health experts, many of whom take exception to her claims that there is "no such thing as 'junk food,' " and that "There is insufficient evidence of a relationship between diet and any disease."
The ACSH also solicited money from Big Tobacco to fund what it called opposition to the "pseudoscience" and "misinformation" in the media's claims that smoking cigarettes was bad for your health. As Sourcewatch.org explains:
"In December, 1980 ACSH co-founder Stare wrote to tobacco giant Philip Morris seeking financial support. "We are a voice of scientific reason in a sea of pseudo science, exaggeration and misinformation. We believe it would be to your benefit to help ACSH," he wrote. Stare explained that the "basic" ACSH corporate benefactor membership was $3,000 "but we hope you will contribute $10,000 or more."
Unbiased: Help Support A Writer As He Exposes The Truth About Wikipedia's Censorship Of Alternative Medicine
April 11 2015| From: NaturalNews
Arriving at a "neutral point of view" is what the editors and top dogs at the free online "fauxpedia" website Wikipedia claim they one day hope to achieve.
But the popular information website's extensive track record of ignoring, denying and even blatantly lying about the scientific merits of natural and "alternative" medicine proves, quite obviously, that Wikipedia's stated editorial policy is nothing but empty rhetoric posing as sound intention.
And sadly, many people still don't realize the true nature of Wikipedia's endless assault on natural health, which is the subject of a new book project by published author, columnist and podcast host Mike Bundrant. Burdened by the fact that the web's sixth most popular site continues to deceive the public about the science behind alternative medicine, the dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the healing power of naturopathy and more, Bundrant has set out to right the wrongs of this highly misleading web resource.
But he needs your help. Taking on the fat cats isn't easy, and like every other major endeavor in today's world it requires substantial financial backing. In order to write and publish what will become one of the most comprehensive, science-based exposes on Wikipedia's active censorship of everything with which it disagrees, Bundrant is hoping to raise $67,100 by May 6, 2015. You can help make this important work a reality by clicking here and contributing to KickStarter.
"Wikipedia is on a misinformation campaign against alternative health and the healing arts," says Bundrant.
"The public needs to know it. Natural health deserves fair representation. We're going to set the record straight. We need your help and invite you to get involved in the process."
As a matter of policy, Wikipedia actively denies the existence of science with which it disagrees
Wikipedia's entry for "Alternative Medicine," for instance, claims as fact that anything associated with alternative medicine is essentially quackery. This same entry, which millions of people will likely visit with the belief that it contains undeniable truth, openly admits that Wikipedia promotes conventional medicine, declaring anything alternative to not have any basis whatsoever in the scientific method.
The Wikipedia page for "Genetically modified food controversies" is similarly duplicitous. According to the Wikipedia gods, GMO food is completely safe and no different from "conventional food" in terms of its safety risk to humans. Wikipedia also contends that "no reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food."
This last statement is patently false -- there's plenty of published research suggesting human health effects associated with GMO consumption. Even the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) agrees, noting that "serious health risks" are associated with GMO food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes to major organs and the gastrointestinal system.
"The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function," explains the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT). "This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us."
Help support Unbiased and expose Wikipedia's stranglehold on the free flow of information
Clearly, Wikipedia has chosen to ignore this disturbing fact and a whole cohort of other scientific evidence suggesting harm from GMOs. But this is the problem with Wikipedia -- the site censors, removes or denies the existence of scientific evidence that contradicts the status quo. And this is the reason why Bundrant is writing his book.
"This book will be rigorously researched, written and prepared for publication over the course of nine months," says Bundrant. "Information will be obtained through academic inquiry into peer-reviewed scientific literature. Unbiased will be independently published and promoted widely, with significant help from leaders in natural health."
Senior Academic Condemns ‘Deluded’ Supporters Of GM Food As Being ‘Anti-Science’ And Ignoring Evidence Of Dangers March 31 2015 | From: TheDailyMail
Dr Jane Goodall argues supporters of GM food ignored evidence of harm
Endorsed US book which says GM producers have twisted evidence
Publication comes as backlash against GM food is growing in US
Primate expert warns Britain and Europe not to drop GM safeguards
Accuses supporters of 'fraud' and says they are 'anti science'
Click on the image above to view a larger version in another window
Dame Jane Goodall, the renowned primate expert, has condemned ‘deluded’ politicians for pushing ‘Frankenstein Food’. The highly respected academic has endorsed a new book, which argues the companies responsible for developing genetically modified farming and food have twisted the evidence to minimise the dangers.
Historically, critics of GM food have been lambasted by the GM companies, scientists who rely on their funding, and politicians, including the UK Government, as being ‘anti-science’.
However, Dame Jane argues that the advocates of GM food have ignored evidence of harm with the result it is they who are guilty of being ‘anti-science’. The intervention is a powerful condemnation of the way biotech companies like Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer, have forced GM crops and food on to dinner plates in the US without proper safety tests.
And she is joining a growing campaign warning that Britain and Europe must not drop safeguards that have kept GM crops out.
Dame Jane’s concerns have been raised in the foreword to a new book, ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth’, which is written by the American public interest lawyer, Steve Druker.
Its publication comes as the US is seeing a growing backlash against GM. Just last week it emerged that the country’s favourite chocolate manufacturer, Hershey, is to drop GM from its products. Dame Jane said she has become appalled as what she calls a ‘shocking corruption of the life forms of the planet’.
She said the GM process, which involves adding foreign genes to plants to create toxins to fend off insects or give them immunity to being sprayed with chemical pesticides has fundamentally changed them.
However, she complains that supporters of the technology have committed a ‘fraud’ by trying to give the false impression that these new plants are essentially the same as those created by conventional plant breeding.
‘This very real difference between GM plants and their conventional counterparts is one of the basic truths that biotech proponents have endeavoured to obscure. As part of the process, they portrayed the various concerns as merely the ignorant opinions of misinformed individuals – and derided them as not only unscientific, but anti-science.
‘They then set to work to convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that the new foods were safe. Yet this, as Druker points out, was clearly not true.’
Importantly, she claims, the companies have spread disinformation to try and win public support.
‘Druker describes how amazingly successful the biotech lobby has been – and the extent to which the general public and government decision makers have been hoodwinked by the clever and methodical twisting of the facts and the propagation of many myths. Moreover, it appears that a number of respected scientific institutions, as well as many eminent scientists, were complicit in this relentless spreading of disinformation.’
Dame Jane is considered to be the world’s foremost expert on chimpanzees. She is best known for her 55-year study of social and family interactions of wild chimpanzees in Gombe Stream National Park, Tanzania.
She was made a Dame in 2004 and holds many other awards for her environmental and humanitarian work, including the Benjamin Franklin Medal in Life Science, the French Legion of Honour, the Benjamin Franklin Medal in Life Science, Japan’ s Kyoto Prize and the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement.
The British government has signalled that it plans to use a new GM crop approval process to push ahead with growing the crops in this country. Separately, a new trade agreement between the EU and the USA, which is called TTIP, could make it much easier for GM foods from North America to appear on shelves here.
However, Dame Jane warns it would be an enormous risk to accept the technology and describes Mr Druker as a hero worthy of a Nobel prize for lifting the lid on the truth about GM.
She describes his work as one of the most important books of the last 50 years, and adds: ‘It will go a long way toward dispelling the confusion and delusion that has been created regarding the genetic engineering process and the foods it creates.
‘Although this book tells a story that’s in many ways distressing, it’s important that it has finally been told because so much confusion has been spread and so many important decision-makers have apparently been deluded.’
Mr Druker, who gave a press conference in London yesterday(wed), has challenged Britain’s Royal Society to apologies for its pro-GM stance and its part in rubbishing scientists who have safety doubts over the crops and food.
His work points to research which has found tumours, liver and kidney harm in animals given GM feed in trials. And he complains, that researchers who dare to raise these problems have been pilloried.
‘Contrary to the assertions of its proponents, the massive enterprise to reconfigure the genetic core of the world’s food supply is not based on sound science but on the systematic subversion of science – and it would collapse if subjected to an open airing of the facts.’
Pat Thomas, director of the campaigning group Beyond GM, warned the TTIP trade talks mean Britain and Europe could see a flood of biotech crops and food arriving here.
'Steven Druker’s investigation into the history of fraud and deceit that ushered in the era of GM deserves serious consideration before we take actions that will irreversibly alter the European food supply’.
Dr Julian Little a spokesman for Bayer CropScience was not aware of Drunker's book.
'We are now up to the three trillion meals and counting, that is meals containing GM ingredients, without a single substantial health issue since the beginning of the technology.
'There has been much dirt thrown but none of it has stuck.'
On its website Monsanto say they place the 'highest priority' on the safety of their products and conduct 'rigorous and comprehensive testing on each.'
They state: 'In fact, seeds with GM traits have been tested more than any other crops in the history of agriculture – with no evidence of harm to humans or animals.
'In addition, governmental regulatory agencies, scientific organizations and leading health associations worldwide agree on the safety of GM crops.'
A spokesman for the company added: 'The denial of the safety of GM seeds and food ingredients is as baseless as the denial of clearly documented climate change.
'Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies performed with biotech crops — including more than 100 feeding studies — have confirmed their safety, as reflected in the respective safety assessments by regulatory authorities around the world.'
Comment: One would expect that a publication such as the Daily Mail would seek to provide a 'balanced argument' but for those with eyes to see it is abundantly clear that GMO is driven by an agenda that is astoundingly dark and evil.
The Doctor Who Beat The British General Medical Council By Proving That Vaccines Aren’t Necessary To Achieve Health+ Attacking Ourselves: Top Doctors Reveal Vaccines Turn Our Immune System Against Us March 26 2015 | From: Collective-Evolution / GreenMedInfo / HealthyWildAndFree
A 3 year court case against the British General Medical Council that ended with the doctor accused having all allegations dropped.
Dr. Jayne Donegan, a UK GP, has lived a most fascinating story. It began with her originally being a very strong advocate for vaccinations, but fast forward quite a few years later, and she now not only speaks out against the dangers of vaccinations, but ended up being taken to the General Medical Council with some pretty serious claims by them regarding her professionalism.
After a few stressful years in court against them, Dr. Donegan won her case. But chances are, this is the first you’re hearing of it.
In order for you to get the full account of what happened, it’s best to read her full story. Dr. Donegan gave me her permission to use her account below:
Dr. Jayne Donegan’s Story
Having trained as a conventional medical doctor, qualifying from St. Mary’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, in 1983, all of my undergraduate teaching and postgraduate experience in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Family Planning, Child Health, Orthopedics, Emergency Medicine and General Practice led me to be a strong supporter of the Universal Childhood Vaccination Program.
Indeed, I used to counsel parents in the 1980s who didn’t want to vaccinate their children against whooping cough – which was regarded as the ‘problematic’ vaccine in those days.
I used to tell them that there were, indeed, adverse reactions, associated with the vaccine – I was not one of those doctors who would gloss over such unpleasant details – but that we doctors were told that the adverse reactions that might occur after the pertussis vaccine were at least ten times less likely than the chance of getting complications from having the disease, and that, essentially, the point of giving their child the vaccine was to prevent them from getting the disease.
I Used To Think Parent’s Who Don’t Vaccinate Were Either Ignorant or Sociopathic
Indeed, I used to think that parents who didn’t want to vaccinate their children were either ignorant, or sociopathic. I believe that view is not uncommon among doctors today. Why did I have this attitude?
Well, throughout my medical training I was taught that the people who used to die in their thousands or hundreds of thousands from diseases like diphtheria, whooping cough and measles – diseases for which there are vaccines – stopped dying because of the introduction of vaccines.
At the same time, I was taught that diseases like typhus, cholera, rheumatic and scarlet fever – for which there are no vaccines – stopped killing people because of improvements in social conditions.
It would have been a logical progression to have asked myself why, if social conditions improved the health of the population with respect to some diseases, would they not improve their health with regard to them all, but the amount of information that you are required to absorb during medical training is so huge that you just tend to take it as read and not make the connections that might be obvious to someone else.
It was a received article of faith for me and my contemporaries that vaccination was the single most useful health intervention that had ever been introduced, and when my children were born in 1991 and 1993 I unquestioningly – well, that is to say, I thought it was with full knowledge backed up by all my medical training – had them vaccinated, up as far as MMR, because that was the right thing to do. I even let my 4-week-old daughter be injected with an out-of-date BGC vaccine at a public health clinic.
Out Of Date BCG Vaccine Injured My Child
I noticed (force of habit – I automatically scan vials for drug name, batch number and expiry date) that the vaccine was out of date and said, “Oh, excuse me, it looks like it’s out of date,” and the doctor answered matter-of-factly, “Oh don’t worry, that’s why the clinic was delayed for an hour – we were just checking that it was OK to give it, and it is,” and I said, “OK,” and let her inject it… my poor daughter had a terrible reaction, but I was so convinced that it was all for the best that I carried on with all the rest of them at 2, 3 and 4 months.
No Evidence Of Measles Epidemic
That is where I was coming from – even my interest in homeopathy didn’t dent my enthusiasm for vaccines; so far as I could see, it was the same process – give a small dose of something and it makes you immune – no conflict.
So what happened? In 1994 there was the Measles Rubella Campaign in which 7 million schoolchildren were vaccinated against measles and rubella. The Chief Medical Officer sent out letters to all GPs, pharmacists, nursing officers and other healthcare staff, telling us that there was going to be an epidemic of measles.
The evidence for this epidemic was not published at the time. In later years it seems that it was predicted by a complicated mathematical model based on estimates and so might never have been going to occur at all.
We were told:
“Everybody who has had one dose of the vaccine will not necessarily be protected when the epidemic comes. So they need another one.” “Well, that’s OK,” I thought, “because we know that none of the vaccines are 100 percent effective.”
Alarm Bells: Now Three MMR’s Were Needed?
What did worry me, however, was when they said that even those who had had two doses of measles vaccine would not necessarily be protected when the epidemic came and that they needed a third. You may not remember, but in those days there was only one measles vaccine in the schedule.
It was a live virus vaccine, so it was like coming in contact with the wild virus, just changed slightly to make it safer and leading to immunity. Since then, of course, the pre-school dose has been added because one dose didn’t work, but in those days there was just “one shot for life.”
And now we were being told that even two shots of a “one shot” vaccine would not protect people when the epidemic came.
At this point I began to ask myself,
“Why have I been telling all these parents that vaccines are safer than getting the disease and that basically, having the vaccine will stop their children getting the disease – with the risk of complications – it’s not 100 percent, but that’s basically what they’re designed to do – when it seems that they can be vaccinated, have whatever adverse reactions are associated with the vaccine, and still get the disease with whatever complications may be associated with that, even when they’ve had two doses of the “one shot” vaccine? So what was the point? This doesn’t seem right.”
If you are wondering how come anyone would have had two doses of the “one shot vaccine,” it is because when the MMR was introduced in 1988, many children had already been vaccinated against measles, but we were told that we should give them the MMR anyway as it would “protect them against mumps and rubella and boost their measles immunity.”
We were also told that the best way of vaccinating was en masse, because this would “break the chain of transmission.” So I thought, “I wonder why we vaccinate all these small babies at 2, 3 and 4 months? Why don’t we just wait two or three years and then vaccinate everyone who has been born in the meantime, and ‘break the chain of transmission’.”
Things Just Didn’t Add Up
So some things just didn’t seem to quite add up. However, it is very hard to start seriously questioning whether or not vaccination is anything other than safe and effective, especially when it is something that you have been taught to believe in so strongly.
The more medically qualified you are, the more difficult it is, as in some ways the more brainwashed you are. It’s not easy, or at least it wasn’t then, to start going down a path that might lead you in the opposite direction to all your colleagues and the healthcare system in which you work. I read some books that could be described as “anti-vaccination.”
They contained graphs showing that the majority of the decrease in deaths from and incidence of the infectious diseases for which we have vaccines occurred before the vaccines were introduced in the 1950s and 60s, for example with whooping cough, and in the late 1960s with measles.
I decided that I couldn’t just accept what these books were telling me, especially as the message was the opposite to what I had learned up until now. I needed to do some research. The graphs in my textbooks and the Department of Health Immunization Handbook (the Green Book) appeared to show that the introduction of vaccines caused precipitous falls in deaths from vaccinatable diseases.
Collating My Own Vaccine Charts – Why Was It so Hard To Obtain The Information?
I decided that if I were going to seriously question what I’d been taught at medical school and by my professors, I would have go and get the real data for myself. Accordingly, I called the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and asked them to send me the graphs of deaths from the diseases against which we vaccinate from the middle of the nineteenth century, when we started keeping records, until now.
They said, “We don’t have them – except for smallpox and TB; we suggest you try the Department of Health.’” Which I did.
They didn’t have graphs from the nineteenth or early twentieth century either. They said, “You’d better try the Office for National Statistics.” “I’ve already tried them,” I said. “They were the ones who advised me to contact you.”
It seems to be getting rather circular, so I called up the ONS once again and told them my problem. “Well,” they said, “we have all the books here from when the Registrar General started taking returns of deaths from infectious diseases in 1837; you can come along and look at them if you like.” There was nothing for it.
I had to go the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in Pimlico, London, with my two young children aged 6 and 4 in tow, to extract the information myself. The girls were very good – they were used to traveling/following me around – and the library staff were very nice; they kindly gave my daughters orange juice to drink, and paper and crayons to draw with and amuse themselves, while I pulled out all the mothy old books from 1837 until 1900, after which, thankfully, there was a CD ROM that could be bought at vast expense and taken home.
It was the most user-unfriendly piece of data storage that I have ever come across, but it was better than having to physically be there day after day. So I went home with all my notes and the CD Rom and eventually produced my own graphs. I was startled to find that they were similar to the graphs in some of the books that I had recently read.
People Stopped Dying of Whooping Cough Long Before Vaccine Was Introduced
I was astonished and not a little perturbed to find that when you draw a graph of the death rate from whooping cough that starts in the mid nineteenth century, you can clearly see that at least 99 percent of the people who used to die of whooping cough in the nineteenth and early twentieth century had stopped dying before the vaccine against whooping cough was introduced, initially in the 1950s and universally in the 1960s.
I also realized that the reason the Department of Health’s graphs made the vaccine appear so effective was because they didn’t start until the 1940s when most of the improvements in health had already occurred, and this was before even antibiotics were generally available.
If you selected only deaths in under-15-year-olds, the drop was even more dramatic – by the time whooping cough vaccine was part of the universal immunization schedule in the early 1960s all the hard work had been done.
Department of Health’s Own Charts: Not A Good Way Of Showing Changes in Mortality and Disease
I now began to realize that graphs such as those featured in the Department of Health Green Book were not a good or clear way of showing the changes in mortality (death) and morbidity (incidence of disease) that occurred before and after vaccination was introduced against these diseases.
Measles is similar: the Department of Health Green Book features a graph that does not start until the 1940s. There appears to be great drop in the number of cases after the measles vaccine was introduced in 1968, but looking at a graph which goes back to the 1900s you can see that the death rate – death being the worst-case complication of a disease – had dropped by 99 percent by the time the vaccine was put on the schedule.
100% Decline In Measles Deaths Three Years Before Vaccine Was Introduced
Looking specifically at under-15-year-olds, it is possible to see that there was a virtual 100 percent decline in deaths from measles between 1905 and 1965 – three years before the measles vaccine was introduced in the UK. In the late 1990s there was an advertisement for MMR which featured a baby in nappies sitting on the edge of a cliff with a lion prowling on the other side and a voice-over saying, “No loving parent would deliberately leave their baby unprotected and in danger.”
I think it would have been more scientific to have put one of the graphs using information from the ONS in the advert – then parents would have had a greater chance of making an informed choice, rather than being coerced by fear. When you visit your GP or Health Visitor to discuss the vaccination issue, and you come away feeling scared, this is because you are picking up how they feel.
If all you have is the “medical model” for disease and health, all you know is that there is a hostile world out there and if you don’t have vaccines, antibiotics and 100 percent bactericidal hand-wash, you will have no defense at all against all those germs with which you and your children are surrounded.
Your child may be OK when they get the measles, but you can never tell when disaster will strike, and they may be left disabled or dead by the random hand of fate.
I was like that myself, and when the awful realization began to dawn on me that vaccines weren’t all they were cracked up to be, I started looking in a panic for some other way of protecting my children and myself – some other magic bullet.
My long, slow journey researching the vaccination disease ecology involved learning about other models and philosophies of health and the gradual realization that it was true what people had told me all along, that “health is the only immunity.”
We don’t need to be protected from “out there.” We get infectious diseases when our body needs to have a periodic clean-out. Children especially benefit from childhood spotty rashes, or “ex anthems” as they are called, in order to make appropriate developmental leaps. When we have fevers, coughs, rashes, we need to treat them supportively, not suppressively.
Standard Medical Treatment Suppresses Symptoms And Causes The Most Harm
In my experience, the worst complications of childhood infections are caused by standard medical treatment which involves suppressing all the symptoms. What is the biggest obstacle to doctors even entertaining the possibility that the Universal Childhood Vaccination Program may not be the unmitigated success that it is portrayed to be?
Or that there may be other ways of achieving health that are better and longer lasting? Possibly it is the fear of stepping out of line and being seen to be different – with all the consequences that this can entail, as I know from personal experience.
As George Bernard Shaw says in his preface to “The Doctor’s Dilemma,” 1906 :
“Doctors are just like other Englishmen: most of them have no honor and no conscience: what they commonly mistake for these is sentimentality and an intense dread of doing anything that everybody else does not do, or omitting to do anything that everybody else does.”
The British General Medical Council Court Case
Here is some very interesting information regarding Dr. Donegan, and why her authority on vaccines should be paid attention to, simply because the medical world actually did. In 2002 Dr. Donegan went to the High Court, as she was involved in a case where two mothers were fighting their ex-partners about their children’s vaccinations.
The mothers did not want them to be given to their children – under any circumstances – for fear of causing irreversible harm, but the fathers did, so a controversial court case ensued.
Dr. Donegan had been writing and speaking publicly about vaccinations and natural ways of keeping children healthy so she was asked to be an expert witness by the two mothers. Dr. Donegan gave her professional opinion that the safety and efficacy of vaccines has not been well studied and that there were other ways of achieving health than vaccination for these children.
The case proved very long and extremely stressful. At times it was under very unfair circumstances where she would be given hardly any time to get documents together, despite the opposition having double the time to prepare theirs.
Attacking Ourselves: Top Doctors Reveal Vaccines Turn Our Immune System Against Us
The research is hard to ignore, vaccines can trigger autoimmunity with a laundry list of diseases to follow. With harmful and toxic metals as some vaccine ingredients, who is susceptible and which individuals are more at risk?
No one would accuse Yehuda Shoenfeld of being a quack. The Israeli clinician has spent more than three decades studying the human immune system and is at the pinnacle of his profession.
You might say he is more foundation than fringe in his specialty; he wrote the textbooks. The Mosaic of Autoimmunity, Autoantibodies, Diagnostic Criteria in Autoimmune Diseases, Infection and Autoimmunity, Cancer and Autoimmunity – the list is 25 titles long and some of them are cornerstones of clinical practice.
Hardly surprising that Shoenfeld has been called the "Godfather of Autoimmunology" – the study of the immune system turned on itself in a wide array of diseases from type 1 diabetes to ulcerative colitis and multiple sclerosis.
But something strange is happening in the world of immunology lately and a small evidence of it is that the Godfather of Autoimmunology is pointing to vaccines – specifically, some of their ingredients including the toxic metal aluminum – as a significant contributor to the growing global epidemic of autoimmune diseases.
The bigger evidence is a huge body of research that's poured in in the past 15 years, and particularly in the past five years. Take for example, a recent article published in the journal Pharmacological Research in which Shoenfeld and colleagues issue unprecedented guidelines naming four categories of people who are most at risk for vaccine-induced autoimmunity.
"On one hand," vaccines prevent infections which can trigger autoimmunity, say the paper's authors, Alessandra Soriano, of the Department of Clinical Medicine and Rheumatology at the Campus Bio-Medico University in Rome, Gideon Nesher, of the Hebrew University Medical School in Jerusalem and Shoenfeld, founder and head of the Zabludowicz Center of Autoimmune Diseases in the Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer.
He is also editor of three medical journals and author of more than 1,500 research papers across the spectrum of medical journalism and founder of the International Congress on Autoimmunology.
Defined autoimmune diseases that may occur following vaccinations include arthritis, lupus (systemic lupus erythematosus, SLE) diabetes mellitus, thrombocytopenia, vasculitis, dermatomyosiositis, Guillain-Barre syndrome and demyelinating disorders. Almost all types of vaccines have been reported to be associated with the onset of ASIA."
ASIA – or Autoimmune/inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (also known as Shoenfeld's syndrome) -- first appeared in the Journal of Autoimmunology four years ago. It is an umbrella term for a collection of similar symptoms, including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, that result after exposure to an adjuvant – an environmental agent including common vaccine ingredients that stimulate the immune system.
Since then an enormous body of research, using ASIA as a paradigm, has begun to unravel the mystery of how environmental toxins, particularly the metal aluminum used in vaccines, can trigger an immune system chain reaction in susceptible individuals and may lead to overt autoimmune disease.
Autoimmune disease results when the body's system meant to attack foreign invaders turns instead to attack part of the body it belongs to (auto is Greek for self). If the immune system is like a national defence system, antibodies are like drones programmed to recognize a certain type of invader (a bacteria say) and to destroy them or mark them for destruction by other special forces.
Autoantibodies are like drones that are misidentifying a component of the human body and have launched a sustained attack on it. If they mistakenly target a component of the conductive sheath around neurons, for example, nerve impulses stop conducting properly, muscles go into spasm and coordination fails; multiple sclerosis results. If autoantibodies erroneously focus on joint tissue; rheumatoid arthritis results. If they target the islets of Langerhans in the pancreas, Type 1 diabetes, and so on.
“Throughout our lifetime the normal immune system walks a fine line between preserving normal immune reactions and developing autoimmune diseases," says the paper. "The healthy immune system is tolerant to self-antigens. When self-tolerance is disturbed, dysregulation of the immune system follows, resulting in emergence of an autoimmune disease. Vaccination is one of the conditions that may disturb this homeostasis in susceptible individuals, resulting in autoimmune phenomena and ASIA."
Who is "susceptible" is the subject of the paper entitled, "Predicting post-vaccination autoimmunity: Who might be at risk?"
It lists four categories of people:
1) Those who have had a previous autoimmune reaction to a vaccine
2) Anyone with a medical history of autoimmunity
3) Patients with a history of allergic reactions
4) Anyone at high risk of developing autoimmune disease including anyone with a family history of autoimmunity, presence of autoantibodies which are detectable by blood tests and other factors including low vitamin D and smoking.
Regarding those who have had a previous adverse reaction to vaccines, the paper cites five relevant studies including the case of a death of a teenage girl six months following her third Gardasil injection against HPV virus.
She had experienced a range of symptoms shortly after her first dose, including dizziness, numbness and tingling in her hands, and memory lapses. After her second injection, she developed "intermittent arm weakness, frequent tiredness requiring daytime naps," worse tingling, night sweats, chest pain and palpitations.
A full autopsy was unrevealing but blood and spleen tissue analysis revealed HPV-16 L1 gene DNA fragments – matching the DNA found in vials of the Gardasil vaccine against cervical cancer – "thus implicating the vaccine as a causal factor."
The DNA fragments had also been found to be "complexed with the aluminum adjuvant" which, according to the report, have been shown to persist for up to 8 to 10 years causing chronic immune system stimulation.
"Although data is limited," Shoenfeld and his colleagues concluded, "it seems preferable that individuals with prior autoimmune or autoimmune-like reactions to vaccinations, should not be immunized, at least not with the same type of vaccine."
Established Autoimmune Condition
The second group which the paper cites for vaccine exemption is patients with "established autoimmune conditions." Vaccines don't work so well in them, say Shoenfeld and his colleagues, and they are at "risk for flares following vaccination."
Inoculations that contain live viruses including chickenpox, yellow fever and the measles, mumps and rubella triple vaccine (MMR) are "generally contraindicated" for people with autoimmune conditions because of the risk of "uncontrolled viral replication."
But inactivated vaccines are not such a good idea either because they usually contain the added ingredient aluminum, linked to autoimmunity.
The immunologists describe recent studies in which patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease given the influenza vaccine (without aluminum) suffered more joint pain and fever than controls and whose levels of autoantibodies (the drones that attack self) increased after receiving the flu vaccine.
What's more, they developed new types of autoantibodies that weren't present before the vaccines, and those persisted. As the presence of autoantibodies can be predictive of developing autoimmune disease in patients without symptoms, even years ahead of disease onset, this is troubling to those who understand immunology.
A number of studies claim vaccines are safe for the "overwhelming majority of patients with established autoimmune diseases," the study allows, but they only looked at rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and not at severe and active cases so "the potential benefit of vaccination should be weighed against its potential risk," they cautioned.
Patients With a History Of Allergy
Vaccine trials have usually excluded "vulnerable" individuals -- only extremely healthy individuals with no allergies are recruited. It's a "selection bias," say Soriano and Shoenfeld, and has likely resulted in serious adverse events being "considerably underestimated" in "real life where vaccines are mandated to all individuals regardless of their susceptibility."
The true incidence of allergic reactions to vaccines, normally estimated at between one in 50,000 to one in a million doses, is probably much higher and particularly where gelatin or egg proteins are on the ingredients list, they say.
There's a long list of vaccine ingredients that are potential allergens: besides the infectious agents themselves, there are those from hen's egg, horse serum, baker's yeast, numerous antibiotics, formaldehyde and lactose, as well "inadvertent" ingredients such as latex.
People's allergic histories have to be taken before vaccination say the researchers. But some signs of reaction don't show up until after the shot.
The public health nurse or GP might tell patients that a long-lasting swelling around the injection site after a vaccine is a normal reaction, for example. But that is not what the immunologists say.
“"[A]luminum sensitization manifests as nodules [hard lumps] at the injection site that often regress after weeks or months, but may persist for years."
In such cases, they say, a patch test can be done to confirm sensitivity and to avoid vaccination.
According to a growing body of research, though, allergy may be only the beginning of many dangerous aluminum-induced phenomena.
The Trouble With Aluminium
Aluminum has been added to vaccines since about 1926 when Alexander Glenny and colleagues noticed it would produce better antibody responses in vaccines than the antigen alone. Glenny figured the alum was inducing what he called a "depot effect" – slowing the release of the antigen and heightening the immune response.
For 60 years his theory was accepted dogma. And over the same time, the vaccine schedule grew decade on decade, but few ever questioned the effects of injecting aluminum into the body, which is strange considering its known toxicity.
A PubMed search on aluminum and "toxicity" turns up 4,258 entries. Its neurotoxicity is well documented. It affects memory, cognition, psychomotor control; it damages the blood brain barrier, activates brain inflammation, depresses mitochondrial function and plenty of research suggests it is a key player in the formation of the amyloid "plaques" and tangles in the brains of Alzheimer's patients.
When kidney dialysis patients were accidentally infused with aluminum, the "dialysis-induced encephalopathy" (DAE) they developed neurological symptoms: speech abnormalities, tremors, memory loss, impaired concentration and behavioural changes. Many of the patients eventually went into comas and died.
The lucky ones survived: when the source of toxicity, aluminum, was removed from their dialysis they recovered rapidly.
With these new observations, researchers began investigating the adjuvant effects of aluminum and in the past decade there has been a flurry of research. Far from being a sandbag that holds the antigen for a while and then gets excreted, it turns out that aluminum salts trigger a storm of defence action.
Within hours of injection of the same aluminum oxyhydroxide in vaccines into mice, for example, armies of specialized immune cells are on the move, calling in grid coordinates for more specialist assault forces.
Within a day, a whole host of immune system commandos are in play -- neutrophils, eosinophils, inflammatory monocytes, myeloid and dendritic cells, activating lymphocytes and secreting proteins called cytokines.
The cytokines themselves cause collateral damage but they send out signals, directing cell-to-cell communication and recruiting other cells into action. If the next phase of the attack is launched: fibroblast growth factor, interferons, interleukins, platelet derived growth factor, transforming growth factor and tumour necrosis factor might all be engaged.
There's evidence that poorly understood and pesky inflammasomes, (currently a topic of cutting- edge cancer causation research) such as the Nod-like receptor 3( NLRP) are activated too, but it's all still too early to say exactly what they're doing.
GMO Science Deniers: Monsanto And The USDA March 24 2015 | From: HuffingtonPost
Perhaps no group of science deniers has been more ridiculed than those who deny the science of evolution. What you may not know is that Monsanto and our United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are among them.
That's right: for decades, Monsanto and its enablers inside the USDA have denied the central tenets of evolutionary biology, namely natural selection and adaptation.
And this denial of basic science by the company and our government threatens the future viability of American agriculture.
Third Grade Science
As we all remember from biology class. Let's start with interrelated concepts of natural selection and adaptation. This is elementary school science. In fact, in Washington D.C. it is part of the basic third grade science curriculum. , when an environment changes, trait variation in a species could allow some in that species to adapt to that new environment and survive. Others will die out.
The survivors are then able to reproduce and even thrive under the new environmental conditions. For example, if a drought were to occur, some plants might have traits that allow them to survive while other plants in the same species would perish.
The drought-resistant plants then become the "evolved" species, and they are able to reproduce in the drought environment.
Obvious, you are thinking. But let's explore how Monsanto's top scientists and government regulators would have failed a third grade science class in D.C. and the dire consequences that it is bringing to us all.
Biotech's Dirty Little Secret
First a little background. Since the early 1980s, Monsanto has endlessly hyped genetically engineered (GE) crops they claim could reduce hunger, reduce pesticide use, and survive droughts. In reality, no such "miracle" crops exist.
No significantly greater yielding crops, no more effective drought resistance crops. And as for the claim of less pesticide use, behind this myth lies the "dirty little secret" of agricultural biotechnology. Namely, that GE crops actually add hundreds of millions of pounds of pesticides to our fields and crops, and create greater agrochemical residues on our food.
Why? Because around 85 percent of all genetically engineered crops in the United States and around the world have been engineered to withstand massive doses of herbicides, mostly Monsanto's Roundup.
Usually, if toxic weed-killing chemicals such as Roundup come into contact with a crop they will destroy it as well as the weeds around it. But Monsanto scientists genetically engineered a cassette of bacterial and viral DNA into plants that allowed them to tolerate these herbicides. So the weeds are killed, but the crops remain.
In the United States, more than 50 percent of all cropland is devoted to GE corn, soy and cotton. They are commodity crops that feed cars, animals in industrial meat production and are used for additives like high fructose corn syrup.
Almost none directly feeds people. So rather than feeding the hungry, this technology is about chemical companies selling more chemicals, a lot more chemicals. So as noted, each year 115 million more pounds of Roundup are spread on our farmlands because of these altered crops.
Profits versus Science: Science loses
If half of our nation's cropland is doused year after year with a particular herbicide, that is a significant change in the environment. The accompanying problem of adaptation and selection has probably already occurred to you.
Wouldn't that massive increase in Roundup use over that huge a portion of our cropland cause some weed populations to develop resistance? Wouldn't weeds with natural resistance thrive in this new environment? Wouldn't these new "superweeds" eventually become a major problem for U.S. farmers, overrunning their crops?
As government regulators were considering whether to approve these plants in the mid-1990s, they asked Monsanto just that question. No doubt considering the billions they were going to make selling more Roundup, this is a moment when Monsanto's scientists seemed to find it convenient to their bottom line to deny basic evolutionary science. They stated:
"Evolution of weed resistance to glyphosate (Roundup's active ingredient) appears to be an unlikely event."
They also suggested that massive use of Roundup would lead to "no resistant weeds."
Independent scientists were aghast. They mocked Monsanto's view that Roundup was somehow "invincible" from the laws of natural selection, and pointed out that the company's scientists purposely ignored numerous studies that showed there would be weed resistance. But incredibly, despite the strong contrary evidence, the USDA regulators just nodded in science denying agreement with Monsanto.
Of course, adaptation and natural selection did take place. As a result, in less than 20 years, more than half of all U.S. farms have some Roundup resistant "superweeds," weeds that now infest 70 million acres of U.S farmland, an area the size of Wyoming.
Each year we see major expansion of this "superweed" acreage. Texas has gone so far as to declare a state of emergency for cotton farmers. Superweeds are already causing major economic problems for farmers with a current estimate of $1 billion lost in damages to crops so far.
Last year in a panel discussion with Robert Fraley, Chief Technology Officer for Monsanto and a founder of these herbicide tolerant crops, I confronted him. How could he and the other Monsanto scientists have claimed that natural selection would not take place? How could they ignore basic evolutionary science and clear contrary evidence?
He just shook his head and said:
"You're right, weeds have evolved resistance."
But apparently, Monsanto and their government regulators still haven't learned this third grade science lesson. They're denying science once again, and the stakes are even higher.
"Agent Orange Crops" and More Science Denial
Now Monsanto and Dow Chemical have received government approval to market new genetically engineered corn, soy and cotton, that are "stacked" with engineered DNA that make them resistant to Roundup as well as 2,4-D (one of the chief elements of "Agent Orange").
Monsanto has also gained approval from the USDA for the same three crops that can tolerate Dicamba. 2,4-D and Dicamba are older, more toxic herbicides than Roundup, and these companies are reverting to them because they have brought us to the point of peak herbicides. They simply don't have any new ones, similar to the current crisis in antibiotics.
But won't the weeds simply become resistant to these herbicides as well? Not according to the science deniers at Monsanto and Dow Chemical. Despite predictions that their new crops will add hundreds of millions more pounds of these herbicides each year, they say not to worry.
They claim -- as they did 20 years ago -- that natural selection will not happen; that it is extremely unlikely for weeds to survive simultaneous attacks from two or more different herbicides with different methods.
Weed scientists have shredded this argument, noting that weeds in the past, through adaption, have done this and will almost certainly do it again. So in a few years we will be overrun with "superweeds" that are virtually indestructible by any known chemical.
But by then Monsanto and Dow will have made billions selling their chemicals and can leave the "superweed" agronomic nightmare for others to solve. Nor will they have to deal with the other nightmares that could possibly occur: increased rates of cancer and diseases like Parkinson's associated with exposure to these herbicides.
A Better Way
A science-based, and safer, way forward is to abandon this doomed-to-fail chemical arms race against weeds and use ecologically based weed control.
There are proven organic and agroecological approaches that emphasize weed management rather than weed eradication, soil building rather than soil supplementing. Crop rotation and cover crops can return productive yields without ridding the land of genetic biodiversity, and could reduce herbicide use by 90 percent.
So it's long past due that our government required real and rigorous science when regulating GE crops. It's time for them to say "no" to these herbicide-promoting crops, and prevent the looming agronomic disaster they will inevitably bring with them.
In the meantime, the next time you read hear about "GMO science deniers" - think of 70 million acres of superweeds; think cancer, Parkinsons and other diseases caused by this growing use of herbicides; think Monsanto and its enablers at the USDA.
How Monsanto Is Destroying The Brains And Health Of Everyone March 10 2015 | From: WakingTimes
One of my most recent blog entries (1) summarized roughly 10 years of research related to the consequences of inflammatory processes in the periphery of the body, such as the gut, and how this was driving brain degenerative inflammatory processes within the brain.
One of the key findings from that research was how pathogenic bacterial waste products known as “lipopolysaccharides” , (LPS) would trigger an immune response, and this immune response would then trigger the brains immune cells, the microglia, to become overly active and degrade brain cells.
(LPS is basically small parts of the cell wall of the bad bacteria.) This response is called “microglial activation”.
You’ll be hearing a lot more about it over the next 10 -20 years, because stopping this overactivation is central to correcting all degenerative neurological conditions, including Alzheimers, Autism, Anxiety, ALS, Insomnia, non-situational Depression, MS, and many endocrine system disorders including the unbiquitous adrenal and thyroid disorders that so many people are struggling with right now.
In short, the process can work like this (note there are other ways to trigger this):
1) Pathogenic bacteria overgrow in intestines and create waste products (LPS) which activate the immune system to respond and produce a chemical called “Interleukin 1b”.
2) The activity of this immune response is communicated to the brain by way of the vagus nerve which connects the brain with our “second brain”, which is also called “the gut”.
3) The brains immune system cells called “microglia” become overly excited by the ongoing response to the toxins being produced in the gut (or elsewhere in the body), and these microglia break down neurons.
So how does Monsanto contribute to this?
Monsanto is a chief producer of genetically modified products. Among the most dangerous products that they produce is the herbicide RoundUp. RoundUp is a chemical called “glyphosate” that is combined with a few other chemicals.
Conventional farming of corn, soy, cotton, canola, and wheat is increasingly using more and more RoundUp on their genetically modified crops as nature adapts to the toxicity of the RoundUp by becoming increasingly tolerant to it.
Ultimately nature will win out, but in the process our food, water, and soil will become increasingly poisoned by the compound until those using these insane farming practices either recognize the foolishness of their ways, or they opt for something even more toxic such as Agent Orange on the crops.(2)
The proponents of Monsanto’s version of GMO farming like to argue that glyphosate is fine to use since the enzymes that kill the weeds which are affected by the RoundUp don’t exist in the human body, therefore they can’t hurt humans(3).
Where their argument falls apart is that the enzymes do exist in the microbes which make up our gut, and the importance of a healthy gut ecology is central to good health. In other words, RoundUp residue is disrupting our “microbiome”, and this disruption of our microbiome can result in an overgrowth of pathogenic bacteria relative to our beneficial bacteria (4).
Among those toxic bacteria which are known to become dominant is Clostridium Botulinum, which produces one of the most potent bacterial toxins known to man. (4.5)The dominance of these pathogenic bacteria is amplified with the consumption of sugar and high fructose syrup so dominant in the Standard American Diet (SAD), as these harmful microbes love to eat the sweets so many Amercian’s put into their bodies.
Likewise, the artificial sweeteners either disrupt our gut flora (5) or they fuel the inflammatory processes within the brain directly.(6) Also noteworthy, is the research which shows how the microbes in our gut will highly influence our bodies cravings. In other words, much of your cravings for junk food and sweets may be coming from an unhealthy gut microbiome.(6.5)
Recent research involving the parasite associated with Toxoplasmosis has shown that the parasite will affect behavior beyond just food cravings, too.(6.6) The following video is a nice overview of how our microbiome affects our health.
So what does this all mean?
If our food contains residue of RoundUp, which it almost certainly will if you’re eating conventionally raised corn, wheat, soy, or canola, you can expect the microbial balance within your intestines to become prone to being shifted in the direction of being dominant with pathogenic bacteria.
If the pathogenic bacteria becomes dominant, you can expect these bacteria to be producing “lipopolysaccharides”, which will then trigger the immune system to produce the pro-inflammatory cycle I detailed above.
Given that scenario, if Monsanto’s crops, which dominate the food landscape right now, are altering our gut ecology and causing it to become dominant in LPS generating bad bacteria, and this then initiates a brain degenerating pro-inflammatory process in the brain, then we can conclude that Monsanto and conventional farming practices are key factors involving probably every form of chronic illness.
Not only that, the pet food you’re feeding your animals most likely is tainted with RoundUp residue. Like to eat out? Unless they’re advertising their food as being all organic, expect to be consuming some RoundUp residue. Even if the food is advertised as organic, research is showing that even this is no guarantee that genetically modified food isn’t being used. (7)
So how do we stop this madness?
Unfortunately, there is a fascistic relationship between the government and Monsanto. Our current “Food Safety Czar” at the FDA is former VP from Monsanto, Michael Taylor.
Additionally, Clarence Thomas, who sits on the Supreme Court, has never recused himself of any Supreme Court case related to Monsanto, despite a clear conflict of interest given the fact that Clarence Thomas is a former lawyer for Monsanto.(8) Government is now acting to make sure that the Monsanto machine isn’t stopped.
This is going to require a grass roots campaign that starts with YOU! Now that you have this information, please share it with others. Beyond that, “Origins” is an excellent documentary which covers many of the problems with our health and how it relates to conventional farming practices like I described above.
If you’re interested in learning more about what I’ve detailed here, watch this video with your friends and family, and help make it viral! The mainstream media isn’t going to do this. Like it or not, stopping the Monsanto machine requires our collective action.
Healing From Vaccine Injuries Through Homeopathy March 11 2015 | From: GreenMedInfo
While there is much information in terms of the dangers of vaccines, there exists precious little information in terms of how we may be healed of their side effects. Too many give up hope because all they know is the allopathic system; which denies their injuries, not realising that there is hope to be administered by way of homeopathic treatments.
There are treatments that can heal vaccine damage, but few physicians in the conventional medical care system know about them, since vaccine injuries are usually denied as the cause of any illness. Some parents with autistic children report that homeopathy has completely reversed their children's autism and healed other serious health conditions caused by vaccines. This article explains how homeopathic remedies can bring about healing for many types of vaccine injuries.
Homeopathy is not the only treatment that has helped children and adults recover from vaccine damage, but it is the one that is the focus of this article. I will describe how homeopathy can bring about a true cure for the harm that vaccines have caused to children and adults.
“Every vaccine recommended for use by government and doctors has been associated with hospitalisations, injuries and deaths. There is no guarantee that a particular vaccine will be safe to give to a particular individual and will not result in permanent injury or death."
Vaccine Damage Takes Many Forms
It is a tragedy when a normal young child suddenly starts losing the ability to speak sentences or even to speak words after receiving vaccines. The ability to have positive social interactions with other children or adults can disappear in a matter of days after vaccines have been given to children.
Intellectual development can be lost and even successful potty training skills can disappear. The ability to sit quietly, listen to a story being read, accine Damage Takes Many Formsnd the ability to learn can suddenly be replaced with hand flapping, body spinning, head banging, food allergies, asthma, agitation, hyperactivity, learning disabilities, chronic colds and fevers, constant stomach pain, constipation, and a general failure to grow and thrive.
There are also serious consequences for adults who use vaccines. Formerly productive adults can lose their independence and become paralyzed, infertile, chronically ill, and even die, because of vaccine damage. It happens every day, yet few people make the connection between their illnesses and vaccine use.
Please see the previous article on identifying vaccine damage for additional information:
Hope for Recovery from Vaccineve vaccines completely deny any relationship between vaccines and the negative health effects that people observe. Most physicians will insist that vaccine damage is extremely rare and will insist that the changes are just coincidence.  Faced with this denial, it often takes years for people to put all the pieces together.
By the time parents fully awaken to the harm that has occurred to their children, many have already resigned themselves to a lifetime of caretaking their disabled children.
Some parents will even receive counsel from their physicians to give up their children to the care of the state, because they have no treatments to offer and can offer no hope of recovery. Some physicians will try to convince parents that this is a genetic problem that might be cured someday, but not in the near future.
The conventional medical care system leaves parents feeling like helpless victims without any good options.
The truth is there are good options for restoring health after vaccine damage, and homeopathy is one of them!
GAME OVER: GMO Science Fraud Shattered By Stunning Investigative Book Worthy Of Nobel Prize - Altered Genes, Twisted Truth March 8 2015 | From: NaturalNews
The science fraud game is over for the biotech mafia. After years of running its corporate con that pushed dangerous poisons into the food supply and the fragile environment, the biotech industry's lies are now exposed and meticulously deconstructed in an exhaustively researched new book launching March 20.
The Foreword of the book was authored by one of the most celebrated living scientists in the world: Jane Goodall, PhD, DBE and UN Messenger of Peace. The derogatory "anti-science" slur used by biotech operatives (such as discredited biotech shill Jon Entine) against other scientists won't work against Jane Goodall. Her legacy of science is irrefutably extraordinary, and she has received more science awards and accolades than almost any other scientist living today.
What does Jane Goodall have to say about the total science fraud of GMOs and the corrupt biotech industry?
She goes on to reveal the stunning truth about the outright corruption, fraud and disinformation that now characterizes the biotech industry and the collusion of the FDA:
Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is the most chilling thing I've ever read. It's about the huge conspiracy by the big companies who do genetic modification to keep the public from knowing the truth, to subvert the course of justice.
[GMOs are a] shocking corruption of the life forms of the planet.
...the huge conspiracy by the big companies who do genetic modification to keep the public from knowing the truth, to subvert the course of justice.
...the general public and government decision makers have been hoodwinked by the clever and methodical twisting of the facts and the propagation of many myths.
...a number of respected scientific institutions, as well as many eminent scientists, were complicit in this relentless spreading of disinformation.
Steven Druker is a hero. He deserves at least a Nobel Prize.
...the commercialization of GE foods occurred through the unbelievably poor judgment -- if not downright corruption -- of the US Food and Drug Administration (the FDA)... it apparently ignored (and covered up) the concerns of its own scientists and then violated a federal statute and its own regulations by permitting GE foods to be marketed without any testing whatsoever.
The evidence further shows how the agency assured consumers that GE foods are just as safe as naturally produced ones -- and that their safety has been confirmed by solid scientific evidence -- despite the fact it knew that no such evidence existed.
...it was this fraud that truly enabled the GE food venture to take off. And he asserts that the fraud continues to deceive the public and Congress, despite the fact that the lawsuit he initiated thoroughly exposed it.
...the mainstream media have been highly selective in what they report -- and have consistently failed to convey information that would cause concern about these engineered products. Moreover, Druker demonstrates that the policies imposed by the media magnates have been, in his words, 'not merely selective, but suppressive.'
...he relates several dramatic incidents in which journalists who tried to bring unsettling facts to light had their stories altered or totally quashed by higher level executives.
...it appears that such publications are downright deceptive, not only portraying genetic engineering in a misleading manner, but even misrepresenting some basic features of biology.
...even if these products did not entail higher risks, it's doubtful they could significantly reduce malnutrition or solve any major problems of agriculture.
I want Natural News readers to help make this book a national bestseller
Additional quotes about the book from other scientists
"Steven Druker has written one of the few books I have encountered, in my many years of public interest work, with the capacity to drive major change in a major issue. What Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed was to the auto industry and what Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was to synthetic pesticides, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth will be to genetically engineered food. It is profoundly penetrating, illuminating, and compelling, and it could stimulate a monumental and beneficial shift in our system of food production." -- Joan Levin, JD, MPH
"Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is a remarkable work that may well change the public conversation on one of the most important issues of our day. If the numerous revelations it contains become widely known, the arguments being used to defend genetically engineered foods will be untenable." -- Frederick Kirschenmann, Phd Distinguished Fellow, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Author of Cultivating an Ecological Conscience
"Druker's brilliant exposé catches the promoters of GE food red-handed: falsifying data, corrupting regulators, lying to Congress. He thoroughly demonstrates how distortions and deceptions have been piled one on top of another, year after year, producing a global industry that teeters on a foundation of fraud and denial. This book is sure to send shock waves around the world." -- Jeffrey M. Smith, international bestselling author of Seeds of Deception & Genetic Roulette
"Altered Genes, Twisted Truth is very readable, thorough, logical and thought-provoking. Steven Druker exposes shenanigans employed to promote genetic engineering that will surprise even those who have followed the ag-biotech industry closely for years. I strongly recommend his book." -- Belinda Martineau, Ph.D., a co-developer of the first genetically engineered whole food and author of First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods
"Altered Genes, Twisted Truth reveals how the inception of molecular biotechnology ignited a battle between those committed to scientific accuracy and the public interest and those who saw genetic engineering's commercial potential. Steven Druker's meticulously researched book pieces together the deeply disturbing and tremendously important history of the intertwined science and politics of GMOs. Understanding this ongoing struggle is a key to understanding science in the modern world." -- Allison Wilson, PhD molecular geneticist, Science Director, The Bioscience Resource Project
Steven Druker's investigation into the history of fraud and deceipt that ushered in the era of GMOs deserves serious consideration before we take actions that will irreversibly alter the European food supply." -- Pat Thomas of Beyond GM
Through its masterful marshalling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don't entail abnormal risk." --David Schubert, Ph.D. molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies
"As a former New York City prosecutor, I was shocked to discover how the FDA illegally exempted GE foods from the rigorous testing mandated by federal statute. And as the mother of three young kids, I was outraged to learn how America's children are being callously exposed to experimental foods that were deemed abnormally risky by the FDA's own experts." -- Tara-Cook Littman, J.D.
"The evidence is comprehensive, clear, and compelling; and its credibility is irrefutable. No one has documented other cases of irresponsible behavior by government regulators and the scientific establishment nearly as well as Druker documents this one. His book should be widely read and thoroughly heeded." -- John Ikerd, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri -- Columbia
"Altered Genes, Twisted Truth will stand as a landmark. It should be required reading in every university biology course." -- Joseph Cummins, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Genetics, Western University, London, Ontario
"Steven Druker's meticulously documented, well-crafted, and spellbinding narrative should serve as a clarion call to all of us. In particular, his chapter detailing the deadly epidemic of 1989-90 that was linked with a genetically engineered food supplement is especially significant. I and my Mayo Clinic colleagues were active participants in the attempt to identify the cause of this epidemic. Druker provides a comprehensive analysis of all the evidence and also presents new findings from our work. Overall his discussion of this tragic event, as well as its ominous implications, is the most comprehensive, evenly balanced and accurate account that I have read." -- Stephen Naylor, PhD CEO and Chairman of MaiHealth Inc., Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, & Pharmacology Mayo Clinic (1991-2001)
"Based on over 30 years of teaching computer science at universities and on extensive experience as a programmer in private industry, I can state that Steven Druker has done an excellent job of demonstrating the recklessness of the current practices of genetic engineering in comparison to the established practices of software engineering. His book presents a striking contrast between the two fields, showing how software engineers progressively developed greater awareness of the inherent risks of altering complex information systems – and accordingly developed more rigorous procedures for managing them – while genetic technicians have largely failed to do either, despite the fact that the information systems they alter are far more complex, and far less comprehended, than any human-made system." -- Ralph Bunker, Phd
This book uncovers the biggest scientific fraud of our age. It tells the fascinating and frequently astounding story of how the massive enterprise to restructure the genetic core of the world's food supply came into being, how it advanced by consistently violating the protocols of science, and how for more than three decades, hundreds of eminent biologists and esteemed institutions have systematically contorted the truth in order to conceal the unique risks of its products–and get them onto our dinner plates.
Altered Genes, Twisted Truth provides a graphic account of how this elaborate fraud was crafted and how it not only deceived the general public, but Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Barack Obama and a host of other astute and influential individuals as well. The book also exposes how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was induced to become a key accomplice -- and how it has broken the law and repeatedly lied in order to usher genetically engineered foods onto the market without the safety testing that's required by federal statute. As a result, for fifteen years America's families have been regularly ingesting a group of novel products that the FDA's own scientific staff had previously determined to be unduly hazardous to human health.
By the time this gripping story comes to a close, it will be clear that the degradation of science it documents has not only been unsavory but unprecedented--and that in no other instance have so many scientists so seriously subverted the standards they were trained to uphold, misled so many people, and imposed such magnitude of risk on both human health and the health of the environment.
Is Your Family's Health Being Traded For Profit? March 3 2015 | From: BoughtMovie
New documentary 'Bought' exposes the ugly truth behind vaccines, GMO's and Big Pharma
You're about to see how Wall Street has literally "BOUGHT" your and your family's health.
The food, vaccine, drug, insurance and health industry are a multi-BILLION dollar enterprise... focused more on profits than human lives. The BOUGHT documentary takes viewers deep "inside the guts" of this despicable conspiracy...
Featuring exclusive interviews with the world's most acclaimed experts in research, medicine, holistic care and natural health... Bought exposes the hidden (and deadly) story behind it all.
Dr. Paul Connett of the Fluoride Action Network has now interviewed Christopher Bryson in this hard hitting video as the writer describes his discoveries about fluoride and its sinister connections to major policy agencies in the U. S. Government and to manipulation of popular scientific perception by major academic institutions such as Carnegie Mellon University.
He describes how a significant pollutant and industrial chemical by product of the smelting and phosphate fertilizer industry was eventually turned into a miracle cure for tooth decay. And, Bryson describes how career professionals were discredited and ruined in order to guard the dirty secrets of fluoride's adverse long term health effects.
Possibly one of the most important books to be published this decade - possibly in the last sixty years, "The Fluoride Deception" by former BBC correspondent and award winning investigative reporter, Christopher Bryson was published in 2004 by Seven Stories Press.
This is the book that uncovered the incredible history behind the inception of the public health policy called water fluoridation. It is the book that stripped away the secrecy of government cover-ups concerning the legal industrial battles of WWII and the poisoning of farms and workers exposed to this insidious toxin with unfortunate lifelong consequences.
Taking ten years to write, The Fluoride Deception has spawned a firestorm of controversy as groups of scientists, researchers and medical professionals around the world are now openly challenging the scientific, legal and ethical logic behind the government's seeming inability to admit how many citizens have had their health compromised or ruined from long term exposure to an accumulative poison that was once used in rat poison and is still used today in pesticides and agriculture.
Once you see this video, you will never think of your toothpaste or your tap water in quite the same way again.
A production of the Fluoride Action Network this video returns to its home on the FAN YouTube channel. The book is available through bookstores and libraries.
Low-Serotonin Depression Theory Challenged February 27 2015 | From: PsychCentral
A new paper challenges the prevailing opinion that depression is related to low levels of serotonin in the gaps between nerve cells in the brain.
This theory has predominated for nearly 50 years and has led to the development of the commonly prescribed anti-depressant medications called selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. But it has never been proven.
The science behind many anti-depressant medications appears to be backwards, say the authors of a paper posted by the journal Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.
SSRIs keep the neurotransmitter’s (serotonin) levels high by blocking its re-absorption into the cells that release it.
But those serotonin-boosting medications actually make it harder for patients to recover, especially in the short term, said lead author Paul Andrews, an assistant professor of psychology, neuroscience & behavior at McMaster University in Canada.
“It’s time we rethink what we are doing,” Andrews says. “We are taking people who are suffering from the most common forms of depression, and instead of helping them, it appears we are putting an obstacle in their path to recovery.”
When depressed patients on SSRI medication do show improvement, it appears that their brains are actually overcoming the effects of antidepressant medications, rather than being assisted directly by them. Instead of helping, the medications appear to be interfering with the brain’s own mechanisms of recovery.
“We’ve seen that people report feeling worse, not better, for their first two weeks on antidepressants,” Andrews says.
“This could explain why.”
It is currently impossible to measure exactly how the brain is releasing and using serotonin, the researchers write, because there is no safe way to measure it in a living human brain.
Instead, scientists must rely on measuring evidence about levels of serotonin that the brain has already metabolized, and by extrapolating from studies using animals.
The best available evidence appears to show that there is more serotonin being released and used during depressive episodes, not less, the authors say.
The new paper suggests that serotonin helps the brain adapt to depression by re-allocating its resources, giving more to conscious thought and less to areas such as growth, development, reproduction, immune function, and the stress response.
Andrews, an evolutionary psychologist, has argued in previous research that antidepressants leave patients in worse shape after they stop using them, and that most forms of depression, though painful, are natural and beneficial adaptations to stress.
It’s Official, McDonald’s And Monsanto Are Both ‘Losing Money Fast’ February 22 2015 | From: NaturalSociety
In a series of headlines that would pass as virtually unbelievable several years ago, mainstream economists are sounding the alarm over the financial decline of both fast food giant McDonald’s and biotech juggernaut Monsanto.
CNN asks, ‘Is McDonald’s doomed?’ Business Insider declares that ‘McDonald’s Is Losing America’ as the company fires its own CEO. What’s happening?
As it turns out, the world is starting to ask what they’re truly eating in their food — and the new conglomerate of natural grocers and restaurants are trailblazing the way into an entirely new economic environment. In other words: people are simply tired of shoveling garbage into their bodies, and they’re not going to put up with it anymore.
Here’s just a few of the ingredients you can find in many fast food meals:
Dimethylpolysiloxane – A chemical known for its use in silicone breast implants, silly putty, and also… chicken nuggets
Propylene glycol – A laxative chemical and electronic cigarette filler that even e-cigarette companies are beginning to phase out
Azodicarbonamide – A chemical used in the creation of foamed plastic items like yoga mats
So are you surprised to find that many are turning away from fast food leaders like McDonald’s?
Nations around the world are already rejecting the ensemble of artificial ingredients included in many staple McDonald’s meal options. Back in 2013, their attempts to expand operations in Bolivia were completely shut down by the reality that the Bolivian citizens were not willing to purchase their fast food creations. As reported back in July of 2013:
“McDonald’s restaurants operated in Bolivia for 14 years, according to Hispanically Speaking. In 2002, they had to shutter their final remaining 8 stores because they simply couldn’t turn a profit—and if you know fast food companies, you know it’s not because they didn’t try.
The Golden Arches sunk plenty of money into marketing and campaigning—trying to get the food-loving Bolivians to warm to their French fries and burgers, but it simply wasn’t happening.”
The news comes as Monsanto continues to spend millions in attempts to stop GMO labeling campaigns around the nation, funding opposition groups and ensuring that you don’t know what’s in your food. After all, there’s a reason that 96% of Monsanto shareholders absolutely do not want GMO labeling legislation to pass within the US — it could hurt business.
As information continues to spread on key issues like the prevalence of toxic substances within fast food meals and the reality behind GMOs and their secrecy, there is no doubt that these two companies (and many others) will experience the economic backlash. Will they change in order to meet the new economic shift?
"Facebook Must Shut Down The Anti-Vaxxers" February 21 2015 | From: Time
"Mark Zuckerberg should unfriend the crazies before more people get hurt"
Comment: The following article is from one of the worst-offending cabal publications. If the reasoning of these sell-out writers was not so flawed and scary it would be comical. It has been proven that vaccines cause damage and are full of all sorts of heavy metals and poisons - but here we have the mainstream media trying to cover it all up again whilst going after the 'conspiracy theorists' because people are waking upto all the cabal lies and they are scared.
Time magazine writer Jeffrey Kluger, has suggested that Facebook should censor the posts on Facebook that conflict with “medical science”. Facebook, has been known to abruptly shut down accounts and pages for no apparent reason, and has admitted to censoring pages for “key words”. So, it wouldn’t be a particularly “new” concept to the social media giant.
Whatever your opinions on vaccinations are, one thing is clear – every one is entitled to their own choices and views.
There is much fear when it comes to vaccinations, whether getting them or not getting them. One thing that has not been remembered in this debate, is that people have been consenting or not – to vaccines in the United States for decades. If the state can force people to receive the vaccines, who owns our body? Beside the point, suggesting that Facebook censor the “anti-vaxx movement” must mean one thing – “they” are gaining momentum apparently.
Facebook Must Shut Down the Anti-Vaxxers
Mark Zuckerberg has never been famous for his reading choices. No one knows or cares if the founder of Facebook got around to Moby Dick when he was at Harvard. But in January, Zuckerberg launched an online book club, offering reading recommendations to members every two weeks.
Earlier suggestions included such important works as Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature and Sudhir Venkatesh’s Gang Leader for a Day.
But Zuckerberg dropped something of a small bombshell with his most recent—and most excellent—choice, On Immunityby Eula Biss. It’s a thoughtful exploration of what’s behind the irrational fear and suspicion in the anti-vaccine community, as well as a full-throated call for parents to heed medical wisdom and get their kids vaccinated. “The science is completely clear,” Zuckerberg writes, “vaccinations work and are important for the health of everyone in our community.”
So kudos to Zuckerberg for getting the truth out and challenging the lies. And shame on Zuckerberg for enabling those lies, too.
Social media sites can do an exceedingly good job of keeping people connected and, more important, spreading the word about important social issues. (Think the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge would have raised the $100 million it did for research into Lou Gehrig’s disease if people couldn’t post the videos of themselves being heroically doused?) But it’s long been clear the sites can be used perniciously too.
Want to spend some time in the birther swamp, trading conspiracy theories with people who absolutely, positively can tell you the Kenyan hospital in which President Obama was born? You can find them online. Ditto the climate-denying cranks and the 9/11 truthers.
But the anti-vaxxers have a particular power. People who buy the nonsense on a birther or truther page can’t do much more than join that loony community and howl nonsense into the online wind. Climate change denial is a little more dangerous because every person who comes to believe that global warming is a massive hoax makes it a tiny, incremental bit harder to enact sensible climate policy.
Anti-vaxxers, however, do their work at the grass-roots, retail, one-on-one level. Convince Mother A of the fake dangers of vaccines and you increase the odds that she won’t vaccinate Child B - and perhaps Children C, D or E either. And every unvaccinated child in her brood increases the risk to the neighborhood, the school, the community - the entire herd, as the epidemiologists put it. The multi-state measles outbreak that began in Disneyland, along with the epidemics of mumps and whooping cough in Columbus, Ohio and throughout California, have all been fueled by falling vaccine rates.
One thing that would help - something Zuckerberg could do with little more than a flick of the switch, as could Twitter CEO Dick Costolo and the other bosses of other sites - is simply shut the anti-vaxxers down. Really. Pull their pages, block their posts, twist the spigot of misinformation before more people get hurt.
The very idea of muzzling any information - even misinformation - will surely send libertarians to their fainting couches. Similarly, people who believe they understand the Constitution but actually don’t will immediately invoke the First Amendment. But of course they’re misguided. Is Facebook a government agency? No, it’s not. Is Zuckerberg a government official? No, he’s not. Then this is not a First Amendment issue. Read your Constitution.
It’s not as if the folks at Facebook aren’t clear about the kinds of things they will and won’t allow on the site, providing a brief listing and a detailed description of what are considered no-go areas. “You may not credibly threaten others, or organize acts of real-world violence,” is one rule, so nobody would get away with posting instructions for, say, how to build a pressure cooker bomb.
There is nothing in the regulations that specifically prohibits trafficking in bogus medical information, but the first section of the policy statement begins, “Safety is Facebook’s top priority,” and then goes on to say “We remove content and may escalate to law enforcement when we perceive a genuine risk of physical harm, or a direct threat to public safety.” (Emphasis added.)
It’s worth wondering if Facebook would consider a page arguing that HIV does not cause AIDS and that therefore condoms are not necessary a threat to public safety. What about one that told teens that bogus research shows it’s OK to drive drunk if you’ve had no more than, say, three beers?
If the site managers didn’t block these pages and a multi-car crack-up or a cluster of HIV infections occurred as a result, would they wish they they’d made a different decision? It’s hard to know. (As of publication time, Facebook had not responded to TIME’s request for a comment on, or further statement about, its policies.)
Facebook is equal parts town square, medium of communication and commercial bazaar - complete with ads. And it does all of those jobs well. What the site shouldn’t be is a vector for lies - especially lies that can harm children. Free speech is not in play here. This should be an easy call.
US Federal Register Drafting Plans To Vaccinate All Adults
We vaccine truthers told you this was coming. It’s what’s been behind the entire contrived measles scam. Why else has the corporate-whore mainstream media created national hysteria over a few cases of measles with NO DEATHS therefrom, even though there have been at least 108 DEATHS FROM THE MEASLES VACCINE in the last few years.
Maybe now some of you who have blindly championed toxic vaccines for kids will begin to look more closely at the brain-damaging effects of vaccines on adults, such as Alzheimer’s and other neurological disorders, proven to be caused by poisons such as mercury and aluminum in the shots. Multiply the already high numbers of vaccine-damaged adults many times over and start picturing masses of your fellow zombies on the horizon.
9 Ways To Boost Your Confidence When Your Doctor Pressures To Vaccinate February 15 2015 | From: VacTruth
Contrary to what some doctors and officials might tell you, your child does not need shots to attend public school. Legally, you can receive a vaccine exemption in all fifty states.
Sometimes, even in states with stricter laws, getting the vaccine exemption is the easy part. The hard part, for some parents, is having that conversation with a doctor and just saying no to vaccines.
One government survey revealed that over 28 percent of parents question, delay, or refuse vaccines, including nine percent who accept a vaccine for their child even though they are not comfortable with it. Don’t allow yourself to be part of the nine percent who accepted a vaccine under pressure. 
1. Be prepared for what your doctor will tell you at your child’s appointment.
Doctors are trained to use certain techniques when parents question vaccination. This training is provided by pharmaceutical companies and other organisations that receive funding from vaccine makers. If you want to learn more about the specific responses doctors will offer, you can read this short article. 
When you share a concern, doctors will often respond with scripted answers, such as, “we are lucky to be able to protect our babies from many serious diseases with vaccines” and “vaccines do not cause autism,” but they are trained to provide empathy rather than unbiased, scientific information.
2. Identify why saying no to your child’s doctor is hard for you.
Are you uncomfortable because your child’s doctor has many degrees and awards on the wall? Are you someone who avoids arguments or confrontations? Do you consider yourself shy or quiet? Are you worried about your child getting sick if you decline vaccines? Are you still adjusting to being a new parent?
If you can determine why you are struggling to discuss vaccines with your doctor, you will be able to decide if you need to address that challenge, or if it is irrelevant to your conversation about vaccines.
3. Practice your own scripted responses when your doctor pressures you to vaccinate.
What will you say when your doctor tells you it’s time to vaccinate your child? Which response is most comfortable for you?
“Not today. My child is getting over a cold.”
“Our child is fine. Thank you.”
“We are delaying vaccines for now.”
“I have decided not to get this vaccine.”
“I’m doing some research about vaccines.”
“We will not be vaccinating at this time.”
4. Listen to your mama (or papa) bear instinct.
I’ve heard it called by lots of names: mother’s intuition, motherly instinct, sixth sense, subconscious mind, trusting your gut. Whatever you call it, listen to it.
There are so many times when we have that “gut feeling” about something, and we realize later that we were right. If vaccinating your child doesn’t feel “right,” trust your instinct. Give yourself a little more time to research and confidently decide if vaccination is right or wrong for your family.
5. Develop a network of supportive friends.
This suggestion has many benefits, including the support you will receive in your challenging and rewarding role as a parent. Your support system can be made of family members, friends, and people you meet online.
Spending time with these individuals gives you a chance have easy discussions about vaccines with others, which will make the conversations you have with your child’s doctor easier. You will also be able to share information with each other about research, friendly pediatricians, and ways to stay healthy naturally. And, having supportive people in your life always boosts your confidence and self-esteem!
6. Ask for the vaccine package insert.
When you take your child to a doctor appointment, ask the nurse or the doctor for a package insert from the vaccine your child is scheduled to receive. You will not be troubling or bothering them! These inserts, straight from the manufacturer, are much more informative than the “vaccine safety sheet” that the doctor often gives you after vaccination, which is printed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
You can tell the healthcare provider that you will take the information home and read it if you want to decide about the vaccine for a future visit. Then, you can carefully read the side effects and ingredients in a relaxed, quiet setting.
You must also be aware that not all ingredients are listed on the package insert, or anywhere. Some ingredients, such as peanut oil, are “generally regarded as safe,” so they are not listed but may certainly be dangerous for children. 
7. Practice confidence in other areas of your life.
If you feel intimidated, insecure, or inferior at the doctor’s office, you may be able to boost your confidence by being more assertive in other ways. Ask your server for a modification to your entree, or order something that is not on the menu. Ask for help with housework or errands when you need it. Accept help when someone offers it to you. Make time for yourself to do something you enjoy, even if only for a few minutes each day.
I know, when you are a busy parent, these reminders are not always easy to do! Sometimes, the discomfort we experience when talking with doctors about vaccines is a reminder that we need to boost our self-esteem and know our self-worth.
8. Find a supportive health care provider.
Doctors are now being encouraged not to refuse to provide services to families who do not vaccinate. However, some doctors still tell parents they will no longer treat their child if parents do not vaccinate.  Talk with other parents to discover a doctor or nurse practitioner who will be respectful of your wishes not to vaccinate.
Chiropractors can be a wonderful resource for families, for preventive care and for treating illness, as well as sharing the wealth of knowledge they have about holistic health, and their offices are usually free from pressure to vaccinate.
9. Reconsider the need for frequent well-child checkups.
For some families, routine visits to the doctor may not be necessary. Is your child growing well? Are they in good health? Most well-baby check-ups are primarily to keep your child on the CDC vaccination schedule. If you are choosing not to vaccinate, or to delay vaccinations, your child may not need to follow the same schedule for visits as suggested by your clinic or hospital.
Discussing vaccines with your child’s health care provider is not always easy. With time, research, and support, these conversations will become so comfortable for you that you will wonder why you ever worried about telling your child’s doctor that you are saying no to vaccines.
If you would like to know which vaccine exemptions available in your state, as mentioned above, click here.
Parents, how did you just say no to vaccines? If you have had this conversation with your child’s doctor or nurse, please share your experience in the comment section, so other parents can feel encouraged and empowered to make the an informed choice for their child.
Addiction Is Not Addictive February 14 2015 | From: Scoop
Whether someone becomes addicted to drugs has much more to do with their childhood and their quality of life than with the drug they use or with anything in their genes.
We've all been handed a myth. The myth goes like this: Certain drugs are so powerful that if you use them enough they will take over. They will drive you to continue using them. It turns out this is mostly false. Only 17.7 percent of cigarette smokers can stop smoking using a nicotine patch that provides the same drug.
Of people who have tried crack in their lives, only 3 percent have used it in the past month and only 20 percent were ever addicted. U.S. hospitals prescribe extremely powerful opiates for pain every day, and often for long periods of time, without producing addiction. When Vancouver blocked all heroin from entering the city so successfully that the "heroin" being sold had zero actual heroin in it, the addicts' behavior didn't change.
Some 20 percent of U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were addicted to heroin, leading to terror among those anticipating their return home; but when they got home 95 percent of them within a year simply stopped. (So did the Vietnamese water buffalo population, which had started eating opium during the war.) The others soldiers had been addicts before they went and/or shared the trait most common to all addicts, including gambling addicts: an unstable or traumatic childhood.
Most people (90 percent according to the U.N.) who use drugs never get addicted, no matter what the drug, and most who do get addicted can lead normal lives if the drug is available to them; and if the drug is available to them, they will gradually stop using it.
But, wait just a minute. Scientists have proven that drugs are addictive, haven't they?
Well, a rat in a cage with absolutely nothing else in its life will choose to consume huge quantities of drugs. So if you can make your life resemble that of a rat in a cage, the scientists will be vindicated. But if you give a rat a natural place to live with other rats to do happy things with, the rat will ignore a tempting pile of "addictive" drugs.
And so will you. And so will most people. Or you'll use it in moderation. Before the War on Drugs began in 1914 (a U.S. substitute for World War I?), people bought bottles of morphine syrup, and wine and soft drinks laced with cocaine. Most never got addicted, and three-quarters of addicts held steady respectable jobs.
Is there a lesson here about not trusting scientists? Should we throw out all evidence of climate chaos? Should we dump all our vaccines into Boston Harbor? Actually, no. There's a lesson here as old as history: follow the money. Drug research is funded by a federal government that censors its own reports when they come to the same conclusions as Chasing the Scream, a government that funds only research that leaves its myths in place.
Climate deniers and vaccine deniers should be listened to. We should always have open minds. But thus far they don't seem to be pushing better science that can't find funding. Rather, they're trying to replace current beliefs with beliefs that have less basis behind them. Reforming our thinking on addiction actually requires looking at the evidence being produced by dissident scientists and reformist governments, and it's pretty overwhelming.
So where does this leave our attitudes toward addicts? First we were supposed to condemn them. Then we were supposed to excuse them for having a bad gene. Now we're supposed to feel sorry for them because they have horrors they cannot face, and in most cases have had them since childhood?
There's a tendency to view the "gene" explanation as the solider excuse. If 100 people drink alcohol and one of them has a gene that makes him unable to ever stop, it's hard to blame him for that. How could he have known? But what about this situation: Of 100 people, one of them has been suffering in agony for years, in part as a result of never having experienced love as a baby.
That one person later becomes addicted to a drug, but that addiction is only a symptom of the real problem. Now, of course, it is utterly perverse to be inquiring into someone's brain chemistry or background before we determine whether or not to show them compassion.
But I have a bit of compassion even for people who cannot resist such nonsense, and so I appeal to them now: Shouldn't we be kind to people who suffer from childhood trauma? Especially when prison makes their problem worse?
But what if we were to carry this beyond addiction to other undesirable behaviors? There are other books presenting similarly strong cases that violence, including sexual violence, and including suicide, have in very large part similar origins to those Hari finds for addiction.
Of course violence must be prevented, not indulged. But it can best be reduced by improving people's lives, especially their young lives but importantly also their current lives.
Bit by bit, as we have stopped discarding people of various races, gender, sexual orientation, and disabilities as worthless, as we begin to accept that addiction is a temporary and non-threatening behavior rather than the permanent state of a lesser creature known as "the addict," we may move on to discarding other theories of permanence and genetic determination, including those related to violent criminals.
Someday we may even outgrow the idea that war or greed or the automobile is the inevitable outcome of our genes.
Somehow blaming everything on drugs, just like taking drugs, seems much easier.
Vitamin C Campaigner Begins Month-Long Walk February 5 2015 | From: 3News
A Whangarei police officer who says he was cured of leukaemia after taking vitamin C intravenously has begun a month-long walk to Wellington to raise funds so more people can be given the treatment.
Two years ago Anton Kuraia was given two months to live after his second cycle of chemotherapy, but he says taking vitamin C changed his life and could change others. Just a couple of years ago Mr Kuraia was dying from leukaemia . But now he's on the journey of a lifetime.
Mr Kuraia puts it down to taking [mega doses of] vitamin C.
"Major part of what I did – certainly gave me the time to get everything else on board, like the diet and the juice and all that sort of stuff, and all that together has got me to where I am right now."
Mr Kuraia drew inspiration from a TV3 story on Allan Smith who contracted swine flu and says he was woken from a coma with a high dose of vitamin C.
"It does work. We have evidence it does work. Anton's here today and so am I."
Taking intravenous doses of vitamin C is controversial and mainstream medicine hasn't made up its mind yet, but Dr Damien Voijcek, who treated Mr Kuraia, says it's a tool he uses.
"It can certainly be helpful in patients with cancer," says Dr Voijcek. "I think times are changing and many of my colleagues are more receptive to it."
Three-hundred friends and colleagues walked the first 34 kilometres with Mr Kuraia.
Today is just the first day and tomorrow Mr Kuraia will have to get up again tomorrow and do the same distances for a month until he's completed the 809 kilometres to the steps of Parliament in Wellington.
Mr Kuraia looks fit and able now, but his family's still worried.
"My mum has had a word with me and she's a little bit anxious, only in that she's worried that if I push myself too hard this cancer might come back, if I push myself too hard. So I'm a little bit anxious but I'll take care of myself and we'll be fine, we'll be fine."
If Mr Kuraia stays well he'll reach Wellington on March 3.
This is the call by USA Today columnist Alex Berezow. "Parents who do not vaccinate their children should go to jail," he writes in this USA Today column.
And just to be clear, what Berezow means is that parents who do not vaccinated their children no matter how toxic the vaccine ingredients really are should be thrown in prison. There is no exemption being discussed or recommended that would allow parents to object to vaccines because of the neurotoxic chemicals they contain (such as the heavy metal mercury, still found in flu shots given to children in America).
There is also no discussion that informed parents might reasonably object to vaccines based on the recent confession of a top CDC whistleblower who reveals how the CDC committed scientific fraud to bury scientific evidence showing a link between vaccines and autism.
But continuing with the imprisonment idea now being touted by USA Today, it begs the practical question: What exactly should happen after the parents are thrown in prison? Well, of course, the state will take custody of the children because they are now parentless.
So the suggestion that parents who seek to protect their children from toxic vaccine ingredients should be thrown in jail is simultaneously a call for the state to seize custody of all children who are not yet vaccinated with Big Pharma's toxic vaccines.
Vaccines Cause Sudden Death, Proves Document Hidden By Big Pharma For Two Years January 31 2015 | From: NaturalNews
An Italian court has unearthed a formerly classified document that proves vaccines cause death, and that vaccine companies don't want you to know this.
As published on the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) website, a 1,271-page report by British drug firm GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) reveals that certain combination vaccines administered to children are known to cause sudden death, but the company chose to obscure and conceal this in official safety reports.
The document deals specifically with the Infanrix Hexa vaccine (combined diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, hepatitis B, inactivated poliomyelitis and haemophilus influenza type B) made by GSK, as well as the Prevenar 13 vaccine by Pfizer and several other vaccines.
It explains that, contrary to the skewed data presented by GSK suggesting that dozens of sudden death cases following vaccination were not linked to Infanrix Hexa, the same data broken down by time of occurrence reveals that the vaccine was, in fact, directly linked to the deaths.
The devil is in the details, as they say, and in this case GSK masked these details by clumping together the majority of the deaths that occurred within 10 days following vaccination with the select few that occurred after 10 days. By doing this, the drug giant made it appear as though sudden deaths were spread out over a much longer period than they actually were, which it claimed served as evidence that the vaccine was not the cause of sudden death.
Table 36 in the GlaxoSmithKline Biological Clinical Safety and Pharmacovigilance report to Regulatory Authority shows that nearly all of the 67 reported deaths following Infanrix Hexa administration occurred within the first 10 days. Only two of these reported deaths occurred after 10 days, and yet GSK reported them all together as transpiring sporadically across the entire 20-day period, insinuating that they were merely coincidental.
"[I]f one analyses the data looking at deaths in [the] first 10 days after administration of vaccine and compares it to the deaths in the next 10 days, it is clear that 97% of deaths (65 deaths) in the infants below 1 year, occur in the first 10 days and 3% (2 deaths) occur in the next 10 days," explains Child Health Safety.
90% of deaths occurred within five days of vaccination An even closer look at the data tables, which GSK deliberately withheld from public view, reveals an even more shocking fact -- the vast majority of sudden deaths actually occurred within five days of Infanrix Hexa administration, which further implicates the vaccine. A shocking 90% of the deaths, 60 of them, occurred within five days of the shot being given. And 75% of the deaths occurred within three days of the shot.
"The clustering of deaths around the time of vaccination demonstrates a link between the vaccination and the sudden deaths," adds Child Safety First. "It indicates this is not by chance as otherwise the deaths would be spread across the entire 20 days. Rather than showing the total deaths each day, GlaxoSmithKline disguised the clustering of deaths around vaccination."
This is all quite revealing -- the stuff of lawsuits, no doubt, with which GSK is more than familiar. As you may recall, GSK is the same drug company that was fined $3 billion for promoting antidepressant drugs for off-label uses. The case has since been dubbed the largest health fraud settlement in U.S. history, which says a whole lot about the integrity of this company.
Should GSK ever be found guilty of deliberately withholding critical safety data that, while it probably would have cut into the company's bottom line to make it public, may have saved children from early death, it could potentially make history again as earning the title of the most shamefully greedy and profiteering corporation in the world (next to Monsanto, of course).
If drug and vaccine companies are really about helping people, why don't they develop treatments for disease rather than vaccines?
One of the biggest problems with blanket vaccination programs that seek to inject all children against communicable diseases that may or may not ever even emerge is that the weakest children always end up suffering -- or dying. A better approach, at least from a humanitarian perspective, would be to develop effective treatments for these diseases so that children who contract them are the only ones being treated, rather than preemptively "treating" everyone, both healthy and sick, with vaccines.
This would be the expected and proper approach if Western medicine really was all about preventing disease spread and promoting public health. But the sad truth is that public health is not the priority -- profits are the priority (and depending upon whom you talk to, so is eugenics). Vaccines are a complete guessing game, because nobody can ever really know how an individual will react to being injected.
"[N]o effective treatments for basic well-known longstanding childhood diseases have been developed," explains Child Health Safety. "That is a scandal in the scientific 21st Century. If there were effective treatments vaccines would not be needed."
And it is precisely because vaccines would become obsolete that the drug and vaccine industries continue to play medicine rather than actually produce medicine. Vaccines, as we recently covered, are a major source of income for the drug industry, which now gets paid by the government (taxpayers) for so-called "emergency" vaccines, many of which it never even ends up manufacturing.
"Educated parents can either get their children out of harm's way or continue living inside one of the largest most evil lies in history, that vaccines -- full of heavy metals, viral diseases, mycoplasma, fecal material, DNA fragments from other species, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (a sterilizing agent) -- are a miracle of modern medicine," wrote Andrew Baker at NSNBC.me.
Clive de Carle: How You Can Restore Your Health And Enable Your Body To Self-Repair From Virtually Any Disease Or Affliction January 17 2015 | From: WakeUpKiwi
This article contains the key points from two interviews with Clive de Carle on the Cosmic Voice channel on Blogtalk Radio, from November 9 and November 30, 2014.
The notes below were taken from the two Blogtalk radio shows featuring Clive which may be streamed online or downloaded from here and here.
Clive de Carle is an acclaimed speaker in the field of natural health and longevity. A former organic farmer, for over 20 years he has worked in health performance optimisation, providing cutting edge dietary consultancy and enabling thousands of clients to reverse the signs of illness and regain optimum health.
Clive now holds his own events, speaks at many natural health and innovative events. He hosted The Health Revolution Show and interviews Health and Healing experts from around the world. Clive holds weekend workshops regularly visit his website www.healthgenius.uk and see the events page for all details of his talks.
Clive's passion for natural health was triggered initially by a major health crisis in 1986.
A healthy man of 33, Clive was prescribed a course of antibiotics by his doctor for a skin condition, which left him hospitalised with Type 1 diabetes and advanced rheumatoid arthritis with no hope of a cure. With the doctors unable to help, Clive sought out a cure himself using nutrition and within one year Clive found he had completely reversed the arthritis.
Clives passion is helping people regain their health naturally, he see's clients whenever he can, in person or via skype. If you'd like a consultation with Clive or you'd like to come to one of his events please contact him.
Some Truths About Disease
The flu is caused by a lack of vitamin D in Winter. There is no such thing a 'flu season' - that is marketing hype.
The human brain is made from water, fat and cholesterol. Low fat / low cholesterol / low salt diets are deliberately misleading, hey will harm you and will eventually cause Alzheimers. Six tablespoons of coconut oil a day will cure Alzheimers as the fats allow the body to repair the brain.
There is no such thing as good cholesterol and bad cholesterol - this is disinformation. Your brain is largely made of cholesterol and this also is used by your body as a bandage for arteries.
Poisoning from Glyphosate (Roundup) can be reversed by taking brewers yeast.
A Russian scientist has proven that using frequency, GMO seeds can be reverted to their original non-GMO form.
People are told that their family history and genes determine whether they are susceptible to heart attacks or certain diseases - but much of this is programming. Any gene-based type of disorder can be eliminated by ensuring optimal health as described here.
90% of pharmaceutical drugs do not work on 60% of people - and this data came directly from an industry insider.
If Doctors know a cure for something they are under no legal obligation to tell you. 80% of Doctors would not take chemo, but they must recommend it to you for if they do not they will be struck off.
The 'normal' Doctors job is not to save your life but to put you on a treatment.
There are only 3 reasons why the human body becomes ill:
1. Physical damage, such as a car crash
2. Toxic poisoning
3. Nutrient deficiency
Nobody gets ill from a lack of pharmaceutical drugs, so how can these drugs ever be the answer? (other than in a few cases).
Emergency Room (ER) medicine is very different from 'normal' medicine. 'Normal' Doctors can offer you drugs, surgery or radiation. They cannot give you nutritional advice and their training is shaped in such a way as to avoid anything that will really work. Their study only includes half a day on nutrition.
If you go into an ER, their job is to save your life. The ER Doctor uses Magnesium Sulphate (Epsom Salts) injections to stop heart attacks and strokes. ER Doctors know this trick but normal Doctors are not taught this, because a patient cured is a customer lost.
Ask a Chiropractor or an Osteopath: Can you cure Arthritis? If they say no they are useless.If they say yes they might be useful. Ask them if they do post-surgery cases as these are the most difficult ones. The nervous system is most often ignored by the mainstream medical apparatus.
Various Diseases & Cancer
If you are having problems with allergies you are most likely low in vitamins and minerals - you might be low in what is termed as "normality'. If you take fulvic minerals you might find this takes care of the issue alone.But it also could be the processed nature of the food that you are used to, it could also be the pasteurisation of dairy foods that you are used to.
It has been proven that many viruses may be defeated by high doses of Vitamin C alone. Add to that Colloidal Silver, Selenium, MMS and Iodine, if you start piling one thing on top of another you could walk through a Leper colony kissing and hugging people and be fine.
If the germ theory were true Doctors would be dropping like flies. It is about how healthy you are, not about the viruses.
The founder of German New Medicine was an Oncologist who canvassed his 20,000 patients to come to the conclusion that there are reasons why certain people develop cancers in certain parts of their bodies and it is quite often linked to a life trauma. He also noted that there are some parts of the body that just do not get cancer, such as the heart.
3BP: 3 Bromopyrovate - Goes into the cancer cells and turns the Mitochondria off which is the energy system of the cells and so cancer cells die 100% of the time.
And so it's not "is there a cure for cancer", because there are hundreds of them, it's "which one?"
But, in the first week after a cancer diagnosis the chances of the person dying of a heart attack go up 25% because of the shock.
All of the charities that are begging for money to find a cure for cancer, they are not looking for a cure, they are looking to further line the pockets of the Pharmaceutical industry - and they are looking for a treatment, a drug that makes you feel a bit better while you die.
High doses of Vitamin C have cured cancer.
We are interested in health; and health by definition means that you are not ill.
What Clive recommends is that people learn how to be healthy again, because everybody is a self repairing unit.
Looking at a flock of birds or school of fish, and assuming that all the food they need is there - you can't tell the young from the old. They all move at the same speed, and Human Beings left in the wild could also achieve that. If you put wild animals in captivity and change their food, they get the same diseases that humans get. If you cut your finger and you are very healthy it will heal much faster than if you are not well.
To get your health back you need about 100 vitamins, minerals, essential fats, amino acids, sunshine and proper water. Seventy of them are in one product alone, which is real [celtic] sea salt.
Many people who have a problem with fat, especially around the belly find that when they take these supplements that because they are de-toxing and re-mineralising that the fat just drops off because the body no longer has to store toxins in fat anymore.
Anybody who is not feeling 100% has to look at whether they are physically damaged, toxically poisoned or nutritionally deficient. Most people will be able to answer yes to the last two.
They call it Celtic salt, it is the natural grey wet stuff that amongst many other things normalises blood pressure. It is a very good starting point for restoring health as it contains many helpful minerals and trace elements.
Supermarket table salt is bleached and is no good for you. Rock salts are nowhere near as good for you as Celtic salt.
Your body is self regulating, you know exactly how much salt you want on your food. Forget everything you have been told about salt, they were probably lying or ignorant.
Salt is good for you and you can put a pinch of it in water to make it softer, easier to drink and much more hydrating to the cells, as the salt changes the structure of water.
Magnesium is like the opposite of Calcium, and is very good for arthritis. Magnesium spray used on sore or inflexible joints will work in 5 minutes. Magnesium carries oxygen to all of your cells.
A deficiency in Magnesium by be notes by symptoms such as muscle cramps, restless leg syndrome, eye twitches, and anxiety, hiccups, panic attacks, heart attacks, cancer and strokes.
A stressed person burns up 3 times more Magnesium and Vitamin C that an unstressed person.
Magnesium is not best taken internally because too much will move the bowels - and so a Magnesium deficiency will cause constipation.
Calcium cause muscles to contract which Magnesium causes muscles to relax. Magnesium helps over 300 emzyme processes in the human body and it also relaxes you. Magnesium Chloride baths help with getting good sleep. People taking a Calcium supplement may want to consider stopping this as they may be getting too much Calcium.
Vitamins & Minerals
Vitamin C is the answer to every virus because no virus can survive a high enough dosage of Vitamin C. It has been tested on everything from Anthrax, to TB, to Smallpox to Pneumonia, Mumps, Measles, Scarlet Fever and Dyptheria.
Everything they give you a vaccine for can be overcome with Vitamin C. This as been known for about 60 years and has been deliberately obscured and not taught to Doctors. This knowledge would be very bad for business.
High doses of Vitamin C have also cured cancer and helped to repair eyesight. With the prevalence of pharmaceutical drugs in recent decades, pretty drug reps with clever sales pitches have fooled Doctors (who know no better) into pushing drugs that cause more harm than good in most cases.
You should also take a good Multivitamin which contans Selenium and Zinc, along with a good multi-mineral. Minerals are just as important as vitamins.
If you are buying vitamins from the supermarket then you are pretty much wasting your time and money as they will be synthetic.
Doctors once had a much higher success rate using easily accessible, cheap materials. About 100 years ago Iodine was used as the great cure-all. Iodine is all about intelligence, IQ, proper hormonal balance, adrenals and glands.
A lack of Iodine causes thyroid issues and in pregnant mothers, will reduce the IQ of the baby. Many people who have brain fog find that Iodine helps this lift.
Iodine is a great protector against radiation.
Organic Sulphur / Methylsulphonyl Methane (MSM)
Organic Sulphur (Sulfur) is another essential that is missing from out food chain because of chemical fertilisers.
Among many other things Sulphur is helpful in tumour reduction because it binds with heavy metal toxins and allows the body to expel them.
Sulphur helps a range of things including eyesite, erectile dysfunction and the healing of scar tissue.
Onions, garlic, brocolli and cauliflower are good food-based sources of sulphur but in low quantities
On top of everything else we need soil-based plant-derived minerals and the best way to get these are by way of Fulvic minerals. These come from the earth and a few drops taken in water will make you feel years younger when you wake up the next day. People have reported many positive benefits from taking Fulvic minerals, including the elimination of morning sickness.
If you are craving sugar or chocolate, it is most probably because you are low in chromium. The Fulvic minerals give you the trace elements that are missing from processed foods and that have been filtered out of water because you can't mix Chlorine with these minerals and Chlorine is present in tap water.
People who take the Multiminerals and Fulvic minerals notice that apart from having more energy that their apetite normalises.
Probiotics are also important because of the damaged gut we all have from chlorine in water and the use of antibiotics - which have also made their way into the water supply.
The best way is to fix the gut, because many people have a flora issue because of taking Pharmaceutical drugs or from too much Chlorine from tap water, and they have damaged their gut lining. This can be fixed by giving their stomach a rest from these things for a while and by using probiotics to restore their stomach lining to normal.
If you are over 40 then digestive enzymes are good to take as well because as we get older we tend not to digest food so well. These are taken just before meals.
People are enjoying incredible results in restoring their health, for example there is a product made from two types of egg plant that cured 96% of skin cancers in 85,000 people tested in Europe.
gcMAF is one of the most important revelations - it was discovered 24 years ago. It is a substance that is manufactured in the liver and it has been determined that if a person has a disease such as cance that it wipes out gcMAF.
European clinics that are using the gcMAF treatment are getting 84% success rates in reversing stage 4 cancer in patients, with an average tumor size reduction of 25% - 40% in one week. It is taken as a probiotic supplement and also by way of intramuscuar injection and sepository.
gcMAF re-starts the immune system and allows the body to heal itself. The treatment is also bringing 25% of Autistic children out of Autism, and so combined with other Autistic protocols there is much hope for these children to recover.
gcMAF is also helping with a range of other ailments including Alzheimers and Arthritis. The reason it works with so many ailments is because it is not about the illness, but the patients lack of health. gcMAF 'switches health back on again'. gcMAF is expensive but it is very powerful and very fast acting.
30 years ago the Russians began experimenting with Peptides and in many cases people have actually been able to re-grow limbs that were cut off, including fingers with the nail.
Eating something with an 'organic' sticker slapped on the side of it doesn't mean a thing. Clive notes that he was an organic farmer for 9 years and what he saw going on was terrible. That label was virtually meaningless. The definition of 'Organic' has been diluted to such a degree that the farmer can get away with most things and you are not going to know about it.
Crops can be grown organically in ground that is completely devoid of minerals, so the plant may look alright and not have been sprayed with chemicals but are you going to get any nutritional benefit from it?
With all of the hybridisation that has gone on we are eating unbalanced food. So many fruits and vegetables sold now are seedless - how can they possibly be any good for you?
In some places the water supply comes from recycled sewage and this should be avoided. Each year the remnants of prescription drugs that cannot be removed from the water are cycling around and around and getting stronger over time.
Distilled water is very good but it is unbalanced and so you should at least put a pinch of Celtic salt into it, as while the additives and impurities are removed - on an energetic level the water is dead.
Reverse osmosis treatment has the same issue as distillation although the RO process is quieter and less expensive to run than distillation.
The 'Miracule' system is excellent but it is very expensive. In addition to cleansing the water it also provides powerful Homeopathic advantages.
An interesting test was carried out on Homeopathy in Cuba where two million people were given a Homeopathic treatment for a disease that is common in the rainy season. They proved beyond a doubt that Homeopathy works as hardly anybody who had been treated as a preventative got the disease.
The fast food industry and cat / dog food industry have known for decades that if they remove minerals from food, the body on a subconscious level says "that food was empty, I must have another one". The moment the minerals are back the cravings end.
The cheese used in fast food burgers has been formulated to such a degree that they have manipulated the Cacine so that it is as powerful from an addictive perspective as heroin.
Many people have left fast food out for months or years and it still looks the same. Bacteria and fungus won't attack it because it's not real food. It simply won't decompose.
The problem with modern grains and carbohydrates is not to do with gluten so much but the fact that the farmers are under so much pressure to produce the cheapest bread ingredients no matter what, that they are spraying Glyphosate (Roundup) onto the crops about a week before harvest. This kills the wheat and forces the remaining nutrients into the seeds - along with the toxic chemicals.
The modern grains are not healthy and are very addictive. It's not fat that makes you fat but carbs that make you fat.
Gluten is not really the problem. Our ancestors were not allergic to Gluten and so it is a new thing. It's not the Gluten but what is being done to the wheat. The Gluten free thing is just a con and they have probably used some nasty method to get rid of the Gluten - and so there is no guarantee that it is even going to help.
In bars they provide peanuts because they make you thirsty and so you drink more. In restaurants they give you bread because they know it will give you a raging hunger. There is nothing good in the bread and so your stomach tells you that you need more food.
Cut out the breads and the biscuits and the pies and the rice and pizza and the pasta for a while and see how your weight responds.
The Nobel prize was won by Otto Warburg in 1931 for showing the cause of cancer. He showed that if you take a normal cell and deprive it of oxygen, it becomes cancerous. It changes from breathing oxygen (being aerobic) to utilising, metabolising glucose (which is anaerobic).
Of course, this is not taught in medical school. Neither do they teach the revelations about Magnesium or Iodine - because that wouldn't be good for business. Of course talking about reversing or curing cancer is illegal.
The average patient cost for Allelopathic (mainstream medicine) treatment is about $US300,000.
Everyone has cancerous cells in their body and cancer occurs in every person about 6 times in a lifetime. So in going to get tested for cancer, there is a pretty good chance they will find it. But would you have died from it? Many people will have had cancer a number of times and survived it without even knowing they had it.
Everything we have been told about cancer is wrong. Which is more clever? Your body that handles about 4,000 quadrillion actions each second, or a Doctor?
The Doctor tells you your body has gone wrong - "we know better than your body and we are going to override your body's natural systems" effectively.
When your body develops a cancer, is it a bad thing or is it protecting you from something worse?
The Doctors, in saying they are going to remove a lump is like taking your car to the garage and the mechanic saying "we have found the problem, it is a red light on the dashboard and we are going to remove the red warning light from the dashboard". Now the cancer is cured?
They are assuming that the body did not know what it was doing. You might have some very dangerous toxins in your body which could have come from vaccines, food, air etc. The body can't excrete them because they are modern chemicals and the body has no pathways to get rid of them. What's it going to do?
Well what would an Oyster do? If an Oyster has a grain of sand in it, so they say, it coats the grain of sand in a Pearl so that its not an irritant anymore.
What if the body locks up the toxins in a tumour and parks it away somewhere. If you carry on taking on more and more toxins, then that tumour is going to grow. If you get rid of the toxins that tumour will have a chance to shrink.
But the Doctors know better and they want to do a biopsy, which involves rupturing the tumour with a large needle. This is madness, because this action spreads the very toxins that the body was trying to encapsulate. So the Doctor says "we have to cut it out", and they give you poisonous drugs and irradiate you - everything will be fine.
The medical establishment have waged war on cancer - they have declared war on your body. This is NOT the way to heal any body - to cut it, burn it, poison it - declare war on it.
You need to nurture your body back to becoming well again, and this is why detoxification is so incredibly important. You have to assume that your body would not go wrong on you or let you down, it's doing the best it can in order to survive.
By putting the minerals, vitamins, essential fats and essential amino acids in (which are the sum total of what we need to have perfect nutrition and therefore perfect health) you can love cancer away.
There may be people that say, oh but cancer can be caused by a virus, or a fungus or a bacteria and these observations are also true. But to understand the nature of healthy you need to understand it from the cellular level.
Candida is a fungus and a fungus survives by consuming dead things. Without Candida you would be dead, we need it as an integral part of our system. When the natural gut flora are damaged by toxins the Candida begin to take over and so balance needs to be restored.
If you have too much Candida it is happening for a reason. A Doctor will say "you have too much Candida, lets knock it out". But if you have a lot of Candid there must be a lot of dead stuff for it to eat, some inflammation is going on leading to cell death. Also, if you are eating too much sugar or too many carbohydrates, processed foods; the Candida is going to be having a field day and you are going to feel ill. There is a huge link between Candida and cancer.
A tell tale sign that you have too much Candida is if you have a white or yellow coating on your tounge.
There are many things that can cause Candida overgrowth - but they all mean you are toxic. It can be as simple as a mercury filling. With mercury present, Candida levels can be 6 times normal and so it can be a sign of heavy metal poisoning.
Candida overgrowth can also be caused by the body being low on minerals and vitamins and so your body's detox pathways can't function properly. It can also be caused by a lack of exercise and sweating which is another way the body gets toxins out. A lot of people are being poisoned because they are not getting enough exercise and their lymph system is not moving.
The reason Clive started a supplement company is that he had investigated the raw materials that most vitamin companies were using and found that about 98% of these companies were using the cheapest ingredients, as opposed to the best ingredients. The products that Clive sells are of the highest quality, which also makes his job easier as people don't come back and complain.
Everyone who takes either of these packages will notice a difference in one month, more energy, clearer thinking, no colds or flu. Once you remember what it is like to feel properly healthy again, you will be hooked!
With these combinations you are giving your body everything it needs to self-repair again. 'The Essentials Pack' is more expensive as it contains more products.
About Ancient Purity
Ancient Purity was founded in England in 2010 following years of working in health and well-being. Our products are supplied worldwide. Born out of their passion for natural health and wellbeing, we have researched and sourced the highest quality organic Superfoods,
Supplements & Cutting Edge Health Products from around the world that will enable you to optimise your development and regain your health. Ancient Purity products are sourced from the highest quality and most reliable producers in the world today.
Purposely avoiding products that are deficient in active ingredients or containing GMO’s like so many supplements available on the market. We present natural, real health in superfood and super-nutrient form along with health technology that encourages the body's healing capacity. It's your body that does the healing, supplements and devices simply provide the correct fuel the body requires to make this possible.
We spend much of our time investigating the latest health discoveries as well as searching for the lost health secrets of the past. Our goal is to educate and guide you to understand how to return to health or how to optimise it naturally and effectively.
We aim to promote the use of natural health across the world as the first step to promoting health and recovering from a lack of it. We pride ourselves on our reputation of providing a personal, friendly service and exceptional health products.
We hope you will join us in choosing to live a healthy, abundant, happy life and put your health first.
The Top 10 Most Popular Natural Health Stories Of 2014 January 13 2015 | From: NaturalSociety
From Monsanto and GMOs to natural cures and research
2014 was an exciting year for the natural health movement, as millions continued to research everything from alternative cures to the latest developments in the world of Monsanto and GMOs. As we venture into 2015, it’s essential to look back at the top 10 most popular stories, which are also some of the most profoundly important.
10. Watch Out: Corporations Have Renamed ‘High Fructose Corn Syrup’
According to the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), there’s been a sneaky name change. The term ‘fructose’ is now being used to denote a product that was previously known as HFCS-90, meaning it is 90 percent pure fructose. Compare this to what is termed ‘regular’ HFCS, which contains either 42 or 55 percent fructose, and you will know why General Mills is so eager to keep you in the dark.
9. Turmeric Strikes at ‘Root Cause’ of Cancerous Tumor Development, Study Finds
In the study “Targeting cancer stem cells by curcumin and clinical applications”, researchers looked at the various ways curcumin could impact cancer stem cells and help to effectively treat various cancer.
8. FDA Approved: Paint Thinner in Children’s Cereals
Trisodium phosphate, otherwise known as trisodium orthophosphate, sodium phosphate, or TSP, is well known by construction workers, DIYers, and developers, but not to most parents shopping for their morning meal. It is an inorganic phosphate which can be detrimental to our health. It is often used in place of mineral spirits to remove paint!
7. Woman Fights for Sovereignty After Judge Declares Living Off Grid Illegal
A Florida woman has gone head to head with a local judge who has declared her efforts to live off the grid illegal and in violation of local and international code ordinances.
6. Kellogg’s Cereals: Double Dose of GMO Pesticides & Antibiotics
A consumer recently sent a box of Froot Loops to a lab for genetic testing and found that the corn and soy used in the cereal are 100% RoundUp Ready GMO. So is the sugar. Never mind the other toxic ingredients in the cereal.
5. 4 Huge Reasons Why Soy Should be Avoided
Whether you call it soybeans or edamame, the bottom line is the same: soy should not be eaten by anyone pursuing good health.
4. Monsanto Ordered to Pay $93 Million to Small Town for Poisoning Citizens
The West Virginia State Supreme Court finalized a big blow to the biotech giant Monsanto this month, finishing a settlement causing Monsanto to pay $93 million to the tiny town of Nitro, West Virginia for poisoning citizens with Agent Orange chemicals.
3. Compound in Celery Found to Destroy 86% of Lung Cancer Cells
Celery has been found to be extremely effective at killing ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, breast, liver, and lung cancer cells. In fact, in a recent study, celery killed up to 86% of cancer cells in the lungs (in vitro).
2. Government Labels those who Grow their Own Food ‘Extremists’
An “extremist” is “a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.”
1. Big Win! Monsanto Reports $156 Million Loss in Q4 as Farmers Abandon GM Crops
For the quarter ending Aug. 31, Monsanto reported a loss of $156 million, or 31 cents per share, compared with a loss of $249 million, or 47 cents per share, in the same period last year.”
2014 was a year full of victory, disturbing news, and amazing findings in the world of natural health. Already, it’s easy to see that 2015 will be even more interesting and eventful.
Please share this natural health year in review with friends and family in order to help bring them ‘up to speed’ on the world of natural health and healing!
For over three decades, Stephanie Seneff, PhD, has researched biology and technology, over the years publishing over 170 scholarly peer-reviewed articles. In recent years she has concentrated on the relationship between nutrition and health, tackling such topics as Alzheimer’s, autism, and cardiovascular diseases, as well as the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health.
At a conference last Thursday, in a special panel discussion about GMOs, she took the audience by surprise when she declared, “At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.” She noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity, and presented data showing a remarkably consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops (and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds) with rising rates of autism. Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder.
A fellow panelist reported that after Dr. Seneff’s presentation, “All of the 70 or so people in attendance were squirming, likely because they now had serious misgivings about serving their kids, or themselves, anything with corn or soy, which are nearly all genetically modified and thus tainted with Roundup and its glyphosate.”
Dr. Seneff noted the ubiquity of glyphosate’s use. Because it is used on corn and soy, all soft drinks and candies sweetened with corn syrup and all chips and cereals that contain soy fillers have small amounts of glyphosate in them, as do our beef and poultry since cattle and chicken are fed GMO corn or soy.
Wheat is often sprayed with Roundup just prior to being harvested, which means that all non-organic bread and wheat products would also be sources of glyphosate toxicity. The amount of glyphosate in each product may not be large, but the cumulative effect (especially with as much processed food as Americans eat) could be devastating. A recent study shows that pregnant women living near farms where pesticides are applied have a 60% increased risk of children having an autism spectrum disorder.
Other toxic substances may also be autism-inducing. You may recall our story on the CDC whistleblower who revealed the government’s deliberate concealment of the link between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps, and rubella) and a sharply increased risk of autism, particularly in African American boys. Other studies now show a link between children’s exposure to pesticides and autism.
Children who live in homes with vinyl floors, which can emit phthalate chemicals, are more likely to have autism. Children whose mothers smoked were also twice as likely to have autism. Research now acknowledges that environmental contaminants such as PCBs, PBDEs, and mercury can alter brain neuron functioning even before a child is born.
This month, the USDA released a study finding that although there were detectable levels of pesticide residue in more than half of food tested by the agency, 99% of samples taken were found to be within levels the government deems safe, and 40% were found to have no detectable trace of pesticides at all. The USDA added, however, that due to “cost concerns,” it did not test for residues of glyphosate.
Let’s repeat that:they never tested for the active ingredient in the most widely used herbicide in the world.“
Cost concerns”? How absurd—unless they mean it will cost them too much in terms of the special relationship between the USDA and Monsanto. You may recall the revolving door between Monsanto and the federal government, with agency officials becoming high-paying executives—and vice versa! Money, power, prestige: it’s all there. Monsanto and the USDA love to scratch each others’ backs. Clearly this omission was purposeful.
In addition, as we have previously reported, the number of adverse reactions from vaccines can be correlated as well with autism, though Seneff says it doesn’t correlate quite as closely as with Roundup. The same correlations between applications of glyphosate and autism show up in deaths from senility.
Of course, autism is a complex problem with many potential causes. Dr. Seneff’s data, however, is particularly important considering how close the correlation is—and because it is coming from a scientist with impeccable credentials. Earlier this year, she spoke at the Autism One conference and presented many of the same facts; that presentation is available on YouTube.
Monsanto claims that Roundup is harmless to humans. Bacteria, fungi, algae, parasites, and plants use a seven-step metabolic route known as the shikimate pathway for the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids; glyphosate inhibits this pathway, causing the plant to die, which is why it’s so effective as an herbicide. Monsanto says humans don’t have this shikimate pathway, so it’s perfectly safe.
Dr. Seneff points out, however, that our gut bacteria do have this pathway, and that’s crucial because these bacteria supply our body with crucial amino acids. Roundup thus kills beneficial gut bacteria, allowing pathogens to grow; interferes with the synthesis of amino acids including methionine, which leads to shortages in critical neurotransmitters and folate; chelates (removes) important minerals like iron, cobalt and manganese; and much more.
Even worse, she notes, additional chemicals in Roundup are untested because they’re classified as“inert,”yet according to a 2014 study in BioMed Research International, these chemicals are capable of amplifying the toxic effects of Roundup hundreds of times over.
Glyphosate is present in unusually high quantities in the breast milk of American mothers, at anywhere from 760 to 1,600 times the allowable limits in European drinking water. Urine testing shows Americans have ten times the glyphosate accumulation as Europeans.
“In my view, the situation is almost beyond repair,” Dr. Seneff said after her presentation. “We need to do something drastic.”
Boycott, Ban, Criminalize Roundup
Glyphosate is the primary active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup.
There is no official figure for the amount of glyphosate used every year in the world. One estimate? 650,000 tonnes, which works out to a staggering 1.3 billion pounds.
Here is a sprinkle of information about glyphosate. To say it’s sobering is a vast understatement. Keep in mind that the medical cartel, which would call a mother’s touch a disease if it could get away with it, has no name for any disease or disorder caused by glyphosate. In other words, the cartel doesn’t acknowledge its existence.
“Glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is the most widely used herbicide in the United States. About 100 million pounds are applied to U.S. farms and lawns every year, according to the EPA."
“Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns."
“One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call ‘astonishing.’
‘This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,’ wrote the study authors from France’s University of Caen. ‘Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels’ found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens.”
“Heavy use of the world’s most popular herbicide, Roundup, could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility and cancers", according to a new study.
“The peer-reviewed report, published last week in the scientific journal Entropy, said evidence indicates that residues of ‘glyphosate,’ the chief ingredient in Roundup weed killer, which is sprayed over millions of acres of crops, has been found in food".
"Those residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease, according to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc. Samsel is a former private environmental government contractor as well as a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists."
“‘Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body,’ the study says.
“Of the more than two dozen top herbicides on the market, glyphosate is the most popular. In 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used six years ago, according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.”
“We investigated the effects of a glyphosate-based herbicide after an 8-day exposure of adult rats… These results suggest changes in androgen/estrogen balance and in sperm nuclear quality… The repetition of exposures of this herbicide could alter the mammalian reproduction.”
“Roundup is now heavily sprayed in what is known as the ‘Soy Republic’, an area of Latin America larger than the state of California. This region has undergone a profound transformation since genetically modified (GM) crops were first introduced in 1996. Some 125 million acres in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay, and Paraguay are now devoted to GM soy production."
Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez, a pediatrician specializing in environmental health, explained his concerns:
“‘The change in how agriculture is produced has brought, frankly, a change in the profile of diseases. We’ve gone from a pretty healthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects, and illnesses seldom seen before. What we have complained about for years was confirmed and especially what doctors say about the sprayed towns and areas affected by industrial agriculture. Cancer cases are multiplying as never before in areas with massive use of pesticides.’"
“Much the same was found in Chaco, Argentina’s poorest province. In 2012, two villages were compared, the heavily sprayed farming village of Avia Terai and the non-sprayed ranching village of Charadai. In the farming village, 31 percent of residents had a family member with cancer while only 3 percent of residents in the ranching village had one.”
“The most striking result from the experiments was that a chemical designed to kill plants killed 98 percent of all tadpoles within three weeks and 79 percent of all frogs within one day” - University of Pittsburgh researcher, Rick Relyea
“Last year, Friends of the Earth (FoE) and GM Freeze commissioned a study based on urine samples from volunteers in 18 countries across Europe. It found that on average 44 percent of samples contained glyphosate. The proportion of positive samples varied between countries, with Malta, Germany,the UK and Poland having the most positive tests, and lower levels detected in Macedonia and Switzerland. All the volunteers who provided samples lived in cities, and none had handled or used glyphosate products in the run-up to the tests.”
“In Mississippi, 75 percent of air and rain sample contained levels of glyphosate that could have serious physiological consequences for humans.”
“Claire Robinson from GM Watch notes that earlier this year a group of Chinese food safety volunteers submitted a request to China’s Ministry of Agriculture to disclose the study that justified issuing the safety certificate for the import into China of Monsanto’s Roundup. Writing on the GM Watch website, she says:
“‘The Ministry replied that Roundup was registered in China in 1988 based on a toxicology test report issued by a testing company called Younger Laboratories in St Louis, Missouri. The test was an acute exposure toxicity test (such tests last a maximum of a few days), with Roundup being given to rats by mouth and applied to the skin of rabbits. It claimed to find no effect on the eyes or skin, and no allergy.
The volunteers asked the Ministry to release the study, and the Ministry in turn asked Monsanto. Monsanto replied that the study constituted its own commercial secret, adding that the company had never disclosed the study anywhere in the world and did not agree to disclose it now. The volunteers are appealing against the decision.’”
One of the implications of these six citations: Glyphosate, as an ingredient of Roundup and other herbicides, drifts on the wind, and its dangerous effects are felt far from agriculture centers.
As long as Monsanto is permitted to produce GMO seeds that are engineered to be immune to Roundup, the tonnage of glyphosate loosed on the world population will continue to escalate.
Properly thought of, glyphosate is a chemical-warfare agent.
The labeling of GMOs, as a response to the threat, is too little, too late. It would be akin to requiring enemy planes, loaded with bombs, to display an insignia of the country’s air force as it invades.
Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vaccinate Your Children January 6 2015 | From: NaturalNews
Vaccinating a child or not is an important decision that every parent must make. But not all parents understand the true risks involved, risks that could leave a child debilitated for life, or even kill him.
The pro-vaccine mafia is quick to sweep all cases of vaccine-related injury and death under the rug as extremely rare anomalies, but many a parent of a vaccine-injured child will be the first to tell you that, if she could do it all over again, she wouldn't have let her kid get jabbed.
AIf your doctor, your child's school administrator, or a friend or family member is pressuring you to inject your child with genetically modified (GM) viruses, heavy metals and preservatives, and you're not sure how to make the best and most informed choice in the matter -- or even how to respond back to these people intelligently in order to shut them up -- consider the following 10 reasons not to go the vaccination route:
1) Vaccines don't work.
When printed on a poster or repeated ad nauseam by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the embedded claim that vaccines prevent communicable disease and impart lasting immunity might sound nice to the low-information masses. But the science simply doesn't reinforce it, with outbreak after outbreak proving that vaccinated people are the most immunocompromised, and are always the ones contracting the diseases against which they were vaccinated.
Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych addresses this and many other vaccine facts in her powerful book Vaccine Illusion, which destroys many modern myths surrounding vaccination. Not only do vaccines not impart lasting immunity, but they actually destroy the body's natural immune capacity, leaving many vaccinated individuals immuno-debilitated throughout their lives.
2) Vaccines have never been proven safe or effective.
Every single study used as "evidence" that vaccines are safe erroneously compares side effects from one vaccine to side effects from another vaccine, effectively canceling them out. None of them compare the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals, which would be the true test of vaccine safety.
"True, scientific, double-blind placebo studies have never been conducted on vaccines to determine their safety," explains VacTruth.com.
3) The first vaccine was a complete failure, which the industry tried to cover up.
Little do most people know that the first vaccine ever produced, for smallpox, was a complete disaster. The health consequences in those who received it included syphilis and death, though a concerted effort was made at the time to cover up these outcomes and push vaccines anyway because they're highly profitable.
4) Vaccines are highly profitable for drug companies, which aren't held liable for damages.
Let's face it -- vaccines are a major cash cow for the drug industry. Not only are vaccine companies completely shielded from liability when their vaccines injure or kill children, but they are typically "sponsored" by government agencies that push them on families and children using outrageous and unfounded scare tactics.
5) All vaccines contain deadly chemical additives.
The average pediatrician would be hard-pressed to provide package inserts outlining vaccine ingredients to their clients prior to pushing vaccines. But parents need to know that all vaccines contain deadly, neurodamaging chemicals like aluminum, mercury and formaldehyde. Many vaccines are also loaded with monosodium glutamate (MSG), antibiotics and even genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
6) Unvaccinated children are generally healthier.
International studies looking at the health outcomes of unvaccinated children compared to their vaccinated peers have repeatedly shown that the unjabbed are generally less afflicted with allergies, autism, behavioral disorders, autoimmune dysfunction and respiratory ailments.
Concerning the flu vaccine, for instance, a study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that individuals jabbed for influenza are 550 percent more likely to have respiratory problems.
7) Vaccines cause lifelong, incurable diseases in some children.
It's one thing to have localized swelling or temporary fever symptoms following vaccinations. But if your child is one of the unfortunate ones who develops permanent nerve damage in the form of Guillain-Barre Syndrome, for instance, he or she could require lifelong care and treatment for vaccine damage. If you choose to vaccinate, are you prepared to potentially have to reorient your life in the event of autism or brain damage?
8) Vaccines kill children and adults.
Though young children and babies are most prone to incurring permanent harm from vaccines, adults are also at risk. One prevalent example of this is the infamous Gardasil vaccine for HPV, which to date has injured and killed tens of thousands of adolescents and teenagers.
"US children are given far more vaccines at younger ages compared to other countries," explains VacTruth.com, noting that vaccines are also linked to the fatal condition SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), which the medical establishment blames on genetics or child abuse in order to protect the vaccine sham.
9) Vaccine companies can't be sued if you or your child is harmed by vaccines.
If vaccines really are as safe as the jab-pushers constantly claim they are, then why was the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act passed in 1986, exempting vaccine and drug companies, as well as health practitioners, from liability in the event of injury or death?
In 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed that injured parties can't sue vaccine companies for injury or death related to vaccines . Is this really a risk that you want to take with your child?
10) Natural exposure to disease is the best vaccine.
Truth be told, the only way to truly develop vibrant, lifelong immunity is to live your life as you normally would, but without injecting dead (and in some cases live) viruses and chemical adjuvants into your muscle tissue.
Natural exposure to whatever diseases are lurking in the world is the only way for the body to develop permanent antibodies that will forever protect against disease. Eating fresh, nutrient-dense organic food and living a healthy lifestyle also helps boost your immune system, allowing you to overcome and develop resistance to diseases naturally.
For a more thorough explanation of vaccination versus natural immunity, visit: Sites.Google.com.